Posted on 09/08/2018 3:45:16 PM PDT by CDR Kerchner
Natural Born Citizen – A List of Politicians Aspiring to High National Office Who Are Not Constitutionally Eligible to be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military, or Vice President. They are Not a Natural Born Citizen.
The list: https://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Politicians-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen
As per ‘Principles of Natural Law‘ in place at the time of the founding of our country and when the founding documents including the U.S. Constitution were written, a ‘natural born Citizen’ is one born in the country to parents who are both Citizens (born Citizens or naturalized Citizens) of that country when their child is born in the country. See ‘The Three Legged Stool Test‘ for a graphic presentation of this constitutional requirement as to who can be President and Commander in Chief or our military. Click on the Euler Diagram shown below for a logic diagram presentation of this constitutional requirement.
(Excerpt) Read more at cdrkerchner.wordpress.com ...
Bobby Jindal was on that list.
If he really is not eligible, why was he on stage campaigning with the others?
The SCOTUS has never directly ruled on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the constitution with regard to POTUS eligibility. But in SCOTUS cases wherein they have given a definition of what a NBC (or a 14th amendment citizen in the case of Wong Kim Ark)is, Minor vs Haperstatt, Venus Merchantman Case of 1814) they defined an NBC as a person born of TWO, count them TWO citizen parents (the parents don’t have to be NBC) and born in one of the states of the Union, or the territories.
The authors of the 14th amendment, in the Congressional debates on the matter, also defined an NBC in the same manner. Rep. Bimgham and Senator Jacob Howard were the principal authors of the 14th amendment. Here is a quote from Howard which clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which was to define citizenship. He stated: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
Until this matter is formally adjudicated by the Court, I will defer to their NBC stare decisis definitions. Harris, Obama and a host of others were not, are not, and can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to be POTUS.
Whatever one thinks what the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 is, it is clear that the adoption of the 14th amendment did not alter it in any constitutional sense. How else can you account for the fact that the constitution only specifies for the office of senator and representative citizenship for a period of 9 and 7 years respectively, while the constitution requires the POTUS, to be NATURALLY born, owing allegiance to no other country? That is the ONLY constitutional provision for NBC. Obviously, there is a singular distinction with regard to that office. Under Jamaican and Indian citizenship law, for instance, It is conceivable that Jamaica or India could claim that Kamala Harris, thru her parents, is a citizen who owes allegiance to both of those countries FROM HER BIRTH. It was conferred upon her by those countries citizenship laws, just as valid as our own.
By the way, Ted Cruz (who I admire very much) made a very public demonstration of the fact that he was going to FORMALLY renounce his CANADIAN citizenship. What NATURALLY BORN US citizen has to do such a thing?
The framers of the constitution were patriarchs. (Yes I understand that is completely out of tune with modern sensibilities, but nonetheless it is true.) They believed that the citizenship of the FATHER was conferred upon his children. SCOUTUS incorporated in toto the ENTIRE 212th paragraph of Emerich De Vattel’s Law of Nations in their 1814 Venus merchantman case as they defined what an NBC is. Here is the money quote that Justice Livingstone that was cited when he wrote for the majority, “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.”
I suspect the reason that many do not want this issue formally examined is that they wish to foster and enhance the globalist influence on the office of POTUS. The NBC requirement was never intended to be a guarantee of allegiance, but a safeguard against undue foreign influence on the office of POTUS, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. The oath of naturalization requires a formal and legal renunciation of any prior national allegiances.
Jennie Spencer-Churchill, known as Lady Randolph Churchill, was a natural born US citizen, and a British socialite, the wife of Lord Randolph Churchill and the mother of British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
Under US citizenship law at the time of Churchill’s birth, despite the fact that his mother was a NATURAL BORN US citizen, she could not transmit her US citizenship on to young Winston owing to her marriage to a foreign national, Sir Randolph Spencer Churchill, who was Winston’s father. That would not be legally allowed until the passage of the Cable Act of 1922, well after Churchill’s birth in 1874. The Cable Act only confers citizenship, NOT NATURALLY BORN citizenship. It did not refer to, or alter the meaning of an Article II, Sec. 1, clause 5 “natural born citizen” in any way.
Churchill was granted HONORARY US citizenship by an act of Congress on 9 April 1963. It was understood that his birth to a an NBC citizen US mother in Great Britain did not make him a citizen by law.
This is just one more indication of the fact that Obama, Cruz, Rubio OR Harris can NEVER be constitutionally eligible to the office of POTUS. We need to have this issue finally adjudicated by SCOTUS for the first time in US history, and finally get a definitive answer one way or another.
We have enough naturally born anti-american, anti-constitutional cultural marxists in our country now who aspire to be POTUS. I say let’s eliminate all those who don’t even meet the basic Article II criteria. Winnow the opposition.
This matter is SCREAMING for a definitive ruling on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5, by the SCOTUS for the first time in the history of the US. It is revealing to note what Clarence Thomas told a House subcommittee that when it comes to determining whether a person born outside the 50 states can serve as U.S. president when he said that the high court is “evading” the issue. The comments came as part of Thomas’ testimony before a House appropriations panel discussing an increase in the Supreme Court’s budget in April of 2017. Thomas said that to Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
After two Obama terms, I think they are terrified of the implications of a ruling based on originalist constitutional intent and interpretation. That does not excuse the cowardice in refusing a grant of certiorari for those who wish to have SCOTUS exercise it’s Article III oversight on this matter.
Is Ted Cruz a natural-born citizen eligible to serve as president? [Yes! And I support him! JimRob]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3084490/posts
Now read the article at the link. I can bring you a dozen more from notable constitutional scholars, many of whom do not like Cruz.
Okay thanks.
It struck a nerve with me because I was interested in Jindal in the early going of the campaign, as the couple of times I heard him speak I liked what he had to say and I liked the way he said it.
Then, of course, came The Donald, and the rest is history.
Still, I don’t appreciate being played like that by the party bosses.
Yes, the political parties are many times putting their interests ahead of the Constitution and are a big problem and that is what George Washington warned about.
Are these the same notable constitutional scholars who claim America is a democracy instead of the Constitutional Republic it actually is?
Sharing here for thought ...
Reporters Need to Ask People Mentioned
as Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Candidates the Correct Question
By: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Written: 28 May 2015
The correct question is not are you a “Citizen” 1,7,8 of the United States, but instead per the ‘Presidential Eligibility Clause’ 2 in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution3, are you a “natural born Citizen” 1,4,8 of the United States.
One cannot ignore a word or term in our U.S. Constitution!
Every word in it was chosen carefully and put there for a reason.
As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840):
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Since, as Chief Justice Taney explained, every word in the U.S. Constitution is there for a specific reason, reporters should not be omitting words when asking presidential and/or vice-presidential candidates about their citizenship status.
1 Citizenship Terms in U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-
Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
2 Presidential Eligibility Clause in U.S. Constitution - Article II Section 1 Clause 5: http://presspubs.
uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_5.html
3 Constitution of the United States: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
4 The Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen: https://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-
Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards
Thus the media and reporters should not be asking if the candidates or prospective candidates are simply a “Citizen“. Instead they should be asking if they are a “natural born Citizen” — to constitutional standards as intended and understood by the founders and framers5.
The adjective “natural” before the words “born Citizen” means something very specific. It means created by nature or natural law, not by positive, man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 14016, amendments, or treaties. Man-made laws cannot create a “natural born Citizen“. Only the laws of nature and the facts at the time of the person’s birth can create a natural born Citizen.7 “Natural” in the “natural born Citizen” term points to the Laws of Nature and Natural Law and whether both your parents were U.S. Citizens when you were born. It takes two U.S. citizens to procreate a natural born Citizen when that child is born in this country. A “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country.8 See the “Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen” for more information.4
5 U. S. Constitution Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts
6 USC Title 8 Section 1401: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
7 Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Natural Born Citizen Term: https://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOTIdentical-
to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret
8 Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” [1758/1175/1797]: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/
Sharing here for thought ...
Reporters Need to Ask People Mentioned
as Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Candidates the Correct Question
By: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Written: 28 May 2015
The correct question is not are you a “Citizen” 1,7,8 of the United States, but instead per the ‘Presidential Eligibility Clause’ 2 in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution3, are you a “natural born Citizen” 1,4,8 of the United States.
One cannot ignore a word or term in our U.S. Constitution!
Every word in it was chosen carefully and put there for a reason.
As U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540 (1840):
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood.” Since, as Chief Justice Taney explained, every word in the U.S. Constitution is there for a specific reason, reporters should not be omitting words when asking presidential and/or vice-presidential candidates about their citizenship status.
1 Citizenship Terms in U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-
Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
2 Presidential Eligibility Clause in U.S. Constitution - Article II Section 1 Clause 5: http://presspubs.
uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a2_1_5.html
3 Constitution of the United States: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
4 The Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen: https://www.scribd.com/doc/185258103/Three-
Legged-Stool-Test-for-Natural-Born-Citizen-to-Constitutional-Standards
Thus the media and reporters should not be asking if the candidates or prospective candidates are simply a “Citizen“. Instead they should be asking if they are a “natural born Citizen” — to constitutional standards as intended and understood by the founders and framers5.
The adjective “natural” before the words “born Citizen” means something very specific. It means created by nature or natural law, not by positive, man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 1401 (note 6), amendments, or treaties. Man-made laws cannot create a “natural born Citizen“. Only the laws of nature and the facts at the time of the person’s birth can create a natural born Citizen.7 “Natural” in the “natural born Citizen” term points to the Laws of Nature and Natural Law and whether both your parents were U.S. Citizens when you were born. It takes two U.S. citizens to procreate a natural born Citizen when that child is born in this country. A “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country.8 See the “Three Legged Stool Test for Natural Born Citizen” for more information.4
5 U. S. Constitution Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts
6 USC Title 8 Section 1401: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
7 Of Trees and Plants and Basic Logic and Natural Born Citizen Term: https://www.scribd.com/doc/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOTIdentical-
to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret
8 Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” [1758/1175/1797]: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/
Wow - that is quite extensive and informative.
One thing that struck me was the following “One cannot ignore a word or term in our U.S. Constitution!
Every word in it was chosen carefully and put there for a reason.’
Indeed. What a different story America would be telling right now if the Judicial and Legislative branches (and states actually) understood and applied this.
No, but good deflection from the facts before us.
Doesn’t matter how often you beat this horse....it’s still dead
Lots of the others were not eligible either. Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, our current ambassador to the UN and others are not eligible.
Opinion
GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE GRAY,...
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Order affirmed
What about a non qualifying natural born serving as speaker of the house? It’s in the line of succession.
I do not care how many constitutional scholars you produce, Ted Cruz is NOT eligible to be president of the United States.
A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States.
Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a "natural born Citizen" of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII. The constitution does not expressly define “natural born” nor has the Supreme Court ever ruled precisely upon its meaning. One can be a citizen while not being a "natural born" citizen if, for example, they gained their citizenship through the process of naturalization.
Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark; 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court noted in Perkins v. Elg that this is true even of citizens who were born in the United States yet grew up in foreign countries.[...]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.