Is Kennedy VP Pick a natural born Citizen?

"Both parents"? Wilson's and Hoover's mothers were born abroad. In those days, by law, a wife assumed her husband's US citizenship. For years, US authorities didn't care if one parent was born abroad and didn't go through a naturalization process. Even if natural born citizens are different from citizens from birth, there isn't any reason for adding the requirement that both parents be citizens.

How many candidates in recent years have had this question? Is it really that hard to find natural born citizens now? I know we’ve had massive immigration since 1965. Maybe this is a sign of it.

A natural born Citizen at birth is a kind of Citizen that is a subset of all "Citizens at birth". Think logic, set and subsets, and Euler Diagrams to clarity of thinking. Adjectives mean something.

http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/eulerlogicdiagram-citizenshipsets.jpg

As to the "natural born Citizen" status of all the U.S. Presidents up to modern times, see: https://www.scribd.com/doc/302783665/Presidents-of-USA-Grandfathered-or-Natural-Born-Citizen-or-Frauds

For more about the constitutional term "natural born Citizen" and in particular WHY the founders and framers chose that term for the eligibility requirements for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief, and later via the 14th Amendment it was applied to the office of VP too, read this "White Paper" I wrote on that constitutional term: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

That ship has sailed. Regardless of what some people want natural born citizen to mean, it NOW means the same thing as birthright citizen.

I wish you NBC people would go away.

You embarrass this site.

to be a "natural born Citizen" the person must also be born to U.S. Citizen parents, both of whom are U.S. Citizens

Incorrect.

Guess we'll go ahead and dig this post back out of the mothballs again

-----------------------------------------------------------

Here’s some information to shed light on what you stated from another thread where these issues were discussed:

If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, (or Kamala Harris). The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.

Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

-------------------------------------------------------------

It is not where the parents were born that is the constitutional issue re "natural born Citizen" (nbC) status for their children. It is whether the parents were U.S. Citizens when their children were born in the USA. Under Natural Law it takes Citizens to procreate a "natural born Citizen". The original Citizens of the new nation of the USA were not a "natural born Citizen". That is why there is a "grandfather clause" of them in the presidential eligibility clause. The children of the original Citizens were the first "natural born Citizen" kind. To learn more about the term "natural born Citizen" and WHY the founders and framers chose that term for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief once the founding generation was gone read my White Paper on the subject:

http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

Once you read it with an objective mind and some critical thinking you will understand the importance of the nbC term in the presidential eligibility clause and why allowing Obama to usurp it was a big mistake. And that has led the country to status we are in now. Without following the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, this nation is doomed. And just because the usurper Obama and Harris got away with it, does not mean we should allow more to get away with it. Nor should we not try to stop future usurpations. If one or two persons gets away with robbing a bank that does not mean we should not keep trying to stop future bank robbers. Read the White Paper that I linked to previously for a full understanding of the Who, What, When, Why, and How the nbC term got into the Presidential Eligibility clause.

Keeps linking to his own website to get us to click on it as “evidence.”

If it's an internet blog, it must be true.....

So what category at that website do you want us to click on? Hobbies and crafts?.......LOL!

-------------------------------------

Here’s some information to shed light on what you stated from another thread where these issues were discussed:

If the Framers did not intend for the phrase they put into the Constitution - Natural Born Citizen - to mean what it meant at the time they wrote it, they would have written out a definition into the Constitution to redefine it. Since they did not, we can only assume it meant what the phrase meant when they wrote it out - the English common law definition - those born within the borders of the realm are naturally born citizens. There are a number of court cases where it is defined in this manner with regard to those born with far looser connections to the United States than Marco Rubio, Chester Arthur, (or Kamala Harris). The first case where it seems this was dealt with by a court was Lynch vs. Clarke in New York over a dispute with who could inherit property - there was a law on the books stating that only a “U.S. Citizen” could inherit property, and the presiding judge (apparently in this court the judge was called a “Vice Chancellor”) made this declaration: “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen...Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.” In another case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court over the citizenship of a person born who was born to Chinese parents (it was illegal at that time for Chinese immigrants to become U.S. Citizens) it was declared that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of having been born in the United States, and Justice Field, who wrote the opinion, actually referenced the Lynch v. Clarke decision in the ruling of the Court: “After an exhaustive examination of the law, the Vice-Chancellor said that he entertained no doubt that every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, was a natural-born citizen, and added that this was the general understanding of the legal profession, and the universal impression of the public mind.” This case was In re Look Tin Sing. Another U.S. Supreme Court case was United States v. Wong Kim Ark https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 dealing with the same issue of a child born to Chinese parents made the same ruling and also declared him to be a natural born citizen in the ruling by virtue of his right to citizenship by birth. All of those cases were in the 1800s.

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1939 with the title Perkins v. Elg http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/307/325.html which dealt with the issue of a woman who was born in the U.S. to Swedish citizens who returned to Sweden with her when she was four years old. Her father was naturalized prior to this as a U.S. Citizen and held dual citizenship. She then came back to the U.S. and was admitted entry as a citizen at the age of 21. For whatever reason, her father later did away with his U.S. Citizenship status and the equivalent of the INS at the time declared she was to be deported. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against this, finding she was a natural born U.S. Citizen by right of birth and even declared she was eligible to be President of the United States in the ruling. A past President, Chester Arthur, was born with an Irish father who was not yet naturalized as a U.S. Citizen, though his mother was born in Vermont where Arthur himself was born.

Detractors like to ignore all of information and court cases and instead rely totally on a case Minor v. Happersett - seeming to deliberately misquote the ruling - indeed, the justices specifically stated they were not making a finding of every scenario that constitutes a natural born citizen in their ruling: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. ***For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.***” Minor v. Happersett - full text of ruling https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

------------------------------------------

Oh-Oh, the OBOTs have showed up on the thread. They have probably not even read the full article at ThePostEmail.com newspaper.

The founders and farmers did not depend on English Common Law to write the federal Constitution or to define the term "natural born Citizen". They were now Citizens and no longer Subjects. English common law was out for choosing the President and Commanders in Chief of our new nation.

They relied instead on Natural Law and on the definition of "natural born Citizen" from the legal treatise on Natural Law by Emer de Vattel that they were reading and using during the founding and framing time to justify the revolutionary war. And this is what that treatise defined a "natural born Citizen" to be.

§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. 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 consequence 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.
https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/

Again to all, read my White Paper. It is all explained therein as to the founders and framers thinkings and doings at the time they wrote the new Constitution, and WHY the nbC term was chosen from Natural Law, not English common law. English common law dealt with subjects, not Citizens of the new nation who could elect their President and CinC: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf

She will be asked. Just like Vivek before he dropped out and just like Obama never was for purely political reasons.

You keep peddling this crap and no court in the country agrees with you. Heck, VATTEL didn’t agree with you! Vattel never used the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” - he used “natives” and “indigenes”, literally writing: “Les Naturels ou indigènes font ceux qui font nés dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”

(You keep peddling this crap and no court in the country agrees with you)

No court has been held on the merits. All cases against Obama were dismissed due to lack of standing and no case precedent.

His website is full of truth with receipts. Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramaswampy, Tulsi Gabbard, Ted Cruz, and Kamala Harris are not natural born Citizens.

My Translation and Analysis of the Key Sentence in Emer de Vattel’s 1758 Treatise on Natural Law in Section 212 -“Des citoyens et naturels” which defined "natural born Citizen": https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/04/15/my-translation-of-a-key-sentence-in-emer-de-vattels-1758-treatise-on-natural-law-in-section-212-des-citoyens-et-naturels/

It’s only for President….but I think it should apply to Senators and judges too.
It’s clear that we have way too many foreign born judges who are anti Constitution and probably anti American.

Jindel, Obama, Haley, Vivek, Harris, now this one, while the USSC remains silent refusing to take cases.

regardless of where Obama was born his father was a british citizen That means obama had a choice of citizenship and therefore is not natural born US since he had that choice.

An NBC is earmarked only as a US citizen. Furthermore it is clear that founders like Washington and Jay in their correspondence did not want a british citizen in charge of the uS military,

Based on the public information available, Nicole Shanahan is not a “natural born Citizen” (NBC) of the United States since her Chinese immigrant mother was not a U.S. Citizen when Nicole Shanahan was born in CA.

Under the standards used in 1787, the status of the mother is irrelevant. Only the father's citizenship matters.

Women, upon marriage to American men, were automatically American citizens.