by Tom Arnold, ©2022    

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

(Feb. 28, 2022) — CPAC held its annual meeting February 24-27, 2022, in Orlando, Florida.  Former President Donald Trump gave a speech on Saturday night, February 26;  NEWSMAX televised Saturday’s events.  

During the 2020 presidential campaign, NEWMAX TV ran a banner across the screen several times in which it asked viewers who they thought should be President Trump’s next running mate.  If I remember correctly, the choices listed on the banner in 2020 were Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, and other options.  THE PROBLEM WITH WHAT NEWSMAX WAS SUGGESTING TO ITS VIEWERS WAS THAT TED CRUZ AND NIKKI HALEY WERE NOT NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS AND, THUS, WERE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE VICE-PRESIDENCY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROMOTED AS QUALIFIED CANDIDATES.  This was pointed out for the edification of NEWSMAX by several writers, including me, at different times on this forum (The P&E).  

Apparently having learned nothing, NEWSMAX TV did exactly the same thing again during its telecast of CPAC and Donald Trump’s speech at the event last night!  Allow me to make it clear (should anyone or any news organization care) that failing to understand and abide by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of our U.S. Constitution is one of the greatest threats to our republic.  I contend that it is a high level national security problem.  You do see what ignoring this particular aspect of our country’s system of law and order can do, don’t you?  The damaging results of not defining or reaffirming the meaning of “natural born American citizen,” even by our U.S. Supreme Court and its Chief Justice John Roberts, whose duty it is to swear in supposedly duly elected presidents, can be summed up in three words: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA.  

Join the Conversation

36 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. Hi Sharon,

    Those are two excellent quotes adduced by Dennis Becker about the authority of the states to “consider” anybody to be a “natural born citizen” in 1785. However, what the states implied with “of natural born citizens” and who was “deemed” to be a natural born citizen were mutable positive law statements. In other words, immutable natural law, the law of nature, defines the intent of mutable positive law, the law of people which can change on a whim of a new legislature.

    1) An act for “naturalizing” persons as “citizens” gives them the same liberties, rights and privileges “of natural born citizens” (“of” = “as”), and it does not consider them to be “natural born” and “citizens” by birth alone.

    2) The marquis de la Fayette was “deemed” to be a natural born citizen of the state. Both “deemed” and “considered” are positive law (law of people = mutable) words, not natural law (law of nature = immutable) words.

    The word “considered” was used in both the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts where children born on foreign soil to two U. S. citizens married only to each other before a child was born to them. In 1790 a child was “considered” to be a “natural born citizen” and in 1795 a child was “considered” to be a “citizen”. 1790 positive law was repealed by 1795 positive law, but positive law can NOT repeal 1787 immutable natural law, the only “implicit” intent of the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”. John Jay underlined the word “born” in his September 25, 1787 note to George Washington for an original genesis reason… citizenship is received from U. S. citizen parents ONLY by birth alone.

    Both Massachusetts and Maryland in 1785 knew what “deemed … natural born citizens” meant. “Deemed” did not imply immutable natural law and it did not imply by birth alone. It implied “considered” to be by positive law that which is mutable, as clariied 5 years and 10 years later in the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts.

    Yes, those are two excellent quotes about the authority of the states to determine whom the want to “deem” or “consider” to be natural born citizens of their states.

  2. Hi Sharon,

    To be eligible to be an Article II president a person must be a “natural born Citizen” (as John Jay wrote it in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington). Since there was no debate by the delegates, the implicit reason for Jay underlining the word “born” was to emphasize, not dual citizenship but singular citizenship:

    ONLY singular U. S. citizenship (which is physically possible)
    ONLY by birth alone
    ONLY on U. S. soil
    ONLY to two U. S citizens married
    ONLY to each other (not to different spouses)
    ONLY before a child is born

    It is simple to define and defend eligibility to be president when we start with John Jay’s implicit “original genesis” and his “original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”.

    Jay did not imply dual citizenship (Cruz) or birth on U. S. soil to two parents who had not naturalized before a child was born (Rubio, Jindal, Haley) for eligibility to be president. That would have been incoherent if he was implying ONLY singular U. S. citizenship. That is why the delegates did not debate the meaning of “born”.

    Art

    1. Both Massachusetts and Maryland used the term natural born citizen in 1785 (before Jay’s letter of 1787):

      “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH. …shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”

      https://books.google.com/books?id=1y2xAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=%22AN+ACT+FOR+NATURALIZING+NICHOLAS+ROUSSELET+AND+GEORGE+SMITH.&source=bl&ots=jrW25xFF8A&sig=ACfU3U3d8rPg5KrCZW2s7vE0hp8FlrvZ2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBmc3eiaX2AhUVkYkEHdNqA10Q6AF6BAgGEAI#v=onepage&q&f=false

      “…the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.“

      https://books.google.com/books?id=W9YdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA750&dq=An+Act+to+naturalize+major-general+the+marquis+de+la+Fayette+and+his+heirs+male+for+ever.&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjt5eSvnKX2AhUekmoFHTLQCQcQuwV6BAgDEAc

      Both acts declare the person to be or have the rights of natural born citizens of the states.

      So who were the natural born citizens of Massachusetts and Maryland in 1785?

  3. Mr. Arnold; thank you for your article. You are correct. Cruz, Haley, Rubio are not NBC’s. They are ineligible to be POTUS, as was Obama. Our three branches of government and the mass media should cringe with self-loathing and shame.
    Apparently, you and I believe that Obamas’ crime of usurpation was the seminal crime that opened Pandora’s Box, and has brought us to where our country is today; divided, chaotic, demoralized, awash in idiotic and senseless applications of medicine, gender and law, and mangled accounts and interpretations of our history; the dumbing down of our population, of our children.The spying campaign on Trump would never have occurred if the Deep State and it’s national and international collaborators had not been inspired by the success of Obamas’ crime; the most heinous crime truly, that was ever perpetrated against our country.
    Sadly, I’m afraid this will never be acknowledged by anyone of consequence, including Trump. Should Obama ever be prosecuted for his treason his accomplices are legion, and we would gut the federal government and many state governments of their politicians and bureaucrats. It would bring our country to its knees! Not a practical solution.
    The best that we can hope for is that when Trump rules again he will hold the Deep State, the politicians, and their global accomplices accountable for their most egregious crimes since Obamas’ ascension to the throne.
    Finally, I do not like to give up, to surrender, to throw in the towel on Obamas’ crime. Hopefully, in my life time we will see him held accountable, toppled and destroyed.

    1. It is quite necessary to try Obama for his crimes. Usurpation of the Presidency, during time of war, is Espionage against the U.S. It also constitutes treason. I believe that it will not “bring our country to its knees”. On the contrary it will serve to strengthen our Republic by ensuring that ONLY Natural Born Citizens can attain to our highest offices.

      1. There’s no indication that will happen, as there’s no indication that anyone with any actual authority to prosecute believes Obama was a usurper.

        1. Mr. Fairbanks; actually, people in authority know a lot about Obama. They know he is a usurper. Allow me to quote Mike Zullo: “the best known secret in Washington DC is that Obama was not born in our country “.

      2. Mr. Laity; I agree with you; Obama must be prosecuted but, so must his accomplices. Their is not enough space here to name them all. Let’s start with the first 500 politicians and bureaucrats or so. Contrary to popular belief Obama is just not smart nor intelligent enough to manage his crime by himself. I’m sure the entire hierarchy of the Democrat Party colluded with him, along with a major number of Rhinos, Justice Roberts and the Supreme Court, Valerie Jarret, David Axelrod, Holder, Brenner, Clapper, Emanuel, the Bushs’, the Clintons, should I go on? You see my point?
        Like you, I want to see Obama prosecuted for his treason. Its going to be crazy if it happens. He won’t go down alone! Besides being dumb he’s no hero!

  4. DeSantis can’t run with Trump. Trump has made FL his permanent address and the President and Vice President cannot come from the same state.

    1. Hi Susan Daniels,

      Are the famous PI Susan Daniels?

      If you are.

      Did you ever resolve whether the zip code 06814 was used in Danbury, Connecticut in the 1970s?

      Jack Cashill stated in his book “Unmasking Obama” that you claimed it was reserved only for Union Carbide.

      https://books.google.com/books?id=tv3sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT27&dq=06814+danbury+connecticut&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitvouhjqX2AhUyJDQIHSdUDGcQuwV6BAgEEAc

      But a Google Books search for the term “Danbury Connecticut 06814” shows a listing for the 1978 “Biographical Directory of the Members of the Czechoslovak Society of Arts and Sciences”. And under that listing is “EDWARDS, Charles E.; Hawthorne Terrace, Danbury CT 06814; b. Prague April 26, 1894; stamp collecting, jewelry design.”

      Hawthorne Terrace appears to be a residential neighborhood.

      So the theory that Obama’s Connecticut SSN is the results of a typo seems valid.

    2. Hello Susan Daniels! Great to see you here again!

      Very good point you made. Someone should advise Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis of same, just in case they decide to run as a team in either order.

      1. US Constitution. It prevents presidential electors from voting for a president and vice-president if they are both from the same state as the elector.

        So if Trump and DeSantis ran together and won Florida. The Florida electors could vote for Trump but not DeSantis. Other state’s electors would not be bound by this requirement. Only Florida’s would be

        Of course Trump could simply declare New York to be his residence and that would solve the problem. Just as Dick Cheney did in 2000.

  5. So Tom Arnold is permitted to believe that Cruz and Haley are ineligible, but Newsmax isn’t permitted to believe they are eligible? That Newsmax shouldn’t be able to “arbitrate,” but Arnold should?

    1. Charles Fairbanks: Unlike NEWSMAX and other influential and power-wielding 4th Estate news organizations, I am “small potatoes!” Let me ask you this, though. WHY WON’T NEWSMAX, FOX, CNN, AND OTHER PURPORTED PRACTITIONERS OF JOURNALISM (WHO ACTUALLY DO HAVE GREAT IMPORTANCE AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO THEIR AUDIENCES) EVER DISCUSS, OR EVEN JUST MAKE MENTION OF, “NATURAL BORN AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP?” Is the topic that TABOO? Would Barry get real worried? So, the thought occurs to me, maybe it should be alright for me and other ordinary folks to “arbitrate!” John Roberts doesn’t seem to be able do it!

      1. Just as individuals are allowed to have opinions and form conclusions (“arbitrate,” in your vernacular), so are media organizations. Size is irrelevant to forming beliefs.

        You would have to ask these media organizations why they don’t discuss what you want them to discuss, but the obvious inference is they believe people such as Cruz and Haley are eligible, and they would prefer to expend their resources on other topics of more interest to them.

    2. Cruz and Haley ARE ineligible. The U.S. Supreme Court is the arbiter of the Constitution. THEY have already weighed in on what an NBC is., in at least (8) SCOTUS cases. An NBC IS “One born IN the United States to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. Newsmax CANNOT change that immutable fact. That has to be done via Article V.

      1. No court cases actually have ruled that. And Cruz in 2016 won every challenge against his eligibility.

        So it would appear Newsmax is relying on what courts have actually ruled.

    3. YES. Refusal to allow debate on who or what constitutes a natural born Citizen to come to the table tells me that the deep state are cowards and want to keep the lies intact.

    4. Something tells me Newsmax hasn’t done as much research on the issue as Tom Arnold and, therefore, isn’t as qualified to “arbitrate” as Tom Arnold.

      1. I have no idea why you believe Newsmax has done less research than Tom Arnold.

        As a news organization, Newsmax likely is familiar with the 2016 news that courts ruled Cruz was eligible to serve as president.

  6. Just because they failed, and allowed Obama to run/win, does not mean he should have. He should NOT have and I don’t believe that Haley and Cruz are eligible for POTUS of USA, according to the Constitution.

        1. Mr. Carter, “Do you know anything about that?”

          That was the one put up on E-Bay by a convicted forger and which misspelled the name of the doctor who supposedly signed and stamped it in February 2009. Also it lists this doctor as the chief administrator of the hospital – a position he did not hold in February, 2009.

        1. Under federal privacy laws, hospitals cannot disclose who their patients are. No hospital has claimed to be the birthplace of any president.

    1. Mere birth in the U.S. does NOT make one an NBC. One MUST also be born to parents who are BOTH U.S. Citizens themselves. -Minor v. Happersett, USSCt. (1874), UNANIMOUS!!!

      1. Every court that considered the eligibility issue on the merits concluded birth in the United States is sufficient to be a natural-born citizen.

        Some even expressly rejected that dicta in Minor.