The “Natural Born Citizen” Term is Neither Confusing, Ambiguous, Sexist, Racist, or Overly Restrictive if One’s Mind is Open to the Truth and Not Pettifogging on the Term

The “Natural Born Citizen” Term is Neither Confusing, Ambiguous, Sexist, Racist, or Overly Restrictive if One’s Mind is Open to the Truth and Not Pettifogging on the Term | by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Retired)

Click Image For More Fact Finding and Truth

(May 5th, 2023) — The Vattel “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” in various editions (1758/1775/1797) has a clear and succinct key sentence definition of “natural born Citizen” in Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, 2nd sentence of Vattel’s legal treatise that was written in French, the diplomatic language of that time of the revolution, and translated into English. That sentence states: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens“. Those facts and circumstances at one’s birth give one internationally recognized and U.S. law recognized sole allegiance status and loyalty duties at birth to one nation and only one nation. And only such a person can now be constitutionally the President and Commander in Chief of our military per the founders and framers original intent when they put that national security term into the presidential eligibility clause for future generations.

That legal treatise by Vattel was used by the Founders and Framers to justify the revolution and to write our founding documents. And they got the term “natural born Citizen” from Vattel’s treatise. John Jay who was one of the authors of the Federalist Papers and also became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and a fervent user of Vattel’s legal treatise in various negotiations and legal activities for our new nation during the founding period suggested that term for the presidential eligibility clause to George Washington and the Constitutional Convention agreed to it in 1787 because it guaranteed persons who would become the Commander in Chief of our military forces in the future after the founding generation was gone would be persons born with sole allegiance at birth. And that definition of who is a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards is neither confusing, ambiguous, sexist, racist, nor overly restrictive for our nation to comply with. The laws of nature have been the truth since nature’s creation. The definition stated by Vattel for who is a “natural born Citizen” was true in the 18th century. It was true in the 19th century. And the definition held in the 20th century and today in the 21st century with all the progressive man-made laws regarding the independence of basic citizenship for men and women in marriage as long as both parents are by birth themselves U.S. Citizens or if immigrants they later chose to naturalize and become U.S. Citizens before their child is born in the USA, they will procreate a “natural born Citizen” of the United States who will be eligible to be the President or Vice President. A “natural born Citizen” is at the minimum a second-generation American, fully marinated in the culture of America. And that law of nature definition will be true as long as man and nature survive. The laws of nature relating to the “without any doubt” membership in a tribe, country, or nation have not changed. Natural Law still defines the birth circumstances for a “natural born Citizen” (nbC) of a country, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance at birth to the United States of America without regard to race, color, creed, national origin, religion, or sex. One only has to open one’s mind to the truth.

All the sundry political problems created by the modern Progressive Movement as to nbC’s true meaning would dissipate if we just simply stay true to the laws of nature and Natural Law for that key term in the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution. It is only men of dubious reasoning and political objectives who attempt to redefine a Natural Law term in ways to suit their current agenda that cause the ambiguity that leads to these divisive sexism and racism charges.

One of the many ongoing issues and problems in various legal court case decisions and writings of statutory naturalization laws and acts during the history of the United States has been the Common Law and Statutory Law by these bodies of men designating who is a Citizen of the United States and who is not at this time or that time. But the laws of nature do not change. Only man’s egotistical nature thinks he can change them to suit his current objectives.

The Constitution of the United States gave Congress the power to create and adopt laws to naturalize new citizens into our new nation, whether at birth or later in life after their birth. And Congress has repeatedly done so starting with the egregiously erroneous first attempt with the 1790 Naturalization Act which was shortly repealed as it was determined to have violated the U.S. Constitution by trying to create a “natural born Citizen” out of persons born outside the United States, who per the laws of nature they were not. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions had to rule in various cases and controversies as to who was and was not a Citizen of the United States.

At various times in this country’s history Common Law decisions were made such as the infamous Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) decision. In that case in particular the U.S. Supreme Court infected by the deep-south appeasing temperament of the court in regards to race in that time made a decision that prolonged racism in this nation. At other times Congress has passed Statutory Laws that declared persons a Citizen of the United States based on the sex of one parent such as naturalization laws that only recognized a child being a U.S. Citizen if the father was a U.S. Citizen, or removed the citizenship of the United States for women who married a foreign national. See the Expatriation Act of 1907 and MacKenzie v Hare (1915) U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Thus at various times in dealing with political parties and people’s miss-informed opinions as to who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military forces, various charges of racism and sexism have been bantered about in the political debates over many decades.

If a person was not born in the USA an obvious question arose many times. Is that person a Citizen of the United States? And in some such cases, various derogatory charges were made and thrown out against those arguing the person certainly was not a U.S. Citizen by those saying the person was a U.S. Citizen. And at various times it was argued they were a citizen only if their father was a citizen and that father had lived in the United States for some period of time before their child was born overseas. And given this rule or law only applied if the child’s father was a citizen, the charge of sexism was made. And likewise, if a child was born in the USA but both parents were not U.S. Citizens, especially if the father was not, the sexism charge was also made and thrown out by those arguing the person certainly was a U.S. Citizen against those saying the person was not.

And of course, the issues of citizenship and racism in the 19th century are well known. The country had to go through a Civil War. Also, a Civil Rights Act (1866) was passed and the 14th Amendment (1868) was made to the U.S. Constitution to make it clear once and for all and eliminate any doubts and opposition to citizenship for those who were at the time freed slaves.

We of course should note that over the years there have been many attempts by the Democratic Party of the deep-south using the KKK and Jim Crow laws to deny non-white people their full rights as U.S. Citizens. In those examples, we see real racism being injected into politics by a major political party for many generations, i.e., the Democratic Party well into the 20th century.

A lot of those inflammatory racism and sexism charges were mostly being thrown about and debated regarding who is a basic Citizen of the United States. That was being done to try and keep people from being able to vote. But that type of emotionally and highly charged inflammatory rhetoric gets even dicier when it comes to the citizenship term and the question is raised, who is a “natural born Citizen”? And especially when a national political campaign is in process and questions arise as to who is eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces (and also subsequently per the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution who can be the Vice-President). At such times the inflammatory name-calling, charges, and counter-charges get amped up to extreme levels.

During national high office political campaigns and/or the run-up to them, we see over the decades many politically motivated, progressive movement, academic “scholarly” papers were written ignoring any type of enforcement of the true and original-intent meaning of the natural law term “natural born Citizen”. Instead, they are usually attacking non-natural law false arguments being made as to who is a “natural born Citizen” and throwing out charges of one side or the other being sexist, racist, or just too restrictive and unfair. And these progressive academic “scholars” working with one major political party or the other, write their lengthy papers as to why a certain person who was not born in the USA, but was born overseas to a U.S. Citizen father, or a certain person who was born in the USA, but whose father was not a U.S. Citizen father, surely must be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” because to do otherwise is sexist.

They write these papers to assuage the American electorate who are rightly very concerned about the innate divided allegiance of such a person born with dual or triple citizenship, i.e., divided loyalty requirements and allegiance at birth, being selected as a candidate of a major political party for election to the office of President and Commander in Chief of our military.

These “scholarly” papers, which are just cloaked politically agenda-driven pieces to give a constitutional pass to one candidate or another, are then used by the political parties, the candidate themselves, the major mainstream media, and elected government officials and other officials to sell this politically attractive candidate to the public, even though many people are very concerned about the person’s non-sole allegiance at birth due to their being under current U.S. laws, a dual citizen at birth (Barack Hussein Obama) or even in some cases a triple citizen at birth (Ted Cruz). And thus because of not sticking to the laws of nature for a term with the word “natural” in it as an adjective,  all the political angst, debate, and turmoil occurs.

Thus, in all the “scholarly” writings, debates, and news stories as to who is or who is not a “natural born Citizen”, why don’t they fully disclose and report on the true original-intent meaning and purpose of that term in our U.S. Constitution, that is, a person born in the country of parents who were both citizens (born or naturalized) of the country when their child was born. A child born under those circumstances is “naturally” considered to be unquestionably and without any doubt a U.S. Citizen and is of course in fact a “natural born Citizen” per the laws of nature and Natural Law. See the holdings in U.S. Supreme Court cases Minor v Happersett (1875) and Perkins v Elg (1939). In any established nation the largest kind of citizen is the “natural born Citizen”. That kind of citizen is by far a super-majority of the citizens and thus there is a large pool of people from which to choose our President and Commander in Chief. Thus to require the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces to be a “natural born Citizen” in the true original meaning and intent of that term is not overly restrictive.

We do not have to seek or consider politically attractive persons who may be the first this or that in relationship to race, color, or gender just to pander to the Progressive Movement and arguments of fairness, which in doing so violates the true original intents and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution. The “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution is a national security term to insure sole allegiance at birth status for the person who would be sworn into the highest office in the land. There are plenty of “natural born Citizen” persons from which to choose a candidate. They are the three-leaf clovers of citizens, not the four-leaf clover kind of citizens. They are the common variety and easily found, not the rare kind.

Thus it is time to get back to basics and the truth about the term “natural born Citizen” and in doing that eliminate all concerns and charges of sexism and racism in choosing our candidates for election to President and Commander in Chief. Stop all the nonsense and unnecessary conflict caused by picking candidates with questionable claims to being a “natural born Citizen”. In some cases, questions are raised as to whether they are even U.S. Citizens at all. Some candidates are closer to being a non-Citizen anchor baby (Kamala Harris) than they will ever be to being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States per the true original definition in Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law (1758/1775/1797) and the original intent and purpose the founders and framers used that term in the presidential eligibility clause. And again, that purpose was to ensure that only a person born with sole allegiance (not a dual citizen or triple citizen at birth) would ever be allowed to gain access to the office of the Presidency and Commander in Chief of our military once the founding generation, original citizens, was gone.

If the reader is in any doubt about the reason and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause, see John Jay’s letter of Jul 1787 about future foreign influence national security concerns addressed to General George Washington the president of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia PA. And in Washington’s letter in response to John Jay, he agreed to his suggestion to put the “natural born Citizen” term into our Constitution to help ensure the continuing future of our nation by not allowing persons with foreign influence at birth from gaining access to and control of the highest political executive power and military power office in our government, the President and Commander in Chief.

All we have to do to see the consequences of not obeying the original intent and purpose of the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution is to see what has happened to our nation by electing and allowing to be sworn in a non-natural born Citizen, a person born with foreign influence on them since birth, a person born with dual citizenship and dual allegiance at birth, i.e., Barack Hussein Obama. He was born with dual allegiance, i.e., a British Subject via his non-U.S. Citizen, a non-U.S. immigrant, anti-American Marxist, and Kenyan British Subject father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. Barack Hussein Obama II/Jr. also holds a claim to basic U.S. Citizen via his claimed birth in Hawaii to his U.S. Citizen teenage mother. But of course, some of those facts have been challenged due to the early life narratives promulgated by Obama himself and later by operatives directly and indirectly for the Hillary Clinton campaign. But he is not now nor has he ever been a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Barack Hussein Obama is now effectively a behind-the-scenes puppet master National Community Organizer in Chief (NCOinC) of Joe Biden. Obama is doing to our nation and system of government what the founders and framers feared most if and when a person born with foreign influence and foreign allegiance at birth got control of the highest office in our new form of government. Obama, under the foreign influence of his dual citizenship birth, his subsequent early life living and early schooling overseas, and his “dreams” from his anti-American Marxist father related to us in his book “Dreams From My Father” is doing to the United States what his non-Citizen father wanted to happen to the United States. He wanted the United States as a world economic and political power brought down and especially wanted our military power brought down. We are now experiencing the results of Obama’s implementing that agenda with two full terms usurping the office of President and Commander in Chief and now in a de-facto 3rd term totally controlling the incompetent and mentally declining Joe Biden from behind the scenes as the National Community Organizer in Chief (NCOinC).

It is time to return to the non-sexist, non-racial true, and original law of nature definition of a “natural born Citizen” for the person that would hold the highest national office as intended by the founders and framers of our nation and Constitution. We must only elect and allow to be sworn into office as President and Commander in Chief of our military a person born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to our country, i.e., a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens) of the country when their child was born. The survival of our Republic and Constitution demands it!

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)

Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here:

2.  A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution:

3. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”:   or

4. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “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)”. Adjectives mean something.  All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: 

5. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships:

6. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen:

7. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  or 

8. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus:   and

9. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog:

10. Read online or download and save dozens of historical papers and articles written over time, some over 200 years ago, describing what a “natural born Citizen” of the United States is to constitutional standards:


3 thoughts on “The “Natural Born Citizen” Term is Neither Confusing, Ambiguous, Sexist, Racist, or Overly Restrictive if One’s Mind is Open to the Truth and Not Pettifogging on the Term”

  1. Those who violate the Constitution don’t read it.  And those who read it uphold it.  Democrats always take something in our Constitution out of context and give it new meaning to serve their lawless purpose.  RINOS misquote it to support the Democrats.  And conservative Republicans use it literally, historically, and with intent.  Now that the DOD is replacing American troops with foreign troops, don’t be surprised if the Great Reset puts a foreigner in the White House. 

    “The Republican form of government is the highest form of government: but because of this it requires the highest type of human nature, a type nowhere at present existing”-Herbert Spencer – Philosopher (1820 – 1903). 

    “If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and moral, then it is not a political party.  It is a conspiracy to seize power.”  —President Dwight D. Eisenhower, March 6, 1956

    Samuel Adams said:  The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks.  We have receiv’d them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas’d them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: