CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

April 13, 2015

Blast From the Past: Marco Rubio is a Cuban Citizen. Senator Marco Rubio’s Lack of Natural Born Citizenship Update 27 May 2011: See PDF copy of the Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio. Marco was born in May 1971, more than 4 years before his father Mario elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounced his Cuban citizenship in Nov 1975

Born a Citizen of Cuba and the U.S., Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States to constitutional standards. Click on image to learn why.

For more click on the image for the correct definition of "natural born Citizen of the United States" -- CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Click on the image for more information on the correct definition of “natural born Citizen” of the United States

Marco Rubio was born a Cuban Citizen via his parents. UPDATE 27 May 2011: See PDF copy of the Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio. Marco was born in May 1971, more than 4 years before his father Mario elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounced his Cuban citizenship in Nov 1975

NOTE: This post is a follow on and update of my original post breaking this story on 22 May 2011 in this blog. That original post can be read here.

Get copy here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971

Senator Marco Rubio’s father was not a naturalized citizen when Marco was born in May 1971 per National Archives data. His father applied for naturalization in Sep 1975. Marco Rubio not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP. Thus Marco’s father passed Cuban citizenship at birth to Marco Rubio under Cuban law, U.S. law, natural law, and international law.  Being a dual citizen at birth, Marco Rubio is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States”.

U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1:  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.

U.S. Constitution’s 12th Amendment – last sentence: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens who were Citizens of the United States either by birth or naturalization at the time of the birth of the child.  A natural born Citizen of the United States is a child born with sole allegiance to the United States, a person born without Citizenship in any other country other than the USA at the time of their birth.  A natural born Citizen has no foreign influence or claim on them by another country at the time of their birth under U.S. law and the Law of Nations.  That is why the founders and framers chose the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” for the eligibility clause for the singular most powerful office in our form of government, the President and Commander in Chief of our military. They did not wish command of our military forces to ever devolve to a person born with dual allegiances. Marco Rubio was born with dual citizenship and dual allegiances. He is both a Cuban citizen and a U.S. citizen by birth. Marco Rubio is thus NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States and is thus not constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States.

Up until my first blog post on 22 May 2011 of the facts as to when his parents became U.S. citizens, Senator Marco Rubio of FL has been evasive and not been forthcoming about his exact citizenship status upon his birth in the United States in May 1971.  Phone calls, emails, and letters to his office by various volunteers over the last year have gone  unanswered on the question of whether his parents (who were immigrants from Cuba) had become naturalized citizens of the USA by the time of Marco’s birth in the USA.

We have given Senator Rubio long enough to be voluntarily forthcoming on this information.  A phone call last week by a volunteer researcher assisting my efforts to learn more about Senator Marco Rubio’s exact birth citizenship status was made to the National Archives (NARA) to learn the facts about Senator Marco Rubio and certain other individuals who are mentioned in the media as potential candidates for President or Vice President.  That is, are they constitutionally eligible, i.e., “natural born Citizens of the United States” as is required in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the information conveyed to the volunteer during the phone calls to NARA about Senator Marco Rubio of FL, his father did not petition to become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Sep 1975, a full four years after Marco Rubio was born.  A natural born Citizen of the United States is one born in the United States to two U.S. Citizens at the time of the birth.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen of the United States.  He is a native born Citizen under the 14th Amendment and/or the Wong Kim Ark (1898) Supreme Court decision which grants basic citizenship to individuals born in the USA.  But Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen under Article II, Section 1.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio is NOT constitutionally eligible to serve as President or Vice President of the United States per Article II, Section 1, and the last sentence of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.  Senator Marco Rubio has obviously known this for a long time.   His silence in response to the American electorate and avoidance to answering the questions put to him over the last year about this issue says a lot about Marco Rubio and indicates that when it comes to his own personal political objectives he is in the progressive school of thought about following the fundamental law of the land, our U.S. Constitution.  To people of the progressive school of thinking the Constitution says and means whatever one wants it to mean to allow one to achieve their personal political power and goals, i.e., what John McCain did in the 2008 presidential election cycle in making a deal with Senator Obama and the U.S. Senate so that McCain could run unmolested about questions by the Democrat Party operatives and their allies in the major media as to his natural born Citizenship status.

Senator Marco Rubio is NOT a natural born Citizen.  He was born with dual allegiance.  One to the USA by location of birth and the other to Cuba via gaining Cuban citizenship at birth via his father since his father had not yet naturalized to the USA and renounced his Cuban citizenship by doing so. This is similar to the situation with Obama gaining British citizenship at birth from his Kenyan British Subject father. Senator Marco Rubio should stand up for the Constitution and speak out about this and say that as much as he’d like to run someday for those offices, he is not constitutionally eligible to run for President or VP.  He should be a protector of the U.S. Constitution, the document that gave his parents the freedom and liberty they sought when they came to this country.  He should put his personal ambitions for higher office aside.  He should tell the RNC and people in the media the facts and stand up like a statesman should and support the Constitution and not allow them to continue their musing and aspirations to run him for Prez and VP some day. To allow such discussions to continue in the major media is allowing them to continue to undermine the true meaning and intent of the “natural born Citizen” clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition to clarifying his own constitutional citizenship status, Senator Marco Rubio of FL should also say that Obama is not eligible either and should be investigated for election fraud and criminal activities such as SSN fraud and draft registration fraud and be removed from office.  We not only have a constitutionally ineligible person in the Oval Office but we also have a grifter and criminal in that office.

The leadership of the Republican Party and the RNC is also complicit in this usurpation of the founders and framers intent with the eligiblity clause in Article II Section 1.   The Republican Party leadership has ENABLED Obama to get away with what he’s done to illegally usurp national power in order that the Republican Party can do the same thing too, i.e., ignore the Constitution when it suits their own political power objectives.  It’s time for a change in the Republican Party leadership … a major change.  We need dedicated constitutionalists to take over the party and fight the righteous battle to restore the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution to full force and effect in Washington DC and throughout our great land and to investigate Obama and have him removed for the fraud and criminal he is, and to thence begin a purge in Washington DC of all the enablers of this usurpation and cover up.  We the People demand it.

Copies of the naturalization petition for U.S. Citizenship filed in Sep 1975 for Mario Rubio, the father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, were mailed to me from the National Archives and will be published here upon receipt.


UPDATE 27 May 2011:  Copy of Sep 1975 Petition for Naturalization for Mario Rubio, father of Senator Marco Rubio who was born in May 1971, more than four (4) years before his father elected to become a U.S. Citizen and renounce his Cuban citizenship. Also note that his father came to the USA in May 1956, seven months before Castro’s ill fated invasion of Cuba from Mexico in Dec 1956, and more than three years before Castro took over Cuba. Thus Senator Marco Rubio was not telling the truth when he stated online [in early May 2011] in his U.S. Senate official biography that his parents came to the USA after Castro’s take over of Cuba. They were not Cuban refugees escaping communist Cuba as he said in embellishing his life story in many of his election campaigns: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56489970/Naturalization-Petition-Filed-in-Sep-1975-for-Mario-Rubio-the-father-of-Senator-Marco-Rubio-born-May-1971

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

P.S.  Learn Who is a “natural born Citizen” of the USA  and the 5 Citizenship Terms Used in U.S. Constitution and The Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizenship

P.P.S. This is NOT about politics or anything else but the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our land and expecting the truth from our elected officials.

September 17, 2014

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2014: 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 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 2014: 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 … It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired)
17 September 2014 – Constitution Day

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.

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 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 codification of 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 suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status 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, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign 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 recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that 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 eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

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.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

September 17, 2013

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2013: 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 It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2013: 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 … It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
17 September 2013 – Constitution Day

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.

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 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 codification of 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 suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status 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, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign 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 recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that 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 eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

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 (Ret)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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.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

September 17, 2012

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2012: 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 It Was Not! | by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2012: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen 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 … It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
17 September 2012 – Constitution Day

During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted 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.

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 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 codification of 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” 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 via 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 suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status 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, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign 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 recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that 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”. But only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

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 (Ret)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

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”.

January 5, 2012

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA’S IDENTITY STOLEN? | by Dean Haskins | @ BirtherSummit.org

Virginia Sunahara Gravestone Rendering

Click on image to see image of actual grave marker in Hawaii for Virginia Sunahara

WAS BABY VIRGINIA SUNAHARA’S IDENTITY [birth registration certificate number] STOLEN? | by Dean Haskins | @ BirtherSummit.org

Read full report here:  http://www.birthersummit.org/news/73-was-baby-virginia-sunaharas-identity-stolen.html

More coverage of this with video here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/01/update-on-lawsuit-filed-against-hawaii.html

My comment: As I read the article a question goes through my mind … “has the Hawaiian Health Department been engaged in criminal activities and not following their own laws beyond the hiding of the Obama’s and Sunahara’s birth records?”  Has that department been engaged in criminal activities of selling birth certificate numbers and birth certificates now and/or in the past.  Birth certificate fraud was a huge problem in Puerto Rico as well as more recently in Hudson County NJ in which staff were selling birth certificates. This was reported about a couple years ago and can be found via a Google search.  Imo, something very suspicious is going on in the Hawaii Health Department.  In their efforts to help cover-up Obama’s true legal identity, they may be revealing the tip of a much more extensive history of records manipulation and  fraud and criminal activities, past and/or present.  There needs to be a full scale and thorough investigation as to what has been going on with birth registrations in Hawaii since they became a state in 1959 with particular focus on the disposition of birth certificate registration numbers for children who died shortly after birth, and/or from a few days old to a couple of years old.  This is exactly the target that Bill Ayers (a good friend of the Barack Obama and a financial and political associate of Obama’s in Chicago) bragged about in his book Fugitive Days as a prime source for stealing birth records and creating a new identities for himself and others.  Did Bill Ayers after Obama moved to Chicago help Obama get that Connecticut SSN that Obama has been using since 1986 which the SSA says was never legally issued to Obama?  In Obama’s birth registration number case, it appears that with the help of Hawaiian staff in the Health Department at some point in time the birth certificate registration number for Virginia Sunahara may have been “transferred” to Obama.  If done, this could have been done directly by the staff or by allowing someone access to the system, possibly after hours, to do the dirty deed.  A full and thorough investigation  and audit of the birth registration records and records system, with subpoenaed original records subject to forensic examination and witnesses testifying under oath, is needed to be sure that birth registration certificates are not being sold or registration numbers are not being switched around in the HI Health Department records system for political or pecuniary purposes.  I commend Duncan Sunahara for standing up to defend his deceased infant sister and her historical and legal birth records and to force the Hawaiian Department of Health to follow the state laws.  CDR Kerchner (Ret)  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

# # # #

Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and is thus constitutionally ineligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama was born to a FOREIGN NATIONAL FATHER who was NEVER a U.S. Citizen nor was Obama’s father even an immigrant to the USA or even a permanent resident in the USA.  For no other U.S. President in the history of the nation since the founding generation (who were exempt from the natural born Citizen clause in the U.S.  Constitution via a grandfather clause in Article II Section 1) was that the case, i.e., having a foreign national father who was never a U.S. Citizen or even an immigrant to this country. Obama being seated as the putative president is an outrageous violation of Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the presidential eligibility clause.  Obama was not born with sole allegiance to the USA. Sole allegiance and unity of Citizenship at birth was the goal and purpose for putting the natural born Citizen clause into Article II Section 1 of the Constitution as to who could serve as president once the founding generation has passed away.  Obama (II) was born a British Subject via his foreign national father Obama (Sr.) who was a British Subject.   Obama is not a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to constitutional standards since he was born with dual allegiance and citizenship.  The founders and framers did not want anyone with foreign allegiance to ever get command of our military, i.e., be the president. Obama is constitutionally not eligible to be president and commander in chief of our military.

Adjectives mean something.  A “Citizen at Birth” is not logically identically equal to a “natural born Citizen at Birth”. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’  but he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

The natural born Citizen clause in our Constitution is a national security clause inserted into our Constitution by John Jay and George Washington.  Read why the natural born Citizen clause is still important and worth protecting.

Five Citizenship Terms Mentioned in the U.S. Constitution: http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same 

Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Citizenship Types: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN 042-68-4425 not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

This is not a fringe issue!  South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP voters want Obama eligibility investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

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

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressive’s long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

November 13, 2011

Sheriff Joe of AZ on Obama eligibility probe: ‘Where there’s smoke … ‘ | by Art Moore | @ WND.com

Click on Image to See the Evidence Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse is Investigating

Sheriff Joe of AZ on Obama eligibility probe: ‘Where there’s smoke … ‘  | by Art Moore | @ WND.com

Read the full article here:  http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=367481

# # # #

See evidence Obama forged the birth certificate posted on White House servers 27 Apr 2011: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3166684

See evidence Obama is using a SSN not legally issued to him: http://www.scribd.com/collections/3260742

See evidence of Obama’s forged and back dated draft registration here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4428/exclusive-did-next-commander-in-chief-falsify-selective-service-registration-never-actually-register-obamas-draft-registration-raises-serious-questions/

Adjectives mean something. Barack Obama may be a ‘Citizen of the United States’.  But he is not a ‘natural born Citizen of the United States’ and does not meet the constitutional standards as to who can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/03/obama-maybe-citizen-of-united-states.html

South Carolina Poll Results – A poll done by Public Policy Polling (PPP) shows that almost 2/3 of GOP Voters Want Obama Eligibility Investigated. This is not a fringe issue: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=340805

The Three Enablers

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Norman Thomas

Next Page »

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,259 other followers

%d bloggers like this: