Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2019: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

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

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2019: A Lesson from History. Is Being Born a Citizen (Citizen at/by Birth) of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … No, It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired)
17 September 2019 – Constitution Day

During the process of developing the U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. At some point, he also suggested to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.  Another version of Hamilton’s proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the convention’s deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand – pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamilton’s proposed Constitution was not accepted.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Many of the founders and framers rightly had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s treatise on Natural Law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” or “born a Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents, both of them, when their child is born, as per natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth.  See Madison’s comment in his journal of the convention re this fact in which it reports as follows:  ” … Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.  …” —  3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 619-630 (1911) – page 619.  But that citizenship status for who could be President was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay’s proposal and recommended clause added the additional adjective of “natural” before simply being a “born Citizen” which was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” 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.

Other politicians aspiring to high political office who are also not constitutionally eligible:  Kamala Harris (D)Ted Cruz (R)Marco Rubio (R), Nikki Haley (R), and Bobby Jindal (R) are not a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S. to constitutional standards.

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

HAPPY CONSTITUTION DAY!

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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

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

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

3. 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”:  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/ 

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a 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/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html  or  https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts 

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8  and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. 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: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President or VP – Not a “natural born Citizen” | by Atty Larry Klayman

Harris and Gabbard Not Constitutionally Qualified To Be President – Not “natural born Citizens” by Attorney Larry Klayman – Founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch | @ RenewAmerica.com – 12 July 2019

Senator Kamala Devi Harris (D-California) cannot become president unless she is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Constitution contains few eligibility criteria for our nation’s highest post. But being born to the country is one of them. Since a vice president must be able to succeed to the presidency, Harris could not run as vice president, either.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires that only a natural born citizen can serve as president. The Constitution clearly distinguishes between a citizen and a “natural born Citizen.” There is a special case of citizen who is also natural born. An interesting but often-ignored requirement is that one must also have “been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The intent indicates an attempt to ensure allegiance to the United States by a strong connection. This was the result of continued loyalties to the British Crown among Tories and others after the Revolutionary War, where some politicians even suggesting the nation should return to a limited monarchy. The Framers thus wanted to eliminate “family influences” among our presidents.

Some may think of the Fourteenth Amendment. Even if we ignore the requirement that a person born in the country must be “under the jurisdiction thereof,” the Constitution clearly recognizes that not all citizens are eligible to be president.

Both of Harris’s parents were present in the United States under student visas when Harris was born in Oakland, California. They were not U.S. citizens at that time. A student visa requires a non-immigrant intent. That is, one must swear that they have no intent to stay. Harris’ parents appear to have lied.    ….   continue reading at:  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/190712

# # # #

Other politicians aspiring to high political office who are also not constitutionally eligible:  Kamala Harris (D)Ted Cruz (R)Marco Rubio (R), Nikki Haley (R), and Bobby Jindal (R) are not a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S. to constitutional standards.

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.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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

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

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

3. 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”:  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/ 

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a 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/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html  or  https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts 

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8  and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. 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: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

 

A Civics Lesson from History. Is Simply Being ‘Born a Citizen’ of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President and Commander in Chief? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided – No It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

A Lesson from History. Is Simply Being ‘Born a Citizen’ (aka Born Citizen) of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! One needs to be a ‘natural born Citizen’. Adjectives mean something, especially in our Constitution. Read more in the following article.

Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click Image for the Proof.
Kamala Harris and Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be President & Commander in Chief of our Military. Click Image for Proof.

A Civics Lesson from History. Is Simply 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 the 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 less restrictive super-set of simply being born “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth.  See Madison’s comment in his journal of the convention re this fact in which it reports as follows:  ” … Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.  …” —  3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 619-630 (1911) – page 619.  But that citizenship status for who could be President was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay’s proposal and recommended clause added the additional adjective of “natural” before simply being a “born Citizen” which was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” 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 was born a dual-Citizen and thus was born with divided allegiance to more than one country. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA with sole allegiance at birth to only the USA and thus constitutionally was not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

Other politicians aspiring to high political office who are also not constitutionally eligible:  Kamala Harris (D)Ted Cruz (R)Marco Rubio (R), Nikki Haley (R), and Bobby Jindal (R) are not a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S. to constitutional standards.

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.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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

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

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

3. 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”:  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/ 

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a 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/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html  or  https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts 

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8  and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. 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: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

What was the Founders’ Intent in Creating the Electoral College?

What was the Founders’ Intent in Creating the Electoral College? – “Great Compromises Were Made” – Part 1 of 3 | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Apr. 1, 2019) — Over a number of years and increasingly within the last several weeks, political candidates, state legislatures, members of Congress, and some average Americans are calling for a bypassing or abolition of the Electoral College and for the establishing of a “national popular vote” to elect the president.

Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, whose constitutional eligibility as a “natural born Citizen” is in question, has said she is “‘open to’ discussing eliminating the Electoral College,” while candidate and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has enthusiastically advocated for it.

Former Texas congressman and Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke has said that he “sees ‘a lot of wisdom’ in abolishing Electoral College.”

In 2017, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN9) introduced a bill to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.  As this article was under preparation, NBC News reported that some Senate Democrats plan to introduce a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College.

The Hill confirmed the report, stating that Rep. Brian Schatz (D-HI) will introduce the measure this week, supported by Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and two other U.S. senators.

Presidential candidate and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) also supports abolishing the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was implemented by the Framers as a method of indirect popular election of the president. Set forth in Article II, Section 1, clauses 2, 3  and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the system utilizes “electors” chosen by the states who cast their votes for president the month following the quadrennial presidential election.

In September 1804, clause 3 was amended by the ratification of the 12th Amendment, passed with the intent of avoiding a tie vote by state electors, which would then send a presidential election to the House of Representatives.

Today, the political parties choose the electors who will represent them when the Electoral College meets.  No one serving as a federal office-holder at the time may serve as an elector.

The number of electoral votes assigned to a state is based on both population, which determines the number of congressional districts, and the constitutional provision of two U.S. senators to each state, regardless of size or population.  Electoral-rich California possesses 55 electoral votes due to its two senators and 53 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The 23rd Amendment awarded three electoral votes to the District of Columbia, which is not a state.  With a total of 538 electors nationwide, 270 electoral votes are required for a candidate to win the presidency.

As of 2016, 29 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring presidential electors to vote “for the presidential candidate for the party they were selected to represent.”  Forty-eight of the 50 states utilize a “winner-take-all” method of awarding electoral votes, with Maine and Nebraska utilizing a “proportional distribution” method.

The electors meet on “the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election” in their respective capitals to cast their votes for the president and vice-president on separate ballots. The vote tallies are then communicated to Congress and the National Archives.

On January 6 of the new year, or another date that month if amended by Congress, the current vice president publicly counts the votes and officially announces the winner of the presidential election and vice-presidential election.  Constitutionally, the vice president is required to ask if there are any objections to the election prior to certifying the vote counts.

Detractors of the Electoral College object to the very real possibility that a candidate could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote.  The phenomenon has occurred five times in U.S. history, most recently with Donald Trump in 2016.

Regarding presidential elections, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) states:

The Electoral College is a unique method for indirectly electing the president of the United States. It was established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments.

The Electoral College consists of a total of 538 members, one for each U.S. senator and representative, and three additional electors representing the District of Columbia. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the combined total of its congressional delegation, and each state legislature is free to determine the method it will use to select its own electors.

Currently, all states select electors through a popular vote (although how that vote works can differ), but that was not always the case throughout American history. In many states, the state legislature selected electors, a practice which was common until the mid-1800s.

On the topic of Electoral College “reform,” the NCSL offers:

In the years since the highly controversial 2000 presidential election, bills have been introduced in every state in the country to change the process for selecting electors. During the period of 2001-2006, most Electoral College reform bills proposed switching to the district system. None of these bills passed. In the years since, attention has largely shifted to the National Popular Vote (NPV). This is an idea that would allow states to bypass the Electoral College without amending the U.S. Constitution. When a state joins the NPV Compact, it promises that it will give all of its electoral votes to the party that wins the national popular vote, rather than the party that wins the state popular vote. For instance, if the Democratic candidate won the popular vote in California, but the Republican candidate won the popular vote nationwide, California would be required to send the Republican slate of electors to the meeting of the electors. The NPV has not yet taken effect; states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes must join before it can function. Read more about the National Popular Vote.

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College and instead electing the president by direct popular vote comes about every few years. Abolishing the Electoral College requires an amendment to the US Constitution. There are two ways to do that:

    • Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The amendment then has to be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. All existing amendments to the Constitution were made in this manner.
    • The legislatures of two-thirds of the states can petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention. At a Constitutional Convention, any part of the Constitution could be amended; action is not restricted to the sections governing the Electoral College or any other part of the Constitution. Again, any proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This method has never been invoked.

The National Archives characterizes the Electoral College as “a process, not a place.”  It explains that “The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.”

The organization “National Popular Vote” has reported a building movement on the part of the states to endorse election of the president by enacting “legislation” to bypass the Electoral College and create an “interstate compact.”  Indeed, such public figures as American historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have endorsed the plan, apparently without proposing a constitutional amendment to enact it.

An amendment to the Constitution requires ratification by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and the legislatures of three-quarter of the states (38), a process that has taken years in the past to complete.

As of this writing, the NPV initiative reports that 14 “jurisdictions,” including the District of Columbia, have entered into an “interstate compact” in which their respective governors and mayor have agreed to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote for the presidency.  “The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections,” the website states.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility,” Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in apolitical matters such as disputes over boundary lines, states may uphold such agreements, whether or not the NPV interstate compact must have congressional approval is an open question.

A 2008 analysis by a Connecticut legislative fellow of an Electoral College interstate compact, which the state’s legislature voted to join last year, states, in part:

Advocates of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact point to the constitutional right of states to choose their electors to demonstrate the constitutionality of the proposal. The manner of conducting presidential elections is covered in the U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . ” (U.S. Const., Article II, Section 1, Clause 2). This standard has been reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the clause “cannot be held to operate as a limitation on” the power to appoint electors, assuring that the mode of appointment belongs exclusively to the states by the Constitution (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892)).

Critics, however, see the Compact Clause as a roadblock to the proposal. If the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is considered a “political compact” under the Compact Clause, then the Constitution requires congressional consent, and the compact would need to receive federal approval. The power to appoint electors is exclusively granted to the states, but that power is still subject to other provisions of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court must analyze the appointment of electors under other provisions of the Constitution, including the Compact Clause (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)).

Is the National Popular Vote Really a Compact?

The first question is whether the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an “interstate compact” as defined by the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has construed the meaning of “compact” broadly: “The legislative declaration will take the form of an agreement or compact when it recites some consideration for it from the other party affected by it” (Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 520 (1893)). The term “compact” includes “all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating to all kinds of subjects; to those to which the United States can have no possible objection . . . as well as to those which may tend to increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states” (Id. at 517-8).

NPV reports that in early 2018, a “coalition of law firms, organizations, and professors” was responsible for filing lawsuits in California, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas challenging the “winner-take-all” method of assigning presidential electors’ votes.  The NPV opposes proportional assignment of electoral votes, claiming that it “fails when evaluated against the criteria of whether it would make presidential elections more competitive, whether it would accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote, and whether it would make every vote equal. In short, allocating electoral votes by congressional district would make a bad system even worse.”

According to research by The Daily Signal, George Soros-affiliated groups and individuals are funding the NPV effort, with support from some Republicans and “conservatives.”

In 2001, Georgetown University Professor Emeritus Walter Berns wrote an in-depth essay on the Electoral College in which he contended:

…the issue that ought to engage our attention is the one the framers debated over the entire course of the constitutional convention, from May 1787 to September, namely, what way of election is more likely to produce a president with the qualities required of the person holding this great office? In all the years I have been engaged in this debate, in all the times I have testified on this issue before a House or Senate committee, I have yet to encounter a critic of the Electoral College who argues that a president chosen directly by the people is likely to be a better president. And that, surely, is the issue.

On March 28, The Post & Email interviewed New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo on his thoughts about the present system of electing the president and calls to change it.  We brought to his attention the “interstate compact” which reportedly plans to activate once states representing 270 electoral votes are pledged.

In an in-depth response, Apuzzo said:

This is a very complicated and involved area; there are a lot of moving parts to it.  There is a constitutional basis to the Electoral College.  Some would say it’s anachronistic, but it’s not, because the same concerns that faced the Founders face the nation today.

How to elect the president of the new nation was decided at the Constitutional Convention, where great compromises were made in order to bring the union to fruition. You had large state and small states.  The small states would not have joined the large states if they were to have lost their influence, their power to operate as a sovereign state.  Yhe compromises are very important, and that leads to the Electoral College, which I submit was also a compromise for the small states.

We have a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and we also have a federalist system where the states are guaranteed their independence except to the degree that they gave power to the central government.  The federalist system has worked well for us because it allows the states to operate, and all the control does not come from one place.  You have decentralization, so to speak, but we also need a national government, because that’s why they came together to form the union.  ….  continue reading the rest of Part 1 of this excellent article at:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/01/what-was-the-founders-intent-in-creating-the-electoral-college/

ALSO everyone discussing the reason we have an Electoral College should read this: For the complete explanation directly from one of the founders and framers as to why the founders and framers in writing the U.S. Constitution created an Electoral College to elect the President and Commander in Chief, instead of a nationwide popular vote, read Federalist Paper #68:  http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-68.php

Update 02 April 2019 – link to part 2 of this article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/02/what-was-the-founders-intent-in-creating-the-electoral-college-part-2

Update 04 Apr 2019 – link to part 3 of this article:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/04/what-was-the-founders-intent-in-creating-the-electoral-college-conclusion/

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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

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

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

3. 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”: 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/

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a 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/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. 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: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf