CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

(Oct. 4, 2026) — As faithful P&E readers will recall, over the years your humble servant has made several “modest proposals” seeking to address unresolved issues then percolating in the Republic. Most, if not all of those proposals, have dealt with the “birthright citizenship” and “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) matters under the 14^th Amendment and “Eligibility Clause” provisions of the Constitution.

Well, a recent decision of Florida federal District Court Judge David Leibowitz declaring a federal statute – 18 U.S.C. § 611 unconstitutional – presents an opportunity for one more proposal. This one, however, would be specifically directed to the clarification, if not outright resolution, of the question of who, exactly, can be eligible to the presidency as an nbC, a question being continuously “evaded” by the Supreme Court.

The October 1, 2026 decision – United States v. Cox – concludes that a non-citizen foreigner (Chelsea Cox), who knowingly voted in the 2020 general election while fully aware that she was not a U.S. citizen, could not be prosecuted under the federal statute. The basis for Judge Lebowitz’s decision was that Congress lacked the authority to enact the law in the first place since the Constitution vests the States – here, Florida rather than the Congress – with the exclusive power to set the qualifications for electors.

Stated otherwise, Judge Leibowitz asserts that Congress lacks the power to make U.S. citizenship a precondition of voting for federal officers. The States can do so, and Florida did. Accordingly, while Cox could still be prosecuted under Florida law, because the federal law was in his view “void ab initio” (unconstitutional from the beginning), the federal case was required to be dismissed. The real question now will be how long it takes for this decision to meander through the appeals thicket and end up on the SCOTUS oral argument docket, perhaps as early as 2027 as we near the 2028 general election extravaganza. Sounds like “shadow docket” material…, no?

Significantly, in reaching his decision, Judge Leibowitz took pains to also emphasize the exclusive authority of the States to exercise their “plenary authority” over the appointment of presidential electors. He states (slip op. at 15-16): … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2026/10/04/yet-another-modest-proposal/

# # #

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

Was Barack Obama Actually Born in Vancouver? | by Jack Cashill

Was Barack Obama Actually Born in Vancouver? | by Jack Cashill | @ jackcashill.substack.com

“To Ease Tension With Canada, Can We Just Give Him Back?”

In commenting on Private Investigator Susan Daniels’s thesis that Barack Obama was actually born in Vancouver, Canada, I started to write “check out the Port Angeles connection,” but paused to specify my reference, In my search I stumbled across an item more intriguing than my original reference, a 2014 essay by hard lefty Tim Wheeler.

Wheeler spoke of riding with a Kenyan friend of a friend, “a slim, handsome man with an unusual and unforgettable name.” Wheeler’s destination was the Wheeler family farm in Sequim, Washington.” According to Wheeler, the driver was Barack Obama, Sr. Where Obama went after visiting the farm, Wheeler does not say. … continue reading at: https://jackcashill.substack.com/p/was-barack-obama-actually-born-in

# # #

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

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