Of Birthright Citizenship; 47’s Certiorari Petitions; the Tennessee Amicus Curiae Briefs; and the nbC Issue

ThePostEmail.com Newspaper ^ | 26 Oct 2025 | Joseph DeMaio

[CDR Kerchner]

(Oct. 26, 2025) — INTRODUCTION

Well, well, well… some sanity and rational thought may at last be seeping into the question and analysis of the so-called “birthright citizenship” issue under the 14th Amendment. As discussed by your humble servant earlier this year here, the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship issue is different, but closely related, to the “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) issue under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5, the Constitution’s “Eligibility Clause.” Because that which follows may become convoluted, readers may wish to keep a supply of their favorite caffeinated beverage nearby.

As a preliminary matter, that clause, of course, restricts the presidency to a natural born Citizen for all but the first seven presidents – Washington through Jackson – each of whom served as president only by virtue of the “Citizen-grandfather” exception included in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 at the inception of the Republic in 1789.

Parenthetically, the first true nbC president to serve was President Martin Van Buren in 1837. He was born in Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782 to U.S citizen parents Abraham Van Buren and Maria Hoes Van Alen (Van Buren), themselves born as foreigners, but becoming U.S citizens pursuant to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. See Edward S. Corwin, “The President: Office and Powers, 1787 – 1984” (5th Revised Ed. 1984),at 38.

But I digress: following adverse rulings in the lower federal courts, President Trump now seeks relief in the Supreme Court. He has filed (September 26, 2025) two petitions for certiorari (in the “CASA” case) and certiorari before judgment (usually reserved for facial constitutional challenges prior to final lower court decisions on the merits) in the “Barbara” case noted post. (Hereafter, for brevity: “SG Petitions”) The petitions are found here. ... continue reading at: https://www.thepostemail.com/2025/10/26/of-birthright-citizenship-47s-certiorari-petitions-the-tennessee-amicus-curiae-briefs-and-the-nbc-issue/

[CDR Kerchner]

Excellent legal analysis.

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[Flint]

Yep, and I’m sure Kitingi Brown Jackson will be quite well informed on what this guy proposes.

[butlerweave]

A foreigner who contributed NOTHING to the US can drop a baby and that baby can be a US citizen with all the benefits ,insanity

[dadfly]

bookmark.

[mairdie]

For later. Thanks.

[Flavious_Maximus]

Anchor babies should be deported along with their illegal alien parents.

I am looking straight at you Kamala Harris and Joy Reid. /spit

[philman_36]

It's getting harder to find evidence about the shenanigans that were pulled...

Very Odd: Rapidly Changing History?

I decided to check the claim, to see if this is birther madness or not. It involves an apparently consistent (and therefore almost certainly intentional) change to U.S. Supreme Court decisions at Justia.com that reference Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874), a case that while it is about whether women were citizens of the United States or not, includes a rather lengthy discussion (starting on p. 168) of whether children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens or not. (The applicability of this to President Obama, born to a citizen of British Kenya and an American citizen, should be obvious.) Snip... The allegation is that because justia.com is a very commonly used source of Supreme Court decisions, removing many of the references to Minor v. Happersett would cause people attempting to look into the legal question of Obama's citizenship to miss a decision that at least at first glance, has some relevance to the question.
This sounds so paranoid--but why this odd change to a decision more than a century old, exactly at the time that the controversy over Obama's citizenship came up--and now the decisions are apparently back to what they were before these references were flushed down the memory hole? Somebody KNEW where the chink in the armor was and they tried to patch it. EPIC FAIL!

[one guy in new jersey]

Yes, it’s true, Justia.com did corrupt its own search results.

They shadowbanned the “voice” of Minor v. Happersett.

[CDR Kerchner]

Yes, Justia.com did hide Minor v Happersett during the crucial time period. See this article about what they did: https://www.thepostemail.com/2011/10/22/justiagate/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

[philman_36]

Some of us still remember.

JustiaGate: 'Natural Born' Supreme Court Citations Disappear 12-14-2011

[philman_36]

I have got to remember JustiaGate as a search keyword.
Thanks for the link and the reminder.

Drive it home!

[batazoid]

The only aspect I find objectionable is the idea of defining the children of “permanently domiciled” parents as natural born citizens under Art. 2, §1, Cl. 5. It’s important to remember that Mr. Wong’s parents eventually returned to China, leaving their son as a U.S. citizen in this country.

Here’s the problem: When applying for a green card (lawful permanent residency) using Form I-485, you typically do not take the full Oath of Allegiance that is required for naturalized U.S. citizens. The Oath of Allegiance is specifically for individuals becoming citizens, and applicants do not renounce their allegiance to their home country. As a result, according to natural law, their children born in the U.S. would still owe allegiance to the laws and sovereignty of their parents’ home country.

[philman_36]

Allegiance is also a reciprocal relationship. The person must be present with the consent of the sovereign, a factor on which this Court extensively relied in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). But illegal aliens and their children are present in the United States without consent, i.e., only by defying its laws. That can't be stated enough.

[CDR Kerchner]

To All: Email and tell your U.S. Senators and Congressional Reps that the Senate should change filibuster rule to state that any “clean” Continuing Resolution (CR) does not require the 60 vote threshold and that it can be passed with only a simple majority, and then pass the current “clean” CR and open the government #DonaldTrump #SenatorJohnThune #MikeJohnson

[philman_36]

Not me. This is about cloture, ending debate, moving for a bill to be voted on.
The debate is over! VOTE! Stop being cry baby cowards, Democrats.
I want votes for the actual bill recorded. Break the Democrat's back.

But that's just me. Others, including you, can do as they choose.