Who Was The Original “Birther”? It Was Barack Hussein Obama II Himself!

The Post & Email Newspaper ^ | 25 May 2023 | CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

[batazoid]

Supreme Court Cases that Cite “Natural Born Citizen” as One Born on U.S. Soil to Citizen Parents is as follows:

Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Shanks v DuPont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Dred Scott v Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
Minor v Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
United States v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

[Michael.SF.]

Thanks for your excellent and detailed addition, one I fully concur with. Time was pressing earlier , so I did not go into details, but I appreciate that you did.

[batazoid]

As I stated above, a general clause cannot supersede a specific clause. The 14th Amendment cannot usurp Art. II, §1, cl. 5 natural-born citizen unless specifically authorized by Congress.

[Michael.SF.]

Thank you.

Not familiar with most of those cases, but Van Ark comes up a lot and I did read up on that one. In that case Van Ark was denied to be a citizen, though born in the US. IIRC, the issue was ‘native’ born vs ‘natural born’.

I do agree that legally anyone born in the US is a native born citizen, but a ‘Natural born’ citizen is a separate issue.

I also would favor a change in the law that would require one parent to be either a citizen, or legal resident, of the country for the child to be considered a citizen. I’m

[Michael.SF.]

Are you sure about Vivek? I tried, but could not find out if his parents were Nauta listed citizens at the time of his birth.

[batazoid]

Generally, it has been my experience, especially nowadays, when a presidential candidate fails to mention whether their parents were U.S. citizens at the time of their birth in the U.S. via Wikipedia, you can pretty well assume they weren’t, or at least one of them wasn’t.

[batazoid]

You are right. It is absolutely insane to consider every person born in the U.S. (with a few exceptions) a citizen of the U.S. For the life of me, I cannot explain why the 14th Amendment has not been updated, to, as you say, require at least one parent being a U.S. citizen at the time of their offspring’s birth in this country.

[batazoid]

Van Ark is a Wisconsin state case, if I am not mistaken.

[Michael.SF.]

I have not read the article you referenced (yet), but have read others on the subject that are in agreement. I also was reading a piece written for the Harvard Law Review (if memory serves). The author discounted "Law of Nations' by Vittal because: "It had not yet been translated" (from the original French) at the time of the writing of the Constitution. She ignored the fact that three copies were held by Founding Fathers (Madison, Jefferson and Franklin), two of whom were fluent in French (Not sure about Madison).

I didn't finish the article after I saw that.

[Michael.SF.]

That was my mistake. I said "Van Ark", I confused it with "Wong Kim Ark".

Van Ark was indeed Wisconsin. Wong Kim Ark was a SCOTUS case regarding a man born in San Francisco.

[one guy in new jersey]

Undoubted by some.

Bloody well damn well doubted by others. For bloody good damn good reasons.

Have HAD IT with lazy feeblemindedness and rampant effeminacy when it comes to issues of prime political and governmental importance. Such as NBC.

[Hiddigeigei]

"Also, apparently George Washington was never president either."
Read the Constitution. It specifically makes exception for people born before independence.

[CDR Kerchner]

Correct. Vattel’s contemporaneous legal treatise “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law” was used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution again the King of England and to write the founding documents. It was the source and original intent meaning, purpose, and understanding of the constitutional term “natural born Citizen”: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ For more on that see: https://www.thepostemail.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/ ... and ... http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

[CDR Kerchner]

Yes, the fix was in by the three political parties - Republican, Democrat, and Socialist parties - to ignore and abrogate the “natural born Citizen” term in the presidential eligibility clause in the 2008 election cycle since attempts by Congress to remove it by Progressives in both major parties the prior 10+ years had failed. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/26484059/I-Believe-the-Fix-Was-In-for-the-2008-Election-The-Perfect-Storm-for-a-Constitutional-Crisis To see the various attempts to remove the term see this website: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

[saleman]

This is nothing new. Discussed and cussed probably hundreds of times here.

[CDR Kerchner]

Correct. It’s basic logic and set and subset analysis. Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural Born Citizens (NBCs) are Citizens at Birth (CAB) but not all Citizens at Birth (CAB) are a Natural Born Citizen (NBC). Euler Diagrams are used to prove the truth or fallacy of an argument. See this Euler Diagram to visually see the truth about who is a “natural born Citizen” of the United States: http://www.kerchner.com/naturalborncitizen/cfk/Euler-Logic-Diagram-Shows-Logical-Relationship-of-natural-born-Citizen-Set-and-SuperSets.pdf Also, natural born Citizens are the largest kind of citizens by far in our nation by far. It is from them that our constitution says we must choose our President and Commander in Chief of our military: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/03/18/natural-born-citizens-are-the-3-leaf-clover-kind-of-citizens-not-the-4-leaf-clover-kind/ See more articles about this at: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards

[nesnah]

Great and informative thread on the subject.

Way too much conflicting info being pushed around out here.

This was simple and concise.

[CDR Kerchner]

Thank you for your kind words of feedback. If you’d like to see more of my writings on the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” in the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution take a look at my new book on the subject. Just Google search on “natural born citizen book kerchner”. It has a lot more clear and concise articles in it as to the true original intent, meaning, and purpose of that constitutional term. You can see it discussed here: https://www.thepostemail.com/2023/04/20/natural-born-citizen-key-birth-status-definition-scotus-fact-findings-and-scotus-holdings/

[CDR Kerchner]

Here is Chris Matthews on his Hardball TV show in Dec 2007 talking about Obama’s Indonesian roots and Muslim education. You can deduce yourself from his statements as to whose campaign he was shilling for when he put out that information on his TV show: https://youtu.be/XwSw9O0agGI

[DiogenesLamp]

Some Freepers say that both of your parents must have been American citizens at the time of your birth, in order for you to be a natural born citizen.

Other Freepers say as long as you were born in America, you are a natural born citizen.

Both sets of Freepers are wrong, but the second set is more wrong.

The "two parent" thing is wrong because it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how things worked in 1787. If a woman married, she automatically took on the citizenship of her husband. It therefore boils down to whether or not your father was an American, and it didn't matter what your mother was, because when she married, she became an America.

The Second set is wrong because they are mistaking 14th amendment citizenship for being the same thing as natural citizenship.

There has been a lot of misleading and false equivalency on this topic going back almost to the very beginning.