Washington Post: Constitutional Law Professor Rips Harvard Law Review Article II Propaganda – Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible

Washington Post: Constitutional Law Professor Rips Harvard Law Review Article II Propaganda – Declares Ted Cruz Ineligible

Read and comment here:   http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/washington-post-constitutional-law.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

Advertisements

Exclusive: 1974 Canadian Electors’ List Named Ted Cruz’s Parents – Only Canadian Citizens Can Vote in Canada!

Ted Cruz is NOT a "natural born Citizen". Click on image to learn what a “natural born Citizen” of the United States truly is
Ted Cruz is NOT a “natural born Citizen”. Click on image to learn what a “natural born Citizen” of the United States truly is

Exclusive: 1974 Canadian Electors’ List Named Ted Cruz’s Parents on Voter Lists.  Only Canadian Citizens Can Vote in Canada! Mother on Elector’s List Indicates She Possibly Declared Herself to Be a Canadian Citizen.  Thus It Appears That Ted Had a Canadian Citizen (born Cuban) Father and Possibly Canadian Citizen (born U.S.) Mother Too.  A Thorough Investigation by Congress of This Matter is Called For.  Ted and the Cruz Family Must Open ALL Canadian Records for Scrutiny.  Let’s See Ted’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA), if Ted Has One, which is Used to Perfect the Claim of U.S. Citizenship for a Child Born Abroad.  We Cannot Sweep This Under the Rug Like was Done for Obama’s Lack of Constitutional Eligibility. We Have Plenty of Constitutionally Eligible Candidates. Ted Cruz is NOT one! Ted Cruz Admittedly Being Born in Canada is Pushing the Eligibility Claim “A Bridge Too Far” and He Cannot Constitutionally Serve in the Oval Office as President and Commander-in-Chief — No Matter How Much One Likes Him or Not!

Read and comment here:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/08/ted-cruz-parents-canada-voters-list/

For the true understanding and intent of “natural born Citizen” and to learn more about the fact that founders and framers REJECTED simply being “born a Citizen” as not being  a sufficient enough “strong check” against “foreign influence” via birth circumstances on the person who wished to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, see the following links. They wanted a strong check against a person having foreign born influence on them via birth from ever gaining access to the highest office of our land. see:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/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

Must See: BirtherReport Schools Daily Beast Reporter re Cruz & Obama – Reporter Runs From The Truth On Obama’s Article II Ineligibility

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

Must See: BirtherReport.com Schools Daily Beast Reporter on Ted Cruz and Barack Obama’s Lack of Constitutional Eligibility – Reporter Runs From The Truth On Obama’s Article II Ineligibility

From BirtherReport.com: ” … I’ve given multiple interviews this week over the hoopla surrounding Canadian-born Ted Cruz. The first one was with The Daily Beast. Unfortunately for Daily Beast readers they won’t see it as Gideon Resnick left his big boy pants at home … ”   Here is the rest of the unedited email interview/exchange with the Daily Beast posted at BirtherReport.com:  http://www.birtherreport.com/2016/01/must-see-birther-report-schools-daily.html

For the true understanding and intent of “natural born Citizen” and to learn more about the fact that founders and framers REJECTED simply being “born a Citizen” as not being sufficiently adequate to be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military, see the following links. They wanted a strong check against a person having foreign born influence on them via birth from ever gaining access to the highest office of our land. see:  https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/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

Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) and Discussion of Ted Cruz’s Foreign Birth Status Questions

Click on the image for more on the issues
Click on the image for more on the case

Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961) and Discussion of Ted Cruz’s Foreign Birth Status Questions

See this U.S. Citizenship case and decision of the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court, Montana v Kennedy (1961), re the importance of the citizenship of the father when a child is born in a foreign country with only the mother being a U.S. Citizen re Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility status (Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a foreign national father):  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/366/308.html or https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/308/case.html 

While this case does not go directly to the issue of “natural born Citizenship”, which is required per the presidential eligibility clause in our U.S. Constitution as to who can be President and CinC, as it only addresses basic “Citizenship” gained by statutory man-made laws, it is still interesting to know about in regards to prior Supreme Court decisions re children born overseas to a foreign national father.  Under the naturalization powers of the U.S. Congress they can make, liberalize, or later take away paths to basic statutory Citizenship gained by a man-made law/statute.  Subsequent U.S. statutes made gaining basic U.S. Citizenship less stringent. And Congress has in the last several decades since 1961 continually done that over the years. And they plan to continue to do so.  For example, many now in Congress wish to allow the illegal immigrants to gain U.S. Citizenship.  But such statutory laws can never make and take away “natural born Citizenship” gained from Natural Law and the Laws of Nature, which is a person born in the USA to parents who are both U.S. Citizens when their child is born. Although the political parties via Congress have quietly tried to legislate and redefine natural law citizenship, they have failed every time. All attempts at such by liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans (RINOs) died in committee.  Congress and the political parties cannot change the Laws of Nature.  See the various attempts listed in section five at: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html 

So what do the constitutionally subversive major political parties resort to and do now … just make a joint pact in 2008 to ignore words in the Constitution with the help of the enabling major media.

Back to Ted Cruz and the Montana v Kennedy (1961) Supreme Court discussion of facts of that case and the decision.  If Ted Cruz would have been born before 1934 in a foreign country such as Canada, with a non-Citizen father (Ted Cruz had a non-Citizen father), Ted would not even have been a Citizen of the United States, let alone a “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards.  Under revised later more generous man-made laws of Congress Ted did get basic naturalized U.S. Citizenship at birth from his mother.  However, even though he inherited basic statutory naturalized U.S. Citizenship from his mother at birth via U.S. naturalization acts passed by Congress, Ted also inherited Cuban or Canadian citizenship from his father, based on his father’s exact status then, since his father up until the time of Ted’s birth in Canada, they were still living in Canada and Ted’s father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor was he even close in time to applying for it.

Fast forward to now and we see Ted after deciding to run for President decided to renounce he Canadian citizenship.  But I’ve heard no word as whether he renounced any Cuban citizenship he may have had from birth gained via his father.  Did Ted’s father renounce his Cuban citizenship in Canada?  No one knows?  But legal renunciations of any of one’s dual-Citizenship parts after one’s birth does NOT in any way change the conditions of your exact Citizenship status at birth. Ted was born a dual/multiple Citizen of more than one country. Ted was not a “natural born Citizen” when he was born, i.e., with sole allegiance to only one country!  And that is what the founders and framers of our Constitution intended and understood.  Future President had to have sole allegiance and unity of citizenship in one and only one country at birth – the United States. The founders and framers did NOT wish that any future President would have “foreign influence” or allegiance claims on them by or at birth.  For national security reasons, they wanted the future Commanders in Chief to have sole allegiance to only the USA.  Obama, a self proclaimed Citizen of the World and with an unknown unproven birth narrative to 100% certainty and using various forged key ID documents, is a classic example of why they put that requirement in there. Obama does not meet the test.  The political parties decided to ignore that part of the eligibility test in 2008.  Now they are at it again. Ted does not meet that test either and never can. An important national security clause in Article II of our Constitution is being ignored by the major political parties and the enabling major media for several candidates now – Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal.  I assume it is because the both major political parties want to ratify forever more the precedence of what they did in the 2008 election cycle with Obama.

Under Natural Law and the understanding and intent of the founders and framers of our Constitution, with Ted being born in Canada to a non-U.S. Citizen father and having more than one allegiance claim and national citizenship at birth, Ted is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards and thus is NOT eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military, even if you like his politics.  A copy of the Montana v Kennedy (1961) case holding is shown below:

—————————————————–

U.S. Supreme Court

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Montana v. Kennedy

No. 198

Argued March 22, 1961

Decided May 22, 1961

366 U.S. 308

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

Syllabus

Petitioner’s mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.

Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-315.

(a) R.S. § 2172, granting inherited citizenship to children born abroad of parents who “now are, or have been,” citizens, applies only to children whose parents were citizens on or before April 14, 1802, when its predecessor became effective. When petitioner was born in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship for foreign-born children, and it applied only to children whose fathers were citizens. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-312.

(b) Section 5 of the Act of March 2, 1907, which provided that

“a child born without the United States of alien parents shall be deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of . . . resumption of American citizenship by the parent,”

is not applicable to petitioner, since mere marriage to an alien, without change of domicile, did not terminate the citizenship of an American woman either at the time of petitioner’s birth or at the time of his mother’s return to the United States, both of which occurred in 1906. Pp. 366 U. S. 312-314.

(c) A different conclusion is not required by the testimony of petitioner’s mother that she had been prevented from returning to the United States prior to petitioner’s birth by the wrongful refusal of an American Consular Officer to issue her a passport because of her pregnant condition. Pp. 366 U. S. 314-315.

278 F.2d 68 affirmed.

.

.

——————————————————–

 

Again,  also visit and see this site re the 1934 law change for children born abroad where only the mother was a U.S. Citizen:  http://www.americanlaw.com/citabrd.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 ObamaSpaceMy YouTubeSpaceMost Recent Full Pg AdSpaceAd ArchivesSpaceFliers/HandoutsSpaceBlock AdsSpaceSheriff to Sheriffs – Sheriff Kit ProjectSpaceGet A Sheriff KitSpaceInterviews-Audio/PrintSpaceBooksSpaceGoat’s LedgeSpaceContact Me