CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

September 17, 2011

Constitution Day 2011: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Constitution Day 2011: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff for the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al Lawsuit
17 September 2011 – Constitution Day

During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Many of the founders and framers had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s codification of natural law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents via natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. But only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour,
” The Constitution was signed  September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY!

CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

5 Comments

  1. Mr. Kerchner: First of all, let me say that i agree with you 100% and with the framers of the Constitution. I got on line one day and stated the facts as you have presented them and a Lawyer challenged me with the following court cases that they say “defined” what natural born citizen means.

    Minor vs Happersett

    Shank vs Dupont

    Wong Kim Ark (the lawyer told me that this is the case that decided that Obama was eligible for President)
    [Editor's note: That lawyer was misinformed at best or intellectually dishonest if he indeed really did read the case and the final decision. That case decided who is a "Citizen of the United States", not who is a "natural born Citizen of the United States". Those two extra adjectives mean something very special, i.e., born in the USA to two Citizen parents, by natural law, not man-made laws, amendments, or treaties. Being a natural born Citizen of the United States is the constitutional requirement as to who can be President, not merely just being a Citizen of the United States]

    Ankeny vs Government of the State of Indiana

    I tried reading these court cases and of course not being a lawyer, I found them rather difficult to read and understand. Maybe you can take a look and let me know what kind of rebuttal would be appropriate with these sited court cases.

    Eric Benedict
    epben@yahoo.com

    EDITOR’s NOTE: Ankeny vs Indiana was a rather recent state court case brought after Obama ran which was poorly argued, poorly decided with not research by the judge into the historical legal contemporaneous meaning of natural born Citizen in Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and has no authority in U.S. federal courts or U.S. constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court case Wong Kim Ark decided who is a “Citizen of the United States”, NOT who is a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. See the legal analysis by the constitutional eligibility attorney, Mario Apuzzo: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html The controlling case which has never been overturned on the meaning of “natural born Citizen of the United States” without any doubt is Minor v Happersett. See: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html If you wish to debate or learn more about the various legal cases that have been mentioned in the Obama eligibility challenges visit the blog of Attorney Mario Apuzzo at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

    Comment by Eric Benedict — September 19, 2011 @ 12:54 pm

  2. Thanks for the info. I will continue to read and if I run into problems, I will consult Mario Apuzzo as you suggested.

    Thanks again

    Eric

    Comment by Eric Benedict — September 19, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

  3. [...] clause of the U.S. Constitution is a national security issue and placed in the U.S. Constitution by the nation’s founders and the Constitution’s framers for national security reasons. We are now faced with the “enemy within” out to destroy our constitutional republic [...]

    Pingback by Frank Fahrenkope, Co-Chair, Commission on Presidential Debates Makes False Statement about Article II Section 1 Presidential Constitutional Eligibility Requirements | @ FoxNews.com « CDR Kerchner's Blog — October 16, 2011 @ 8:30 pm

  4. [...] clause of the U.S. Constitution is a national security issue and placed in the U.S. Constitution by the nation’s founders and the Constitution’s framers for national security reasons. We are now faced with the “enemy within” out to destroy our constitutional republic [...]

    Pingback by Frank Fahrenkope, Co-Chair, Commission on Presidential Debates Makes False Statement about U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 – Presidential Constitutional Eligibility Requirements | @ FoxNews.com « CDR Kerchner's Blog — October 16, 2011 @ 9:42 pm

  5. [...] clause of the U.S. Constitution is a national security issue and placed in the U.S. Constitution by the nation’s founders and the Constitution’s framers for national security reasons. We are now faced with the “enemy within” out to destroy our constitutional republic [...]

    Pingback by Frank Fahrenkope, Co-Chair, Commission on Presidential Debates Makes False Statement on Fox News about U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 – Presidential Constitutional Eligibility Requirements « CDR Kerchner's Blog — October 16, 2011 @ 10:02 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,164 other followers

%d bloggers like this: