by Sharon Rondeau

(May 8, 2019) — Shortly after 7:30 AM Wednesday, the co-hosts of “Fox & Friends” announced an on-camera appearance of Prince Harry and his wife, Megan Markle, now known as the Duchess of Sussex, introducing their newborn child to the world.

Prince Harry was holding the child, a boy wrapped in a white blanket and cap, born early Monday morning, while Markle, dressed in white, stood next to her husband, both smiling broadly. Both spoke briefly to the public before retreating behind an ornate, golden door said to be a section of the castle where they reside.

The baby is as yet unnamed, co-host Steve Doocy said, and is currently referred to as “Baby Sussex.”  The name “Spencer” is reportedly under consideration given that it was the maiden name of Princess Diana, Harry’s late mother.

As was stated on the show Tuesday morning, Doocy declared that because the baby is presumed to have been born with dual U.S.-UK citizenship, he could grow up to be King of England or “President of the United States.”

Co-host Ainsley Earhardt then queried, “But doesn’t he have to be…?”

“I don’t know exactly; I’m just repeating the factoid we had on the show,” Doocy responded to Earhardt, referring to Tuesday’s broadcast.

“We’ll have to look into that because I’m curious,” Earhardt replied.

Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution 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.

The Constitution was finalized after then-Founding Father John Jay wrote a letter to constitutional convention president George Washington stating, “Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen.

While the term “natural born citizen” was not precisely defined by the Framers, historical texts and U.S. Supreme Court cases indicate that a child born in the United States to U.S.-citizen parents was undoubtedly in that category.

“The President cannot have fractured loyalty,” constitutional scholar, attorney and educator KrisAnne Hall, who has been a guest on Fox News, has said on her radio show.

A number of constitutional scholars have posited, in relation to what they believe the Framers were thinking, that when the new nation was formed after the Revolutionary War, there were no “natural born Citizens.” Rather, there were only those who, having risked their own lives, those of their families and all of their possessions, declared themselves independent of the British Crown and fought in the war or participated in drawing up its founding documents. Therefore, although not “natural born” because of their original allegiance, they were new American citizens because of their new allegiance to the nation they helped to found.

Other scholars have argued that a simple birth on American soil irrespective of the citizenship of the parents qualifies a person as “natural born.” However, that would mean that a child born in the United States to illegal-alien parents, including anyone with nefarious intent toward the United States, could become president.

The Framers specifically spurned royalty, and General George Washington, who became the nation’s first president, refused to take on the stature of a king.

Some have argued that the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, supplanted the “natural born Citizen” requirement, although its principal author, Sen. John Bingham of Ohio, stated of an American citizen imprisoned in Spain: “That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

Neither Doocy nor the other two co-hosts invoked the term “natural born citizen” during the brief discussion of Baby Sussex’s assumed presidential eligibility.

The mainstream media, including Fox News Channel, has refused to seriously discuss the presidential eligibility requirements as laid out in Article II, particularly in light of questions surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility. In early 2016, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano stated that whether or not Barack Hussein Obama was eligible for the office was unimportant because he was “in the last year of his presidency.”

Questions about Obama’s eligibility arose in 2007 after news reports from such sources as the Associated Press, NPR and The Honolulu Advertiser surfaced claiming that Obama was born in Indonesia or Kenya and not Hawaii as he claims. Further, Obama claims a father who was never a U.S. citizen, just as Prince Harry has never been a U.S. citizen.

Some of those articles, as well as a 1991 biography circulated by his then-literary agent, were altered later to say that Obama was “born in Hawaii.”

On his 2008 campaign website, Obama claimed presidential eligibility via the 14th Amendment and an alleged birth in Hawaii, while at the same time claiming to be a dual Kenyan-U.S. citizen.

It was not until Congress amended a naturalization law in 1934 that a mother was able to solely pass on U.S. citizenship to her child. Whether or not such children are considered “natural born,” particularly if they are born in a foreign country, has not been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, although in 2016, Sen. Ted Cruz claimed, with that exact situation, that he qualified for the presidency.

Days before Cruz announced his candidacy, former Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal and and former Solicitor General Paul Clement published an essay in the Harvard Law Review making the case for his eligibility by conflating the terms “natural born Citizen” and “citizen at birth,” an argument similar to those who say the 14th Amendment eliminates nullifies the “natural born Citizen” clause.

In an attempt to quell increasingly strident demands from then-businessman Donald Trump to prove his eligibility, the Obama White House released an image said to be a PDF of a certified copy of his original, “long-form” birth certificate from Hawaii. Within hours, several analysts declared it problematic, and an ensuing five-year investigation found to be a “computer-generated forgery.”

Evidence from the investigation has been said by its lead investigator, Mike Zullo, to now be in the hands of highly-placed Trump administration officials.  In a January interview with “Freedom Friday” host Carl Gallups, Zullo said, “That fraudulent document was the vehicle to put someone in the White House whose allegiances were somewhere else; I think that’s very easy for everyone to see…These issues are going to have to be resolved at some point in time.”

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. Art, A “Natural Born Citizen” of the U.S. is one born in the U.S. to parents who are both U.S. Citizens themselves. Unanimously opined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett, (1874).

  2. Hi Sharon,

    I read this article only a couple of days ago, and, since this is my first comment here on The Post & Email, I will be brief.

    It is apparent that the folks on FOX & Friends are not informed about the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” language that was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language, and the fact that the new statute language about birth on foreign soil to either two or one U.S. citizen parent disqualifies a child from being recognized as a “natural born citizen” by birth alone and so NOT eligible to be president.

    In 2019 it is obvious that the American education system needs to teach American history. We should not need to debate “who” is a “citizen” and “who” is a “natural born citizen”, and, to be eligible to be president, why a “natural born citizen” must have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone and NOT ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth alone.

    People in 2019 America, even friends, are confused in the same way that the 1898 Supreme Court was confused and so it could only opine incoherently that a person born on U.S. soil is a “citizen” by birth alone when BOTH parents were NOT U.S. citizens.

    What is incoherent is that the Court could not articulate with “natural law” or “national law” (by statute) how a child can inherit what the parents do NOT have.

    In other words:

    Eligibility to be U.S. President with ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth alone is NOT coherent.

    Eligibility to be U.S. President with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone IS coherent.


    Registration, and Social Security Number).

    Go to: http://www.wheresobamasbirthcertificate.com (sign the petition, here)

    To me, this was, I think it is easier to locate and to sign the petition. Moreover, I sense this is an opportunity to advance this issue. Also, indeed, pass this petition on to others to support it. The clock is ticking, and we need massive support and the numbers for this petition to
    be successful. Others have done the heavy lifting, this effort is needed to get it to the
    finish line. All Hands on Deck.

  4. Again, Foxy TV is “pulling” cover for “non-national citizenship”. To them, NBC mean something different than what the founding fathers stated and intended. Whoever, I feel Trump and others
    will prevail on this issue.

  5. There is NO getting around the fact that a person born in the US to parents who are both US citizens IS the highest standard of citizenship there is., namely “Natural Born” citizenship.

    SCOTUS said to this “there is NO DOUBT”. Nothing else can be added to this standard. You either meet this standard or you don’t. Those who don’t CANNOT BE PRESIDENT or VP.

    SCOTUS also said that as to those who meet a lesser citizenship standard absent considering the citizenship status of one’s parents, their status regarding being an NBC WAS “IN DOUBT”.

    Those who are not born IN the US to parents who are both US Citizens themselves are NOT
    “Natural Born Citizens”.

    All Natural Born Citizens are citizens. However, all citizens are NOT Natural born citizens.

  6. Mr. Fuzz,

    You wrote:

    The Court in deciding the case needed to detemine [sic] two issues:

    1. Is Mrs. Minor a U.S. citizen?
    2. If she is a U.S. citizen, does she have a constitutional right to vote.

    The Court did not need to determine if she was a U.S. citizen as both the appellant (Minor) and the appellee (Happersett) stipulated that she was a “native citizen”.

  7. Fuzz T. Was, Minor does INDEED define what a Natural Born Citizen is. The definition given in Minor is clear. Those who are born in the US to parents who are both citizens themselves ARE “Natural Born Citizens”. This was unanimously agreed to by all nine justices. They went so far as to say that to this definition there “is no doubt”. There cannot be more then ONE standard definition. That would be nonsensical. In fact, there are now at least a half dozen other SCOTUS precedents that repeated this definition. They are Shanks v Dupont.,The Venus.,Wong Kim Ark and two recent cases that left the definition in Minor, and the other cases mentioned, stand because they declined to revisit the other cases. That means that this definition remains the law of the land. BTW, those two recent cases were Laity v NY and Obama and Laity v. NY,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal. I look forward to filing Laity v NY and Harris,Castro et al, if they attempt to do what Arthur, Obama,McCain,Cruz,Rubio and Jindal did.

  8. Minor v. Happersett is often cited as a Supreme Court case that defined “natural-born Citizen.” But does it in fact do so?

    In the voting rights case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), the United States Supreme Court had to determine if Mrs. Virginia Minor had a federal constitutional right to vote. The Court in deciding the case needed to detemine two issues:

    1. Is Mrs. Minor a U.S. citizen?
    2. If she is a U.S. citizen, does she have a constitutional right to vote.

    The Court upheld a Missouri Supreme Court decision that refused to register Mrs. Minor, to vote because Missouri law allowed only men to vote.

    The ruling was based on the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. Though, somewhat fuzzy on the issue of natural born citizenship, the Supreme Court accepted that Mrs. Minor was in fact a U.S. citizen, even a “natural-born Citizen.” because both her parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. However, she still lost the case because the U.S. Constitution did not include a right to vote for women or men. Voting was considered a state matter.

    Mrs. Minor’s husband had to file the lawsuit on her behalf, as the law at that time forbid her, as a married woman, to file it herself.

  9. A good many of the problems in our nation today, are directly attributable to people giving any credence whatsoever to a Constitutional interpretation or a legal opinion emanating from a talking-head on their television. These attractive, well-dressed & highly paid talking-heads are simply reading dialogue from a teleprompter in front of a camera. Never, ever, trust them to do your critical thinking, or your math. Their very existence in the entertainment industry is dependent on ratings, not accuracy, truth or enlightenment.

  10. As I said in another comment and have reiterated several times, the founders would NEVER Countenance a royal British family member attaining to our Presidency. The Standard definition,unanimously arrived at by the US Supreme Court in Minor, is that an NBC must be born IN the United States to parents who are both US Citizens themselves. The court said to this category that there is NO DOUBT. Why would any OTHER standard, which the court said were doubtful, supersede a standard that it unanimously said was NOT doubtful? This is common sense.

  11. Didn’t Foxy TV pull the rug out/under Lt. Zullo’s “scheduled” TV show at the last moment
    that he was to discuss the fraud of “Barry ____”? As I recall Hannity (also) had a “call in” to his radio show in which he “snapped” at a fellow for commenting on Obama’s usurpation.
    So much for Foxies slogan about truly reporting the news. Once on the web, always on the

    Not if, but when this issue “blows-up” lots of heads are sure to roll. Also, much of the Lame
    Stream Media will be discredited. Truth is like air bubbles in water, eventually they come to
    the surface.

  12. Pedigree + Philosophy = natural born American Citizen = nbC

    Pedigree = allegiance to a country one is born within (England vs USA) = birth circumstances

    Philosophy = allegiance to one’s impressionable parental citizenships (UK vs USA) = upbringing

    The purpose of John Jay’s “natural born Citizen” 1787- 1789 was/is to void, or at least to minimize, any elected president’s adult brain thinking from foreign allegiances (= minimize traitor thinking)


    President Jefferson likely had zero sympathy or allegiance to foreign muslims

    Pelosi’s Fake presIDent Barry Soetoro-Obama II has shown repeated allegiance to foreign muslims

    FOX and others apparently balk at the exclusiveness or snobbery of allowing only some persons to run for president of USA while marginalizing other seemingly fine candidates who fail to meet the original nbC pedigree restrictions; FOX corporate leaders would rather pretend to push for “presidential diversity” in the public square. All emotional appeal stuff. Irresponsible. PC. Childish.

    The day FOX, and all other nbC-deniers, publish the factual dangers of adult presidents who possess foreign/traitor allegiances is still to come, I believe. They can start with America’s first foreign-allegiance invasive-traitor-presIDent, Obama II.

  13. With regard to my prior post and speculation about Megan Markle’s citizenship status, I found the following article. Not sure how accurate the information or whether her circumstances have changed. It is interesting and seems to have a ring of truth, given that I am a naturalized American citizen and also a Natural Born British citizen holding two passports who has from time to time pondered living in the UK with my also naturalized American citizen wife (Not from the UK originally).


  14. Archie Harrison’s (yikes that’s a horrible name for a prince IMO) birth circumstance is no different than that of Winston Churchill who was born to a British citizen father and American citizen mother. However, when Churchill was born in 1874, U.S. citizen mothers could not transmit U.S. citizenship to children born abroad; only U.S. citizen fathers could do that. Congress changed the law to include women in 1934, but that would not make Churchill or baby Archie NATURAL BORN citizens. There was no change to the Constitution in 1934. No constitutional amendment. Congress was merely acting pursuant to it’s enumerated power to regulate immigration and naturalization laws. Thus both Archie and Winston are INELIGIBLE to be POTUS because any claim either may have to American citizenship can only be pursuant to a man-made statute.

    From attorney Mario Apuzzo: In 1932, a reporter, with apparent knowledge that Churchill’s mother was a U.S. citizen, asked Churchill if he would ever aspire to seek the U.S. presidency, to which Churchill replied, “There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.”

    Churchill came from a prominent British family on his father’s side, his mother was an American, Jennie Jerome. He was a British citizen, but in 1963, Churchill was the first person even honored by the United States Congress and President as an honorary American citizen.

    Part of Churchill’s response: “I am, as you know, HALF AMERICAN BY BLOOD (my emphasis), and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my Father’s marriage. In this century of storm and tragedy I contemplate with high satisfaction the constant factor of the interwoven and upward progress of our peoples. Our comradeship and our brotherhood in war were unexampled. We stood together, and because of that fact the free world now stands. Nor has our partnership any exclusive nature: the Atlantic community is a dream that can well be fulfilled to the detriment of none and to the enduring benefit and honour of the great democracies.”

    In 1965, former President Dwight Eisenhower recalled a past conversation with Churchill when he spoke about his American heritage. ““My mother was American and my ancestors were officers in Washington’s army, I am myself an English-speaking union,” Churchill reportedly said.

    As usual, the media muddy the waters with their ignorance or intentional efforts to mislead and confuse the public re: presidential eligibility. Fact is that Archie, Winston, Barack (real name Barry), Rafael (aka Ted), Kamala, Nikki, Arnold and Little Marco, to name a few, are (or were in the case of Sir Winston) all constitutionally INELIGIBLE to be POTUS (Article 2) or VPOTUS (12th Amendment). Time is long overdue for the American citizens to be educated and those frauds running for POTUS exposed once and for all. That includes Barry who thinks he has gotten away with the greatest crime ever perpetrated on the American people,a crime which has in turn spawned the second greatest crime: Obama-Spygate. Drain the swamp Mr. Barr!
    (SIDE NOTE: Do we know for a FACT that Ms. Markle was not granted British citizenship per special royal dispensation in preparation for her marriage to an heir to the British throne?)

  15. Remember that the MSM in LA declared Barky to be “the Magic Negro”. That, and his perfect trouser crease, sufficed to protect a subtle subversive in The Peoples’ House, for eight long years.

  16. The only thing the deep state has left is the continuing fallacy that Obama was a legitimate president, and they will stop at absolutely nothing to keep the lie alive. It’s all about Obama and the – literally – billions of dollars that it took to put a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in the oval office. The time and money invested is just too much for it to all just go away with a wish and a prayer.

    To prove my point, one only has to look at all the puppets that are still promoting anything to bring America down, and if you don’t believe me, spend a day looking at the television advertisements and you tell me if they’re selling a car or an idea other than a car, a bottle of booze or car insurance. True, not all but enough to prove my point.

    So Fox and Friends promoting more of the same is, well, its “Are you a Birther?” all over again, isn’t it? And no, the baby born in England (American mother/English father) will never be the president unless, of course, America sells-out once again.

    Think about it: Obama was never vetted yet his name was still printed on the ballots. The birthplace of the donors who have made and continue to make campaign contributions to the Democrat Party will be a telling story, to be sure.

    People are focused on Trump’s tax returns when they should focus on where Schumer’s and Pelosi’s, et al, campaign contributions have come from. It’s a fair question.

    Another fair question would be to ask when was the last time any of the Fox & Friend’s hosts read the Constitution.