(Apr. 1, 2024) — Last Tuesday, Independent 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. declared he had chosen attorney and philanthropist Nicole Shanahan, 38, as his vice-presidential running-mate.
Both are former Democrats, with Kennedy in October changing his party affiliation to “Independent” in what he said was a “very painful” decision he found necessary to break through the “two-party system.”
Shanahan, a wealthy tech entrepreneur, patent attorney, Democrat donor, full-time philanthropist and emerging farmer, said during the announcement that the Democrat Party has “lost their way in their leadership” and cares excessively for “elitism and winning at all costs.”
A donor t0 such causes as “criminal justice reform,” “social justice,” “Reproductive Longevity & Equality,” environmental efforts, autism research, and cooking oil, Shanahan provided $4 million to a Kennedy-supporting Super PAC for a controversial advertisement aired during the February 11 Super Bowl invoking the campaign of his late uncle, John F. Kennedy for which Kennedy later apologized to family members who might have experienced “pain.”
“The ad was created and aired by the American Values Super PAC without any involvement or approval from my campaign,” Kennedy said in a statement. “FEC rules prohibit Super PACs from consulting with me or my staff. I love you all. God bless you.” … continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/04/01/is-kennedy-vp-pick-a-natural-born-citizen/
# # #
My analysis and conclusion: Based on the public information available Nicole Shanahan is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States since her Chinese immigrant mother was not a U.S. Citizen when Nicole Shanahan was born. In addition to being born in the USA a person must also be born to U.S. Citizen parents, both of whom are U.S. Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens but Citizens) when their child is born in the USA. “natural born Citizen” birth status insures that the person is born with the strongest allegiance to the USA at birth and no foreign allegiance(s), and/or dual-Citizen entanglements by the circumstances of their birth, which occurs when a child is who is born in the USA is born to a foreign national parent or parents.
The key sentence translated to English by that online translation site is:
“The natural, or indigenous, are those who were born in the country, from citizen parents.”
Further, in trying to see how the key sentence evolved in various English translations, we see that if one substitutes a synonym for indigenous which is natives we get the below sentence. But be forewarned, the word natives is a very confusing term today when taken out of the context it was used in. The word “natives” brings to mind two very different meanings to modern readers. And it becomes even more confusing, when some people (some on purpose to mislead) misquote the key sentence with out the ‘s’ on the word “natives”, falsely making it “native” and then try to argue it meant solely where one was born without reference to the citizenship of one’s parents. We must really look to what Vattel meant the words to mean back when he wrote them. And he told us. In the sentence Vattel used the two nouns, he defined what he meant by those two nouns immediately thereafter in the very same sentence. But continuing with the evolution of the key sentence, and using the synonym for indigenous, which is “natives”, for the online direct translation we get:
The natural, or natives, are those who were born in the country, from citizen parents.
Now for the 1760 English translation edition: If we compare that literal in-line word after word translation done online to the translated wording of the key sentence in the 1760 edition, we see the translator/editor used two ambiguous English word synonyms, and switched them around in order, and then subsequently in error, did not use the proper English word for the French word Vattel used, i.e., “naturels”, which is “naturals” or the “natural born” in the context of discussing citizenship and allegiance to one’s country in section 212. Thus, the editor/translator changed the word “natural” to “natives” and used the synonym for “natives”, i.e., “indigenes” in the key sentence in 1760. Thus 1760 English edition key sentence reads:
“The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
A historical research note is provided at this point in the translation process: Many of the Founders such as Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington and key Framers such as Madison, Franklin, and Washington, as well as key “influencers” of that time such as John Jay, were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of the day and thus they used the French editions of Vattel, i.e., reading it in the original source language which learned individuals such as our Founders and Framers preferred to do, i.e., the 1758 French edition, but also three copies of the newly edited and printed 1775 French edition sent that year by Dumas to Benjamin Franklin. The founders and framers were reading the French word “naturels” when they read the key sentence in section 212 of Vattel’s treatise. And they knew what it meant because Vattel told them in the very same sentence. And they knew it meant “natural born” in English.
Here is an example to prove they knew what “naturels” meant in English. In 1781 it is absolutely documented in history that the founders and framers knew the French word “naturels” clearly meant “natural born” in English. This is years before the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787. That fact is documented and found in the records of the Continental Congress where a 1781 treaty correspondence document from the Minister of France was translated into English for the records of the Continental Congress. In that document the French word “naturels” was translated to the English term “natural born”. For the 1781 full treaty correspondence in French and English see: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/absolute-proof-the-founders-knew-and-accepted-vattels-french-naturels-to-mean-natural-born-before-constitution-was-written/
The 1797 English translation edition: In the 1797 English translation the nouns used by Vattel are also switched around from their positions in the French sentence. But the French word “naturels” was correctly translated and used. Thus the key sentence nouns “naturels” and “citoyens” are correctly translated into English as to Vattel’s meaning and intent in the key sentence as the term “natural-born citizens”. Thus in this English translated edition the key sentence is clearly, correctly, and properly translated into English. And the key sentence once again clearly defines what the nouns meant within the very sentence they are used. And it has been that way in English translations ever since. It is also should be considered that the translation was corrected and made clearer in the 1797 edition as to what Vattel was saying in his legal treatise of 1758 in French because that key term in English, i.e., ”natural born” was being used since 1781 in English in international legal and diplomatic affairs and also in the 1787 U.S. Constitution, i.e., “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause, and it was understood by that time that the prior English translations were poorly done and a re-do was needed.
Switching around noun positions in translations often is done for a clearer meaning translation into the target language. Very good interpreters do this on the fly. By doing that and correctly translating Vattel’s meaning and wording from French to English of that key sentence of Section 212 as is provided in the 1797 corrected English edition of Vattel’s legal treatise “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” we see the below key sentence therein:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parentswho are citizens.”
And that English translation and wording as shown above of the key sentence in Vattel’s treatise has been recognized as the correct one from 1797 to now and was even paraphrased with that meaning for the term “natural born Citizen” without any doubt in the U.S. Supreme Court holding for the case of Minor v Happersett (1875). Again, repeating the key sentence again after this paragraph that is how that key sentence read in 1797 and reads now to this day. And it clearly defines the meaning of the word “natives” and the term “natural-born citizens” as used in that sentence in the very same sentence they are used in. So again, the meaning of the nouns used in the key sentence is defined therein and is very clear as to what Vattel meant in his legal treatise for that key sentence when he wrote it in French in 1758 and when it was correctly translated to English in 1797:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parentswho are citizens.”
And historically we know that John Jay, a key Founder and who was one of the writers of the Federalist Papers and later became the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, was a descendant of French Huguenots, who was fluent in French, and was quite familiar with Vattel’s treatise as he used it in legal and diplomatic negotiations, thus sourced and translated Vattel’s French to the English term “natural born Citizen” from Vattel’s treatise and sent that term via a letter to George Washington in July of 1787 hinting/suggesting that the term “natural born Citizen” be added to the presidential eligibility clause of our new Constitution being written under the leadership of George Washington who was the President of the Constitutional Convention convened at that time in Philadelphia PA. The strong hint/suggestion was made by John Jay as a national security clause to prevent anyone born with foreign influence on them from ever gaining command of our military forces since under the new Constitution the President would also be the Commander in Chief of our military. George Washington agreed with John Jay per his return letter to Jay. Washington then submitted it to the appropriate committee and it was put into the new Constitution with a grandfather clause added for then existing original Citizens, the current generation who of course were not born to U.S. Citizen Parents, and thus they were not a “natural born Citizen” of the new United States. This natural security clause was intended for future generations who of course would not have been not part of the revolution, i.e., when the founding generation was gone, to prevent anyone born with foreign influence on them, i.e., a dual or triple citizen at birth from gaining control of our military forces. The Founders and Framers by adding this term wanted future persons in the new singular and most powerful office for our new nation, that of President and Commander in Chief, once they were gone, to be a person born with sole allegiance to the USA at and by birth for national security reasons. For a copy of the original letter by John Jay and a clearer side-by-side transcription see: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington-original+transcription.jpg
In a full reading of Vattel’s Section 212, we should note that the first sentence in section 212, which is immediately before the key sentence focused on in my paper about the key sentence, says:
“The citizens are members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, the equally participate in its advantages.”
Then the key sentence analyzed and translated in this paper is found:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
And following that key sentence, Vattel goes on to say in the rest of section 212:
“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequences of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
9. Read the dozen of legal essays and court briefs written by constitutional and citizenship expert Attorney Mario Apuzzo on being a “natural born Citizen of the United States” and the pretenders and usurpers in three major political parties (Democrat, Republican, and Socialist parties) – who invalidly claimed such birth status – at his legal blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada to a Non-U.S. Citizen (Cuban) Father and Had Multiple Citizenship & Allegiances at Birth. Thus He is NOT a “natural born Citizen” at Birth Who Must Have Sole Allegiance at Birth to Only the USA. He Was a dual-Citizen of Canada When He Was Born.
Ted Cruz Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President or VP. He is Constitutionally Missing Two Legs! Cruz Fails the Three Legged Stool Test. Click on Image for Details.
Click Here to Electronically Sign the Petition and Have it Sent to Thousands of Influential People Such as Newspaper Editors, Radio & TV Hosts, and Members of Congress.
Click Here to Get a Printable Copy of the Petition.
Also You Can Call Mike Volin if You Would Like to Help Do More: 570-284-7477
Help us Stop Canadian-Born and Constitutionally Ineligible Ted Cruz from Deceiving the American Electorate and Continuing to Run for President and Commander in Chief of our Military Forces, an Office He is Constitutionally Ineligible to Hold Since He was Born With Multiple Citizenship and Foreign Allegiances. Help Educate Those in Positions of Power and Influence and That Should Know Better. But Let Them Know That You Know What They Are Allowing to Happen is Wrong and Illegal. Click on the Image to Get a Copy of the Petition. Print Out a Petition. Sign It. Send it to Your Congress People and People in the Major and Local Media. Make Copies and Hand Them Out at Town Hall and Election Events. Help us Make a Difference and Help Protect Our Constitution – CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org
# # # #
For the true Originalist understanding and meaning of “natural born Citizen” click on the image
A Lesson from History. Is Being Simply 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.
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.”
Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada to a Non-U.S. Citizen (Cuban) Father and Had Multiple Citizenship & Allegiances at Birth. Thus He is NOT a “natural born Citizen” at Birth Who Must Have Sole Allegiance at Birth to Only the USA. He Was a dual-Citizen of Canada When He Was Born.
Ted Cruz Cannot Constitutionally Stand for President or VP. He is Constitutionally Missing Two Legs! Cruz Fails the Three Legged Stool Test. Click on Image for Details.
Breaking News: Mike Volin of WOBC Website Launches Petition Campaign to Stop the Constitutionally Ineligible Canadian-Born Ted Cruz from Continuing to Deceive the American Electorate as to Who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Ted Cruz, Who Was Born in Canada to a Non-U.S. Citizen (Cuban) Father, is Definitely Not One! Click Here to Get a Copy of the Petition. Call Mike Volin if You Would Like to Help Do More: 570-284-7477
Help us Stop Canadian-Born and Constitutionally Ineligible Ted Cruz from Deceiving the American Electorate and Continuing to Run for President and Commander in Chief of our Military Forces, an Office He is Constitutionally Ineligible to Hold Since He was Born With Multiple Citizenship and Foreign Allegiances. Help Educate Those in Positions of Power and Influence and That Should Know Better. But Let Them Know That You Know What They Are Allowing to Happen is Wrong and Illegal. Click on the Image to Get a Copy of the Petition. Print Out a Petition. Sign It. Send it to Your Congress People and People in the Major and Local Media. Make Copies and Hand Them Out at Town Hall and Election Events. Help us Make a Difference and Help Protect Our Constitution – CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org
# # # #
For the true Originalist understanding and meaning of “natural born Citizen” click on the image
A Lesson from History. Is Being Simply 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.
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 Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.