by A2 Guardian, a2guardians.com, ©2022

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 yielded the U.S. Constitution, whose Article II, Section 1, clause 5 states, “

(Sep. 17, 2022) — If you defund the police, any sane person would rationally conclude that crime will increase. As many municipalities in recent years have enacted anarchistic public policies reducing police budgets, the police have been the first to acknowledge the devastating rise in violence and crime.

The explosion of illegal immigration across the national sovereign borders of the United States during the Biden Administration is a national security threat, incontrovertibly documented by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

If that isn’t bad enough, the damage to the rule of law is exacerbated by the Biden Administration’s clandestine operations that have relocated these illegals by the thousands to numerous states throughout the country rather than simply enforcing the current immigration laws that already exist. In turn, several state Governors have responded by transporting illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities that officially sanction their safe harbor within their jurisdictions. Again, any sane person would rationally conclude the rule of law is broken.

More and more Americans are waking up to the reality that the government at all levels is not only abdicating its responsibility to enforce the laws, but is actively working to subvert them. Consequently, the electorate no longer finds it unfathomable for a corrupt body politic to not only allow ballot access for ineligible candidates, but to overtly conspire in the treasonous usurpation of the Office of the President of the United States.

So, as we celebrate Constitution Day, let us take pause and heed the wise counsel of the late Dr. Herb Titus in this lecture on the importance of our President being a Natural Born Citizen. Video is courtesy of the Institute on the Constitution, First Friday Lecture Series.

In summary, just as the American Police Officers Alliance, the growing number of Governors of States impacted by illegal immigration, and Dr. Herb Titus have all resolutely demonstrated through both words and actions their commitment for the enforcement and continuity of the rule of law; this same clarion call remains for enforcement of the natural born citizen requirement in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. Usurpation of the U.S. Constitution is not a victimless crime, it is a breach of national security rendering incalculable damage to the Republic.

Article 2 Guardians welcomes you to join us in this call-to-action to support and defend Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution as we work to establish a legally binding vetting apparatus for Presidential eligibility.

Join the Conversation

39 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

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

  1. Some like to cite Alexander Porter Morse on citizenship but he recognized what the Wong Kim Ark decision did.

    “Under decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, a child of domiciled Chinese parents, if born in the United States, would seem to be eligible to the office of President and to all the privileges of the Constitution, while the child of American parents and grandparents, born on shipboard or in foreign territory in travel or transit, might be excluded from similar rights and privileges.”

    “A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”

    “The conclusion is, that the child of citizens of the United States, wherever born, is “a natural-born citizen of the United States,” and, as such, if possessed of the other qualifications, would be eligible for the office of President of the United States.” Alexander Porter Morse, 1903, The Washington Law Reporter Volume 31.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=_cUZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA823&dq=natural-born+subject+citizen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_JQxVbrrNoTuoASumoDQBw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

  2. Thanks for the timely article, A2 Guardian. Unfortunately I do not think that the Natural Born Citizens Clause will be enforced. Not now. Not tomorrow. Likely not ever! Mostly everyone in elected or appointed high positions in our Government (CIA, FBI, DOJ, Executive Branch, Judiciary, etc) THINKS THEY ARE SMARTER THAN OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Right, Barack and Michelle/Michael? Right, Chief Justice Roberts? Right, Merrick Garland? Christopher Wray? Joe Biden? Bill Burns and John Brennan? Let’s just skip the fruitless legal discussion and go straight to a good answer I suggest that all of you do us a big “favor,” TELL THE TRUTH AND THEN GET OUT AND GO FIND YOURSELF A JOB WHERE HONESTY IS REWARDED!

  3. L. Carter brings up a good point in his or her comment. If you use the science of Statistical Probability there’s no chance of as many non-article II NBC candidates appearing on the stage for consideration for the office of POTUS as have appeared.

    Then too, take into consideration the famous ppsimmons.blogspot .com YouTube video titled ‘Illegal Obama Propped Up by Congress’ where Pastor Carl Gallups expounds upon EIGHT times that efforts were made to subvert the article II NBC clause!
    EIGHT TIMES! That too defies the science of Statistical Probability!
    Clearly, there is an agenda.
    Maybe it’s as simple as being the weak spot to where the Fascist Left sees it can penetrate the hull of Old Ironside’s namesake.
    You feel me?

  4. Every time I fill out a government form–what is it called? An I-9? Is that the one where they ask your citizenship status?
    I have to fill one out on every movie production that I work on.
    Sometimes I take the time to write in ‘Article II natural born citizen.’
    They only ask if you are a citizen or a registered alien or naturalized citizen. I don’t recall exactly, but my point is that there is no place to check ‘Article II natural born citizen.’
    Commander Kirshner did a fine video with a graphic showing the various types of citizenship. Don’t know what happened with Capt. (retired) Pamela Barnett of ‘Birtherreport.com.’
    It would be nice if now that we see a few republicans finding their spine they would retroactively abrogate as having taken place during the commission of a crime both of Obama’s illegitimate and illegal criminal usurpations of the office of POTUS.
    Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s volunteer Cold Case Posse investigation into Obama found the two Hawaiian birth certificates belonging to the Nordyke twins from which the security background pattern used in many of the electronic layers that were assembled with Adobe software in the manufacturing of Obama’s forgery that was posted on the official White House Website.
    That’s irrefutable evidence of a crime. The security background pattern is like fingerprints.
    Interesting that the same law firm that defended Obama’s forgery, Perkins Coie, is the law firm with connections to the phony Russian Dossier.
    I wonder how many people in the last 20 years have lost a case in court against an adversary represented by the Perkins Coie law firm where out of nowhere documentation appeared the way that Obama’s so-called ‘birth certificate’ and the so-called ‘Russian Dossier’ that resulted in a victory for Perkins Coie and their client.
    Somebody should look into that.

  5. As this horse has left the barn with Obama and the Republican party adding to the issue with candidates of questionable citizenship qualifications such as Ted Cruz, Nikki Hailey, Bobby Jindal, Kamala Harris; how does one defend what is broken without fixing it first ? One would think prosecution of the past and current violators would accomplish that nicely.

  6. Wrong.

    Barack Obama and Kamala Harris are not natural born citizens. At the time of his birth Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen, and at the time of Harris’ birth neither of her parents was a U.S. citizen.

    The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment makes those born or naturalized in the United States citizens but not natural born citizens.
    1. The man who authored the citizenship clause, Jacob Howard said:
    “The first amendment is to section one, declaring that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’ I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
    2. The primary framer of the 14th Amendment, John Bishop said:
    “I find no fault with the introductory clause, 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”.

    All red (natural) convertible (born) Corvettes (citizens) are also Corvettes but not all convertible (born) Corvettes (citizens) are also red (natural) convertible (born) Corvettes (citizens).

      1. Carter: “The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment makes those born or naturalized in the United States citizens but not natural born citizens.”

        But that is not what the US Courts have found. There are about a dozen cases where judges have found Obama and by application of the same principles Harris, to be natural born citizens.

        1. The case repeatedly cited by the courts is U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

          All the judges who have considered the issue agreed Wong Kim Ark ‘s rationale led to the conclusion that (beyond minor exceptions) those born in the United States are natural born citizens.

          Judges may be fallible, but there has been no disagreement from other judges about this point. Regardless, mere disagreement with judicial rulings is not license to ignore them or pretend they don’t have force of law.

      2. That you are incapable of defining what a woman is doesn’t mean anyone else beliefs constrain them similarly.
        Words have meanings.
        You do not have the authority to redefine words…, you know, like what the meaning of ‘inflation’ is, at your pleasure.
        Atty. Herb Titus does a great job at explaining the legal definition of the term ‘natural born citizen.’ You’ll have to duckduckgo to find the YouTube video because if you try and Google search it your search will be effectively cancelled. That’s what Fascists like you do when reality conflicts with their delusional alternative reality constructs. They simply change the meaning of words and concepts to fit their insane alternative reality where they know what is right and what is wrong…, what is good and what is evil…, and as Fredric Bastiat notes well they always repair unto the law to legislate their dictates as that–as the law. (See ‘The Law: A Blueprint for a Just Society’ by F. Bastiat.)

        1. The modern far left learned their tactics of the manipulation of words and language to undermine our culture and thus our politics from the teachings and writings of the linguist and founder of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/?s=Antonio+Gramsci

          You can learn more about Antonio Gramsci and other Marxist/Communist subversive far-left plotters and planners of his ilk via this short and easy to read excellent book: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B096TN7FQG/genealogicalrese

        2. I don’t know who “You do not have the authority to redefine words” was directed at, but there’s no official source saying any president or vice president (beyond those who were alive when the U.S. was ratified) was not a natural born citizen.

          It would seem those attempting to dispute the official accounts are the ones without authority trying to redefine words.

        3. “Atty. Herb Titus does a great job at explaining the legal definition of the term ‘natural born citizen.’”

          Without question Professor Titus was a two-citizen parent believer. But he was also a realist. He recognized that Wong Kim Ark was the precedent that had to be over come.

          In his amicus brief in Rudy v Lee – he spelled it out when he told the Supreme Court that at some point the decision would have to be between the opinion of Justice Gray or the dissent of Chief Justice Fuller. And he does not cite Minor v Happersett as a binding precedent only that in the Minor decision the Court was confident that a natural born citizen had two citizen parents but less confident about others. And that 23 years later the Court “elevated” the less confident view.

          “It is not necessary at this point to decide whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. Nor is it necessary now to endorse Justice Gray’s views over those of dissenting Chief Justice Fuller, or vice versa.”

          https://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Rudy%20v%20Lee%20USJF%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

        1. Regardless of any belief expressed here, there’s no evidence the federal government believes any president or vice president (beyond those alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified) was not a natural-born citizen. Similarly, no court has ruled a president or vice president wasn’t a natural-born citizen.

          So those believing there has been no ineligible president or vice president are expressing ideas consistent with the authorities empowered to make such decisions.

    1. Carter: “The man who authored the citizenship clause, Jacob Howard said:”

      Howard introduced the citizenship clause on May 30th but earlier on May 23rd he said:

      “It is not, perhaps, very easy to define with accuracy what is meant by the expression, “citizen of the United States,” although that expression occurs twice in the Constitution, once in reference to the President of the United States, in which instance it is declared that none but a citizen of the United States shall be President, and again in reference to Senators, who are likewise to be citizens of the United States. Undoubtedly the expression is used in both those instances in the same sense in which it is employed in the amendment now before us. A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.”

      Was it a deliberate mistake to leave out that a President must be a “natural born” citizen? Was he conveying the idea that anyone born in the country is eligible to be President?

      When he said that the courts have held that a citizen is one born in the US and subject to their laws, did he mean subject to the jurisdiction as some suggest?

      1. I don’t believe it was a deliberate mistake for Mr. Howard to leave out that a President must be a “natural born citizen”, rather I believe he deliberately left it out because the discussion he was involved in was about the meaning of “citizen”, not “natural born citizen”. I believe he was conveying the intent of the Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause as it applied to people in the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, “or a Citizen of the United States”, not those born or naturalized in the United States post adoption.

        And I believe his belief that “…every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,. …” substantiates my foregoing beliefs.

        I believe his “A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” makes it clear what he meant.

        1. He states “none but a citizen of the United States shall be President”. He is lumping both categories (natural born and grandfathered citizens) together.

          Howard’s “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors” has those pesky commas. One can interpret this several ways.

          Does it mean:
          Foreigners who belong to families of ambassadors?
          Aliens who belong to families of ambassadors?
          Or does aliens refer back to foreigners as a means of emphasis and explanation.

          Or is it,
          persons born in the United States who are foreigners
          persons born in the United States who are aliens
          persons born in the United States who belong to the families of ambassadors

          One clue is Howard’s response to Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania when Cowan says:

          “before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed”

          Or when Senator Conness of California responds to Cowan with,

          “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.”

          “We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.”

          How does Howard respond to this debate between Cowan and Conness? Does he say hold on guys they are not subject to the jurisdiction and therefore cannot be citizens?

          No, his response,

          “There is a typographical error in the amendment now under consideration. The word “State” in the eleventh line is printed “States.” It should be in the singular instead of the plural number, so as to read “all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State”(not States) “wherein they reside.” I move that that correction be made.”

          That’s it – that is his entire response.

    2. Howard said that the citizenship clause was declaratory of the law as it already existed. Senator Conness said the same thing when commenting on the citizenship clause,

      “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.”

      He appears to be saying that his understanding of subject to the jurisdiction means subject to our laws.

  7. This seems like a phantom concern since every president and vice president (beyond those alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified) have been natural born citizens.

      1. There’s no federal ruling or determination that any president or vice president wasn’t a natural-born citizen: there’s no court ruling, congressional finding, or executive report coming to that conclusion; the same is true for any other level of government in the United States.

        Similarly, no reputable encyclopedia or other reference work has said that any president or vice president wasn’t a natural-born citizen.

        1. An encyclopedia from 1958 doesn’t have the benefit of 2016 court cases that ruled otherwise. And, of course, an encyclopedia entry has no force of law.

          Regardless, every president and vice president (beyond those alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified) were born in the United States. Did the World Book say otherwise?

        2. That’s not true. There was a president who was not a NBC…, I mean besides the Manchurian Muslim from Mombasa, Barry Soetoro, (or as his mother listed his name in one of her U.S. Passports as ‘Soebarkah.’
          I forget who it was. So, Obama was the second person to get away with it.

        3. Rudy, Rudy, Rudy … there is a book you should read — Imposters in the Oval Office: https://www.iuniverse.com/BookStore/BookDetails/775911-Imposters-in-the-Oval-Office

          And this White Paper: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

          Read online or download and save dozens of historical papers and articles written over time, some over 200 years ago, describing what a “natural born Citizen” of the United States is to constitutional standards: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3301209/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Citizen-Meaning-to-Constitutional-Standards

          CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

        4. It is true that every president and vice president (beyond those alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified) was a natural born citizen. Because they all were born in the United States (beyond those alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified).

          And there is no federal pronouncement that any president or vice president wasn’t eligible to serve.

          Similarly no reputable encyclopedia or other reference work casts doubt on any president or vice president. A random book, a random “white paper,” and a random blog are not reputable sources that are generally accepted as being accurate.

        5. If – as you suggest that being born in the USA is the basis for being a natural born Citizen, then what – in your omnipotent mind – gives Rafael E (Ted) Cruz the authority to put his hat in the ring for the Executive Office of the USA?

          Do you even have the knowledge to decipher the difference between a natural born Citizen and a STATUTORY citizen?

        6. But there is a Senate sub-committee determination/finding that John McCain was a natural born citizen by virtue of the specific fact that he was born to U.S. citizen parents (plural). Curiously, when Obama’s citizenship status was subsequently questioned, neither that same Senate sub-committee or any other Congressional committee even investigated, much less determine/find, whether or not Obama was a natural born citizen.

        7. Last, but not least, ponder the fact that there is no existing citizenship law in the US government containing the phrase “natural born Citizen”.

        8. “But there is a Senate sub-committee determination/finding that John McCain was a natural born citizen by virtue of the specific fact that he was born to U.S. citizen parents (plural). ”

          Got a link to this determination/finding?

        9. Although being born in the United States satisfies the requirement for being a natural born citizen, it isn’t a necessary requirement. As courts in 2016 explained when ruling Cruz is a natural-born citizen despite not being born in the United States.

          S.R. 511 about McCain was non-binding; it had no legal force. Regardless, it did not say that a natural-born citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents; rather, it recognized McCain was a natural born citizen despite not being born in the United States because he had two U.S. citizens.

          None of which is relevant because every president and vice president (beyond those alive when the U.S. Constitution was ratified) was born in the United States.

    1. Au contraire Rudy — See This List of U.S. Presidents – Eligibility under Article II Grandfather Clause (GFC) or Natural Born Citizen (NBC) Clause or Seated due to Identity Fraud and Election Fraud: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/list-of-u-s-presidents-eligibility-under-article-ii-grandfather-clause-gfc-or-natural-born-citizen-nbc-clause-or-seated-due-to-election-fraud-3/

      CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
      http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org