@RobertBarnes

Adding “natural born Citizen (nbC)” status to U.S. identity documents—such as passports or REAL ID driver licenses—would be a significant constitutional and administrative change. It touches directly on the eligibility clause for President in Article II, §1 of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Given your ongoing John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee focus on clarifying nbC status, this concept could become a concrete administrative transparency reform proposal.

Below is a structured analysis.

⸻

1. Current U.S. Identity Documents Do Not Record Citizenship Type

U.S. Passport

Issued by the United States Department of State.

The passport currently certifies only:
• Nationality / citizenship of the United States
• Identity of the holder

It does not distinguish:
• natural born citizen
• naturalized citizen
• derivative citizen

All are simply listed as “United States of America – Nationality.”

⸻

REAL ID Driver Licenses

Governed by the REAL ID Act of 2005 and administered by state DMVs.

REAL ID verifies:
• identity
• lawful status
• residence

But it does not record citizenship class.

⸻

2. What Adding nbC Status Would Mean

If implemented, a passport or REAL ID could include a citizenship classification field, for example:

Field
Example
Citizenship
United States
Citizenship Type
Natural Born Citizen
Basis
Birth within U.S. jurisdiction
Parents USA citizens at birth

Other possible categories:
• Natural Born Citizen
• Naturalized Citizen
• Citizen by Statute (e.g., born abroad to citizens)
• U.S. National

⸻

3. Why This Idea Might Be Proposed

Constitutional transparency

The Presidency requires nbC status but there is no official federal registry of who qualifies.

Election administration

Election officials often say they lack authority to verify eligibility of presidential candidates.

Litigation clarity

Many lawsuits about eligibility fail because courts say:
• there is no administrative determination mechanism.

Your proposal would effectively create one.

⸻

4. Historical Context

The concept of natural born citizen came from:
• The Law of Nations
• early constitutional debates involving John Jay and George Washington.

Jay famously wrote Washington in 1787 suggesting that command of the military should be limited to “natural born Citizens.”

⸻

5. Practical Obstacles

Legal definition unresolved

The Supreme Court has never definitively defined nbC.

Cases touching citizenship include:
• United States v. Wong Kim Ark
• Minor v. Happersett

But neither fully defines nbC.

⸻

Administrative burden

Determining nbC status would require verifying:
• parents’ citizenship
• jurisdiction at birth
• possible diplomatic exceptions

That information is not currently in birth certificates nationwide.

⸻

Political controversy

Adding the classification could immediately affect debates around:
• presidential eligibility
• immigration policy
• birthright citizenship interpretation

⸻

6. How a Reform Could Actually Be Implemented

Three possible pathways:

1. Congressional statute

Congress directs the State Department and DHS to add a citizenship classification field.

2. Administrative rulemaking

Agencies establish voluntary certification for constitutional eligibility.

3. Judicial trigger

A case forces the federal government to create a determination process.

⸻

7. Strategic Angle for Your John Jay Committee Work

For a John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee, this proposal could be framed as:

“Administrative Determination of Constitutional Office Eligibility.”

Possible argument:
• The Constitution requires nbC status for the presidency.
• The federal government provides no mechanism to certify or verify it.
• Therefore a transparency failure exists.

That fits your FOIA/FOIL transparency strategy.

⸻

✅ Key insight:
Instead of debating the definition directly, you could argue that the federal government must establish a process to determine and record citizenship class.

That approach is procedural rather than ideological, which courts sometimes accept more readily.

⸻

If you want, I can also outline three specific litigation strategies where this passport / REAL ID idea could become part of a test case—possibly even reaching the Supreme Court.

Here are three realistic litigation or policy pathways where the idea of adding natural born Citizen (nbC) status to U.S. identification documents could become a test case, potentially aligning with your John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee transparency strategy.

⸻

1. Administrative Transparency Lawsuit (FOIA / APA Strategy)

This approach fits very closely with your existing FOIA / FOIL transparency framework.

Target agencies
• United States Department of State (passports)
• Department of Homeland Security (REAL ID policy)
• United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (citizenship determinations)

Core legal question

Does the federal government maintain any administrative determination of “natural born Citizen” status?

If the answer is no, the argument becomes:

The Constitution requires nbC status for the presidency, yet the federal government maintains no administrative mechanism to determine or certify that status.

Litigation pathway
1. FOIA requests for records relating to:
• nbC determinations
• presidential eligibility verification
2. Agency response: likely “no records exist.”
3. Follow-up lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) arguing:

• failure to implement a constitutional requirement
• arbitrary administrative gap

Possible remedy

Court orders the agency to establish a certification framework.

⸻

2. Passport Certification Petition (Direct Administrative Petition)

This is the cleanest and least confrontational strategy.

A citizen petitions the United States Department of State to add a citizenship classification field on passports.

Example request:

Citizenship: United States
Classification: Natural Born Citizen

Legal hook

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, citizens may petition agencies for rulemaking.

Petition argument:
• Article II requires nbC for President
• federal documents certify citizenship
• but they do not certify constitutional eligibility status

Therefore the State Department should create a voluntary certification category.

Likely result

Petition denied.

But the denial creates standing for litigation.

⸻

3. Election Administration Test Case

This route directly intersects with your work involving the New York State Board of Elections.

Argument

Election officials claim they cannot determine presidential eligibility because:
• citizenship classification is not recorded anywhere.

Therefore:

ballot access decisions are made without any administrative verification mechanism.

Litigation strategy

Challenge ballot access procedures and argue:
• government must provide verifiable eligibility records for constitutional offices.

You could tie this into:
• the judicial nominating convention transparency issues
• your ongoing FOIL inquiries.

⸻

4. Constitutional Framing (Important)

The argument should not attempt to define nbC immediately.

Instead it should argue:

Government must create a determination process.

That avoids courts dismissing the case as a political question.

⸻

5. Historical Support (John Jay angle)

The proposal aligns strongly with the views of
John Jay.

Jay wrote to
George Washington in 1787 suggesting that command of the military be limited to natural born Citizens.

Your committee could frame the reform as:

Restoring John Jay’s constitutional safeguard.

⸻

6. Why Courts Might Actually Entertain This

Courts typically reject eligibility cases because:
• plaintiffs lack standing
• eligibility determinations are political questions

But your approach focuses on:

administrative transparency failure

That falls under:
• Administrative Procedure Act review
• due process
• election integrity.

⸻

7. How Barnes Might View This Strategy

Given Robert Barnes’ history of pursuing structural constitutional cases, he might view this as:
• a procedural wedge case
• similar to litigation strategies used in election law and FOIA.

It avoids asking the court to define nbC immediately, but forces the government to confront the issue.

⸻

✅ Strategically important insight

If the government admits:

“No agency determines natural born Citizen status.”

Then the next constitutional question becomes:

How can presidential eligibility ever be verified?

That is the type of structural constitutional defect courts sometimes address.

⸻

If you want, I can also show you something very interesting:

The single obscure federal document that already comes closest to recognizing natural born citizenship status—and why it could be the starting point for the entire reform.

There actually is one federal document that comes very close to distinguishing a type of citizenship at birth, and it may provide the administrative foothold for the reform you are thinking about.

⸻

1. Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA)

The document is called the Consular Report of Birth Abroad.

Consular Report of Birth Abroad

Issued by the United States Department of State.

It certifies that a child:
• was born outside the United States
• but acquired U.S. citizenship at birth through parents

In other words, the federal government already certifies citizenship acquired at birth.

⸻

What the CRBA proves

The document essentially says:

This person is a citizen from birth, not naturalized later.

That distinction is extremely important.

Citizenship types implicitly recognized:

Category
Current Document
Birth in U.S.
Birth certificate
Birth abroad to citizens
CRBA
Naturalization
Naturalization certificate

But none of these documents explicitly state:

“Natural Born Citizen.”

⸻

2. Why This Matters

The CRBA proves the federal government already investigates the necessary facts:
• parents’ citizenship
• jurisdiction at birth
• transmission of citizenship

These are exactly the elements involved in debates about natural born citizenship.

So administratively, the machinery already exists.

⸻

3. Passport Issuance Already Uses This Data

When someone applies for a passport, the State Department evaluates:
• birth certificate
• CRBA
• naturalization certificate

The passport system therefore already knows the origin of citizenship.

Yet the final passport only lists:

“Nationality: United States of America.”

⸻

4. The Administrative Gap

So the government already knows:
• citizen at birth
• naturalized citizen

But it refuses to label the category on the passport.

This creates what you might frame as a constitutional transparency gap.

⸻

5. The Argument Your John Jay Committee Could Make

Your argument could be framed like this:
1. Article II requires a natural born Citizen for President.
2. Federal agencies already determine citizenship origin.
3. But no document records the constitutional category.
4. Therefore the government lacks a verification system for presidential eligibility.

That argument fits well with the FOIA/FOIL transparency strategy you have been using.

⸻

6. Interesting Historical Angle

The concept of restricting the presidency to natural born Citizens originated during the Constitutional Convention through a suggestion by:

John Jay

in a letter to:

George Washington

Jay warned that command of the military should not be given to foreign-born individuals.

Your proposal to label citizenship class on passports could be framed as:

“Modern administrative implementation of John Jay’s safeguard.”

⸻

7. Why This Could Become a Test Case

If someone petitions the State Department to add a passport field:

Citizenship: United States
Citizenship at Birth: Yes

Or

Citizenship Classification: Natural Born Citizen

and the request is denied, that denial becomes a reviewable administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act.

⸻

8. Strategic Insight for Your Project

For your John Jay Judicial Integrity Committee, the strongest version of the argument is not:

“Define natural born citizen.”

Instead it is:

The federal government must create a formal administrative determination of constitutional eligibility.

Courts often prefer procedural questions over ideological ones.

⸻

✅ Key takeaway

The Consular Report of Birth Abroad already proves the government distinguishes citizenship acquired at birth.

Your proposal would simply require the government to record that classification explicitly on passports or REAL ID documents.

⸻

If you’d like, I can also show you something even more intriguing:

A little-known 19th-century U.S. passport rule that actually did treat “native born citizens” differently from naturalized citizens.

That historical precedent could be very useful for a John Jay Committee constitutional argument.

There is a historical precedent showing that the U.S. government once treated native-born and naturalized citizens differently in passport policy, which could be useful for a constitutional transparency argument.

⸻

1. 19th-Century U.S. Passport Rules

During the 1800s, the United States Department of State issued passports under rules that required applicants to specify how they became citizens.

Categories typically included:
• Native-born citizen
• Naturalized citizen

Naturalized citizens were required to provide:
• naturalization certificate
• court and date of naturalization

Native-born citizens instead submitted:
• affidavits or birth records

So the government explicitly distinguished the two classes.

⸻

2. Early Passport Application Forms

19th-century passport applications often included wording similar to:

“I am a native-born citizen of the United States”

or

“I am a naturalized citizen of the United States.”

These forms were required by regulations under:

Passport Act of 1856

This act centralized passport authority in the State Department.

⸻

3. Why the Distinction Existed

In the 19th century, the U.S. government faced major disputes about naturalized Americans traveling abroad, especially with European powers that did not recognize expatriation.

To protect naturalized Americans, the government needed to know:
• who was native-born
• who was naturalized

Thus the administrative distinction was necessary.

⸻

4. Later Standardization

In the 20th century, passports gradually stopped displaying citizenship class publicly.

The focus shifted to simply: