by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Ret), blogging at CDRKerchner, ©2021 

Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click here for the proof.

(Sep. 17, 2021) — During the process of developing the U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. At some point, he also suggested to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.  Another version of Hamilton’s proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the convention’s deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand – pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamilton’s proposed Constitution was not accepted.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

Many of the founders and framers rightly had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s treatise on Natural Law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” or “born a Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents, both of them, when their child is born, as per natural law.


Read the rest here.

Join the Conversation

13 Comments

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. Officials from the State of Hawaii verified the information on Obama’s birth certificate.

      Which raises the question: Why would people go to the effort to forge a birth certificate when they could easily obtain a genuine, certified copy that contained the exact same information?

  1. Hi everybody,

    “During the process of developing the U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787”

    Hamilton submitted only one draft plan. It did not have a president but did have an executive called a Gouvernor. Read it here:

    https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp

    He left the Convention at the end of June. Returned for one day in August (the 13th) and returned again in the beginning of September.

    His draft constitution which he says he gave to Madison several days after the Convention ended has both a grandfather clause and a born a citizen clause.

    Farrand describes this draft constitution like this:

    “The document that has just been discussed [Hamilton’s June 18th plan] is to be distinguished from the following [Hamilton’s plan with the born a citizen clause], which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.”

    https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(fr003449))

  2. Simply being born in America no more makes one a natural born Citizen than simply being a Corvette makes it a red convertible Corvette.

    John Bingham, primary author of the 14th Amendment, understood “natural born Citizen” to mean a person born in the United States to parents not owing any allegiance to a foreign Sovereign or power BEFORE and AFTER the 14th was enacted in 1866. To wit: a) “All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and in compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural born citizen except what is said in the Constitution in relation to [Native American] Indians”, Congressional Globe 1862, and; b) “I find no fault with the introductory clause of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”, Congressional Globe 1866.

    In addition, SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), cited WITHOUT REJECTING the majority opinion of Minor v. Hapersett that a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States to parents both of whom are citizens of the United States.

    “That settles it. PERIOD!” :)

      1. Hi everybody,

        Bingham did not write the first clause (citizenship clause) of the 14th Amendment. That was written by Senator Jacob Howard who added it as an amendment to the part of the 14th written by Bingham.

        So I guess one could say that Bingham’s understanding is no more relevant than that of any other member of Congress.

        For example, Senator Conness of California said that the amendment merely added to the Constitution what was already the law. And that it made citizens of the children born in the US of Chinese parents. No one disputed his understanding of the amendment.

        “The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.”

        Senator Howard also said his amendment was only declaratory of the law as it currently existed.

        “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, …”

        Read the debates here:
        http://stafnelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment.pdf

        Howard introduces his amendment on page 41 and Senator Conness’ statement is on page 43

        1. Thank you Mr. Courney for correcting me and providing a link to the actual debate on the amendment.

          So now I guess I have to say that Senator Howard’s understanding of the first clause (citizenship clause) is not only more relevant than John Bingham’s but, moreover, the most relevant.

          Having just finished reading Senator Howard’s introduction on Page 41, Senator Conness’ statement on Page 43, and the rest of the debate about the first clause (citizenship clause) of the 14th Amendment, I guess I now have to ask: Where in any of the above does anyone say that their understanding of the first clause makes anyone a “natural born Citizen”?

          “Words matter.” — Barack Hussein Obama

          Indeed they do. The words “natural” and “born” do indeed matter. They are adjectives which add specific meaning to the noun “Citizen”, just as “red” and “convertible” are adjectives which add specific meaning to the noun “Corvette”. Furthermore, the Founders understood that those specific adjectives, “natural” and “born”, add specific meaning to the noun “Citizen” because they used them to add specific meaning to the noun “Citizen” only once in the entire U.S. Constitution — to distinguish and elevate the meaning of the noun “Citizen” for the highest government office in the land from and above the meaning of the noun “Citizen” for all other government offices.

        2. No one has suggested that the 14th Amendment made anyone a natural-born citizen.

          You were the one who suggested that senators from the 40th United States Congress somehow had special insight into the meaning of natural-born citizen.

          The courts, generally speaking, have interpreted the U.S. Constitution’s use of natural-born citizen to exclude naturalized citizens, that is, people who acquired U.S. citizenship at some point after their births.

        3. Howard introduced his amendment by saying it is declaratory of existing law and then Conness explained what existing law was.

          Now consider if there are only two types of citizens – natural born and naturalized.

          James Kent only mentioned two types in describing Article 4 Section 2 of the Constitution.

          “The article in the constitution of the United States, declaring that citizens of each state were entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, applies only to natural born or duly naturalized citizens”

          https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships21.html

          Then it makes sense that both the US Government and Chief Justice Fuller in his dissenting opinion say that the majority opinion makes Wong Kim Ark eligible to be President.

      2. Why do you ignore the fact that SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark cited and accepted (because it didn’t reject it after citing it) SCOTUS Minor v. Happersett opinion that a natural born citizen is a person born in the United States to parents both of whom are citizens of the United States?

        1. Minor v. Happersett provided no such definition: The U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor, in dicta, there was no doubt that someone born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural-born citizen. Because literally no one has doubted that someone born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents is a natural-born citizen.

          But the Minor court did not say that only those born in the United States to two U.S. citizens are natural-born citizens.