Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defined Natural Born Citizenship in 1789 - by Atty Mario Apuzzo

8/9/2019 Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defined Natural Born Citizenship in 1789 - by Atty Mario Apuzzo

1/4

Friday, April 2, 2010

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in

1789

In defining an Article II natural born Citizen, it is important to find any authority from

the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves

defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period

itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined anatural born Citizen. Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote,

A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen

(1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a natural born Citizen.

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and

historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress

in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States inCongress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A

contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights oneacquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785

he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History

of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a

History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay was a major intellectual figure in theearly republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical

writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789) Arthur H.

Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol.L, No. 2 (May 1984). During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected

materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintancewith many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task.http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_%28congressman%29http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/http://www.famousamericans.net/davidramsay/http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1870&Itemid=28http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ramsay_%28congressman%29http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html


2/4

In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles publishedan extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed

the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote

and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. The generosity ofmind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and

compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, are gifts that were uniquely his own and thatclearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.

In his 1789 article, Ramsay first explained who the original citizens were and then

defined the natural born citizens as the children born in the country to citizen parents.

He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, [c]itizenshipis the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but

this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Id.

at 6. He added that citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of thoseAmericans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that

adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring. Id. at 7.

He continued that citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who havebeen born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776. Id. at 6.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a

natural born citizen. Given his position of influence and especially given that he was ahighly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential

Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined natural born

Citizen. Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in theevents of the time would have know how the Founders and Framers defined a natural

born Citizen and he told us that definition was one where the child was born in thecountry of citizen parents. He giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not

follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de

Vattel, who also defined a natural-born citizen the same as did Ramsay in his highlyacclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature,

Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758

French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framerswould have defined a natural born Citizen the same way the Ramsay did, for being a

meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that

existed at the time.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html


3/4

Ramsays article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had onthe Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is

one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found (provided to us by an

anonymous source) which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framersdefined a natural born Citizen and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a

child born in the country to citizen parents. Given this time-honored definition, which hasbeen confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and some lower court casessuch as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring and

dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born

citizens); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring took

out of Vattels definition the reference to fathers and father and replaced it withparents and person, respectively); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same

definition without citing Vattel); Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16

Wall. 36 (1872) (in explaining the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment clause,subject to the jurisdiction thereof, said that the clause was intended to exclude from its

operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born

within the United States; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (the children of subjectsof any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children

born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign

nations are not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are not subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875)(same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same

definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same

definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (quoted fromthe same definition of natural born Citizen as did Minor v. Happersett); Rep. John

Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the

introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution,

that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents notowing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself,

a natural born citizen. . . . John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866

Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866)).

The two-citizen-parent requirement would have followed from the common law that

provided that a woman upon marriage took the citizenship of her husband. In other

words, the Framers required both (1) birth on United States soil (or its equivalent) and (2)birth to two United States citizen parents as necessary conditions of being granted that

special status which under our Constitution only the President and Commander in Chief

of the Military (and also the Vice President under the Twelfth Amendment) must have atthe time of his or her birth. Given the necessary conditions that must be satisfied to be

granted the status, all "natural born Citizens" are "Citizens of the United States" but not

all "Citizens of the United States" are "natural born Citizens." It was only through bothparents being citizens that the child was born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to

the United States which the Framers required the President and Commander in Chief to

have.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html


4/4

Obama fails to meet this natural born Citizen eligibility test because when he was bornin 1961 (wherever that may be), he was not born to a United States citizen mother and

father. At his birth, his mother was a United States citizen. But under the British

Nationality Act of 1948, his father, who was born in the British colony of Kenya, wasborn a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) which by descent made

Obama himself a CUKC. Prior to Obamas birth, Obamas father neither intended to nordid he become a United States citizen. Being temporarily in the United States only forpurpose of study and with the intent to return to Kenya, his father did not intend to nor

did he even become a legal resident or immigrant to the United States.

Obama may be a plain born citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment ora Congressional Act (if he was born in Hawaii). But as we can see from David Ramsays

clear presentation, citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have

been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776. Id. at 6. Hence, Obama is not anArticle II "natural born Citizen," for upon Obama's birth his father was a British subject

and Obama himself by descent was also the same. Hence, Obama was born subject to a

foreign power. Obama lacks the birth status of natural sole and absolute allegiance andloyalty to the United States which only the President and Commander in Chief of the

Military and Vice President must have at the time of birth. Being born subject to a

foreign power, he lacks Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance to the United States from the

time of birth which assures that required degree of natural sole and absolute birthallegiance and loyalty to the United States, a trait that is constitutionally indispensable in

a President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Like a naturalized citizen, who

despite taking an oath later in life to having sole allegiance to the United States cannot bePresident because of being born subject to a foreign power, Obama too cannot be

President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

April 2, 2010http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

####
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27679281/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100301-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/http://puzo1.blogspot.com/http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-natural-born-citizen-clause-is.htmlhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/27679281/Citizen-v-natural-born-Citizen-It-s-Don-t-Ask-Don-t-Tell-20100301-Issue-Wash-Times-Natl-Wkly-pg-5http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.htmlhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/12/obama-putative-president-of-us-was-born.html

Documents

Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defined Natural Born Citizenship in 1789 - by Atty Mario Apuzzo