See this Euler Logic Diagram for a visual presentation of the relationship between “natural born Citizens” and other “kinds” or “logical super-sets and subsets” of “Citizens” of the United States. Adjectives mean something!
More historical and legal papers and analysis on the true constitutional meaning and intent of the founders and framers of the presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, in our U.S. Constitution can be found at this link: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/
Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2018: A Lesson from History. Is Being Born a Citizen (Citizen at/by Birth) 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 … No, It Was Not!
By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired) 17 September 2018 – 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. At some point, he also suggested 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. Another version of Hamilton’s proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the convention’s deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand – pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamilton’s proposed Constitution was not accepted.
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 rightly 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 treatise on 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” or “born a 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, both of them, when their child is born, as per 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 proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. See Madison’s comment in his journal of the convention re this fact in which it reports as follows: ” … Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations. …” — 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 619-630 (1911) – page 619. But that citizenship status for who could be President 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 via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or 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 and recommended clause added the additional adjective of “natural” before simply being a “born Citizen” which 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.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) of Protect Our Liberty was on Peter Boyles Radio Show – 710 KNUS Denver CO at 8:00 A.M. EST on Wednesday, 12 Sep 2018, discussing Barack Obama (aka Barry Soetoro), the former Putative President, re-opening the door of his birth certificate issue again. Why now? Watch this video clip (starting at about the 45 seconds time mark point) excerpted from his recent political speech in Illinois.
Peter Boyles on the show mentioned Bill O’Reilly running interference for Obama’s false life narrative re Obama using an SSN stolen from a dead person from Connecticut.
Read this article:
“When Bill O’Reilly Misled His Viewers” | by Susan Daniels | @ AmericanThinker.com
On April 13, 2011, a viewer sent the following to Bill O’Reilly. He addressed it during the email segment of his show:
John Knox: Arlington, VA: What about Obama having a Connecticut social security number. He never lived there.
Bill O’Reilly: But his father lived in Connecticut for several years, John. Babies sometimes get numbers based on addresses provided by their parents.
(at 1:12 minutes)
Why did O’Reilly mislead, and what is the lie?
Two years before O’Reilly’s declaration, I uncovered the phony number. At the request of a client, who turned to me as a licensed private investigator, I found that Barack Obama was using the Connecticut social security number 042-68-4425, which was issued on March 28, 1977 to someone born in the year 1890.
If it seems implausible that someone would acquire their SSN at the age of 87, I can explain why it is not. As I researched Obama’s number, I found the file of a woman who was issued her number on the same day in March. A letter revealed she had been using her husband’s SSN and needed one of her own, more than likely for government assistance.
A warning from the past — some conspiracies are very real and are also large and well organized and in process for a long time. Such is the nature of Communist activities in the USA. The target of the seditious political conspiracy we are currently faced with is to destroy our U.S. Constitution, our Republic, our culture, and our military. Remember this quote from history: “We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. … The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.” Quote by: J. Edgar Hoover former FBI director. Source: Elks Magazine (August 1956).
Natural Born Citizen – A List of Politicians Aspiring to High National Office Who Are Not Constitutionally Eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military, or Vice President. They are Not a Natural Born Citizen.
As per ‘Principles of Natural Law‘ in place at the time of the founding of our country and when the founding documents including the U.S. Constitution were written, a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born Citizens or naturalized Citizens) of that country when their child is born in the country. See the ‘Three Legged Stool Test‘ for a graphic presentation of this constitutional requirement as to who can be President and Commander in Chief or our military. Click on the Euler Diagram shown below for a logic diagram presentation of this constitutional requirement.
Above is shown a simple Euler Logic Diagram which shows the logical relationship of “natural born Citizens” to other kinds of “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” can constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, or the Vice-President. Click on the above Euler Diagram image for greater detail.
Also, for more historical information about the ‘natural born Citizen’ term in our U.S. Constitution read this compilation of essays on the subject. Click on image below.
Some politicians in the two major political parties who have been often mentioned for future election to high national political office, who are also not a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards are: Kamala Harris (D), Ted Cruz (R), Marco Rubio (R), Nikki Haley (R), and Bobby Jindal (R). Both major political parties are choosing to ignore the founders and framers intent and understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is in order to run candidates that they believe are very marketable political candidates. This started in a major way in the 2008 election cycle with Obama vs McCain.
Is Kamala Harris Eligible to be President? | Junior CA Senator May Run In 2020 | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com
(Aug. 19, 2018) — Given that California Sen. Kamala Harris’s Wikipedia biography states that she was born in Oakland, CA in 1964 to immigrant parents and speculation exists that she plans to run for president in 2020, Golden State citizen Gary Wilmott has been seeking information as to her citizenship status and whether or not she meets the constitutional requirement of “natural born Citizen.”
The Wikipedia entry states that Harris’s mother, Dr. Shyamala G. Harris, was from India, arriving in Berkeley, CA in 1960.
Dr. Harris passed away in February 2009. Her “Legacy” obituary states that she arrived alone in the U.S. at the age of 19 after having earned her undergraduate degree from Delhi University.
Kamala’s father, Donald Harris, is a retired Stanford University economics professor whose biography affirms that he arrived in the U.S. in 1961 as an “Issa Scholar” from Jamaica. It adds that he was born in Jamaica and naturalized in the U.S. but does not provide the year.
Neither parent reportedly was present in the U.S. as a legal resident for five years prior to Harris’s birth, a requirement to apply for naturalization, Wilmott observed in an interview with The Post & Email on Thursday.
After her parents divorced when she was seven, Wikipedia reports, Harris’s mother was granted full custody of her two daughters, after which they moved to Quebec, Canada. Dr. Harris’s obituary, reposted at SFGate on March 22, 2009, states that her medical research took her to McGill University in Montreal for 16 years. … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2018/08/19/is-kamala-harris-eligible-to-be-president/
# # # #
My immediate first reaction comment re the above article: No, Kamala Harris is not eligible. Per the report above, Senator Kamala Harris talks in her bio how she was born in and grew up in CA. But, she did not grow up there during her formative years! She is engaging in clever wordsmith-ing deception about her early life narrative. She is avoiding any focus on how much of her early life was spent living in Canada. She is also avoiding transparency about her parents citizenship status when Kamala was born. Kamala actually spent all her formative years in Canada with her foreign born mother when her mother moved there when Kamala was age 7. She graduated from high school in Canada. Kamala Harris is definitely not a person the founders and framers envisioned as being eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, that is a future person after the founding generation was gone who is free from any foreign influences at and by birth, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the USA and only the USA. She was born with lots of foreign influence and allegiance claims on her via her two foreign national, non-U.S. Citizen parents when she was born and spending all her formative years in a foreign country. Likewise she is not eligible to be the Vice President per the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution. She is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States. She fails the Three Legged Stool Test.
Some other politicians besides Kamala Harris (D) in the two major political parties who have been mentioned for future election to high national political office, who are also not a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards are: Marco Rubio (R), Ted Cruz (R), Bobby Jindal (R), and Nikki Haley (R). Both major political parties are choosing to ignore the founders and framers intent and understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is in order to run candidates that they believe are very marketable political candidates. This started in a major way in the 2008 election cycle with Obama vs McCain.