A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of Constitutional Article II “natural born Citizens” to Other Kinds of “Citizens” of the United States
The simple Euler Logic Diagram below shows the logical relationship of “natural born Citizens”, “Citizens” created by the Laws of Nature and Natural Law, the children of two “Citizen” parents born in this country, compared to other ‘kinds’ of “Citizens” of the United States created by Positive Law/Man-Made Law. Man and his laws and acts can make more laws in order to create more “Citizens” – at birth or later after birth. But only two “Citizens” can create a “natural born Citizen” under the Laws of Nature. It takes two Tigers to make a Tiger and Two Lions to Make a Lion. That is Natural Law. And it takes two “Citizens” to create a “natural born Citizen”. A “natural born Citizen” is a person born of parents who are both “Citizens” of the Country when their child was born in the Country. See: Vattel’s “Principles of Natural Law” (1758-1797) Vol.1 Chap. 19 Section 212. Said child is born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to only the USA. A person born with no “foreign influence” or “foreign citizenship” at birth. It is the largest subset of the super-sets of “Born a Citizen” and “All U.S. Citizens”. “Natural born Citizens” are the overwhelming majority of U.S. Citizens. They are “naturally” U.S. Citizens and no other nation can claim their allegiance and they do not have to point to any statutory Congressional Act/Law 0ld or new passed by Congress, constitutional amendments, Supreme Court decision, or treaty to prove they are U.S. Citizens as they are the “natural born Citizens”. It is from this largest group, the “natural born Citizens”, that the Constitution tells us we must choose our President and Commander in Chief of our military. Only a “natural born Citizen” can constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. This was put into or Constitution for national security reasons to prevent anyone born with “foreign influence” on them by birth in a foreign country or to a foreign non-U.S. Citizen parent from ever getting command of our military forces. This was stated in a letter July 1787 from John Jay (who became the country’s first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court) to George Washington who then had it put into the new Constitution being drafted in Philadelphia PA. We the People must protect this clause from being diluted and abrogated to mean whatever the current political parties and major media want it to mean so the can put up for election any person they wish. We must stand firm and not let this happen. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are NOT constitutionally eligible since they were both born with foreign citizenship and thus “foreign influence” on them by birth.
Click on Image For More Information.
Get a high resolution copy of the above Euler Logic Diagram image by Clicking Here
Watch this video in regards to testing Argument statements when made by people and how to test them using Euler Diagrams to test the Validity or Fallacy of their stated Argument.
Then do the same test per the video for this test Argument:
Is the following Argument valid or a fallacy?
All “natural born Citizens” are a “Citizen at Birth”.
All “Citizens at Birth” are a “Born a Citizen”.
Ted Cruz is a “Citizen at Birth”.
Therefore: Ted Cruz is a “natural born Citizen”.
Once you draw your own Euler Diagrams per the video demonstration, or use mine above, you will see there are two possible Euler Diagrams and locations for Ted Cruz in the two respective Euler Diagrams that are possible for the stated premises for the Argument above regarding Ted Cruz’s status and thus the Argument that Ted Cruz is conclusively a “natural born Citizen” is a FALLACY and not true. The same test applies equally well to proving that the Argument that Marco Rubio is conclusively a “natural born Citizen” is also a FALLACY and not true. Stating a person is a “Citizen at Birth” does not logically prove that person is a “natural born Citizen”. All “natural born Citizens” are “Citizens at Birth” but not all “Citizens at Birth” are “natural born Citizens”. All “Trees” are “Plants” but not all “Plants are “Trees”.
Don’t let the politicians and major media fool you when it comes to Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause, in our U.S. Constitution. “natural born Citizens” are the children of American citizens born in the USA. They are 2nd generation Americans by both Citizen parents and were born on U.S. soil. They are not person born with dual-citizen and allegiances to foreign countries — Canada, Cuba, or any foreign nation. Their citizenship and allegiance at birth is to the USA and only the USA. The term is in there for national security reasons and its original intent and understanding of the meaning of it needs to be protected, to bar people born with foreign influence (dual-Citizens at birth) on them from ever being the President and Commander in Chief of our military. No matter what you think of the politics of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, the were both born with citizenship to more than one country and allegiances to foreign nations at birth. The are NOT “natural born Citizens” to constitutional standards.
# # # #
Additional comments: Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, who are two active candidates [and the candidate Jindal whose campaign is in suspension – nor Nikki Haley who is often mentioned as a Vice-Presidential candidate], at birth were NOT born to two U.S. Citizen parents in the USA Kamala Harris is also not a natural born Citizen. Thus all of these aforementioned candidates for high office are NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States with sole allegiance at birth to only the USA. Each of the above were born with citizenship in more than one country and thus have “divided allegiance” and “foreign influences” on them by and at birth. No matter what you think of their politics, like them or not, they are NOT constitutionally eligible for the office they seek. Obama, who is not a natural born Citizen and was born with dual Citizenship and dual allegiances to two countries at birth, has shown us what one can get when one allows a person with divided allegiances via birth into the Oval Office. The “natural born Citizen” clause in our Constitution is a national security clause and must be defended and upheld as originally understood and intended. We must defend the Constitution no matter which political party seeks to subvert it. Read the “A Lesson From History” report below as to how and why the “natural born Citizen” clause was added to the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution to provide a “strong check” against “foreign influence” in the words on our founders on who could be President and Commander in Chief in the future once the founding generation was gone. The “natural born Citizen” are the “Three Leaf Clovers of U.S. Citizens, not Four Leaf Clovers“, and it is from this subset of all U.S. Citizens (the overwhelmingly largest subset of all U.S. Citizens) that the founders and framers of our nation and Constitution restricted us to selecting from now that the founding generation and original Citizens are gone, as to who constitutionally can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces or the Vice-President. If the political parties don’t like the constitutional restrictions on who is eligible to be President and Vice-President that was put there to help protect our national security, then they should work to amend the Constitution and put it before ‘We the People’ via the several states to approve or reject, and not just ignore it. As for me, I fully support keeping the “natural born Citizen” clause in full force and effect to keep those born with foreign influence and divided allegiances and foreign citizenship on them at birth from gaining command of our vast military power. — CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired).
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., (Retired)
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.
The current defacto president and unconstitutional occupier of the Oval Office 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.
Ted Cruz was born a citizen of Canada due his birth in Canada to a Cuban father. Marco Rubio was born a citizen of Cuba due to his birth to two Cuban national parents when he was born. And Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of India due to his birth to parents who were citizens of India when he was born. Thus all three were born with citizenship in more than one country and divided allegiances at birth.
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, is a person who is simply being declared “born a Citizen” at/by birth by STATUTORY LAWS passed at some point in time by Congress, and liberalized more and more from time to time by Congress, per its “Naturalization Powers” permitted constitutionally to 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”. 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/ Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military. And the same goes for Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal.
CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
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”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. 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)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “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/ Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8