Tag Archives: natural born citizen

What is a Natural Born Citizen?

Publius Huldah, retired attorney and Constitutional scholar, explains what a Natural Born Citizen is in 12 minutes on some needed history lesson and our framers’ intent. I hope you’ll take the time to listen to this explanation of this very important topic.
This is YOUR country. Just click on the Vimeo link below.

https://vimeo.com/154765379

The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue

BY TIM BROWN FROM FREEDOMOUTPOST.COM

The issue over the idea of natural born citizen is being touted quite a bit leading up to the GOP debate this week and in its wake, too many people are confused and have not looked at what the Constitution says, nor have they taken the time to go back and see how the founders understood the term. They regurgitate what conservative talking heads and such spew out about Supreme Court rulings and cite laws that do not deal with the term natural born citizen. However, the elephant in the room (or the Constitution) that is never addressed is the differences of how there are the apparent differences of citizens in the Constitution itself.

I have alluded to this previously when pointing out that the Constitution specifically addresses in the very qualifications that there are natural born citizens and citizens.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution reads:

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. (Emphasis mine)

Now, there is no question that men like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal all meet the criteria of being at least 35 years old and have been residents in the States. There is also no question that these men are citizens. The question is, are they natural born citizens.

The other night in the debate, Ted Cruz mixed up natural born citizen and citizen just like he has in the past. However, he’s not the only one that does that. There are lots of people who claim you are either a citizen or a naturalized citizen and there is nothing else that can be added to another kind of citizen, but that’s not what the framers had in mind and it isn’t even what the Constitution presents to us.

First, as has been very eloquently presented by Publius Huldah, the founders had at least three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations in their possession during the first Constitutional Convention and they made use of it. In that book, it is the first place that we read about a natural born citizen. Vattel writes concerning citizens and natives:

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Emphasis mine)

Clearly, Vattel, in defining natural born citizen, would have deemed Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio as those who are not natural born citizens. I really don’t think there is any argument against Vattel on that. However, the question is, does the Constitution follow that thinking? Lo, and behold, it does.

As cited above, there is a clear distinction between a natural born citizen and the citizens in the grandfather clause. While many of those in America would be considered citizens at the time of the founding, they would never be natural born citizens and so this was the need for the grandfather clause.

But consider in addition to Article II, Section 1 that deals with the requirement to be a natural born citizen for the President, that there are other requirements for representatives and senators and notice the language:

Article I, Section 2 states:

 

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Article I, Section 3 states:

 

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

Do you notice something that is obviously missing from a requirement of these offices that is in the requirement for President? That’s right, there is no requirement for representatives and senators to be natural born citizens. Rather, the framers simply used the term citizen, as they did in Article II, Section 1. We can also see that they emphasized a length of time one had to be a citizen to hold that office (7 years for a representative and 9 years for a senator).

So, what is the issue, you ask? Clearly, the framers saw, for lack of a better term, “different classes of citizens.” This has nothing to do with diminishing the rights of any citizen, but distinguished who would have the privilege of serving in these offices and who could not.

The real difference here is this: natural born citizen is a fact and citizen is a legal status.

Get that?

And lest you think I’m straining at gnats here, understand that the “devil is always in the details,” or in this case, the distinction of natural born citizen and citizen. The framers have even written in such a way to make that distinction. Every other place in the Constitution, only the term citizen is used and I believe it was a clear indication of protecting an office that only one man holds and they wanted to ensure that his loyalties were not divided with dual citizenship allegiances.

My contention in this matter is not about personalities. I have addressed the issue with Obama and now I’m addressing it with those who claim to be on my side. The issue is one of principle. To mix and match citizen with natural born citizen is to undermine the very wording of the Constitution and distinction of those terms for the purpose of holding office.

This article is far longer than I desired it to be already, but I hope that it sets a foundation of understanding that the Constitution presents the two citizens as distinct. I will continue my thoughts on this in a future installment. Stay tuned.

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon

American Voters Now Greatest Threat to America?

By JB Williams

[email protected]

Through illegal immigration and so-called refugee resettlement programs, both importing a new breed of American “citizen” and a new crop of voters, the U.S. elections are now heavily influenced by foreign anti-American interests. The voter demographics of our country are being intentionally and purposefully altered. But that may not be the greatest threat to American sovereignty, security and freedom.

Our nation’s Founders did their level best to create a system of self-governance of, by and for the legitimate citizens of the United States, establishing three co-equal branches of the Federal Government, each with their own set of limited duties and authorities necessary to execute those duties. In this extraordinary effort, they installed countless checks and balances to make possible the ongoing protection of all Natural Rights established for the people in our Charters of Freedom.

One of those measures was a set of few, but strict conditions for high political office, an effort to make certain that only True Americans with no foreign entanglements or allegiances would hold the reins of political power in America. A different set of requirements were created for each branch, two chambers of the legislature, the judiciary and the executive branch.

The most powerful political office in our land and maybe in the entire world is the Oval Office, the office of Commander-in-Chief of the entire United States military and national security apparatus. This office has a very specific eligibility requirement unique to this office alone, that of no other but a natural born Citizen.

In a recent online survey, the following question was asked on more than a dozen known “conservative” Facebook (FB) groups….

“Do YOU believe that 14th Amendment “anchor babies” and “undocumented citizens” are “natural born Citizens” eligible for the Oval Office?”

Over 166 members in those FB groups shared the post and approximately 100 members voted in the survey within hours of the post. 100% of the survey respondents answered the question correctly, NO… no one answered YES or I DON’T KNOW… They may not know what natural born Citizen is, but they seem to know what it is not.

This is good news… this means that these people all know that the March 2015 Harvard Law Review essay clearing both Barack Obama and Sen. Ted Cruz for the Oval Office, is total nonsense, based upon 14th Amendment naturalization codes qualifying anchor babies and undocumented citizens for high office on the basis of misused naturalization statutes and cases.

The FB survey did not mention any candidate names. When respondents were simply answering a non-partisan question pertaining to who is not a natural born Citizen, they were able to get the answer correct with 100% accuracy.

However, some of those same respondents are supporting either an “anchor baby” or an “undocumented citizen” for the 2016 GOP nomination, without connecting the dots between the survey they had just answered and the candidates they support.

An anchor baby is a child born in the United States to foreign parents. Misuses of our immigration and naturalization statutes allow that child to be a U.S. “citizen at birth” under the 14th Amendment – then becoming an anchor under which the parents and other family members can take a shortcut to U.S. citizenship by attaching to the anchor baby. These are “naturalized citizens” and their citizenship is based solely upon 14th Amendment naturalization statutes….

This is the condition of 2016 GOP candidate Marco Rubio, who was born in Florida to two Cuban citizen parents who did not become naturalized citizens of the United States until years after Marco’s birth. Marco Rubio was born Cuban, an anchor baby citizen of the USA only under 14th Amendment naturalization codes. He is not a natural born Citizen of the United States.

Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and registered at that time as a native born citizen of Canada at birth. This fact is evidenced by the release of his Canadian birth record and his May 14, 2026 renouncing of his Canadian citizenship. These two very public events prove that Ted Cruz was a Canadian citizen at birth and remained a legal citizen of Canada until renouncing that citizenship on May 14, 2014.

The claim has been made that Ted Cruz is a natural born Citizen of the United States, eligible for the Oval Office, despite these known facts. These claims are again, being made on the basis of misused 14th Amendment naturalization statutes which may allow his mother to confer naturalized U.S. citizenship to Ted, under certain conditions for doing so.

The record shows that Ted’s mother did not register him as a “U.S. Citizen born abroad” in Calgary, but rather as only a native born citizen of Canada at birth. The record also shows that Ted Cruz remained a legal citizen of Canada until May 14, 2014, when he renounced that citizenship.

To date, no records of Ted Cruz ever being registered in the United States as a citizen of any kind have been released or found. A “citizen” without any authenticated documentation is by definition, an “undocumented citizen.” The legal term for undocumented citizen is “illegal alien” or “resident alien,” one who resides in the United States with no known authenticated documentation of their true citizenship status.

In fact, the term “undocumented citizen” is an oxymoron…. According to our immigration and naturalization laws, if one is not documented, they are not a citizen. They are a “resident alien.” In their efforts to collect taxes from anywhere they can, the I.R.S. created numerous new “classes of citizens” in order to collect taxes from people in our country illegally and without any other documentation.

As of this writing, Ted Cruz is a “resident alien” of the United States, not a natural born Citizen of the United States. That’s what our laws and Ted’s personal documentation prove.

When the FB survey asked “conservatives” if anchor babies or undocumented citizens are natural born Citizens eligible for the Oval Office, they answered NO with 100% accuracy. But when you point out that Marco Rubio is nothing more than an anchor baby or that Ted Cruz is an undocumented resident alien, their opinions begin to shift, sometimes violently.

Once the political agenda of the respondent enters the discussion, the simple truth they once knew is replaced by micro debate arguments that allow them to avoid reality by splitting hairs and relying on “legal expert opinions” that serve their agenda, regardless of fundamentally knowing it is all smoke and mirrors…

Despite knowing that a 14th Amendment citizen is a naturalized citizen ineligible for office, they still use 14th Amendment arguments to qualify their candidate of choice.

Americans are accustomed to people with unbridled political ambitions saying anything they have to in pursuit of that power. What’s new here is the willingness of American voters to go along with it.

Over the past couple of weeks, I have received numerous fund-raising emails that I thought came from the Ted Cruz 2016 campaign. In the last day or two, I have received the same fund-raising emails for Marco Rubio – also assuming those emails were sent by his campaign.

But in fact, both of those fund-raising efforts for Cruz and Rubio came from the same source, the National Tea Party. An operation originally established to fight for restoration of Constitutional Government now finds itself squarely in the middle of undermining the Rule of Constitutional Law, and millions of unsuspecting Americans are following their lead.

This is what makes Americans the greatest threat to America… it comes down to just two factors…

  1. The human tendency to follow that which we want to be true, despite knowing what is true.
  2. The tendency to ignore reality in favor of a political fantasy.

Neither Ted Cruz nor Marco Rubio is a natural born Citizen of the United States. A letter to Ted Cruz dated December 2013 literally begged Ted not to force his fraudulent condition into the daylight by running for President. He never answered that letter… His political ambitions proved to be much more powerful than his desire to simply do right.

Still, the real problem remains the average American voter… who despite knowing the truth, side with the lie believing the political end will justify the unconstitutional means.

If natural born Citizen no longer matters to the average voter, then nothing else in the Charters of Freedom matters, because you cannot protect the Constitutional Republic without preventing foreign entities from holding the most powerful office in our land.

Two of the people who should have stopped Obama from the U.S. Senate are instead, trying to ride his coattails of fraud to the Oval Office themselves…. Both are highly trained lawyers, so there is no claiming ignorance of the law. And these two have the backing of the National Tea Party…. Global governance only works in America once anyone from anywhere in the world can be Commander-in-Chief….

The same group will soon announce that Ben Carson is entering the race and they are raising money for all of these candidates…. Only a fool would give them a penny for any of them…. Only to wait to see how the Tea Party uses their money to drive the final nail in the coffin of the United States.

These groups are not just watching the end of the American presidency, they are participating in it… they are leading it.