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:

# # # #

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.

UPDATE 05 Oct 2015: See this 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case, Montana v Kennedy, re Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility status:

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA

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”: … AND … Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: and Part II:

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.