If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


January 14, 2015

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires the president and commander-in-chief to be a “natural born Citizen”

Ms. Kirsten Kukowski
Media Representative
Via Email

Dear Ms. Kukowski:

I own and operate an electronic newspaper, The Post & Email, focusing on government corruption.

I have a question regarding whether or not the GOP intends to adopt any formal position on the meaning of Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

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.

Since 2009, my publication has sought the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” and found ample evidence that it means “born in the country to U.S.-citizen parents,” or “born on U.S. soil to parents who are citizens.”

With the speculation about who the 2016 Republican and Democrat primary contenders might be, is anyone asking whether or not the potential candidates are constitutionally eligible?

I asked this question several months ago of GOP.com in both email and voice mail formats and did not receive an answer.  However, a person who said she was not authorized to speak to the media told me, paraphrased, “Sooner or later it’s going to have to be dealt with” and that she believed it would be “sooner.”

There is U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming that a “natural born Citizen” is a person born within the United States to two citizen parents.  In the case of Minor v. Happersett, which actually was about voting rights, the Court wrote:

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these States when the Constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen — a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

The Supreme Court, therefore, indicated that there were “doubts” as to whether or not a person born to foreign-citizen parents on U.S. soil qualified as “natural born.”  An example is a couple who enters the U.S. with the intent to do harm and has a child on U.S. soil.  Can you imagine that there is any American who would wish to see that child become president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the nation’s military?

A person’s birth on U.S. soil (jus soli) was not historically sufficient to make that person a “natural born Citizen.”

Children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats are citizens of their parents’ country, not the United States.

A common misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment classifies all people born here as “natural born Citizens,” when, in fact, the amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 so that slaves born within the borders of the U.S. would not be stateless.  The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would eliminate children whose parents owe allegiance to a foreign country, as is the case with illegal aliens, foreign tourists or students, or terrorists who cross the border.

In a letter which future U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay wrote to George Washington on July 25, 1787, Jay asked Washington and the other Framers to set a higher requirement for the presidency than simply “a Citizen,” as the Founders had first contemplated.  In his treatise “The Law of Nations,” author Emmerich de Vattel, Section 212, wrote:

§ 212. 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.

It is well-known that the Founders consulted Vattel’s work heavily:


In Section 220, “Whether a person may quit his country,” Vattel wrote:

Many distinctions will be necessary, in order to give a complete solution to the celebrated question, whether a man may quit his country or the society of which he is a member.(60) — 1. The children are bound by natural ties to the society in which they were born; they are under an obligation to show themselves grateful for the protection it has afforded to their fathers, and are in a great measure indebted to it for their birth and education. They ought, therefore, to love it, as we have already shown (§ 122), to express a just gratitude to it, and requite its services as far as possible, by serving it in turn. We have observed above (§ 212), that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man is born free; and the son of a citizen, when come to the years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he does not find it advantageous to remain in it, he is at liberty to quit it, on making it a compensation for what it has done in his favour,1 and preserving, as far as his new engagements will allow him, the sentiments of love and gratitude he owes it. A man’s obligations to his natural country may, however, change, lessen, or entirely vanish, according as he shall have quitted it lawfully, and with good reason, in order to choose another, or has been banished from it deservedly or unjustly, in due form of law or by violence.

It is also well-known that many Americans questioned Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility because of his yet-unproven, after six years, claimed birth in Hawaii and, perhaps more important, his foreign-citizen father.  Using Vattel’s definition and that of constitutional attorney Herb Titus, former attorney Leo Donofrio, citizenship attorney Mario Apuzzo, and others, Obama does not qualify and is a usurper to the office.




Obama has also been accused of committing “criminal identity fraud” by constitutional attorney Stephen Pidgeon, whose eligibility lawsuit in Washington State was dismissed without explanation despite a state law which granting any registered voter “standing” to challenge the qualifications of any candidate for office.


In 1916, Democrat and former Ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long published a lengthy essay as to why Charles Evans Hughes, who ran against Woodrow Wilson, was not a “natural born Citizen” because his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of his birth in New York City:


Long’s essay might be said to hauntingly describe what is happening in America today under a man who appears to have foreign allegiances.  Surely, you must be aware that Obama’s long-form birth certificate and Selective Service registration form have been deemed “computer-generated forgeries” by a law enforcement investigation in Maricopa County, AZ:


I know that my readers, and millions of other Americans, despair that the Republican Party failed to address the many questions about Obama’s background and constitutional eligibility, let alone his identity, in 2008.  In 2012, Mitt Romney made one reference to his own birthplace and the “birth certificate” issue when he said, “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place we were born and raised.

Perhaps every American should ask to see every presidential candidate’s birth certificate and proof that he or she was born to two U.S.-citizen parents to avoid foreign influence and allegiances.  Candidates for other offices should also have to prove that they are legal U.S. citizens and eligible for the offices they seek.

Potential presidential candidates such as Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Ted Cruz, and several others do not meet the standard of “natural born Citizen” which the Framers wrote into the Constitution so that the highest government office would not fall into the hands of a person with divided loyalties.

Should the Republican Party continue to promote those who are ineligible to seek the presidency, why should voters align themselves with it?

I believe this detailed communication merits a response rather than continued silence on the matter.  I look forward to hearing from you, as I know millions of Americans also will.


Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
P.O. Box 195
Stafford Springs, CT  06076


Editor’s Note:  Following publication, an astute reader, quoting from Minor, contacted us to say, “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” and correctly stated that “they were indicating that there was doubt as to whether these children were even mere citizens, so there is no doubt at all that such children are not and cannot be natural born Citizens. Note that they were contrasting this cohort of children to the cohort just mentioned (and defined) in the prior paragraph (the natives/ natural born Citizens).

The reader is correct; the Supreme Court was not considering whether or not children born in the country to foreign-citizen parents were “natural born Citizens,” but only “citizens.”  Because the letter above is now a matter of historical record, it will remain intact as written, but this writer gratefully acknowledges the correction.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. nor shall a person be eligible who posesses dual citizenship in order that a person must prove loyalty to one government and constitution of the united states of america. dnc and obama with his criminal assistants have made a mockery of congress, senate, our constitution.

  2. Awesome Post and wonderful comments. I sleep better at night knowing Patriots all over the country do understand this is a National Security concern and the political parties compromising our national Security are threats to all as domestic enemies incorporated.

    We have just got to get a break in Court and see a ruling favorable to the understanding no matter the Individual Candidate it offends.

    This was much harder in 2008 with conservatives rallying behind McCain in U.S. Sen Res 511. Co sponsored by Clinton and Obama. It’s getting easier believe it or not. Keep it up!

    Cody Robert Judy
    Only Pres. candidate in America to sue both McCain and Obama in 2008 and 2012

    1. There are a number of people who are not NBCs who are being passed off as legitimate candidates. They are Obama,of course,Rubio,Cruz,Swarzenegger,Jindal,Santorum and perhaps even Romney. Does anyone know if Mitt’s Father naturalized before Mitt was born?

  3. Endorsing, or even entertaining the thought of supporting an ineligible candidate for president, gives legitimacy to the last 6 years of the fraud thrust on the American people by Obama’s continued destruction of our Constitution and, by extension, our country.
    The purpose of Obama in the White House is very clear, and those who take other ineligible candidates seriously are only compounding the error in placid acceptance of any law (such as Obamacare) and Executive Directives by Obama (allowing Muslims within our borders and failure to deport illegal immigrants) as, as they say, a “Done deal”.
    But they’re just too stupid to realize that they’re doing themselves and our country wrong.
    If these other illegal candidates really had an admiration for the Constitution, then their names NEVER would’ve surfaced in the first place.
    It seems to me that all these others are just making it easier for Obama to remain in the office of president for another 2 years, perhaps longer.
    NOW is anybody paying attention?
    I doubt it.

  4. I like Ted Cruz. He is a patriot, but he is ineligible to become president. This topic is vital to our country today and deserves further discussion.

    If the founders had just intended that a president merely be a born citizen, then why does the Constitution call for a natural born Citizen? What further restriction beyond mere born citizen could natural born Citizen imply?

    By the “progressive” wide open definition (“born citizen” = natural born Citizen) Ted Cruz would be a natural born Citizen of Cuba (his father’s citizenship at the time), of the USA (his mother’s citizenship at the time) and of Canada (his place of birth and perhaps his only officially recognized citizenship for the first few years of his life). I guess Ted Cruz could spend a few years in either of those places and run for the leadership of those countries, too. After all, he is just as much a natural born Citizen of Cuba or Canada as he is of the USA.

    But how can someone be a natural born Citizen of three countries at once? The idea opens the umbrella so wide as to make the requirement meaningless. The idea would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous (as made abundantly clear by the anti-American actions of our current “citizen of the world” putative president and criminal identity fraud in chief, aka obama).

    If someone tells you that a president need only be a born citizen, then ask them why did the founders very deliberately write the requirement as natural born Citizen? It is simply ludicrous to claim that they inserted a totally meaningless and superfluous word into such an important section of the Constitution. What additional restriction does the word “natural” add to born Citizen?

    From their writings at the time, it is clear that they desired that our president be a person with lifelong exclusive allegiance to America. Therefore, a natural born Citizen must be someone who is not only a born citizen by law, but who is by their very inborn nature one hundred percent all American and nothing else (which is a natural result of being born in-country to citizen parents, since then only one possible allegiance can exist). Words mean things and obviously natural born Citizen must be more restrictive than mere born citizen.

    The reality is that there are millions of conservative voters who still take the Constitution seriously and understand the importance of the presidential eligibility requirement. These voters would stay home rather than vote for such a person as Ted Cruz (or Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, etc.). When by far the majority of citizens are USA born to two USA citizens, why risk losing these votes with anyone else? Go with someone like Sarah Palin or Scott Walker and get all the conservative votes (anyway, Ted Cruz knows he is ineligible and is a patriot who loves America, so I doubt he will run).

    1. Your trust in Ted Cruz not to run based on his ineligibility is ill placed. He is already talking about running. He is as bad a fraud as Obama is.

    1. 100% Jus Sanguinis at Birth. (BOTH Parents are Americans at the time of Birth) + U.S.Jus Soli= Natural Born Citizen.

      There is no higher level of citizenship possible. That is the level of citizenship our President MUST possess.

  5. I’ve been hammering this on WOBC radio. I do know that the RNC are fully invested in the thought that natural born citizen through common sense would know two citizen parents produce a natural born “citizen”.

    Also, remember the Hatch amendment to the constitution to do away with the natural born citizen clause so I ask the question, “why did he do that if the natural born citizen clause didn’t mean what it says?”

    Just google “The equal opportunity to govern amendment”.

  6. There has been a strong movement lately on the part of unthinking conservatives to draft Ted Cruz to run for president in 2016. Ted Cruz is a firebrand patriot gifted with the ability to articulate unabashed conservatism like few others in today’s metro-sexual, PC world of politics. I wish the senate were filled with “Ted Cruzes,” but he is not a natural born Citizen and is simply ineligible to become president.

    Being foreign born (in Canada) to a Cuban father and an American mother, Cruz came into this world with multiple citizenships and a natural born divided allegiance (in spite of the patriotic path of his later life). The Constitution demands a president with a natural born exclusive allegiance to the USA only, which is a natural result of being born in-country to citizen parents (because then only one possible natural allegiance exists).

    If Cruz runs, the democrat party will probably try to torpedo Cruz for not being a natural born Citizen, but no doubt will wait until only after it is too late to field a replacement. We can prevent this by only placing unquestionably eligible conservatives onto the ticket. (At the very least, Ted Cruz should seek a SCOTUS ruling on his eligibility status as a prerequisite to declaring his candidacy — to not do so would be both foolish and dishonorable.)

  7. I have filed complaints in both State and Federal Courts seeking 1st to be acknowledged as a U.S. natural born Citizen by virtue of my specific birth circumstances and or to have the State or Fed Courts to indentify by what circumstances they would determine if a person was or was not a U.S. natural born Citizen.

    The closest I came to receiving a responsive response to the question was by the Chief Administrative Court Judge when he said that all he could do was state that I am a “native-born U.S. Citizen”.

    When using much of the same rationalization you post here I was told by the USCA 10th Circuit dicta rationalizing the dismissal of the case that I did not have the RIGHT to my “own preferred definition” of the term of words.

    Now we find that Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he HELD in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

    “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “
    “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

    When you characterize the effects of those words you find that “currently there is no uniformly acknowledged legally enforceable identification of circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the intended usage of the term of words, (U.S.) natural born Citizen “ with the added Justice Waite style comment; … “ … a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “

    I intend to file under State Election Laws once the 2016 election cycle reaches the point of filings for ballot access naming Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and or any others regardless of controversy.

    I have a plan that will incorporate ALL 50 States and Political Parties as parties to the action.

    I stand by my interpretations of the statutory construction of the COTUS and the Acts made in pursuance thereof and am confident that once presented the State and Federal Courts will have no recourse but to acknowledge the “ established uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship, {implicit}) naturalization as expressed in the 1790 Act, et seq.;

    “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are there children, at birth or otherwise”. (My repeated characterization)

    From there reconciling the various provisions effects on the various circumstances it becomes plain that ONLY when BOTH parents are U.S. Citizens at the time of a child’s birth is that child considered as a U.S natural born Citizen, anywhere in the world between March 1790 and Jan 1795 and ONLY within the limits of the U.S. thereafter.

    No Act or Amendment says otherwise.

  8. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU for writing this! I keep telling people when they SHOVE Ted Cruz out there for POTUS that he is NOT eligible and NOT because he was born in Canada but because of his father’s citizenship – CUBAN!

    Amazingly (and sad too) that SO many “so-called” conservatives call me ignorant on this matter! I’ve pointed out numerous articles and citations as the Happersat case and Vattels Law of Nations – but they choose to ignore them! I wish MORE people would take the time to educate themselves not only on the Constitution, but Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Federalist Papers (& Anti-Federalist) along with many of the documents from our Founding Fathers to truly know what is going on.

    Knowledge is Power!

    1. Virginia Minor was a “Natural-Born Citizen” because both her parents were American citizens at the time she was born in the United States. The court found that in the strictest sense Minor WAS an NBC. See: Minor v Happersett,SCOTUS.