Harvard Law Review Article Lied About Ted Cruz Eligibility and Natural Born Citizen Status

Click image to learn more about "natural born Citizen"
Click image to learn more about “natural born Citizen”

Harvard Law Review Article Lied About Ted Cruz Eligibility and Natural Born Citizen Status

Read and comment here:  http://citizenwells.com/2016/01/03/harvard-law-review-article-lied-about-ted-cruz-eligibility-natural-born-citizen-status-2-us-citizen-parents-required-cruz-born-in-canada-to-1-us-citizen-parent-his-mother-is-this-why-obama-and-cru/

Response to the flawed and deceptive Harvard Law Review article by Attorney Mario Apuzzo: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

.
.
.
.
.

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

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

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired)

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

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ted Cruz was born a citizen of Canada due his birth in Canada to a Cuban father. Marco Rubio was born a citizen of Cuba due to his birth to two Cuban national parents when he was born. And Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of India due to his birth to parents who were citizens of India when he was born. Thus all three were born with citizenship in more than one country and divided allegiances at birth.

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

So, is a person who is simply being declared “born a Citizen” at/by birth by STATUTORY LAWS passed at some point in time by Congress, and liberalized more and more from time to time by Congress, per its “Naturalization Powers” permitted constitutionally to be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military. And the same goes for Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal.

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

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

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo's legal filings and writings on the true meaning of the legal term of art "natural born Citizen"
Click on image for more info on Atty Apuzzo’s legal filings and writings on the true meaning of the legal term of art “natural born Citizen”

A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen

by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. – 13 Mar 2015

I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude the Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .

They gloss over what the Framers’ purpose was for requiring the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to be a natural born citizen.  They do not engage in any real discussion on what the Framers were trying to achieve through the clause. They dismiss all debate on the subject of foreign influence by flatly stating without any evidence:  “The Framers did not fear such machinations from those who were U.S. citizens from birth just because of the happenstance of a foreign birthplace.”

The authors cite to the Naturalization Act of 1790 and ignore the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795, with the lead of then-Rep. James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, repealed it and specifically changed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  This is even more a blatant omission given that they argue that the English naturalization statutes referred to persons born out of the King’s dominion to British subject parents as “natural born subjects.”  They fail to address this critical change made by our early Congress, critical because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that a “Citizen” of the United States was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution and that thereafter only a “natural born Citizen” was so eligible.  Hence, Congress referring to one as a citizen rather than a natural born citizen, given the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, was a serious thing.  They do not discuss what the language of the 1790 Act, “shall be considered as,” meant.  They fail to address the issue that this was naturalization language and nothing more.  They fail to discuss whether Congress even had the constitutional power to make anyone born out of the United States a natural born citizen, if that was Congress’s intent in the first place.

They assert without demonstrating that the English common law supports their position.  But they totally ignore that under the English common law, only persons born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that those born out of the dominion and therefore out of his jurisdiction became subjects only through a naturalization Act of Parliament.

They cite to Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, but they do not cite to Emer de Vattel and his The Laws of Nations (1758) (1797) or Minor, two leading sources that inform on U.S. citizenship.  Both Vattel and Minor defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.  What is incredible is that they cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) to demonstrate that British statutes called children born out of the King’s dominion to subject parents “natural born.”  But they fail to tell the reader that Wong Kim Ark considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized by acts of Congress. In fact, they give virtually no discussion of the Wong Kim Ark case because they know that the case said that under the English common law, only children born in the King’s dominion and under his jurisdiction were natural born subjects and that any child born  out of that dominion needed an act of Parliament to naturalize him or her.  They also fail to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), in which both majority and dissent said the same as Wong Kim Ark which was that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress who made them citizens through a naturalization Act without which those children would be aliens.   It simply defies logic and good reason to conclude that a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization act of Congress is a natural born citizen.

Katyal and Clement argue that John Jay had children born out of the United States while he was on diplomatic assignment and that he would not have disqualified his own children from being natural born citizens.  This is a really baseless point since Jay’s children would have been born out of the United States to parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the United States.  Likewise, they present the John McCain situation as proof for their position.  But they fail to realize that John McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States which makes him reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and therefore a natural born citizen under the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor.  See Vattel, Section 217 (children born out of the country to citizen parents serving in the armies of the state are reputed born in the country).  They give the examples of Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney who they say were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. The argument is meritless, for they were both born to U.S. citizen parents in U.S. sovereign territory subject to no foreign power and hence were born in part of the country known as the United States, all of which made them natural born citizens under the common law definition of a natural born citizen.

The authors conclude without demonstrating:  “Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of the Constitution.”  They simply make this conclusion without having shown how their position is valid given the historical and legal record.

The authors also show contempt to the constitutional requirement that the President has to be a natural born citizen and for any person who dare raise any such issue.  For example, they say: “simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad,” rather than saying that he was born in a foreign nation; “born in a Canadian hospital,” rather than saying that he was born in Canada;  “[d]espite the happenstance of a birth across the border;”  they call arguments with which they do not agree “spurious;” and they consider objections to candidate’s eligibility as “specious objections to candidates eligibility,” as if no one ever made any valid argument.

In short, Katyal and Clement’s article lacks any critical research and reasoning and is nothing more than an attempt to convince the reader that Senator Cruz is a natural born citizen because they said so and the reader has to believe that because they were former heads of the Office of Solicitor General of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 13, 2015

Source link:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

# # # #

Update 18 Mar 2015 – Attorney Henderson joins in rebutting K&C Harvard Law Review disinformation article about “natural born Citizenship”:  http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/law-professor-and-former-aclj-senior.html

# # # #

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

An open letter to Mr. Bret Baier of Fox News from CDR Kerchner (Ret)

A Challenge to Debate the Issue!

An open letter to Mr. Bret Baier of Fox News from CDR Kerchner (Ret)

Dear Mr. Baier:

Click image to learn more about various Citizen types

I strongly suggest you invite constitutional scholar and attorney Herb Titus and constitutional presidential eligibility attorney Mario Apuzzo on to any debate or discussion panel you put together to debate the true legal and historical meaning of the Natural Law legal term of art “natural born Citizen”. Invite anyone else you wish on to the panel who wishes to argue that the natural law “natural born Citizen” legal term of art is 100% synonymous with the man-made positive law, Congressional Statute Title 8 Section 1401, “Citizen at Birth” legal term, which is what you asserted. Our experts will conclusively prove to you and your listeners in any debate form or forum you choose that those two citizenship legal terms/types are not identically the same.

Both Herb Titus and Mario Apuzzo are nationally recognized experts in this field and are known for their in-depth knowledge and wisdom on the founding father’s true understanding and meaning when they put the term “natural born Citizen” in as a “strong check” against foreign influence requirement for who can be a future President and Commander in Chief of our military, at the suggestion of John Jay who became the first Chief Justice of the United States, to General George Washington, the president of the constitutional convention. Natural born Citizens are the children born in the USA of two Citizens, second generation Americans via both parents.  This is per natural law, not the laws of man or any legal law making body be it Congress or anyone else. Neither Congress or you can redefine the Laws of Nature.

This nation was founded at the federal level as a totally new form of government, a constitutional republic, based on the guiding principles of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”.  Read the Declaration of Independence first paragraph to refresh your memory if uncertain about that.  The progressive movement would like to forget that.  But the truth can be buried for a time but not hidden forever.  And the preeminent writer on Natural Law and that which was used heavily by the founders is the legal treatise by Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. Read Vol.I, Chapter 19, Section 212. Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Jay did.  “natural born Citizen” is defined therein and the founders and framers knew exactly what it meant when they inserted into our Constitution.  It means born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born or naturalized) of the country — a person born with sole allegiance at the instant of birth to one and only one country.

Bret, a favorite retort is “natural born Citizen” is not defined in the Constitution.  What a silly argument.  The Constitution does not come with a glossary.  The founders and framers knew what the words meant when they wrote them. It was written in plain English. Only for the last 100 years have the progressive academics been steadily trying to twist the meaning of the words to subvert the original intent.   Here’s another word for you that is in the U.S. Constitution — Piracy.  Piracy is not defined in the U.S. Constitution.  But the founders and framers knew what it meant!  And guess what source they chose to use to prescribe for punishment for said offenses — the Law of Nations.  See the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8.

I also strongly suggest you re-read the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and also the enlightenment period legal treatise the founders and framers were reading in 1775 — Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law — especially Vol.1 on the forming of a new nation.

I look forward to a full and thorough debate by a balanced panel of experts from each side, including the two named above.  Such a debate has been needed for over four years now.

Respectfully,

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA
http://www.protectourliberty.org

# # # #

More comments by CDR Kerchner (Ret):  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

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
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 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/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government