CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

February 5, 2016

The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen

Click on image to learn more about constitutional term "natural born Citizen"

Click on image to learn more about constitutional term “natural born Citizen”

The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

Read Atty Apuzzo’s new tour de force legal essay on “natural born Citizen” here:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-illinois-board-of-elections-got-it.html

# # # #

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

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “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 Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

January 25, 2016

Ted Cruz Lies to America! | by TJ McCann @ LibertyBorn

Ted Cruz Lies to America! | by TJ McCann | LibertyBorn.WordPress.com

Read this excellent and revealing review and summary of the tactics Ted Cruz is using to deceive the American Electorate on the “natural born Citizen” issue at:  https://libertyborn.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/cruz-lies-to-america/

# # # #

constitution-with-flag-background.jpg

For the true Originalist understanding and meaning of “natural born Citizen” click on the image

A Lesson from History. Is Being Simply 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)

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.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour: “The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

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

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

Both Born Outside the USA to U.S. Citizen Mother — If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen?

Winston Churchill had an American Mother but he was NOT a U.S. Citizen.

Winston Churchill had an American Mother but he was NOT a U.S. Citizen.

Both Born Outside the USA to U.S. Citizen Mother with a Non-U.S. Citizen Father — If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen? | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

.
.
” … Churchill was born in Woodstock,  Oxfordshire, England, on November 30, 1874, to Lady Randolph Churchill (née Jennie Jerome), who was born in the United States, and to Lord Randolph Churchill, a British citizens.  Hence, Churchill was like Cruz born out of the United States to what Cruz would consider a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father.  … “
.
.
” … I will leave you with these quotes from Churchill himself.  “I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father’s marriage.”    (1963) http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/62-finest-hour-151/1838–wit-and-wisdom-reflections-on-america . Some in the press wondered if Churchill, who was born to a U.S. citizen mother, would ever consider running for U.S. president.  When asked by a reporter in 1932 on running for President of the United States, he correctly and honestly responded:  “There are various little difficulties in the way.  However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.”  The Definitive Wit of Winston Churchill 18 (ed. Richard M. Langworth 2009). But then that’s Winston Churchill, not Ted Cruz. … “

Read all of his excellent new essay about “natural born Citizen” here, and who is and who it not:   http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/01/if-winston-churchill-was-not-even.html

UPDATE:   Ted Cruz amazingly points to Winston Churchill as one of his heroes and displayed a Winston Churchill tattoo on his right arm:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/04/01/ted-cruz-shows-off-winston-churchill-tattoo/

# # # #

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

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “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 Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

January 16, 2016

A New CRS Memo re Qualifications for President and Natural Born Citizen Clause – 2016 Version

Click image to learn more about "natural born Citizen"

Click image to learn more about “natural born Citizen”

A New CRS Memo re Qualifications for President and Natural Born Citizen Clause – 2016 Version – Misquotes Key Laws Once Again.

Yet Another One from the Duplicitous Political Attorney Maskell of the Politically Party Controlled Congressional Research Service (CRS). What is This, Maskell’s 4th or 5th Try at Disinformation as to the Founders and Framers Understanding and Intent When They Wrote the Constitution? How Will This One Affect Ted Cruz’s Constitutional Eligibility?  Did Mitch McConnell Request This Update?  Did the Congressional Research Service Once Again Ignore the Influence of Emer de Vattel and Principles of Natural Law on the Founders of Our Nation and Framers of Our Founding Documents as We Broke Away from England. Vattel’s Writings on Natural Law is the Source of the “natural born Citizen” Term and Its Meaning.

Does This New CRS Memo Tell the Readers that the Often Touted 1790 Naturalization Act was Totally Repealed as an Error Containing First Attempt at a Naturalization Law?  The Total Repeal of This First Error Ridden Naturalization Law was Instigated via the Efforts of Madison and Jefferson, and was Totally Replaced by a new Corrected Naturalization Law Signed by George Washington – the 1795 Naturalization Act – Which Removed All Mention of the Term Natural Born Citizen Since Congress Only Has Naturalization Powers and Cannot Create Natural Born Citizens Who Can Only be Created by Natural Law and the Laws of Nature. These Key Founders and Framers Realized the First Congress Made an Error with the 1790 Law and Totally Repealed It. They Did Not Amend it Or Try to Fix It – They Working with the 3rd Congress Totally Repealed and Replaced It as a Bad First Attempt at a Naturalization Law.

Also see This Below Linked Site re the 1934 Naturalization Law Change for ‘Children Born Abroad’ where Only the Mother was a U.S. Citizen, as is the Case for Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz Would Not be a Citizen at All if Born Prior to 1934. Ted Cruz is a Naturalized ‘Citizen’ at Birth by Act of Congress Under Its Naturalization Powers per Congressional Acts and Statutory Laws and Not a ‘Natural Born Citizen‘ at Birth per Natural Law and Constitutional Standards.  Adjectives Means Something. See This re 1934 Naturalization Law Changes:  http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.html

Read the new 2016 CRS report on presidential eligibility and/or download a copy here:  https://www.scribd.com/doc/295707413/New-CRS-Memo-re-Qualifications-for-President-and-the-Natural-Born-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement-Congressional-Research-Service-R42097-2016

And let us not forget via a blast from the past about the top secret 1st CRS Memo circulated secretly starting in the early spring of 2009 among members of Congress to tell Members of Congress what to tell their constituents when asked about Obama’s lack of eligibility before the secret memo was exposed in 2010 via the Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al lawsuit:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/members-of-congress-memo-what-to-tell.html  and  https://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/CRS-Congressional-Internal-Memo-What-to-Tell-Your-Constituents-Regarding-Obama-Eligibility-Questions

Read my essay on logic, adjectives, and common sense which totally rebuts the CRS Memo’s conflation of the two terms “Citizen at Birth” and “natural born Citizen” — a “Citizen” at birth is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen” at birth.  Adjectives mean something and modify the noun as to unique characteristics and type and how it was obtained.  Compare the terms “natural born” Citizen and “naturalized” Citizen.  Adjectives convey special meaning to the the term. Being a Citizen at birth tells you WHEN they person became a Citizen but not HOW they became a Citizen.  Were they Citizens by Natural Law or by Man-Made, Statutory, Positive Law or Acts. Adjectives mean something. Any legal term with the adjective “natural” in front of the noun denotes it came from natural origins and the laws of nature and not of man-made creation/statutory laws.  Congress can make all the Citizens it wants, either “at birth” or later as adults.  But only the facts at birth per the Laws of Nature and Natural Law can create a “natural born Citizen” at birth, i.e., a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized) of that country.  The CRS Memo writer is deliberately conflating two terms as being logically identically the same, i.e., “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen at birth” and is trying to deceive the American Electorate and to provide cover for the Members of Congress to do nothing to live up to their Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution:  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/

My comment: Despite what any politically controlled Congress and their politically inspired Congressional Research Service memo puts out,  neither Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio who are two active candidates [and the candidate Jindal whose campaign is in suspension] were at birth born to two U.S. Citizen parents in the USA and thus all three 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 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 – CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret).

# # # #

constitution-with-flag-background.jpg

For the true Originalist understanding and meaning of “natural born Citizen” click on the image

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)

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.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour: “The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

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

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

January 8, 2016

Hannity gets it wrong – Statutory US Code/Law does not supersede [or amend] the Constitution!

constitution-with-flag-background.jpg

Ted Cruz and Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click Image for the Proof.

Hannity gets it wrong – Statutory US Code/Law does not supersede [or amend] the Constitution! — by NoBarack08

” … Sean Hannity the Cruz-bot, and GOP shill. Out right lied and was being deceptive when discussing Trump’s questioning of Ted Cruz’s eligibility to hold the Office of the President. … ”  Read more and comment here:  https://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/hannity-gets-it-wrong/

For the true understanding and intent of “natural born Citizen” and to learn more about the fact that founders and framers REJECTED simply being “born a Citizen” as not being sufficiently adequate to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, see the following links. They wanted a strong check against a person having foreign born influence on them via birth from ever gaining access to the highest office of our land. see:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/constitution-day/

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

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

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,384 other followers

%d bloggers like this: