Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided It Was Not!By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Retired)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
17 September 2010 - Constitution Day
During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. He also submitted to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
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 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 codification of 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" 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 via 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. "
See a transcription of Jay's letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective "natural" making it "natural born Citizen of the United States" for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton's proposed "born a Citizen". Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s suggested presidential citizenship eligibility requirement was that a Citizen simply had to be 'born a Citizen' of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. But that citizenship status was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person "born a citizen" to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a "natural born Citizen", to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a "natural born citizen" with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.
Jay's proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before "born Citizen" that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective "natural" means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one's birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective "natural" comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel's Law of Nations, the "Des citoyens et naturels", Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (as it was translated to English in the 1797 edition) that the "natural born Citizens" are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama's birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.
Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term "natural born Citizen" means. Read a copy of Ramsay's original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term "natural born Citizen" published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.
Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.
The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.
So, can a "born Citizen" be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a "born Citizen the United States" is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a "natural born Citizen of the United States". But only a "natural born Citizen" can be the President of the USA. Obama is not constitutionally eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.
CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a "born Citizen" or "Citizen at Birth" is not identically the same as a being a "natural born Citizen".
CDR Kerchner, an excellent summation. The only variable I could see being contested is the claim that BOTH parents would have to be citizens rather than just one. I realize de Vatell says 'parents', but what will be argued is that the French plural is really a 'group' plural and that he meant having one citizen parent is sufficient for natural born status. I believe that to be BS myself, but that's what they will argue. Could you address that contention here?
ReplyDeleteEven Alexander Hamilton, acknowledged the change in Federalist #68, where he also acknowledges the national security reason for the requirement:
ReplyDelete"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"
"raising a creature of there own" describes an indigenous citizen (indigene). How can a "creature of their own" be born of aliens?
An excellent explanatiomn of what the Founders saw, heard, and decided in their time.
ReplyDeleteA cogent explanation!!
Pixel Patriot says:
ReplyDeleteSaturday, September 18, 2010 at 6:34 AM
Researcher says: (excerpts)
Friday, September 17, 2010 at 9:51 PM
“I have posted on this subject repeatedly over the last several months. The evidence of corruption regarding this issue lies at the feet of the Office of Elections and the HDP, not the DNC, although it is likely the HDP tipped them off. The HDP stripped the aforementioned language from the Certificate of Nomination it submitted to the Office of Elections on behalf of Mr. Obama.
My theory is that the HDP knew that Mr. Obama was not qualified and purposely stripped the language so not to perjure themselves based on information it received from a party inside operative such as Mr. Gilhardy or they were tipped off by the Office of Elections.
We now have someone on record who worked at the Office of Elections who stated it was “common knowledge” that there was not a long form b/c on file, or at least one that would demonstrate that Mr. Obama met the Constitutional requirements for the office he sought. Whether or not the Office of Elections was in collusion with the HDoH remains to be seen.
We need to go after the HI Office of Elections and the HDP. It is where this “Certifigate” starts and ends.”
Also from a previous post from Researcher:
“I had planned to visit the Office of Elections and the HDP headquarters during my investigative trip this summer but opted to pursue another matter instead. I regret not being able to fit this into my schedule. I had hoped to get some answers as to why the HDP CoN was so radically modified.”
___________________
To Researcher,
Were you not able to visit the Office of Elections and the HDP headquarters because you did not have sufficient funds at the time to do so? Did you need more money for hotel, food, etc.? I would venture to claim that there are literally millions of patriotic Americans that would like to see this resolved regardless of the outcome who are merely seeking Truth & Justice, and would have financially come to your aid like there’s no tomorrow; but we just didn’t know there was an immediate need.
Now hear our plea…with all do respect, you seem to be the logical choice for the conferring of further investigative work on the matter for three reasons:
1. Based on your level of expertise
2. You fully understand the intricate nuances and details of this dilemma and completely comprehend the travesty it has bestowed upon our nation.
3. You have already invested a substantial amount of time and energy into this matter.
Since you have pinpointed the target might I suggest you henceforth go after it in haste?
Therefore…when can you start, how much do you need, where do we send the money?
Pixel Patriot
9.18.2010
To Bdwilcox,
ReplyDeletePart I of II:
The purpose of Jay's letter and "hint" to George Washington was to add a "strong check" against foreign influence on the person who would be President in the future and that the eligibility clause be strengthened such that the person who would be President and Commander of the military would have no foreign influence on them via or at birth. The only way one can achieve that status to avoid foreign claims was to have a citizenship status at birth granted by the laws of nature and nature's God, i.e., Natural Law, by being born in the country to two Citizen parents as is clearly recognized in the Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212. Pure Natural Law as given by nature and nature's God does not change with time. Man-made laws do. In the time of the framers and founders Citizenship of the wife if not born a Citizen of the same country was automatically derived upon marriage from the Citizenship of the husband. Thus Vattel's emphasis in section 212 on the Citizenship of the father in his codification of Natural Law as being key to being a "natural born Citizen" in the balance of section 212.
(to be continued in Part II)
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
To Bdwilcox,
ReplyDelete(continued from part I)
Part II of II
Today with many differing man-made laws granting simple Citizenship and claims of allegiance on a child being able to be passed by both the mother and father, the only way to achieve unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance to one nation and only one nation at birth is to be a natural law "natural born Citizen" by being born in the country to two Citizens of the country. That is pure laws of nature. No man made law can challenge that Citizenship status. That is what Jay and Washington and the other founders and framers intended and they got the concept from natural law and Vattel's codification of The Law of Nations which they all read and used.
A person born in the country to two Citizens at birth does have a "strong check" at birth against any foreign influence on him/her later in life. That is what John Jay hinted/recommended. Their thinking at the time was greatly influenced by the writings of Vattel and his preeminent legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. And George Washington agreed and the Constitutional Convention agreed and the natural law status of unity of Citizenship at birth was embodied in Article II, Section 1 by adding the modifying and further restricting adjective "natural" to the prior existing clause "born a Citizen" making it read, "natural born Citizen of the United States". A "natural born Citizen" of the United States is a subset of all those who are "born Citizens" of the United States. But the two terms are not legally identical and interchangeable.
And for the record it should be noted that "natural born Citizens" are by far the biggest group of legal types of Citizens. Probably in excess of 95% of the legal Citizens of the United States are "natural born Citizens". And it is from that group that the Constitution says we must choose our President and Commander in Chief of the military.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner v Obama & Congress
http://www.protectourliberty.org
It would appear that the HDP is and was unwilling to respect their duty to the country.
ReplyDeleteAlso evident is that the same is true for the House, the Senate, the Electoral College, the former Vice President, the Justice Department, the various State Secretaries of State, the CIA, the FBI,the Secret Service, several of the Courts, and the greater majority of our commissioned officers.
The news media, while not legally bound to report such matters are certainly ethically bound. Yet, they refuse.
So, my questions: What are the duties of every able bodied citizen when encountering a clear and present act of foreign infiltration or aggression against our country and our constitution?
How is the Obama attack on our constitution different from that of a foreign vessel coming into our waters and delivering a spy, or an invading army, or even firing on our shores?
What response is expected of every citizen to those; and especially to those in official capacity, who have turned their backs on their duty and/or aided and abetted such enemy measures?
If the court fails to act, we need to know the answers to these questions.
We seemed to have been very upset over the Pearl Harbor and the Twin Towers attacks (not to mention quite a few others). Isn't Obama's assault on our country even more deadly to the fabric of our nation?
Historically the "assault from within" has always been considered the most heinous and difficult to counter because it has the greatest ability to destroy a nation. It turns a house against itself through deceit and subterfuge. As Lincoln stated, "A house divided cannot stand."
Also known as the "5th column", the enemy from within is the greatest weapon. It is more deadly and damaging than a massive nuclear or biological attack. When a people can be turned against its own self interests and neighbors are inspired to fight neighbors and brothers turn to fight brothers, the victory is close at hand.
After successfully infiltrating its target nation, an enemy can, without expending any of its own resources, sit back and watch as its target disintegrate under its own volition to the point that an invasion will be welcomed.
Obama's assault, if not countered effectively and immediately, will tear our Constitution apart. A Constitutional Republic is a nation of law - not of men. Without a valid and respected Constitution it can not endure.
I wonder what invading armies are waiting in the wings to bless us with the relief of our burdens, duties, responsibilities .... and freedom.
Poke. 6 years later, Obama proved himself to be a well-respected and well-loved president. So... why should some qualified people, who grow up Americans and have complete loyalty to the US be excluded on the basis of quirky law?
DeleteOr for example a single mother, who may have been raped, or otherwise not consented, and gave birth to a child whose father was not a US citizen, and then raised him/her as an American, with an American husband she took after the tragedy?
I'm aware these are rare cases, but should they be denied the right through no fault of their own, despite "growing up American?"
Or, somthing quite possible, an American mother with an American husband giving birth to a child through in vitro, with the cells not being from Americans? Or the father not being American?
I think it would be better to say- born to an American mother and raised as an American, with no outside loyalties. Because the father being necessarily American raises issues.
Also, I recommend that the readers here re-read Attorney Mario Apuzzo's excellent essay on why the legal term of art "natural born Citizen" requires that both the father and mother must be Citizens and at the birth of the child in the country to be a "natural born Citizen" under pure natural law as handed down by nature and nature's God.
ReplyDeletehttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Even Vattel's writings are not pure Natural Law. His writings are a codification of the universal principles of the Law of Nations which are in turn based on the underlying principles of Natural Law. But Vattel was the preeminent and most widely accepted and respected writer and codifier of The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law. And it was the legal reference book used by the founders and framers as their "bible" on what is the Law of Nations. See this link for more information on the founders and framers extensive use of Vattels' legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, which was first published in 1758 and the latest edition prior to the Revolution was published in 1775 and was available and was used by the founders to write the founding documents and set up our new government.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/benjamin-franklin-in-1775-thanks.html
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
There are still a lot of people that refuse to believe that "President" Soetoro is ineligible for office, and thus believe he is a good man. But George's letter to John shows us the answer.
ReplyDeleteCDR Kerchner could probably tell you more about this, but one of the 'causes' which led to the War of 1812 were the impress gangs taking American sailors off of American ships to serve in the British Navy.
ReplyDeleteThis all had to do with 'American Citizenship.' You see, the British held that no one could EVER renounce their loyalty to the CROWN, and so all 'Americans' were forever British, and therefore required to serve in the British armed forces.
This is the historic background in which the definition of 'natural-born Citizen' was crafted by the FRAMERS of the U.S. Constitution, and the idea of 'American citizenship' and 'sovereignty' was challenged in the War of 1812.
But, we don't teach our history in schools anymore, so most Americans have long forgot that it was specifically 'British subjects' who were excluded by the language of Article 2.
The current occupant of the Oval Office was born a Brit, is a Brit, and could seek political asylum in the British Embassy exactly on the grounds that he IS a Brit! He meets EXACTLY the specific exclusion the FRAMERS had in mind!
An oldie but goodie website with good information on the definition of "natural born Citizen".
ReplyDeleteDefining Natural-Born Citizen | by P.A. Madison | @ Federalist Blog
http://federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined.html
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
A supporter sent me by email this list of OBOT debating tactics she has observed over the weeks and months in trying to debate them. I thought I'd share it with you all.
ReplyDelete------------------------
These are the OBOT TACTICS I have deduced thus far:
1. They conflate "citizen" with "natural born citizen" (NBC) hoping nobody notices, and focus on the hidden birth certificate to distract from the constitutional issues. They neglect that per the 20th amendment since Obama was never certified as eligible he's not any legal president in the first place.
2. The bots say "subject" is the same as "citizen", OK fine more or less.
3. Then the bots say English Common Law (ECL) says 'natural born' just means born in-country, because even though they haven't proven Obama was born in-country, they hope that will suffice to make him a natural born citizen. But the Constitution is based on Vattel, though they grasp straws to deem ECL relevant.
4. Then the bots say that all "born citizens" are "natural born citizens"; well this is false and doesn't even make any logical sense based on #3 because most "born citizens" in US Code 1401 are NOT born in-country, so how could all of them be 'natural born' which directly contradicts the definition the bots gave in #3?
5. Then the Obots portray NBC as a mystical term that nobody knows the definition to, because NBC is missing by term and definition from USC1401/14th amendment. But really, there's only a few permutations jus soli or no jus soli, jus sanguinis no parent, one parent or both parents and combinations thereof. All but jus soli jus sanguinis both parents are covered by USC1401/14th, so obviously that missing "one" is not a statutory citizen, thus must be the holy grail "natural born citizen"...AND IT IS!
JOHN ADAMS SAID THAT ALL GOOD LAWYERS SHOULD KEEP A COPY OF THE LAW OF NATIONS BY THEIR BEDSIDE...
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
"NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, ARE THOSE BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS"
--
SJPP
-------------------------
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
BrianRoy,
ReplyDeletePlease contact me via private email concerning your suggestion using the KontactR Me link in the right frame of this blog ... about half way down. Or visit the ProtectOurLiberty.org site and use the Contact Me link there.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
BdWilcox,
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find no flaw in the translation from French to English in subsection 212 - 1st and 2nd paragraphs. Let's look at briefly.
The most obvious, but not the most critical is the second sentence at 212. Vattle said:
"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens."
....de parents citoyens...
Although when refering in French to a "single parent", the word is "mére". The French word for Plural as for "both", is "Parents", just as Vattle used.
Certainly, if Vattle "intended or meant" to use only a single parent in French, he would have said "mère", for only one.
In others words, at 212 second paragraph, in French, if his intention was a single parent, it would have read:
"de mère citoyen". (Only one) And not "de parents citoyens" (Both Parents)..
Of course, there have been some whom attempt to swap nouns for adjectives to mis-quote Vattle, but that is for another day. You read in French, both pages to understand his intent and usage.
Hope that helps some
Character for life: an American heritage : profiles of great men and women ... By Don Hawkinson
ReplyDeletehttp://books.google.com.ph/books?id=1NgoTI1gi-wC&pg=PA299&dq=vattel+law+of+nations++founders&hl=en&ei=MWeVTPH2Aoj6cIu34KMF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vattel%20law%20of%20nations%20%20founders&f=false
1836 NY Mirror, Issues 1-27
ReplyDeleteVattel pg 47
LITERARY NOTICES OF THE WEEK.
BOOK TABLE
There is a code (or the intercourse and governance of nations in their connexions with each other, as well as that civil code by which society is hound together, and an adherence to the former is relatively as important to the well-being of nations as the latter. Some of the acutest intellects of modern times have turned their attention to the explanation of the jurisprudence of international law, and all that has been since written on the subject is merely an enlargement of the doctrines of Grotius, Puffendorff, and Vattel, with such adaptations to the spirit of the times as the wants and altered situations of modern ages require. Since the period in which these sages wrote, kingdoms have been swept away, and others created ; the political state of Europe has been fundamentally altered, and this hemisphere has grown into a mighty portion of the great human family.
http://books.google.com.ph/books?pg=PA47&dq=Character+for+life:+an+American+heritage%3B+%22Vattel%22&ei=jIOWTP6KEMLbnAekz6izBw&ct=result&id=_nxNAAAAYAAJ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Character%20for%20life%3A%20an%20American%20heritage%3B%20%22Vattel%22&f=false
Sent to me to be posted by a person trying to help and explain the OBOTS debating tactics and their flawed logic.
ReplyDelete-------------------------
Take a look at US law...
US CODE 1401 Nationals and Citizens At Birth in USA
These are REQUIREMENTS
a) born in-country subject to jurisdiction (Jus Soli with only US jurisdiction)
b) 1 US native parent in-country (Jus soli, One Parent Jus sanguinis) = Obama , by bot definition
c) 2 US citizen parents born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, Two Parents Jus Sanguinis)
d) 1 US citizen parent + 1 national born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
e) 1 US citizen parent born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
f) unknown parentage found in USA under age 5 (Miscellaneous)
g) 1 US citizen parent w/5 year residence or military or gov't job + 1 alien born out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
h) 1 US citizen parent prior resident of USA + 1 alien born prior to 5-24-1934 out-of-country (No Jus Soli, One Parent Jus Sanguinis)
So you can see the ONLY omitted permutation from ALL of the statutory definitions for "Born Citizen" is that for Vattel's Natural Born Citizen, as in "Jus Soli, Two Parents Jus Sanguinis). Why? Because this is a natural born citizen, and they "don't need no stinkin' statute like mere "born citizens". How beautifully poetic the irrefutable mathematical logic is!
And this is because as Vattel says, "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens." and the title is Des Citoyens et Naturels, whereby citizens (statutory) are differentiated from natural born citizens EXACTLY AS IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION. THE EXACT PATTERN OF CITIZEN VS. NATURAL BORN CITIZEN (not the bot-made-up naturalized citizen v. born citizen).
The bot premise of 2 types of citizens being naturalized and born citizens so they can lump natural born citizens in with all other born citizens, FAILS utterly because FIVE of the EIGHT permutations for statutory US Citizenship aka "Citizens At Birth" are not even born in-country at all! Yet they are still "born citizens"!! So why do they keep harping on the birth certficate when they don't even need it?
SP
----------------------
(to be continued in next comment post)
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
(continued from prior comment post)
ReplyDeleteHere is an essay I wrote on the USC 1401 and the OBOTS flawed logic.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/citizen-at-birth-cab-does-not-equal.html
And this essay by Atty Apuzzo which includes a Euler logic diagram prepared by the Birthers.org site.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html
And another essay by Attorney Mario Apuzzo:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
The logic of what the founders and framers intended and what USC 1401 as a statutory law addresses is clear as a bell to those who wish to see. The OBOTS deliberately obfuscate and put out disinformation in a rendition of a cold war KGB disinformation operation to confuse the enemy. There is no doubt in my mind that this disinformation operation is being planned and coordinated at the highest level using the far left George Soros funded entities such as the Center for American Progress. To the OBOTS the enemy is the truth and the Constitution. They will do and say anything to protect their Marxist/Communist messiah/usurper in chief.
The contributor SP is spot on with her analysis of one of the OBOTS most commonly used misinformation tactics.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Another way to look at what a natural born Citizen is is a person who is 2nd generation American born in the United States with both his parents being American Citizens. The parents can be first generation naturalized Citizens when the child is born. Natural born Citizens are the children of the Citizens born in the country. And as such being born in the country and raised in the country by two U.S. Citizen parents they will gain maximum exposure to American culture from both the soil and the parents. They will grow up "well marinated in American culture". That is what the founders and framers intended for national security reasons. I am told that certain types of very high level specialized and extremely sensitive security clearances are not open to foreign born people or people with a foreign citizen parent. Someone expert in security clearances can comment on that if they have more details.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Presidential eligibility clause was and is a national security issue. That is why the framers put it in. To minimize the amount of foreign influence on the person who would be President and Commander in Chief of the military by requiring an extra generation of distance between them and the old country. They did not want a commander of our military who was dreaming dreams from his father whose father was still in the old country as we have with Obama and thus being very concerned to help his living immediate family over there when he should personally be solely and 100% interested only in the best interests of the USA.
And it should be noted that natural born Citizens of a country are the most populous group/type of Citizens. They are the 3 leaf clovers of the Citizens, not the 4 leaf clovers. 95% or more of the legal U.S Citizens are natural born Citizens.
http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=2985
And there are more than just two types of Citizens as the Obots try to sell to the unknowing. There were five (5) types alone mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-US-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
And then finally, there is this Euler Diagram by TheBirthers.org site which was incorporated into this essay by Mario Apuzzo which logically shows the various types of Citizenship and logically who is a "natural born Citizen of the United States", .i.e., a person born in the country to two U.S. Citizens (unity of citizenship at birth) and in compliance with Vattel, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, the legal treatise used by the founders and frames of the Constitution.
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/04/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
New YouTube Video. This new video does a good job in presenting the reason for the variation in the Certification of Nomination form sent by the DNC and Nancy Pelosi in 2008 to Hawaii when they sent a differently worded one to the other 49 states. This has been reported here in this blog before. But this video does a very good job in summary form in both words and visuals.
ReplyDeleteDemocratic Party of Hawaii Refused to Certify Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXFwqUi3zR0
The variation in the Certification of Nomination form sent to Hawaii by Nancy Pelosi, Chairperson of the DNC, as compared to what she sent to the other 49 states, is covered and pointed out in the Kerchner et al vs Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit for which a petition is now being prepared to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. See page 19 of the lawsuit. This is the table of contents with a link therein to the full text.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint Now in the last few weeks we know the reason why. This video clearly shows why.
Pass this video and our link herein to all your family, friends, associates, and members of Congress. Election fraud and other felony crimes were committed aplenty in the 2008 presidential election. Let us hope and pray that the Supremes still consider this a nation of laws and are willing to uphold the constitution, the fundamental and foundation law of our republic and nation. If not, complete loss of liberty and tyranny is just over the horizon, imo. And we need to throw out in the November elections this year as many of the culprits as we can who enabled the election fraud in 2008, in both parties. Throw out those who directly committed the crimes and those who committed misprision of a felony by allowing it to go on. Once out of office the criminal prosecutions will come next for some.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Pennsylvania USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
@ bdwilcox
ReplyDeleteCharles and other have answered in great details but I want to add the fact that if you read the US Constitution it is plain to see that Senator or house member need be only a Citizen to be eligible where as in this same document it states to be POTUS you need to show that you are a natural born Citizen.
So what did the framers think the difference was between Citizen and natural born Citizen was at that exact point in time?
It is clear to me that those in power of all parties want a so called new world order. They have been putting this in place for quite some time.
ReplyDeleteThey can only do that by trashing our US Constitution. So far it seems to be they are doing a better job of tearing it apart that protecting and upholding it.
Forget about their oath to it as they see you as a fool if you think something written in the 1700's can compare to their modern thinking ability.
May God bless Charles legal action and may all those that knew and did nothing be charged and tried for their crimes.
Excellent! The history of how the article II citizenship clause evolved does two things. It ends speculation that NBC came from art or other dialog instead of Vattel and it further defines the actual purpose of the article being to deny foreign influence. That is most important simply because we should be aware of all who have an affinity for foreign laws, cultures or establishments which they might deny unlike the ability to hide ones birth which would be well documented. So, it appears we have much more reason to impeach than just the refusal to comply with the law but because he professes and even espouses an affinity for the most antiamerican sentiment possible, anticolonialism.
ReplyDeleteHi Charles,
ReplyDeleteA follow up on your comment about the HDP and the refusal of the HDP to certify and sign the nomination form.
I wrote earlier but the monitor ate my comments.
The attorney for the HDP is William H Gilardy, JR[ WHG]
WHG was also the attorney for Stanley Soetoro in her divorce.
WHG must know the birth history of Barry and Maya.
WHG must have seen the birth certificates of Barry and Maya.
WHG must know if Barry was an Indonesian citizen.
WHG must have known that Barry was not eligible and had the HDP refuse to certify the nomination form unless the Constitutional clause was agreed to by Pelosi, Alice Germond, Howard Dean and the DNC attorneys.
I would love to hear testimony from WHG.
An excellent essay on this thread's topic was recently posted in Paralegalnm's Blog. See it at this link.
ReplyDeletehttp://paralegalnm.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/my-response-to-obama-conspiracy/
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al
http://www.protectourliberty.org
Thank you for all your efforts to fight for the truth.
ReplyDeleteHere is another interesting article on "Hawaii Dems button-lipped on Obama eligibility status" at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=207197
Here is an extract: "The original report came from a commentator at Canada Free Press who revealed the Democrats failed to certify their candidate's eligibility in 49 of the 50 states."
Obama is a usurper of the American Constitution and should resign immediately or be thrown out of office immediately.
NEVER GIVE UP ON YOUR FIGHT TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA.
THANKS MANY TIMES.
To Michael,
ReplyDeleteIt is good to see that WND is getting up to speed on the latest buzz as they call it on the net started by a recent blog post on the ButterDeZillion blog with more details about the Hawaiian Democratic Party officials being unwilling to certify the constitutional eligibility of Obama.
However, this two cert forms issued in regards to HI in 2008 is not a new story and the original report on this two DNC certification of nomination forms being issued did not start with that author Mr. Williams with the articles he wrote in the CFP site. In fact, the fact that the DNC issued a special Cert form to Hawaii is a part of the Kerchner et al vs Obama/Congress/Pelosi et al lawsuit filed on 20 Jan 2009, weeks if not months before Mr. Williams began writing about it at CFP. This information was known months before it was even included in our lawsuit. WND should have mentioned that this action is part of the Kerchner et al v Obama/Congress et al lawsuit. For the discussion of the two cert forms and the special one going to Hawaii in 2008 see page 19 in the lawsuit. Here is a link to the table of contents which shows it with a link to the full lawsuit where you can read the full details of our bringing this to the courts attention back in Jan 2009. Of course we have to get this to trial on the merits which Obama and his legions of lawyers have been blocking, now with the help of the DOJ. See page 19 for more details at this link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19914488/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-2nd-Amended-Complaint
So while I commend the work and writings of Mr. Williams on this issue, he is not the original writer on the subject which was discussed extensively on the net back in the last couple months in 2008 and as I said, we incorporated those issues into our lawsuit as an example that something was very, very wrong with the DNC's vetting of Obama, the lack thereof, and that we feel they knew something was wrong in Hawaii with Obama's birth registration records and subsequent amendments to same.
The fact that the attorney for the Hawaiian Democratic Party (DPH) in 2008 was the same attorney who handled the divorce for Obama's mom from Mr. Soetoro of Indonesia, is a further smoking gun that something in those records was of serious concern to the DPH such that they would not certify Obama was constitutionally eligible to be the President as they had done previously with no problem for Kerry and Gore when they ran.
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
@ Dixhistory who said...
ReplyDelete@ bdwilcox
Charles and other have answered in great details but I want to add the fact that if you read the US Constitution it is plain to see that Senator or house member need be only a Citizen to be eligible where as in this same document it states to be POTUS you need to show that you are a natural born Citizen.
So what did the framers think the difference was between Citizen and natural born Citizen was at that exact point in time?
September 22, 2010 12:55 PM
'Citizen' = inaugural US Citizen
'Natural born Citizen' = Generational US Citizen
Our new ad running today on page 5 of the Washington Times National Weekly edition has been featured at ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com
ReplyDeletehttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/washington-times-ad-obama-cant-cover.html
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C. said that if the Republicans gain a majority in Congress, Darrell Issa will be issuing subpoenas everywhere: "The White House will be full-time responding to subpoenas about where the president may or may not have been born, whether his mother and father were ever married, and whether his wife's family is from Georgetown or Sampit."
ReplyDeleteGee, Mr. Clyburn, why would such subpoenas pose a problem to the Dems? Wouldn't Barry simply answer them honestly and truthfully, vindicating himself and putting the issue to rest? Or do you think such subpoenas will pose a problem? And why do you think that? Is there something you know and aren't telling us?
An English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.
ReplyDeleteA US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.
Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.
An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.
That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.
To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'
To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.
Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.
Much like Kagen & Sotomayor are lackeys for the usurper Obama.
In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray
"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."
No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.
As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.
English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.
Michael has left a new comment on your post "Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Suffi...":
ReplyDeleteAn English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.
A US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.
Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.
An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.
That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.
To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'
To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.
Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.
[editor's deletion]
In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray
"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."
No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.
As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.
English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.
Posted by Michael to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at October 5, 2010 1:44 AM
Michael has left a new comment on your post "Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Suffi...":
ReplyDeleteAn English 'natural born subject' is not eligible for highest office of the land unless they are child of sovereign parents.
A US 'natural born Citizen' is the only citizen that IS eligible for highest office in the land.
Therefore an English 'natural born subject' is not equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.
An English 'natural born subject' is equivalent only to a US 14th Amendment US citizen, who is not eligible for highest US office unless they have the additional quality of 'natural'.
That additional quality can ONLY be born of US Citizen parents, because 14th Amendment US citizen is based only on born in the land with no reference to parents citizenship status.
To be eligible for English highest office, one must be born of sovereign parents, with nothing to do with 'natural born subject'
To be eligible for USA highest office, one must also be born of sovereign parents, and in the constitutional republic of USA the Citizens are sovereign.
Horace Gray was a lackey for another usurper Chester Arthur, Gray through the course of the Wong court, attempted to erode the US Constitution's meaning and intent of Article II and even still all Wong got was 'citizen' under 14th Amendment.
[editor's deletion]
In fact Horace Gray was known to fiddle with court transcripts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray
"Gray is best known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."
No 'natural' for Wong, and rightly so.
As it can be seen, Gray's logic was flawed and he was in error.
English 'natural born subject' is only equivalent to USA 14th Amendment citizen because for one to be eligible for highest office in either land one must be born of sovereign parents, who in USA are sovereign US Citizens & in England also sovereign parents.
Posted by Michael to A Place to Ask Questions to Get the Right Answers at October 5, 2010 1:44 AM
Calvin’s Case:
ReplyDelete“and so in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances to two several persons.”
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27
Ergo, Obama is “alien born”.
In 2 parts.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=7247
Granite said:
"However, it DID rule that Wong was Natural Born, since it made clear that the meaning of Natural Born was always “born in the country.” It ruled that every child born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA (which excludes the children of foreign diplomats now, and excluded children born on Indian reservations at the time) are Natural Born. Hence it ruled that Wong was Natural Born and a Citizen. He was thus a Natural Born Citizen. It ALSO upheld the ruling of the lower court, which had actually used the words Natural Born Citizen to describe Wong."
The decision for Wong was 'citizen' ONLY.
Here's the SCOTUS decision on Wong:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/169/649/case.html
"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 THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
ORDER AFFIRMED."
Continued from Part 1 of 2
ReplyDeleteNOTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL BORN! although the golden opportunity was there to deem Wong as 'natural born' .............. the court decided 'CITIZEN' and ONLY 'CITIZEN ............... NO 'natural born for Wong''
Seeing as though 'natural born Citizen' was discussed at length in the Wong court, and if it was as you allege 'ruled' by the court that Wong was 'Article II 'natural born Citizen' then why do you suppose the decision did NOT state 'natural born Citizen'?
Did the court forget to put that in the decision?
I don't think so, do you?
The court failed to 'make clear that the meaning of Natural Born was always “born in the country".
All the Wong court made clear was what the English CALL their born in the land subjects 'natural born subjects'(the equivalent to a US 14th Amendment born in the land citizens.)
The court was in error, due to the fact that what the English CALL a 'natural born subject' is a person who is born in the land, without any reference to parentage, the equivalent to a US 14th Amendment 'citizen'.
Hence an English 'natural born subject' is not the equivalent to a US 'natural born Citizen'.
The English 'common law' per Calvin's Case, was to determine birth-right subject, not highest office.
The US 'natural born Citizen' is the eligibility requirement for highest office, as 14th Amendment only deals with an ordinary (NOT natural born) US citizen, which is the equivalent status as an English 'natural born subject'.
Both and English 'natural born subject' and a US 14th Amendment citizen are NOT eligible for the highest office in their respective land.
For eligibility for highest office of England, one must be born of sovereign PARENTS.
Similarly for eligibility for highest office in USA, one must be born of sovereign PARENTS, they being US citizen parents.
In USA it is the Citizens who are sovereign.
If USA 14th Amendment citizen of the born variety was intended to be considered an Article II 'natural born Citizen', then it would have said so .............. but it didn't & the 14th Amendment came well after Article II, so there was plenty of time to get it 'right' in the 14th Amendment.
There is NO PRECEDENT in English 'common law' for eligibility of president of a constitutional republic.
In this instance the US Constitution IS THE PRECEDENT!