CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

June 20, 2015

CDR Kerchner (Ret) Responds to Professor Gutzman’s Dodgy Comments About Vattel

Emer d Vattel - Author of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. Click on Image for More Details

Emer d Vattel – Author of The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. Click on Image for More Details

CDR Kerchner (Ret) Responds to Professor Gutzman’s Dodgy Comments About Vattel

In the video below, listen to Professor Gutzman’s attempt to diminish the writings and words of Vattel as to the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause in  Article II of our U.S. Constitution, apparently in an effort to support the eligibility of Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen father: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/08/19/confirmed-sen-ted-cruz-releases-canadian-birth-certificate-was-a-dual-citizen-at-birth-not-eligible-to-be-u-s-president/.  His position thus would also continue to support the eligibility of Obama who also had a non-U.S. Citizen father and whose exact and true birth location has been the subject of debate and discussion for the last 7 years. https://www.scribd.com/collections/3248475/Kenyan-Gov-Officials-African-Newspapers-Obama-1991-Bio-Barry-Obama-Obama-Family-Mbrs-and-other-Accounts-Reporting-Obama-is-Kenyan-Born. This 2013 interview of Professor Gutzman has been re-surfaced recently by Cruz supporters.  Join the discussion here http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/06/founders-tv-gotta-see-this-one-history.html and/or read my comments about Professor Gutzman’s remarks below.

https://youtu.be/a27RfN-ZIqQ

[Editor’s note:  Get a PDF copy of CDR Kerchner (Ret)’s response and article here:  https://www.scribd.com/doc/269216629/CDR-Kerchner-Ret-Responds-to-Professor-Gutzman-Video-Comments-on-Vattel]

I listened to Professor Gutzman’s comments in the above video. Here are my comments.

The purpose of having the term “natural born Citizen” as a constitutional requirement for future presidents and commanders in chief or our military was as a “strong check” against “foreign influence”, per John Jay’s letter to George Washington, on the person who would hold that office in the future. They wanted a person born with Sole Allegiance and Unity of Citizenship to the USA and only the USA. See this article for more on that point: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html They would never have wanted a person born with dual or tri citizenship and attendant multiple allegiances and foreign influences on them at birth to ever gain command of our military. As with anything dealing with our Constitution, if you wish to understand terms therein we need to go back to original intent and understanding as to why the founders and framers chose the words they did. We need to understand the Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why the term “natural born Citizen” was chosen by the founders and framers. The Why was they wanted a person with sole allegiance to the USA at birth, and only the USA, for future commanders in chief of our military.

See: The Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizenship to Constitutional Standards: https://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards

Now some specific comments about what Professor Gutzman said and also what he omitted from Vol.1 Chapter 19 Section 212 of Vattel’s writings. First, he does not give the full name of Vattel’s book. And that is important to the debate on its content. It was titled The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.  “Natural Law” is key to this debate because the term under scrutiny is a natural law term, “natural born Citizen”.  Any legal term with the word “natural” in it refers to Natural Law and not to positive, man-made law. Vattel’s book was a treatise on Natural Law. And Natural Law forms the foundation of other types of law. And the founders and framers where keenly interested and aware of Natural Law as evidenced by the opening of the Declaration of Independence wherein it specifically cites the “Laws of Nature”, i.e., Natural Law.  And the Law of Nations was mentioned in the Constitution also in reference to defining Piracy. So the founders and framers were keenly aware of Natural Law and the Law of Nations.  And Vattel was their number one choice and reference on those subjects.

I own both a French and English copy of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. Regarding the comment that Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law being written in French, the professor does not mention that most of the key founders and framers were multi-lingual and specifically they were fluent in French, which was the diplomatic language of that time frame.  The French were our allies in our Revolutionary War against England.  When he read part of the section 212 and he read the French word “naturels” he failed to acknowledge that that in 1781 the French word naturels, years prior to the writing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, had been translated in treaty correspondence with the French to mean “natural born” in U.S. English. Thus the USA founders in U.S. English understood the term “the naturels” when used in the context of discussion of the matter of Citizenship in the USA or in the case of England being a Subject of the King, they translated the adjective and term and understood it to mean “the natural born”.  See:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/absolute-proof-the-founders-knew-and-accepted-vattels-french-naturels-to-mean-natural-born-before-constitution-was-written/ 

It also should be noted that the very title of Vol. 1, Chapter 19 in which “natural born Citizen” is defined, is “Des citoyens et naturels” which in the USA meant to the founders and framers, “The natural born Citizens”.  They got the idea and meaning of “natural born Citizen” from Vattel and other writers in Europe of the Enlightenment. They did not look to English Common Law to define and understand the citizenship terms in our new federal Constitution and Constitutional Republic. They discarded English Common Law when it came to Citizenship in the new nation. They looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to found our new form of government, a Constitutional Republic, and to determine who would be its initial citizens and the subsequent natural born Citizens, i.e., the children born in the country of citizens (both parents, born or naturalized).

The professor also neglects to read all of section 212 in which after Vattel states to be a “naturel” one must be born in the country of parents who are citizens, and since at that time married women could not have independent citizenship and the citizenship of the husband determined that of his wife and children, Vattel goes on to state that emphatically the father must absolutely be a citizen of the country for the child to be a citizen of the country at birth.  Vattel does not say the citizenship of the mother and place of birth do not matter. He clearly said it does in the prior clear cut definition of the naturel Citoyens, the natural born Citizens. But Vattel in the balance of section 212 further reinforces the importance of the citizenship of the father. Per Vattel not having a father who was a Citizen of the country you were born in absolutely precludes you from being a natural born Citizen of that country and that it is only your place of birth and not your country. The citizenship of the father controlled and determined the citizenship of his wife and his children. It takes two tigers to naturally create a tiger and two lions to naturally create a lion. Likewise it takes two Citizen of the country to create a natural born Citizen when the child is born in the parents’ country.

In the cases of Obama, Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal the citizenship of their father when they were born is clearly a relevant issue.  None of them had a U.S. citizen father at the time of their birth and thus they are not “natural born Citizens” of the USA to constitutional standards. In addition, for the case of Ted Cruz he was clearly and admittedly not born in the USA either in addition to not having a U.S. Citizen father when he was born. Thus Cruz misses natural born Citizen of the USA status on two counts.

Read and learn the constitutional citizenship status for all our Presidents since the U.S. Constitution was adopted: https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud

Only the Laws of Nature can create a “natural born Citizen”. No man-made, positive law such as the Act of Congress Title 8 Section 1401, adopted pursuant to its naturalization power granted to it under our U.S. Constitution can do so. That law does not even mention “natural born Citizen” nor does the word “natural” appear in it anywhere. Those who conflate “Citizen” at birth created by man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 1401 with the natural law term “natural born Citizen” at birth, are being illogical and are spreading confusion and disinformation. See this link for more on that: 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/

The professor in his 2013 interview was carefully picking and choosing words, and ignoring others, in his readings and discussions about Vattel’s book/treatise to try and make the case that Obama and Cruz are constitutionally eligible. They are not.

 As to English translations, there was a prior English translation of Vattel done circa 1759/1760 in England that Professor Gutzman did not mention. However, the 1797 is considered the better translation. But the founders and framers were using the 1775 edition edited by Dumas which was in French, as attested to by Benjamin Franklin. See: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html In regards to the 1797 English language translation which correctly translates Vattel’s des naturel Citoyen to “natural born Citizen”, the 1797 edition was just confirming and clarifying what the world at that time knew as to what Vattel meant and as was implemented in the U.S. Constitution several years before. And it was widely used in the new and great constitutional republic in the new world., the USA. And it was used to defend the rights of U.S. natural born Citizens in the disputes with England on the high seas leading up to the war of 1812.

Do words come into existence and meaning only by their instant creation in a dictionary or legal writings first and only then at the exact time of printing said book. Or were they there and understood before that print date and in use for some time in society? Use common sense.

 The 1797 translation of Vattel’s treatise into English simply was an improved translation from the original French and it confirmed and clarified to English speakers and readers what Vattel meant by his term “Des Citoyens et naturels” and/or naturel Citoyens, and his definition of same is therein clearly written. And the founders and framers knew and understood what it meant and that Vattel was their source when they chose the term, natural born Citizen. The 1781 treaty negotiations translation I mentioned previously prove that. When it came to the U.S. Supreme Court cases in the first 100 years of the USA they clearly looked to Vattel’s writings on issues of Citizenship, quoting him literally in a couple cases, and saying in at least one case that Vattel was the best on the matter of Citizenship issues.

See: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html for some example cases.

When the professor in the soft ball back and forth discussion in the video finally admits that he’s not sure and says “I don’t know”, he is in effect saying what we Constitutionalists all have been saying since 2008, we need the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this. And as Chief Justice Marshall said as to words and matters in the Constitution, … the U.S. Supreme Court should have taken up a case if it goes to the Constitution, as it does in this matter on the meaning of “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards as it applies in Article II.  The U.S. Supreme Court should decide it once and for all instead of ducking the question for the last almost 7 years.  The U.S. Supreme Court should have taken up the Atty Berg case in the summer of 2008 and decided the question right then and there re Obama.  In my 2010 petition to the U.S. Supreme Court we specifically said the question would come up again in the future. See:  https://www.scribd.com/doc/38506403/Petition-for-Writ-of-Certiorari-filed-with-the-U-S-Supreme-Court-for-Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress

Now the Pandora’s box is open and we have people not even born in the USA and with non-U.S. citizen fathers and twisting words and conflating two different legal terms and arguing they are eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military.

For more on the term “natural born Citizen”, see the prior historical  and legal writings on the term and also my writings on that term at:  http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and 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 https://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards .  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 Also see these papers and writings on Vattel’s influence of the founders and framers: https://www.scribd.com/collections/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

May 25, 2015

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates – None Are A “Natural Born Citizen” of U.S.

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

Various Candidates Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President. Click Image for the Proof.

Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo's legal filings and writings on the true meaning of the legal term of art

Click on image for more of Atty Apuzzo’s writings on the true meaning of the legal term “natural born Citizen”

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like Defacto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

by Atty Mario Apuzzo

“Soon, we will see various presidential candidates debate each other for the right to win their party’s nomination for President and ultimately to win the people’s and Electoral College’s vote for that Office.  The organizations that will be sponsoring these presidential debates, Commission on Presidential Debates, Fox News, Fox Business Network, Reagan Library Foundation, Salem Media Group, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Telemundo, and National Review, in keeping with their bylaws, should not allow any person who is not constitutionally eligible for that office to debate.  Allowing constitutionally ineligible candidates to debate will only give the false impression to the American people that such persons are constitutionally eligible to be elected President.  This result is more damaging to the Constitution and the rule of law, given that the federal courts refused to get involved in the question of whether de facto President Barack Obama is an Article II natural born citizen.  There has been mentioned in the news of some individuals who will be vying for the Office of President.  These are Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal.  But these individuals, like Obama, are not natural born citizens and hence not eligible to be elected President.  They should therefore not be allowed to debate.  Allow me to explain. 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35 years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a “citizen” of the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President.  It also provides that for those born after the adoption, only a “natural born citizen” of the United States is eligible to be President.  So, with presidential eligibility under Article II, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, we are looking to define a natural born citizen, not a citizen.  We can also see from this constitutional scheme that in the United States there are only “citizens” or “natural born citizens” and that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens. 

The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment of birth and throughout their lives.  They concluded that such a person would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which could result in conflict of interests which could harm the United States and its people.  … “

Continue to read Atty Apuzzo’s new legal essay about the exact citizenship status of several persons considered as candidates for President:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html

# # # #

Comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):  Reporters need to ask people mentioned as Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates the correct question. Not are you a “Citizen” but per the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution, are you a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

One cannot ignore a word or term in our U.S. Constitution.

Every word in it was chosen carefully and put there for a reason.

As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840):

“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.”

Since, as Chief Justice Taney explained, every word in the U.S. Constitution is there for a specific reason, reporters should not be omitting words when asking presidential and/or vice-presidential candidates about their citizenship status.  They should not be asking if the candidates or prospective candidates are simply a “Citizen“.  Instead they should be asking if they are a “natural born Citizen” — to constitutional standards as intended and understood by the founders and framers. The adjective “natural” before the words “born Citizen” means something very specific. It means created by nature or natural law, not by positive, man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 1401, amendments, or treaties. Man-made laws cannot create a “natural born Citizen“. Only the laws of nature and the facts at the time of the persons birth can create a natural born Citizen.

The word “natural” points to the laws of nature and whether both your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born. It takes two U.S. citizens to procreate a natural born Citizen born in this country. A “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country.

U.S. Senator Marco RubioU.S. Senator Ted Cruz, and Gov. Bobby Jindal are NOT a natural-born Citizens, and thus are not constitutionally eligible to run for President and Commander in Chief of our military. They should not be permitted to participate in any U.S. Presidential Debates.

And per the last line of the 12th Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, they are also not eligible to run for Vice President either.

I know this is a sad thought for conservatives like myself, but if we wish to protect and uphold the Constitution, we must uphold our Constitution and look to history and original intent and understanding of the words and terms used for an explanation.

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

ProtectOurLiberty WebsiteSpaceMy BlogSpaceDocs Collections Re Obama SpaceMy YouTube SpaceMost Recent Full Pg Ad SpaceAd Archives SpaceFliers/Handouts SpaceBlock Ads SpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit Project SpaceGet A Sheriff Kit SpaceInterviews-Audio/Print SpaceBooks SpaceGoat’s Ledge SpaceContact Me

P.P.S. This is NOT about politics or anything else but the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our land. If we lose the full force and effect of every word in it, we lose our constitutional republic and our rule of law. Amend it via a properly brought and approved constitutional amendment or respect and obey it. Don’t try to dissemble the true original intent, understood meaning, and purpose of the words chosen and used therein when the founders and framers wrote them in the founding era just to achieve some modern day political party agenda and goal.

November 18, 2013

A Strong Check Against Foreign Influence; Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen | Reprinted @ ThePostEmail.com

Click on image for more information about the legal term of art -- natural born Citizen of the United States

Click on image for more information about the legal term of art — natural born Citizen of the United States

A Strong Check Against Foreign Influence; Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen | Reprinted @ ThePostEmail.com Online Newspaper

Subscribe to this excellent online newspaper which provides continuing coverage of the Obama ineligibility issue and government fraud and malfeasance at all levels and read essay here:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/11/18/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

Letter written in 1787 from John Jay to George Washington

Letter written in 1787 from John Jay to George Washington

Read the letter written in 1787 by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, suggesting to General George Washington, the President of the Constitutional Convention, that the citizenship status of the commander of our armies, i.e., future presidents be limited to “natural born Citizens” as a “strong check” against foreign influence:  http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington.jpg

# # # #

More historical and legal papers and analysis on the true constitutional meaning and intent of the founders and framers of the presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, in our U.S. Constitution can be found at this link:  http://www.scribd.com/collections/3301209/

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

August 13, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley are clearly not eligible per the original meaning and intent of the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. To use a man-made statute or law, amendment, or treaty which makes one only a “Citizen” of the United States, either at birth or otherwise, means one would have had to be alive at the time of the creation of the Constitution. Read the actual words in the Constitution: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  After those original Citizens were gone it took a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible, that is, the children of Citizens of the United States, plural — two Citizen parents (naturalized after immigration to the USA or born here) when one was born in the USA. Any law or Act of Congress cited making one simply a “Citizen at Birth” or “Citizen by Birth” , or simply a born Citizen, is not sufficient. Such laws do not address or supersede or even mention Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Such laws do not even have the words/adjectives “natural born” in them.  A “natural born Citizen” is created by the laws of nature and nature’s God, governed by the facts of nature at the person’s birth, not the laws of men. The vast majority of U.S. Citizens are “natural born Citizens”.  It is from those ranks that we are constitutionally supposed to choose our Presidents and Vice Presidents.

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

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

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

March 25, 2013

Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the U.S. and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

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

Senator Ted Cruz is Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President. Click Image for the Proof.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” of the U.S. and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President | by Atty Mario Apuzzo.

Read Atty Apuzzo’s new legal essay about U.S. Senator Ted Cruz’s exact citizenship status here:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html

Ted Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. Senator but he is definitely not constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military. Cruz was born a dual citizen due to his birth in Canada and thus has foreign influence on him by birth and thus can never be considered a natural born Citizen of the USA with sole allegiance to the USA at birth. A dual citizen at birth under ‘Natural Law“, the basis law used to justify the colonies breaking away from Great Britain and to write our founding documents including the U.S. Constitution, is not a natural born Citizen of any country, let alone the USA.

# # # #

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

# # # #

In addition, read more about Obama’s ID crimes and his constitutional ineligibility here:  http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

A warning from the past — some conspiracies are very real and also really big and well organized.   The target is to destroy our U.S. Constitution and Republic.  Remember this quote from history: “We must now face the harsh truth that the objectives of communism are being steadily advanced because many of us do not recognize the means used to advance them. … The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a Conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst.” Quote by: J. Edgar Hoover former FBI director. Source: Elks Magazine (August 1956).

When will we return to the rule of law and enforce our identity theft protection laws and the U.S. Constitution in regards to the usurper and Fraud-in-Chief residing in the White House?

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

Next Page »

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,261 other followers

%d bloggers like this: