As Being Simply ‘Born a Citizen’ of United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President?

CDR Kerchner (Ret) Blog ^ | 16 Jan 2019 | CDR Kerchner (Ret)

[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!

[CDR Kerchner]

Vattel clearly discussed Citizenship and who is a natural born Citizen in the 1775 French edition used by the founders and in subsequent English translations: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/vattel-section212-french&english.pdf The founders and framers such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson used the newly printed 1775 version which was in French the diplomatic language of the times: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html And a natural born Subject is not the same as a natural born Citizen: https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

[MileHi]

And nobody until the 1960s started defining anchor babies as gaining citizenship by birth. That is the problem.

Bingo. And this needs to be fixed.

[Mr Rogers]

“A natural born Subject is not a natural born Citizen. A subject and a citizen are not synonymous.”

DUHHHHH!!!!

But when we became citizens instead of subjects, we became NBC instead of NBS - although, as I’ve already pointed out, many continued to use the terms interchangeably. Including one of the legislatures that ratified the Constitution.

Rant as much as you want, there is no debate possible under the law. It is obvious to everyone. YOU got suckered in by assuming the 1797 translation of Vattel was current before the Constitution. And now you refuse to admit what everyone else knows: you are wrong!

And regardless, from Jan 2009 to Jan 2017, Barack Obama was President. There is no debate. IT IS SETTLED.