Nikki Haley, the daughter of two non-citizens, is patently ineligible to serve as President or Vice President under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution
The following analysis is a detailed response to critiques of an article I wrote earlier this month that garnered national attention, and was even Truthed by President Trump, shedding light on Nikki Haley’s ineligibility to serve as President or Vice President under the Constitution. My article was published originally on my Substack and American Greatness, and was titled “The Constitution Absolutely Prohibits Nikki Haley From Being President Or Vice President.” As A Threshold Matter, Nikki Haley, The Daughter Of Two Non-Citizens, Must Provide Proof That Her Parents Were Lawful Residents When She Was Born
As we head into the New Hampshire Republican primary, the presidential field has consolidated around three major candidates: Donald Trump, the frontrunner by wide margins, Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis. With Vivek Ramaswamy’s distant fourth place finish in Iowa and subsequent endorsement of the 45th President, Trump’s edge in New Hampshire looks insurmountable.
Recent polling suggests that he commands an outright majority of all New Hampshire GOP voters, meaning that even if all the remaining candidates dropped out and rallied around a single challenger to Trump, their collective effort would still fail – without, perhaps, outside help from Democrats and Independents. With recent reports that Ron DeSantis’ War Room has been dissolved, and all the staff being laid off in the aftermath of Iowa’s disaster, it seems to have proven true Nikki Haley’s post-Iowa declaration that the Republican Primary has now become “a two person race.” … continue reading at: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/01/no-constitution-does-not-allow-children-born-non/
(Jun. 29, 2023) — [See previous installments in this series here and here. The “CKA” article referred to below can be found here. Emer de Vattel’s “treatise” is “The Law of Nations,” also referenced earlier in the essay. – Ed.]
In reality, the notion that a child born anywhere in the world to British parents, who themselves were “subjects of the Crown,” became also a “subject of the crown” would constitute a useful template for determining whether a child born to U.S. citizen parents – members of a new constitutional republic and not a monarchy – anywhere in the world is counterintuitive. The United States had gone to war, and defeated the most powerful military empire in the world at that time, to among other things specifically cast off the then-existing “subject-liege” relationship, replacing it with a “citizen-republic” relationship. Stated otherwise, the Founders intended to restrict the presidency to a “natural born Citizen,” not a “natural born Subject.”
Furthermore, the CKA seeks to fortify the relevancy of its “British Subject” and “binding law in the colonies” position with a citation to “a text widely circulated and read by the Framers and routinely invoked in interpreting the Constitution…,” Blackstone’s Commentaries. The CKA cites pp. 354 – 363 of Blackstone’s treatise for its discussion of the nature and relationship between and among “persons,” which Blackstone subdivides into various categories, including “natural born subjects,” “aliens” and “denizens.”
Interestingly, Blackstone observes (at p. 362) that if an alien becomes naturalized by an act of Parliament, the alien “is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the king’s legiance [i.e., a “natural born subject”]; except only that he is incapable, as well as [is] a denizen, of being a member of the privy council, or parliament….” (Emphasis added) The Privy Council served as the body of most trusted advisors to the king or queen, and its membership was exclusive.
Of even greater interest as bearing upon the CKA’s claim that only one parent need be a U.S. citizen for the child to be a “natural born Citizen” under the Constitution – but somehow omitted, again likely inadvertently, from discussion in the CKA – Blackstone notes (at p. 224) regarding membership on the Privy Council:
“As to the qualifications of members to fit this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust…, it is enacted by the Act of Settlement [Stat. 12 & 13 W. III. c. 2.], that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy council.” (Emphasis and bolding added)
The significance of Blackstone’s comment cannot be understated: he is articulating the point that, in order to prevent foreign influence in the Privy Council, if a “natural born” British subject seeking membership on the council was born “beyond sea” or otherwise “out of the dominions of the crown,” only if that person were born to “English parents,” in the plural, would he/she be eligible. One parent would not suffice: both (i.e., two, a mother and a father) needed to be English subjects.
This articulated concern – i.e., that as an additional barrier to the insinuation of “foreign influence” into the Privy Council, an office of “important trust,” only natural born British subjects born to “English parents” if born “beyond sea” would be so eligible – is conceptually indistinguishable from the Founders’ frequently-cited concern that all available barriers to the entry of foreign influence to the office of the president be interposed. A requirement that a “natural born Citizen” be the issue of two U.S. citizens at the time of birth constitutes a higher barrier than would the mere impediment of requiring only one of the child’s parents to be a U.S. citizen. Again, this is not rocket science.
As your humble servant has noted here, the implausible theory that the Founders favored a definition of “natural born Citizen” requiring only one citizen parent (or as the Congressional Research Service “theories” advocate, even zero U.S. citizen parents), is premised on the irrational conclusion that the Founders were intent on selecting a lower standard for the barrier on foreign influence in the presidency when a well-known and respected higher standard existed. That higher standard, of course, and one set out in § 212 of Emer de Vattel’s treatise, is that only if a child is born in a nation to two parents who at the time of birth are already citizens of that nation will the child be properly known as a “natural born citizen.”
Indeed, this higher standard is the crux of the oft-quoted passage from the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1875). There, without specifically citing de Vattel, the Court stated:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” (Emphasis and bolding added). … continue reading the rest of this legal and historical article at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/06/29/a-deeper-dive-into-the-nbc-pond-part-3/
10. 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
Redux: Vattel – Law of Nations Vol. 1 Chapter III § 30. Of the Support of the Constitution and Obedience to the Laws
Click on image for more on the importance of Vattel’s writings to the founders of our country and framers of our Constitution
I originally posted the quote (in italics further down in this article) from Emer de Vattel’s legal treatise “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” in the BlogSpot blog of the now deceased Attorney Mario Apuzzo back in June 2009 and then also in my WordPress blog. I re-post Vattel’s words and revisit the subject again as a reminder and warning about what is happening to our country, our constitution, and the rule of law.
The disregard of the rule of law and the abrogation of the true original-intent meaning and purpose of a key term in our U.S. Constitution the supreme law of our land as to whom can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military (and VP) has led to a very serious crisis in our nation with a cognitively challenged puppet in the Oval Office on a part-time basis and the rest of his time in a basement in Delaware with a culturally anti-American usurper who was unconstitutionally elected and sworn in twice still pulling the strings, making the decisions, and giving the orders behind the scenes in effect in a 3rd term, leading from behind as the “National Community Organizer in Chief (NCOinC), i.e., Obama. And with the NCOinC effectively in charge of our country, enabled by the mainstream media and corrupt judicial system, things are getting more bizarre and dangerous every week. The pernicious suppression of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is becoming more and more obvious to more and more people.
If this willful attack on our unalienable rights given to us by our Creator as declared in the Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution continues, the complete destruction of public tranquility will soon be entailed. And it appears that is what the far, far-left anti-American, anti-Constitutionalist Marxists pulling the puppet strings behind the curtain want. As Dan Bongino said recently in one of his podcasts the far, far left is trying to provoke and will use asymmetric violence to do it.
By asymmetric violence Dan Bongino means they can and will get violent and they will get away with it. If arrested at all, they will soon be released by the sympathetic judicial system and not prosecuted. And if during their violence they provoke a physical response to their violence by someone they are attacking and/or militantly provoking, that person will get arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. That is the goal of asymmetric violence by far-left organized street thugs like Antifa, to provoke a response to entrap their target(s) and then use the law and law-fare to prosecute or financially ruin their target(s). Dan Bongino said to be careful in the coming days. We must not fall for their planned trap(s). But like all such evil people and tyrants in history, at some point, they will go too far. Let us hope this is all resolved in the 2024 election before it is totally too late to save our Republic, which is what Benjamin Franklin said the constitutional framers of our new U.S. Constitution have created … if we can keep it.
See these words by the legal scholar Emer de Vattel from his writings about Natural Law in the last half of the 18th century which apply equally well today.
“A Republic Ma’am If We Can Keep It” – Benjamin Franklin (1787)
” … The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigor and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires. It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises.”
The U.S. Constitution is the glue that holds this nation of diverse immigrants and their descendants together. Without it, this nation, this republic is lost and will end up on the trash heap of history. The 2024 election will decide whether we still have a constitutional republic and a constitution that is the supreme law of the land and that it is enforced, or if we will totally lose it all forever.
P.S. We are a nation of immigrants. But Obama’s father was not one! Barack Hussein Obama is the first defacto President and Commander in Chief whose father was never an immigrant to this country. Obama’s father was a total foreigner and only briefly sojourned here on a student VISA. But per his son, he passed along his Marxist dreams to bring down the United States’ power on the world stage, especially our military power. Obama is the son of a non-U.S. Citizen, anti-American, and total foreigner only sojourning briefly in the USA. Barack Hussein Obama is exactly the type of person, i.e., a person born without sole allegiance to the USA, that the founders and farmers did not want to ever be permitted to gain the office of President and Commander in Chief of our military which is the WHY they put the natural security term “natural born Citizen” into the presidential eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution. Obama II/Jr is not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and thus was never constitutionally eligible for the office he usurped for two terms. Obama II/Jr was not born with “unity of citizenship and sole allegiance” to the USA. Obama was born a British Subject and later became a Citizen of Kenya. He considered himself to be a Citizen of the World first and a Citizen of the USA secondarily. We are reaping the whirlwind for allowing the sowing of the wind of the usurper Obama and his “Dreams From His Father” agenda to gain control of our nation.
See below for other suggested reading and viewing regarding the “natural born Citizen” key national security term in the Presidential Eligibility Clause of our United States Constitution:
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
Natural Born Citizen – Key Birth Status Definition,
SCOTUS Fact Findings,and SCOTUS Holdings
by: CDR Charles F. Kerchner Jr. (Ret)
Question: What birth status facts made a person under the principles of the Laws of Nature and Natural Law a “natural born citizen” in the last half of the 18th century, which covered the time frame of the founding of the United States of America and the writing of our founding documents?
Answer: Those born in the country of parents who are its citizens. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Source: Legal Treatise on Natural Law, “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”, Emer de Vattel, (1758 in French / 1797 correctly translated French into English), Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, key sentence defining a natural-born citizen per Natural Law.
Question: What birth status facts in an 1875 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision and holding declared who was a natural born citizen without any doubt?
Answer: Children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. “… it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Source: U.S. Supreme Court, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874/1875).
Question: What birth status facts in a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision and holding per its findings of facts about Miss Elg’s birth status declared that Miss Elg was not only a citizen of the United States by/at birth but was in fact at birth a “natural born citizen” of the United States by/at her birth?
Answer: Miss Elg was born in the United States of parents who were both naturalized citizens when Miss Elg was born in the United States. Miss Elg was “… declared to be a natural born citizen of the United States“. Source: U.S. Supreme Court, Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), Fifth holding of a five part holding in that case.
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
CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog 
.svg){kind=link}
You must be logged in to post a comment.