Citizen Explores The Meaning of “natural born Citizen” & More

by Tom Arnold, ©2022

(May 7, 2022) —

Introduction

As some of you know, because I have said so in previous articles or comments to The P&E, or because it probably is obvious anyway, I am not an attorney nor a constitutional scholar!  Surprised?  I didn’t think so.  However, I do have some credentials (military veteran, retired law enforcement and criminal court officer, law-abiding taxpaying American citizen, etc).  Nothing that fancy!  Anyway, I’ve decided to conduct some “research,” and try to do it in a logical, nonpartisan, and reasonably intelligent manner.  The research will be about what, in my opinion, is one of the most important and potentially dangerous (from a national security standpoint) matters facing our country today!  My aim is to try to find out who is, and is not, a qualified and eligible candidate for our presidency and/or vice-presidency, according to our US Constitution in its present form.  

Research (Part One) 

My first order of business will be to ask the question:  WHO DOES THE CONSTITUTION SAY CAN RUN FOR THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN OUR LAND, AND HOW DOES THE CONSTITUTION DEFINE SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL?  I am actually typing that exact question into my computer search line as I am writing this article.  The answer I am getting back is contained in a congressional website titled, “Constitution Annotated” and subtitled, “Art ll.S1.C5.1  Qualifications for the Presidency.” The section reads, to wit:

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 the 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.  

A brief discussion, which is not written into the Constitution, follows on the congressional website.  In it, a statement is made that “Whatever the term ‘natural born’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized.'”  Another part of the discussion refers to the Naturalization Act of 1790.  It states in part that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea…shall be considered as Natural Born Citizens.  This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England. These statutes (including others in 1709 and 1731) expressly provided that such persons were natural-born subjects of the Crown.  There is reason to believe, therefore, that this includes persons who became citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.”  

The 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the 1790 Act. Specifically, Section 3 states:

And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

Research (Part Two) 

Now, I will search another question:  WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED TYPES (OR CATEGORIES), AND THEIR DEFINITIONS, OF AMERICAN CITIZENS?  One result of this search was the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), which states:

Citizenship is a unique bond that unites people around civic ideals and a belief in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. 

Deciding to become a U.S. citizen is one of the most important decisions an immigrant can make. Depending on your situation, there may be different ways to obtain citizenship. 

• Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a lawful permanent resident after meeting the requirements established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
• Acquisition of citizenship is obtained through U.S. citizenship parents either at birth or after birth, but before the age of 18.

Analysis by Citizen Researcher 

It is assumed, since all of the written material above is derived from official US Government sources (or the Constitution itself in the case of Article ll, Section 1, Clause 5), the material is authentic and can be relied upon for accurate and valid research.  Also, I am aware that there have been many court cases regarding citizenship and eligibility for public office over the years and that “case law” has been created.  I do not believe, however, that the presidential eligibility criteria in Article ll, Section 1, Clause 5, which is shown above exactly as it exists in the Constitution, has ever been heard regarding its exact meaning or definition by the US Supreme Court.

In reviewing the previous material, the most obvious conclusion of mine is that the Constitution (Article ll, Section 1, Clause 5) does not define what is meant by “natural born Citizen.”  So, we, the American people, are left to debate among ourselves about one of the most, if not the most, important provisions in our Constitution.  Need I say that this should not be!  

So, does confusion reign throughout our government and electorate as to who may or may not run for the office of the presidency (and vice-presidency)?  Is this uncertainty and threat to our national security due in large part to inaction and neglect of duty by the US Supreme Court?  I will let you be the judge of that (no pun intended).    

In closing, if I may digress for a moment, I should note that I have become a critic of the High Court and especially Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., primarily stemming from the swearing-in of an individual to be president, who I strongly believe was an undocumented, communist-mentored, Deep State and CIA-sponsored, Manchurian candidate.  The individual’s supposed name is “Barack Hussein Obama.”  In my layman’s view, “Obama” should have been found constitutionally ineligible or indicted for any number of crimes which he committed or conspired to commit to fabricate an identity as an American citizen qualified and legally eligible (not!) to run for the highest political office in our country.  Anyone remember the FORGED Hawaiian birth certificate?  Why would “Obama” need a forged birth certificate if he had been born in Hawaii or anywhere else in the United States?  In addition, does anyone remember the forgery and backdating of “Obama’s” military draft card (which, BY LAW, is disqualifying for the individual to hold the position of commander-in-chief/president)?  All of this, combined with what is happening in our society and government today, can be described in one word: TREASON.  You can ponder the question as to who the guilty party or parties should be.