What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? | by John Greschak

Click image for more information on the constitutional legal term of art "natural born Citizen"
Click image for more information on the constitutional legal term of art “natural born Citizen”

What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? | by John Greschak

Read his scholarly analysis and essay synopsis here:   http://www.scribd.com/doc/160067303/

Also watch these video to learn more about the true meaning “natural born Citizen” per constitutional scholar Herb Titus: Pt1: http://youtu.be/esiZZ-1R7e8  and Pt2: http://youtu.be/xoaZ8WextxQ

Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley are clearly not eligible per the original meaning and intent of the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. To use a man-made statute or law, amendment, or treaty which makes one only a “Citizen” of the United States, either at birth or otherwise, means one would have had to be alive at the time of the creation of the Constitution. Read the actual words in the Constitution: “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.”  After those original Citizens were gone it took a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible, that is, the children of Citizens of the United States, plural — two Citizen parents (naturalized after immigration to the USA or born here) when one was born in the USA. Any law or Act of Congress cited making one simply a “Citizen at Birth” or “Citizen by Birth” , or simply a born Citizen, is not sufficient. Such laws do not address or supersede or even mention Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Such laws do not even have the words/adjectives “natural born” in them.  A “natural born Citizen” is created by the laws of nature and nature’s God, governed by the facts of nature at the person’s birth, not the laws of men. The vast majority of U.S. Citizens are “natural born Citizens”.  It is from those ranks that we are constitutionally supposed to choose our Presidents and Vice Presidents.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the veil of indifference to their necessity to continually be “on watch” and at times to stand up and protect our U.S. Constitution from usurpation by progressive/marxist/radical politicians operating in relative secrecy protected by an enabling press and major media … thinking and saying it’s the job of someone else … and living their lives in general apathy about what the national government is up to, they will allow the adoption of every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s alert and paraphrasing earlier warnings about the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government.

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees.  Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

6 thoughts on “What is a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.? | by John Greschak”

  1. [Editor’s note: Mr Craig: The Act you discuss in your comment no longer stands at all! The 1790 Act was REPEALED five years later. You fail to mention clearly and point out that the 1795 Naturalization Act REPEALED your mentioned 1790 Naturalization Act correcting the mistake they made in 1790 in trying to create “natural born Citizens” by an act of Congress. That is disingenuous of you. You can see that the term natural born do not appear in the new act in regards to people born outside the USA. There were only made Citizens. See this for more details: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html ]

    ———————————————————

    CDR Kerchner and John Greschak;

    We, as in you, I and many others have been “resorting” to a great many historical authorities in the effort to explain the “form” of Citizenship that John Jay had in mind when he presented his “suggestion” for the Constitutional Conventions consideration.

    However, for the past year I have been suggesting that the ONLY “controlling legal authority” on the subject of ANY form of U.S. Citizenship IS the Constitution its-self and the Congressional Branch of the Government that it established.

    1st, by the FACT of the usage of the term of words “natural born Citizen” within a specific provision for a specific purpose, as suggested by John Jay, the VERY existence of “natural born Citizens” became a Constitutional requirement that the Congress, when exercising its “plenary power” of establishing an uniform Rule in the making of Citizens, i.e., naturalization,were REQUIRED to respect.

    The ONLY Citizens at the time of the Adoption of the COTUS were those who were then also Citizens of the various States, and no others.

    The PLENARY POWER of the CONGRESS was otherwise ABSOLUTE, reserving only that the existence of “natural born Citizens” would be accommodated., but between the Adoption of the COTUS and March of 1790 there was NO “rule” of citizenship whatsoever, uniform or otherwise given that the Congress had not yet spoken under its authority.

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:. Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

    Note 1st that the children of a “newly naturalized” alien IMMEDIATELY become (U.S.) Citizens also and 2nd note that the Children of a U.S. Citizen are (U.S.) natural born Citizens no matter where in the world they are born.

    To put a simple maxim to the effects of those two provisions would be to say, “Once a Citizen then so too are your children”, but since no name was given to it within the Act it can only be called the “uniform Rule” of U.S. Citizenship.

    Some say that the provision dealing with existing U.S. Citizens ONLY applies to foreign births. That is a proposition that were it so would then REQUIRE the children of U.S. Citizens born within the territorial limits of the U.S. to be dealt with by some other provision, given that NO “foreign laws, ancient doctrines or philosophical political writings” were referenced WITHIN the Act and therefore can have NO authority they were not given by the Act and that would constitute something other than a uniform Rule.

    The Act stands on its own.

    From there it is a simple matter to reconcile subsequent Acts up to the most recent and it will be found that in order to be born a (U.S.) natural born Citizen a child MUST be born within the territorial limits of the U.S. to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens at the time of birth.

    The Act stands on its own.

    [Editor’s note: Mr Craig: The Act no longer stands at all! The 1790 Act was REPEALED five years later. You fail to mention clearly and point out that the 1795 Naturalization Act REPEALED your mentioned 1790 Naturalization Act correcting the mistake they made in 1790 in trying to create “natural born Citizens” by an act of Congress. That is disingenuous of you. You can see that the term natural born do not appear in the new act in regards to people born outside the USA. There were only made Citizens. See this for more details: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html ]

  2. Mr Craig: You fail to mention clearly and point out that the 1795 Naturalization Act REPEALED your mentioned 1790 Naturalization Act correcting the mistake they made in 1790 in trying to create “natural born Citizens” by an act of Congress. That is disingenuous of you. You can see that the term natural born do not appear in the new act in regards to people born outside the USA. There were only made Citizens. See this for more details: http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

  3. I have been screaming this very same point for years and all I seem to get are blank stares. I am surrounded by civic retards. This is the result of years upon years of social engineering by our public school systems moving towards a thoroughly “dumbed down” populace. They are easier to manipulate and control that way; don’t you know. While my education was in the public schools, I was blessed to have one in a rural setting. I can’t say such an education is of the same caliber anymore. I will post this article in hopes of someday my lone voice in the wilderness may be heard.

  4. Well, it appears my 1st response to your “disingenuous” comment got lost in the ether, so I’ll try again, with all due respect.

    I clearly stated that;

    The Act stands on its own.

    From there it is a simple matter to reconcile subsequent Acts up to the most recent and it will be found that in order to be born a (U.S.) natural born Citizen a child MUST be born within the territorial limits of the U.S. to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens at the time of birth.

    That WOULD include the 1795, 1798, and so on,and so on,and so on ………

    It is instructive to contemplate that ONLY the 1st three Acts asserted that they were “establishing an uniform Rule”.

    I find NO fault with Vattel and his discussions on establishing a New State.

    But I do find fault with injecting the Queen Anne Statutes on British Nationality as interpreted by Sir Blackstone and then in the echo chamber of U.S. Courts.

    But find it somewhat hypocritical to embrace one to the exclusion of another given that there is NO mention of either in ANY Act by the Congress on the subject.

    I am working toward a better way of presenting the “proposition of Law” I suggest that conforms to Statutory Interpretation Rules.

    It is clear to me and perhaps I will find a way to make it clear to others in time.

    Keep up the good work.

  5. P.S.;
    I am curious though, why so many who are so involved with the issue are so very reluctant to look to the ACTUAL U.S. Law on the subject as written by the the 1st, 3rd and 5th Congress whose members WERE the Framers of the Constitution and Founding Patriots of the NEW NATION……

    …were they not to be trusted….?

  6. 1. Jus Soli = “Of the Soil” of the United States

    2. 100% Jus Sanquinis=”Of the Blood” of Parents who are American.

    A POTUS must meet BOTH. He MUST be born IN the United States IN ADDITION TO having been “”born of Parents who are both Americans”…..”ParentS CitoyenS”.

Comments are closed.