Updated: The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”

Print This Article


by Jedi Pauly

With a British citizen for a father, does Obama qualify under Article II of the Constitution?

(Nov. 4, 2010) — I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, concerning the meaning and definition of “natural born Citizen” within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that many of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have not described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show what I believe are their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories.  I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that I believe clearly defines “natural born Citizen” within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

First, let us examine the work of attorney Orly Taitz. To the best of my knowledge, she has never stated a correct legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, but rather she just asserts facts and draws wrong conclusions based upon failed legal hypotheses. Her argument goes something like this: She claims or believes that the term “natural born Citizen” from Article II is an undefined legal term of which the courts must determine the meaning, because somehow the definition of “natural born citizen’” has changed over time by precedents from U.S. Supreme court decisions, and therefore there is some conflict or confusion that has led to the “natural born Citizen” in Article II losing or changing its meaning and interpretation over time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What she fails to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II. They could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

Another misconception on her part is that U.S. case law from the Supreme Court has changed the definition of “natural born Citizen” at all. All the Supreme Court cases have done is just reiterated what the definition(s) of natural born citizen(s) has been for thousands of years that existed in other legal jurisdictions long before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The only relevancy of the U.S. Supreme Court cases is that their decisions form part of the relevant case law for the U.S. legal system because the pre-existing definitions of “natural born citizen” were created in legal jurisdictions outside of the U.S. jurisdiction which had existed long before the formation of the U.S. government. Finally, it is totally bizarre to conceive that the Framers of Article II would be able to write into the Constitution the qualifications for the highest political office in the land with undefined legal terms that they themselves could not have known and which were subject to the whims of judicial interpretations, subject to change by stare decisis, or by the whims of Congress with a simple statute. What an incredibly impossible task it would have been to write Article II under those circumstances. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Here are the facts encountered by Orly Taitz. She looked back in time to the encyclopedia of law known as The Law of Nations written by Emerich de Vattel. Mr. Vattel reports that one definition of “natural born citizen” means “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (interpreted by Taitz to mean plural or both parents).

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. (Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212)

She then moves the clock forward a bit, after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and she encounters a statement by Judge John Bingham who said that “children who are born in the country, of parents who do not owe any political allegiance to other countries, are in the language of the Constitution itself, natural born citizens.” Mrs. Taitz then asserts from these facts that that is what Article II means and why it requires BOTH parents to be citizens and also that one must be born on U.S. soil in order to qualify for the office of President. This is her legal hypothesis which is easy to debunk.

Forget about the fact that Orly has just disenfranchised any and all children born of military parents on foreign shores, contrary to U.S. case law, and forget about the fact that there have been many examples of presidents, after the Sunset Clause expired, who did not have U.S. citizen mothers but the validity of their presidencies were never in question.  Let’s just look at the one giant glaring mistake that crashes her hypothesis. The definition she uses says ALL children born of citizen parents are natural born citizens, which includes males and females, but Article II is only talking about free-born MALES because females had no political rights recognized for almost 150 years after the adoption of the Constitution (Minor v. Happersett), and it took the 19th Amendment to recognize the natural inherited political rights of women. Isn’t it bizarre to think that, prior to the 19th Amendment, a female could be president, which is a political right, but females could not even vote and the Minor court case could find no political voting rights for women within the Constitution?

Obviously the “natural born Citizen” term in Article II does not mean ALL children born of citizen parents since females were originally excluded from the sovereign body politic even though they are natural born citizens, the same as males. So much for her hypothesis. Her hypothesis has just gone down in flames, because we have shown that not all “natural born citizens” are created to have the same political rights recognized under the law. Obviously, Article II “natural born Citizen” cannot mean what she contends because it never was originally intended to include females.

If I were to give a letter grade to Orly Taitz it would have to be an F+ for failing to state a valid legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, and for failing to apply any legal principles or other observations of history and Nature to validate her hypothesis. Why the ” + ” ? She gets a plus for her efforts and having her heart in the right place. Orly Taitz has worked very hard to bring the issue to people’s attention, even though she has not been explaining the issue correctly. She has had to put up with a lot of grief for her efforts.

Let’s move on to Philip Berg who scores much better.

Attorney Philip Berg uses a different approach than Orly Taitz.

Berg uses the approach of a prosecutor who is trying to prove criminal intent by removing all of the possibilities, and what is left must be the truth. This is a valid approach to proving Obama is not qualified and that Obama is a criminal fraud. Berg achieves this goal in my estimation. However, his approach does not include the declaration of any valid theory of law which shows what the meaning and definition of Article II is. It is not surprising that Berg would use this approach because it is my understanding that he was a former Assistant Attorney General, which is one of the branches of government that is responsible for prosecuting violations of the laws of a State. He is therefore trained to think like a prosecutor, probably also influenced by years of experience in the role of a prosecutor in his law practice and other years of similar experience.

Berg’s reasoning seems to go something like this: He believes that under the laws of the U.S., there are basically three ways to be considered a “natural born citizen.” You can be a ‘”natural born citizen” by just the soil jurisdiction, even if both parents are foreign citizens (anchor babies, for example), or you can be a “natural born citizen” by just your mom being a U.S. citizen, even if you have a foreign dad, as long as your mom is old enough and meets other statutory conditions, or you can be a “natural born citizen” as long as your dad is a U.S. citizen when you are born. He then proceeds to show that each element is not possible for Obama to achieve.

Berg first eliminates the soil jurisdiction as a pathway by asserting that Barack was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii, which is a very convincing argument based on the evidence that he can show and the circumstantial evidence of Obama’s behavior surrounding this issue. He then eliminates Barack’s mother as a pathway to natural born citizen status by showing that she cannot meet the statutory requirements to pass on natural born citizenship status to her son. However, this is a rather weak technicality of the law that would not be sufficient enough to convince one that Obama should be considered not to be qualified under Article II. Finally, Berg then eliminates Barack’s dad because obviously he was never a U.S. citizen, so the father cannot be a pathway to “natural born” citizen status. With all three avenues eliminated, the only conclusion one can make is that Obama cannot possibly be a “natural born” citizen of the U.S. and is therefore unqualified by Article II requirements.

I must admit that Berg can probably convince any jury that this is the case and can be said to have achieved the goal of proving that Obama is not a valid President, but that is not the same thing as putting forth a theory of law that shows what Article II “natural born Citizen” means, or how it is properly defined within the political context and intent of Article II. Berg almost gets there because he goes a bit farther and makes a point that Barack’s citizenship status is controlled by Kenya and Britain, not by the laws of the U.S., which seems to imply that there is no political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, although I am not quite sure that he states it quite that way and I have not seen him relate the full ramifications and implications of this into a coherent theory of law that explains Article II.

I have never heard Phil Berg speak to what would happen if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and his mom was indeed old enough. Then what? He does not seem to go that extra mile and explain that Article II does not prohibit dual citizenship under all circumstances; it only prohibits dual political allegiances that are inherited and requires that your inherited political allegiance belong to the U.S. and not some other jurisdiction or country. He does not explain that Barack actually is potentially born with the legal privilege of three possible citizenships, one from Kenya and one from the British commonwealth or Britain, and one from the U.S., but Barack only potentially inherits either one or two political allegiances depending on the recognition of the monarchy form of government in England. Barack would inherit a political allegiance to Kenya from his dad and he might inherit a political allegiance to England via the soil jurisdiction since the form of government in England is that of a monarchy and monarchies create automatic political allegiances at birth just by being born on the king’s soil jurisdiction. In either case, whether Barack had one or two inherited political allegiances at birth, neither one would be an inherited political allegiance to the U.S. I will give Phil Berg a B or B+.

This is where I now add my contribution to this issue by describing the correct theory of law that shows the true meaning and interpretation of Article II which will show that even if Obama was born on U.S. soil to a fully-aged legal U.S. citizen mother, he still would not qualify because the soil jurisdiction and the mother’s citizenship are irrelevant for Article II purposes. I will now describe the theory.


Article II “natural born Citizen” is fully defined by the Natural Law jurisdiction and natural circumstances, and does not mean just any person who is a “natural born” citizen by statutory privilege or definition. Rather, it requires conditions of your birth that create a specific “natural born” citizen at birth, one who inherits his political right to be President as a Natural Right and not to one who obtains his political rights as a legal privilege from the Positive Law jurisdiction. The natural political right to be President is an unalienable natural right recognized under the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence which is obtained by inheritance only from a citizen father, because that is where both males and females get their natural political rights from. The natural political rights of both males and females are only recognized and realized as “legal rights,” which are privileges and are created in the Positive Law jurisdiction by males, not females. This logical order is a natural objective, self-evident truth and consequence of Nature that is caused by the fact of a male’s natural superiority in physical strength and aggression. This is why the Declaration of Independence says that it is a “self-evident truth that all MEN are created equal and that they are endowed with political rights (Liberty) that come from the Laws of Nature (endowed by their Creator means as a function of the Natural Law jurisdiction and Nature’s Laws) and that governments are instituted among MEN deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” meaning the male voting members of society. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about the political rights of females and the Constitution did not originally recognize women to be part of the sovereign body politic (Minor v. Happersett) until the 19th Amendment almost 150 years after the Constitution was adopted.

Asserted Facts and Assumptions and Definitions

There exists a Natural Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature, and Natural Rights are unalienable.

There exists a Positive Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Legal Rights, and legal rights are privileges. Positive Law means man-made statutory law from the Latin root “posit” which means that which is declared and agreed to. It is sometimes referred to as “decreed law” under a monarchy political system.

Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.

Political Rights are Natural Rights which are Inherited from our Fathers (Declaration of Independence).

The legal context of Article II is a Political context because the Office of President is the highest Political Office in the land.

The Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776 secured the sovereign political authority of the former citizen “subjects” of the King of England who were not born having their natural sovereign political authority or natural sovereign political rights to be recognized by the King.

With the successful conclusion of the War of 1776, the colonies, and later the U.S., no longer recognized the automatic inherited political allegiances from soil jurisdictions which had been the case in the colonies under the monarchy form of government of England. U.S. law does not recognize there to be political allegiances owed due to being born on soil jurisdictions.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens.

A Sovereign authority is the author and source of the law.

A Sovereign citizen takes his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes.

Natural Rights are Inherited from other human beings and are not obtained from soil jurisdictions which are just artificially created legal fictions.

Article II is meant to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and nation by ensuring political allegiance to a Sovereign Republic form of government by preventing a monarchy, because the original intent was that Article II should bar Titles of Nobility from attaining the office of President, which would create a Monarchy and not a Sovereign Republic.


1) Article II “natural born Citizen” describes a member of the Sovereign Body Politic from among the natural born citizens of the country, which did not originally include females even though they were also natural born citizens.

One need only examine Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ….”  Notice that “natural born Citizen,” “Citizen” and “United States” are all referring to sovereign political entities that have their sovereign status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction. “United States” is a sovereign political entity formed from the States of the Union which are Sovereign States. The “Citizen of the United States” is referring to the sovereign male citizens from the Sovereign States that were not born having their sovereign political status recognized by the King at birth because they were former colonies of the Monarchy. It cannot be claimed that “Citizen” is referring to just any citizen, because the female citizens of the States did not have their sovereign political status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction because none of the States recognized females to have any political voting rights. That is the purpose for capitalizing “Citizen” to indicate a certain specific citizen or political condition. The reference is to former males who were born as citizen “‘subjects” of the king due to the soil jurisdiction of the king which caused those male citizens to owe a political allegiance to the King at birth.

An exception had to be made to accommodate these male citizens since they were not born without inherited foreign political allegiances. This part of Article II is called the Sunset Clause and indicates that “natural born Citizen” is referring to the future naturally created members of society, after the adoption of the Constitution, who are born with an inherited sovereign political authority recognized in the positive law jurisdiction who will not owe a political allegiance at birth due to soil jurisdiction, but will have to inherit their sovereign political status, which implies males who are created by citizen fathers, since both males and females inherit their political condition from their citizen fathers. The capitalization and the logic of the sentence construction indicates specific citizens, i.e., males, and specific political conditions that occur naturally at birth.

2) There are many different natural conditions or circumstances that can create a natural born citizen status, but only the correct natural conditions can create a natural born citizen that will prevent titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President. The place of your birth and the citizenship status of your mother are irrelevant for Article II purposes.

Under the laws of the United States, there are several permutations or pathways to claim a natural born Citizen status. You can be considered a “natural born Citizen” if you are just born on the soil jurisdiction of the U.S. even if you have two parents that are not U.S. citizens. We call those citizens created solely from the soil jurisdiction “natural born citizens” because during the days of the English Common Law when there was a Monarchy form of political system controlling the Colonies, any person born on the King’s soil jurisdiction was naturally born subject to the King’s jurisdiction (citizen”‘subject” of king George), and those persons were born inheriting a duty to owe a political allegiance to the King that the King demanded of them because he controlled the soil jurisdiction that the King claimed dominion over, and also over all subjects within the soil jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, however, those citizens are not “natural born” by the Laws of Nature to inherit a political allegiance from their fathers due to natural laws, but rather just due to circumstances because the King’s jurisdiction is a Positive Law jurisdiction of legal privileges, not a Natural Law jurisdiction, and the King is not the source of natural inherited rights. The King dictates to those born on his soil what political rights they may have, and they do not include the right to claim an inheritance of a sovereign political authority from one’s father because then an individual would be in direct conflict with the King. The King was the only person with the privilege to claim a sovereign political authority under a monarchy form of government. That was the entire issue with the Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776, when our colonial forefathers declared that political rights do not come from the King or his soil jurisdiction, but are actually endowed to males from the Laws of Nature and come to both males and females from our fathers, not from the soil, nor from a king, nor the king’s parliament in England.

We fought and won the war of 1776 and secured to ourselves the recognition of our own natural sovereign political authority inherited from the natural law jurisdiction from our fathers. Since that time, we have abandoned the notion that soil jurisdictions cause one to owe a political allegiance to the state, and a person now owes political allegiance directly inherited through his father. That was the entire point of the Revolution. People need to wake up and read the memo that we are no longer a monarchy and U.S. law does not recognize the soil jurisdiction as a determination for political allegiances. This is why it makes no difference where you are born for Article II purposes because it is not possible to owe any political allegiance to a foreign state or to the U.S. just by being born on its soil jurisdiction. That ended 250 years ago! The government is not our king! It serves us, not the other way around! If we still recognized the soil jurisdiction to cause one to automatically owe a political allegiance to the U.S. just by being born on U.S. soil jurisdiction, then there would be no way to prevent a foreign king from attaining the office of President because any foreign king could just come to America with his wife, give birth on U.S. soil, and then that child would inherit a political allegiance to his foreign father. He would be a royal prince with a title of nobility who could then also claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. due to the soil, and then we could have a monarchy again because a title of nobility could then qualify under Article II and become President.

What is confusing people is that they fail to realize that there is a huge difference between owing a political allegiance at birth due to inheritance and natural laws, and just being entitled to the privilege of citizenship which is just a legal right of the soil and not a natural right due to parents. Just because you are born with the privilege of citizenship from multiple jurisdictions does not mean that you are born with multiple owed allegiances. There is no allegiance owed at birth for privileges that you do not accept. For example, my father was in the Air Force and he was a U.S. citizen when I was born in Japan. I did not inherit a political allegiance to Japan at birth but I was entitled at age 18 to receive the privilege of Japanese citizenship, which I declined. I can still qualify for the Office of President because I inherited my political allegiance to the U.S. at birth directly from my citizen father. The Japanese soil cannot prevent the Laws of Nature, nor my owed political allegiance to my father and his country, from being passed on from my father to me. I did not owe any allegiance to Japan due to its soil jurisdiction because the U.S. does not recognize its citizens to owe allegiances to a state due to their soil jurisdiction ever since we won our independence 250 years ago! This is why the place of your birth is totally irrelevant for determining who qualifies under Article II. You must have a citizen father to qualify. A similar argument proves that your mother is also irrelevant.

Another way to be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is to just be born to a U.S. citizen mother as long as she is old enough and meets other statutory requirements. At least with your mother or father, we can move beyond the Positive Law jurisdiction of legal rights and legal privileges of soil to actually consider the Natural Law jurisdiction and what natural rights are inherited from your parents. By having a parent who is a citizen, it can strictly be interpreted that we are talking about Natural Rights because natural rights are inherited from one human being to another, not from soil.

However, a “natural born” citizen status from just your mother fails to meet Article II requirements on two fronts. By looking at both the political context of Article II as well as its purpose and intent, which is to ensure political allegiance to the U.S. by preventing titles of nobility from attaining the office of President, we can see that  a person’s mother cannot be a determining factor for Article II purposes. First, just look at the political context. Since the office of President is a political right and political rights are natural rights that are inherited from males under the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you cannot inherit from your mother, who is a female, the natural political right to be President. Both males and females inherit their political rights from their fathers, not their mothers. Next, look at the intent to prevent titles of nobility and it is obvious that if any foreign king can impregnate a female U.S. citizen, then you would have a child born who inherits a title of nobility and a political allegiance to a foreign country through his father who cannot even claim an inherited political allegiance to the United States, even though he would be a “natural born” citizen by his mother, because we do not inherit political allegiance through our citizen mothers. Clearly your mother alone makes it impossible to qualify under Article II.

3) The office of President is not supposed to be an office that a person is born into the PRIVILEGE of qualifying for; it is supposed to be that a person must be born qualifying as a NATURAL RIGHT, not a legal privilege.

The term “natural born citizen” from the soil jurisdiction is a legal privilege only, and it refers to a citizenship that is recognized solely by the soil jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Also, if you have a foreign father, then a “natural born citizen” status from a citizen mother is also a legal privilege defined in statutes with strict conditions placed on age and residency requirements of the mother before one can claim a natural born citizen status as a U.S. citizen. Both conditions are LEGAL PRIVILEGES and not the recognition of a NATURAL RIGHT to be a citizen. To the best of my knowledge, there are no statutory requirements if you are created by a citizen father; you are automatically recognized to be a natural born U.S. citizen, no matter the age of your citizen father, as a natural right and not a legal privilege. The Office of President is supposed to be one that you inherit the natural right to qualify for and it is not supposed to be that you are born into qualifying as a legal privilege like a noble title.

That was the entire problem with the monarchy form of government in England which the founding fathers were trying to avoid. In England, under the English Common Law and monarchy, there was an elite group or privileged class of natural born citizens who had titles of nobility (royalty). They were the only natural born citizens of England that could claim the political right to be the head political leaders of their country. The commoners were also natural born citizens but they were not members of the sovereign body politic that was exclusively for those with titles of nobility. The commoners originally could never serve in the House of Lords (why do you think it is called the House of Lords?) or claim a sovereign political authority to be a king. Our founding fathers wanted to move away from this elitism of the nobility and permit any natural born citizen male who inherits a political allegiance from his citizen father to have the opportunity to hold the highest political office in the land. Furthermore, they did not want to entrust Congress to be in a position to grant a privilege of a title of nobility to a citizen or non-citizen that was not born inheriting a political allegiance to the United States, who could then be a king and take over the office of President and create a monarchy. If the office of President was just a privilege and not a natural right, then Congress and the courts could just create a Presidential privilege statute for their friends and interpret it with the courts to create a special privileged class that would overturn the Constitution, and the sovereign People of the country could be disenfranchised from their natural political rights by Congress and the Courts. With Article II “natural born Citizen,” meaning that you must inherit your political allegiance from your citizen father, this places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts and forces the jurisdiction to be the Natural Law jurisdiction which is opposite and outside of the Positive Law jurisdiction of Congress or the Courts. This is why Article II is totally defined under a Natural Law jurisdiction by natural conditions of having a citizen father to inherit your political rights and owed political allegiance from, so Congress and the Courts will have no lawful jurisdiction to create a privilege or title of nobility that would disenfranchise the people from their own government. This is in fact what has now happened with Obama because the Congress and Courts have conspired together to exceed their authority and grant the privilege of a sovereign political authority to Obama when he never had the natural right to claim an inherited sovereign political authority, nor claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, inherited also from his citizen father.


We have now discovered and proven what the true meaning and definition and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It is clear that it has nothing to do with your place of birth nor your mother, but just means a natural born citizen created by a citizen father. The utter contempt of the Congress, the Courts, the Department of Justice,  the FBI, military, news media, etc., for the Constitution and the sovereign political rights of the People is now blatantly clear. There can be no question that there is no political representation of the citizens or recognition of the natural sovereign political rights of males, or any legal recognition of the freedoms and liberties of We the People. With Obama installed as a usurper, we have now gone back in time to the identical political conditions which existed prior to the Declaration of Independence under the tyranny of the monarchy of King George and his Parliament. We now live under tyranny and involuntary servitude to Congress and their statutes which cannot possibly be valid law with an illegal President signing them.

The Courts, of course, are going to expect the citizenry to accept the validity of the statutes and the courts’ authority, when in fact the statutes are completely without validity and the courts lack authority and proper jurisdiction to enforce the statutes signed by Obama. The judges will no longer be judges but instead will become prosecutors, usurping authority that they do not have to prosecute political tyranny with lies, forcing people against their rights of conscience to accept lies and false laws, and they will ignore the natural sovereign political rights of the citizens which were recognized in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the U.S. Constitution. A condition of involuntary servitude, which is the essence of SLAVERY, will now be the law of the land. It is ironic that in 2008 a black man and the Supreme Court are responsible for reviving the condition of slavery in America. It is unconscionable that the FBI, Justice Department and the Courts sit on their hands and lack the political will to enforce the laws and Constitution as the citizenry are abused and violated. We might as well be living in Nazi Germany. The Republic is lost. All hail King Obama and the 50 State Plantation of America. I hope you enjoy being a slave.

© 2010, The Post & Email. All rights reserved.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Categories: Editorials