Posted on 01/16/2019 7:05:55 PM PST by CDR Kerchner
A Lesson from History. Is Being a ‘Born Citizen’ (aka Born a Citizen) of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided No It Was Not! One needs to be a ‘natural born Citizen’. Adjectives mean something, especially in our Constitution!
(Excerpt) Read more at cdrkerchner.wordpress.com ...
It certainly didn’t keep obozo out of the WH and in our shit for 8 years as he methodically aided and abetted various enemies.
And YES, the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause means the candidate is to be the child of a couple, BOTH OF WHOM ARE ALSO NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS.
The INTENT of the clause was to limit, insofar as possible, any loyalty to another country.
Nancy Pelosi and others in the DNC, in their psychotic zeal to foist the first black president on the nation, FALSELY & KNOWINGLY FRAUDULENTLY VETTED OBOZO!
The need to be tried and, if found guilty, JAILED!
No it is not.
Agreed.
Being a Citizen of the World apparently qualifies anyone to the President.
And not a surprise since American citizenship has been rendered meaningless thanks to the No Borders lobby running both of our political parties.
Which is one reason that they all hate Trump.
Trump is the last American patriot who will ever be President.
Some more logic re this subject. Basic Logic: Trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “natural born Citizens (NBC)” are “Citizens at birth (CAB)” but not all “CAB” are “NBC”!
https://www.scribd.com/document/44814496/Of-Trees-and-Plants-and-Basic-Logic-Citizen-at-Birth-NOT-Identical-to-Natural-Born-Citizen-by-CDR-Kerchner-Ret
Commander;
My son was born in a US military Hospital on a US installation in (former) West Germany while my NBC self and NBC wife were stationed there in 1985. He has a birth certificate issued by the US Consulate “ Record of Birth abroad of an American Citizen”. His birth is recorded by the US Dept of State in NY. How does the three legged stool principle apply? He is a NBC according to my knowledge of the subject.
Thanks for your work in this area, and for your naval service.
Andrew
MAJ, USA Ret.
You are bringing up one of the Natural Law variation meanings as to what is born “in the country”. Read Volume 1 of Vattel’s legal treatise “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” used by the founders and framers to justify the revolution and create our new country and the founding documents. See in particular Volume 1 Chapter 19 Sections 212, 216, and 217. Here is a link to the chapter on one’s country and citizenship: https://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Those born on a U.S. flagged ship on the high seas or born with their citizen parents were ordered overseas in the service of their country are reputed to have not quitted their country. Such is the case for diplomats and per Vattel’s treatise on Natural Law such is the case for military citizens ordered overseas in the service of their nation. This Natural Law matter should be clarified for military personnel serving overseas with dependents. Large numbers of military personnel serving overseas with dependents was not the case when the founding documents were written. Changes in the Status of Forces agreements should be made to help clarify this matter. It’s a matter of allegiance. Did Germany have any claim on your allegiance or confer German citizenship on you at your birth due to your citizen military parents serving under orders and in the service of their country in Germany when you were born at a U.S. hospital on the military base there? If no foreign allegiance and citizenship was given to you by Germany due to your birth at the base hospital Vattel says you have not quitted your country and thus you are considered/reputted born “in the country”.
I should have worded my response to you as being in regards to your son. In regards to Kamala Harris she was not born of U.S. citizen parents serving overseas under orders in the service of their country.
“You left out a word in Vattel’s legal treatise definition of “natural born Citizen” — naturels.”
The French: “Les Naturels ou indigenes font ceux qui font nes dans le pays de Parens Citoyens.”
The 1797 translation on which you store all your hopes:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens...”
Translations available in America at the time the Constitution was written had it, “The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Your birther beliefs just do not match reality. While the writers of the Constitution were still alive, it was acknowledged that NBC was an update to the very common legal phrase, known to every founder and used all the time, “natural born subject”.
And REGARDLESS of your fantasies, the FACT that Obama was President of the USA for 8 years doesn’t leave much room for argument. You had 8 YEARS to make your case and NO ONE CARED. You are a fruitcake and make conservatives look like nuts. I don’t care how many COURTS ignore your rantings, but you make it harder for conservatives to get elected with your lunatic ravings. Even Vattel, if he could come back from the grave, would think you a nut.
In Minor, the Court specifically REFUSED to rule on the meaning of NBC:
“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 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.”
Repeat: “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.”
Your stupidity is forgivable, but your dishonesty is not.
The founders and framers were fluent in French which was the diplomatic language of those times. And the French became our allies against the British. The framers had access to the French version and knew what the word “naturels” meant when written by Vattel, as the word “naturels” was translated to natural born in diplomatic correspondence prior to the framing of the U.S. Constitution. Vattel clearly defined what his words meant. You Obot trolls are the ones trying to change the meaning of the language in our U.S. Constitution. See this link for all the attempts by establishment type Dems and Repubs to redefine the Natural Law term “natural born Citizen” and the Supreme Court cases in which “natural born Citizen” is discussed. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ever held that a “natural born Citizen” was anything else but a person born in the country to parents who are both its citizens: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also see: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers
Your are cherry picking the Minor v Happersett holding. The only doubts that were raised in the case was whether she was entitled to vote as a Citizen. But court not only determined she was a Citizen but that she was a natural born Citizen and clearly told us who are a natural born Citizen, i.e., those born in the country to parents who are citizens. See the full discussion of that Supreme Court holding here: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/07/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html Also see here re Benjamin Franklin’s use of Vattel’s newly printed French version by Dumas during the Continental Congress: https://www.scribd.com/document/63130788/Ben-Franklin-thanks-Charles-Dumas-for-Copies-of-Vattel-s-Law-of-Nations-or-Principles-of-Natural-Law Ben Franklin and the other founders and framers clearly new that a natural born Citizen was one born with no foreign influence on them via birth and that is what a natural born Citizen is, a person with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth to only one country. Born in the country to parents who are both citizens of that country. Kamala Harris and several others are NOT constitutionally eligible to be President and Commander in Chief since she is not a natural born Citizen of the USA.
The founders and framers were using the 1775 French edition of Vattel’s “The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law”. Since they were fluent in French they knew that the word “naturels” meant “natural born”: https://www.thepostemail.com/2010/05/03/jefferson-used-vattels-the-law-of-nations-to-write-our-founding-documents/ Here is proof that in translation of diplomatic correspondence that the term “naturels” meant natural born to the founders and framers: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/absolute-proof-the-founders-knew-and-accepted-vattels-french-naturels-to-mean-natural-born-before-constitution-was-written/
Mr. Rogers is arguing from a position that would allow persons with foreign influence via birth to become the Commander in Chief of our Armies. The Founders and Framers disagreed with that position which is why he would support Senator Kamala Harris (a triple citizen of three countries at birth) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of our Armies. Read this ...
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. “
Cdr,
Got it. As I have maintained all along. Those Citizens ordered to and posted on foreign soil bearing children are producing NBCs.
This was the resolution the senate gave regarding McCain when the question of his status arose.
What befuddles me is how many non NBCs we have in government. If the vast majority of citizens are NBCs, why so many non NBCs crowding the halls of congress?
“You Obot trolls”
Blow it out your butt, weirdo. BTW - it was “naturels sujet” IIRC that was translated NBS...or NBC for the US.
Vattel WAS precise, but YOU are a liar who deliberately distorts what he wrote. You have LIED about what Minor said.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has never ever held that a “natural born Citizen” was anything else but a person born in the country to parents who are both its citizens”
The US Supreme Court has never held ANYTHING regarding the exact meaning of NBC. However, they did say NBC’s meaning was rooted in the common law meaning of natural born subject. In Wong Kim Ark, as you know, they wrote approvingly:
“In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
To repeat for emphasis:
“We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”
This was also cited in Wong Kim Ark, with full approval:
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
They then wrote: “That all children born within the dominion of the United States of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office became citizens at the time of their birth does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than fifty years after the adoption of the Constitution, when the matter was elaborately argued in the Court of Chancery of New York and decided upon full consideration by Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship. Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583.”
Please note these cases and many more were examined up to 200 years BEFORE Obama.
In the same decision they quoted, with approval, Kent’s commentary, written in 1826:
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
When the US Supreme Court cites a previous decision, state or federal, with approval, it is taken seriously. It is NOT a “holding”. That term is very restricted in meaning. But the dicta of a Supreme Court majority opinion, one that has been cited many times in the over 100 years since, carries weight.
You have NO LEGAL BASIS for your blathering, and your stupidity since 2008 has become an embarrassment. If any precedent is needed, it is this: Like it or not, Barack Obama WAS President of the USA from Jan 2009 - Jan 2017.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation and Gas Lighting — Tactics Used by the Far Left & Main Stream Media to Protect Obama ... and Other Deceivers Such as Mr Rogers and Kamala Harris: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/twenty-five-rules-of-disinformation-tactics-used-by-the-far-left-main-stream-media-to-protect-obama/
“and Other Deceivers Such as Mr Rogers and Kamala Harris”
What a pathetic excuse for a man you are! You cannot defend your views. You cannot answer my charges. So you call me names. But what you cannot do is ANSWER my arguments, since it has been widely held for over 200 years that NBC & NBS are the same concept and thus have the same common law meaning.
And that Vattel did NOT discuss NBC...until a bad translation made 10 years AFTER the US Constitution.
A natural born Subject is not a natural born Citizen. A subject and a citizen are not synonymous. As to who is a Citizen and/or a natural born Citizen of a country read Vattel’s Volume 1 Chapter 19: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html Also read The Who What When Where Why and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term in Our U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution
A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born Subject”: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html
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.