CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

Kinds of Citizens Defined

Kinds of Citizens Defined | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret)

Kinds of Citizens Defined | @ Book: Natural Born Citizen

Written: 12 Aug 2021
Updated: 25 Aug 2026

Citizen: A person owing loyalty and allegiance to a country, and entitled by birth circumstances under Natural Law or via naturalization laws, acts, amendments, or treaties (naturalized at birth or later after birth) to the protection of that state, nation, or country.

Original Citizen: A person alive and living in the original 13 colonies on 4 July 1776 when the Declaration of Independence from England was signed and who thereafter adhered to and gave their allegiance to the new nation. See U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which has a grandfather clause therein for the Original Citizens so they would be eligible to serve as President and Commander in Chief until the “natural born Citizens”, the children of the Original Citizens came of age to serve in that office. See: A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States, published 1789, by David Ramsay.

Naturalized Citizen: A person, who by man-made positive law, e.g., enacted statutory laws, acts, amendments, or treaties, is made a Citizen of a state, nation, or country. In the USA this can be achieved by action of Congress granting citizenship collectively at birth as a member of a class of persons listed and defined in 8 USC Section 1401 and/or under the 14^th Amendment, or a person doing so individually after birth under relevant immigration and naturalization law passed by Congress. Such Citizens can at birth be born a Citizen of more than one country under the laws of the United States and other countries. For more on the concept of conferring membership into the nation’s society via “naturalization at birth” being practiced by Princes and Sovereigns and man-made government rules and regulations made and adopted by the governing bodies, even in the 18th century and before, see: The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19, Section 214 .

Natural Born Citizen: A person born in the state, nation, or country whose parents were both Citizens of said state, nation, or country when their child was born, and is thus a person who is not a Citizen at birth of any other state, nation, or country, and thus whose Citizenship of that state, nation, or country is thus without any doubt under Natural Law or The Law of Nations. No positive, man-made law is necessary to affirm their citizenship. A natural born Citizen (nbC) is the child born in the country of two citizen parents who were Citizens of the country of any kind when their child was born. An “nbC” child is born with no innate foreign influence and allegiance requirement to another country at birth. See: The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1 Chapter 19, Section 212 and Minor v Happersett (1875) U.S. Supreme Court decision.

# # #

Five citizenship terms mentioned in the U.S. Constitution in a chart with definitions and some legal reference to same. See it here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same … or here … http://www.kerchner.com/documents/mpg/11737124-Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same.pdf

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Author: “Natural Born Citizen”
and “Kerchner v Obama – The Advertorial Campaign“
https://www.kerchner.com/books/catalog.htm
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
https://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

The Fallout From Trump v. Barbara | by Joseph DeMaio

The Fallout From Trump v. Barbara | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Aug. 22, 2026) — INTRODUCTION

The recent SCOTUS decision in Trump v. Barbara – holding, among other things, that if born here on U.S. soil, the child of an illegal alien or a foreigner unlawfully present here is nonetheless a U.S. citizen – continues to produce fallout. While technically not radioactive, the fallout is nonetheless unhealthy to the continued wellbeing of the Republic. If you doubt that, just read the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas and Alito and the partial dissent of Justice Kavanaugh.

Your humble servant has addressed the decision and the shortcomings of the majority opinion here. The following offering will take a slightly “deeper dive” into the potential impact of the decision on future scholarship and analysis of the relationship between a “citizen” for 14^th Amendment purposes, post-Barbara, and a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) as understood and adopted by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution itself, the “Presidential Eligibility Clause.”

While the Barbara decision addresses who may constitute a U.S. “citizen” under the 14^th Amendment, it is a long way from being determinative of what the Founders considered to be an “nbC” when the Constitution was drafted, adopted and ratified “back in the day.” Stated otherwise, while the 14^th Amendment “citizen” and Eligibility Clause nbC issues are different, the two concepts are not totally unrelated. The Barbara majority opinion, erroneously focusing on the Court’s prior flawed decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (read the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Fuller and concurring dissent of Associate Justice Harlan) ruled that the citizenship principle of jus soli (citizenship determined by the soil or place of birth) was what the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended when using the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States].” In so ruling, the Court rejected any role for the citizenship principles of jus sanguinis (citizenship by parental bloodline or descent),

The fallout from the ruling in Barbara, while facially affecting only the “citizenship” analysis for persons under the 14^th Amendment, will undoubtedly be leveraged by those insisting that merely if one is a “citizen at/by/from birth” under jus soli principles, with no other qualifications, such will suffice to deem one an nbC for presidential eligibility purposes.

Respectfully, your humble servant begs to differ.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

Apart from the fact that the 14^th Amendment – the sole issue before SCOTUS in its Barbara decision – was not in existence in 1787, it is beyond dispute that one of the primary – if not the sole – concerns of the Founders when drafting Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the nbC presidential Eligibility Clause, was to shield the office of the “Chief Magistrate,” eventually to become the Presidency, from both the actuality as well as the potential for the insinuation into it of “foreign influence.” Whether or not that remains a legitimate concern in 2026 – as opposed to 1787 – is a different question: when the Constitution was drafted, adopted and eventually ratified to become operational, that was their original concern. If that is to change, a constitutional amendment is required.

Your servant has also addressed the nbC issue in the context of a law review article published in 2015 titled “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.” The article (addressed and critiqued here, here and here) was co-authored by two well-credentialed former Justice Department Solicitors General, Paul Clement (Solicitor General 2005-2008 under President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (Acting Solicitor General, 2010-2011 under President Obama). That article posited that an nbC was “a citizen at birth, with no need to go through a later naturalization proceeding.”

The article rejected – dismissively – any need for birth on U.S, soil, calling Senator Ted Cruz’s birth in Alberta, Calgary, Canada a purportedly irrelevant “happenstance” rather than an eligibility disqualifier. Their definition of an nbC additionally ignored dual parental U.S. citizenship altogether, claiming that the U.S. citizenship of the senator’s mother alone sufficed for nbC purposes, the senator’s father being a Cuban national at his birth. So much for the “place of birth alone” or “jus soli prevails” principle. The “dual parent” citizenship issue was disregarded, except with reference to the 1790 Naturalization Act (1 Stat. 103), which was repealed less than five years after its enactment by the 1795 Naturalization Act (1 Stat. 414). … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/08/22/the-fallout-from-trump-v-barbara/

# # #

The Citizenship Status of the U.S. Presidents and Their Constitutional Eligibility Status Under the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 – the Presidential Eligibility Clause: https://www.scribd.com/doc/302783665/Presidents-of-USA-Grandfathered-or-Natural-Born-Citizen-or-Frauds

In Defense of Professor Ilan Wurman | by Joseph DeMaio

In Defense of Professor Ilan Wurman | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Jul. 31, 2026) — Professor who? … you may ask.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-365/392842/20260127175852031_Trump%20v%20Barbara%20-%20Wurman%20Amicus%20Brief%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Pay attention, faithful P&E readers, as the following will give you a better understanding of the intellectual goo that presently passes for “viewpoint tolerance” and “academic integrity” on many of the Republic’s university and college campuses, especially in the law “schools” at these institutions of higher learning. The term “schools” is in quotes, as they are more likely better characterized as “inculcation centers” or “correct-thought ministries” than classical “schools.”

Professor Ilan Wurman is the Julius E. Davis Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. He is also the scholar who filed a superb amicus curiae brief in support of the President’s Executive Order 14160 in the recently decided “birthright citizenship” case, Trump v. Barbara.

While at the end of the day, a majority of the Court did not adopt Professor Wurman’s arguments, Justice Thomas cited his amicus brief in support of his dissenting opinion. As noted by your humble servant here, the amicus brief is a persuasive and scholarly work arguing in support of the conclusion (shared, by the way, by your servant) that the Framers of the 14th Amendment never intended that the offspring of parents who were in the country illegally or without authority would be entitled, at birth, to automatic U.S. “birthright citizenship.”

Indeed, the problematic collateral result of the majority opinion in Barbara is the creation of a “sub silentio” threat to the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) Eligibility Clause of the Constitution, addressed here. Had the Barbara majority adopted the President’s argument, bolstered by Professor Wurman’s amicus scholarship, the problem would have been averted. But that is now “water under the bridge.”

Following the release of the decision, most leftist law school academics were pleased. One notable exception was Professor John Pfaff of Fordham University Law School. While welcoming the SCOTUS majority decision, he foolishly and bluntly criticized Professor Wurman for having the temerity at all to argue that President Trump might have been right and for having the nerve to file an amicus brief in the case to the same effect. … continue reading https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/07/31/in-defense-of-professor-ilan-wurman/

You can also download a full PDF copy of this article at: https://www.scribd.com/document/1068830569/In-Defense-of-Professor-Ilan-Wurman

# # #

86 – nbC | by Joseph DeMaio

86 – nbC | by Joseph DeMaio | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Jul. 26, 2026) — Introduction

“Signing of the Constitution,” Architect of the Capitol by Howard Chandler Christy, public domain

The following offering on the “birthright citizenship” decision in Trump v. Barbara picks up where your humble servant’s initial offering left off.

Specifically, it will address in greater detail the remote – yet now thanks to the Barbara decision – actual potential for the neutering of the Constitution’s “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) presidential eligibility restriction, at least as understood by the Founders. By analogy, reading the Barbara majority opinion is like finding randomly arranged seashells on the beach cryptically messaging “86 – nbC.” Misguided, absurd …, and dangerous. There is as yet no confirmation of the rumor that James Comey filed a secret amicus curiae brief in the case.

And for those doubting this possibility, stop reading this P&E post and first read the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh in Barbara, linked above.

Back already? Let us begin.

Legal Analysis

At bottom, the Barbara majority opinion boldly decrees that if a person is merely born here, then under the ancient (and largely globally-jettisoned) rule of “law of the soil” (“jus soli”), and regardless of the lawfulness of the mother’s presence here or the citizenship of the mother and father, that person automatically becomes a U.S. “citizen at/by/from birth.” The collateral result is the creation of a false, but perilously open pathway for the gutting of the Constitution’s nbC eligibility restriction and the consequential impact that event could have on the Republic, assuming, of course, that anyone still cares. … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/07/27/86-nbc/

You can also download a PDF copy of the full article at: https://www.scribd.com/document/1068797662/86-nbC