by Sharon Rondeau
(Mar. 8, 2023) — Late Monday afternoon, Twitter user @MAPennell tweeted The Post & Email’s latest article featuring his/her tweets about the presidential requirement of “natural born Citizen” stemming from the account’s challenge to 2024 presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy to release his parents’ citizenship documentation to prove his eligibility for the office.
The tweet was directed to Ramaswamy and fellow Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley; RNC Research, a branch of the Republican National Committee; the Committee itself and its recently-re-elected chairwoman, Ronna McDaniel.
Some, including the late attorney and constitutional scholar Mario Apuzzo, and particularly many in The Post & Email’s audience, believe “natural born Citizen” to mean, “born in the country to citizen parents.”
While Ramaswamy and Haley were indisputably born in the United States, there is a lack of evidence that either set of parents naturalized as U.S. citizens prior to the candidate’s birth on U.S. soil. Both candidates’ parents happen to hail from India.
On February 21, Ramaswamy declared his candidacy on “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” while Haley made her declaration in mid-February after pledging not to run if Donald J. Trump, for whom she served as United Nations ambassador for roughly two years, entered the race.
Trump announced his intention to seek re-election to the Oval Office on November 15, 2022.
After Barack Obama declared his presidential candidacy in February 2007, controversy arose given that his claimed father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was for his entire life a foreign citizen, first of Great Britain via his birth in the then-British colony of Kenya in 1934, and later, of Kenya after it achieved independence in late 1963. Although varying narratives of the younger Obama’s life story abound, it has been consistently reported, and Obama II has never denied, that his father never became a U.S. citizen, having been forced to leave the country after Harvard refused to allow him to finish his studies, according to government documents.
The Post & Email’s most recent article on the “natural born” subject was issued to correct the record on its having mistaken MAPennell’s invocation of an 1879 judicial opinion, the third of three in a screenshot touching on the meaning of “natural born Citizen,” for an unrelated one issued the same year though with a similar name.
MAPennell’s initial tweet to us referenced Ex Parte Reynolds involving a male American Indian and his claim of U.S. citizenship and voting rights prior to the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act.
Notably, the court’s opinion quoted Swiss jurist and philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, whose 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations, is considered by many historians and scholars to have been a strong influence on the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
“Vattel,” the opinion states on page 11, “in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent,” [sic]…By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.”
In Section 212 of The Law of Nations, Vattel wrote:
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The Twitter conversation, copied to several other parties, on Tuesday generated MAPennell’s response and reiteration by recipient @lgstarr: “Usurpation of the American presidency, borne at best of ignorance and at worst of indifference, greed, malice, or a Faustian bargain.”
The statement is followed by a quote attributed to the late scientist and Cornell University professor of astronomy Carl Sagan taken from a book he co-wrote in 1996, “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.”
The above quotation appears to be missing the word “you” in its final paragraph, which is on page 241 of the book.
Google Books describes Sagan’s work as, “A prescient warning of a future we now inhabit, where fake news stories and Internet conspiracy theories play to a disaffected American populace.” Published the year of his death, it “argues that scientific thinking is critical not only to the pursuit of truth but to the very well-being of our democratic institutions.”
NEVER as long as there are idiots who believe Barry Soetoro, aka Obama, was born in Hawaii.
Here’s what is likely to happen, they’ll say they’re a citizen as if being just a citizen is the requirement, it isn’t but they’ll try to conflate the issue and confuse the low information voter.
Judges want to avoid any case involving this because they know one day the candidate who’s case is before them might also be an individual who decides if they get a federal appointment. They also know the case could have far reaching implications, say a judge rules that dual citizens aren’t Natural Born Citizens, Well that would appear to be problematic for Barry Soetoro. What happens then? Does the ACA & DACA immediately become nullified along with a whole host of legislative & legal issues? It’s going to take a courageous Judge to hear such a case.
Yes, we have been taken and it is the Republican Party that is responsible. Not only did they not challenge Obama the ran equally unqualified candidates against him. So there was no effort to challenge as their ploy would have also been exposed. Fast forward in the subsequent elections and it is once again the Republicans that are allowing more usurpers to run. These usurpers like Halley just muddy the efforts of anyone that meets Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5. As Sonny and Cher sang, and the beat goes on.
Yes, both parties now cover for unqualified candidates because they both offered them before……and still do. Doing anything about The Obama Fraud at this point could result in treason charges for members of both parties who sworn an oath to protect the Constitution and violated it. This is why both parties want anyone but Donald Trump as president…….The Uniparty can’t be sure that Trump will ever expose their treason,… but they fear that possibility and prefer anyone else in order to make the possibility as close to zero as possible. The more ineligible candidates both parties run the more likely it is “natural born citizen” will be reduced to being able to spell “citizen” in the language of your choice.
Obama is “exhibit “A” for why the Constitutions requirement for NBC is vital to America’s future……….and what happens when it is ignored……….
Spot on Bob68 — Bravo Zulu!
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Great compliment. Thank you Sir………
One can see exactly which Republicans in the U.S. Senate and others who where the ones who tried to redefine the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution, or start a process to amend that part to take it out, and quickly failed in the relevant committees, at this link – section 5: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Some are gone now but the baton has been passed down to others in the Republican establishment in DC.
And the approach now is simply to just ignore the original intent meaning, dumb down our citizenry via infiltrating our schools in what is taught, and redefine it in the public domain with the full aid of the major main stream media … following the long term linguist redefining of words and language tactics and strategy of the early 20th century Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2022/07/15/gramsci-alinsky-the-left-by-jeff-carlson-cfa/ and https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/antonio-gramsci/ And the Marxists/Communists and their chosen front people for high political office like Obama in the USA have been quite successful in redefining words and language and our culture in their efforts to undermine and destroy our Constitutional Republic.
You will recognize some big establishment Republican leadership names in that list. The Republican Party had a very large stable of non-natural born Citizens they want to put forward. So they are just as guilty if not more guilty in Obama getting seated in the Oval Office and gaining command of our military forces. That is why I cut up my RNC membership card years ago and sent it back to them via one of their donation solicitation mail campaign and told them they would get no more donations from me. And the Republican Party is still blocking any attempts to follow the original founders and framers original meaning and intent (spelled out clearly in John Jay’s summer of 1787 letter to George Washington, i.e., no foreign influence via birth status) for putting the “natural born Citizen” qualification requirement into the presidential eligibility clause. When it comes to the “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution we have a “uni-party” in control in Washington DC.
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Barack Obama is the quintessential reason for the natural-born citizen clause. He is not American and works even today to weaponize the government and the social fabric of this country against us to destroy it. He is surrounded by a bodyguard of lies and liars who refuse to tell the truth and everything they know about him and Michael.
And part of that bodyguard are members of CONgress, both parties……still protecting themselves by protecting Barry the usurper….
You are 100% correct. We have been taken, and it is the fault of the Republican Party, who not only did not oppose Obama, but ran inelligible candidates in Rubio, Cruz, Jindal, and now Haley. If the parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth, the child is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. There are three types of citizens; Citizen by birth (Rubio); Naturalized Citizen (immigrant who takes the oath); Natural Born Citizen – born to two U.S. citizens.
“Some, including constitutional scholars, and particularly many in The Post & Email’s audience, believe “natural born Citizen” to mean, “born in the country to citizen parents.””
Dr. Herb Titus (mentioned in the linked article) did not believe that a natural born citizen had to be born in the US. He said they could be born anywhere as long as they had two citizen parents.
“What is a natural born citizen? It is one who is born to an American father and mother. It doesn’t matter where he’s born, they might be overseas when he is born.”
https://www.podcastaddict.com/episode/http%3A%2F%2Ftraffic.libsyn.com%2Fhomefront%2FHF48_140218_Dr_Herb_Titus.mp3&podcastId=1919869
Also in your linked video of Dr. Titus while he gives a short mention of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, he does not mention Minor v Happersett at all.
23cbc3becd?embedded=false&source=video_title&owner=870322
Then in his amicus brief in Rudy v Lee, Dr. Titus appears to ignore the precedence of Minor v Happersett.
Starting on page 15:
“It is well-established that there are two kinds of birth citizenships, one acquired by parentage of birth and the other by place of birth. As for the first kind, this Court stated assuredly in the 1875 case of Minor v. Happersett that:”
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which
the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it
was never doubted that all children born in a
country of parents who were its citizens became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. [Id.
(emphasis added).]”
“Less confidently, this Court opined in that same case that:”
“Some authorities go further and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction
without reference to the citizenship of their
parents. [Id. at 167-68 (emphasis added).]”
“However, 23 years later, this Court appeared to elevate this second view, asserting that citizenship acquired by birth was governed by the English common law rule that citizenship at birth was defined by place of birth, except in those cases where the parents owed an official allegiance to a foreign government. See Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, at 655 (1898).”
Dr. Titus appears to tell the Court that at some point they would need to choose between Justice Gray’s opinion and Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent.
On page 18:
“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.”
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Rudy%20v%20Lee%20USJF%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
The linked reference to Titus was incorrect; it should have been to the late Mario Apuzzo. That correction has been made.
I’m confused in your previous article was this statment:
“In an undated lecture, the late constitutional attorney, author, scholar and former Constitution Party vice-presidential candidate Herb Titus, citing Federalist 68”
The word “citing” is a link to a Vimeo video of Dr. Titus winning an award from the Institute on the Constitution and explaining the meaning of natural born citizen.
Should that be a video of Mario Apuzzo?
I copied and pasted the URL from the Vimeo but I guess they don’t link that.
The link worked when it was inserted, and no, the video intended was that of Atty. Titus citing Federalist 68 in his lecture.
You missed your opportunity to question Dr. Herb Titus about his opinion on who can be a natural born Citizen while he was still alive.
When you stray from the Law of Nations definition of a natural born Citizen written by Vattel of which the Founding Framers consulted in penning the US Constitution on many matters, you end up confusing yourself and others by trying to convince the world that there are many possibilities of deciding what constitutes a natural born Citizen other than a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. That’s as NATURAL as it gets. Don’t get stuck in STATUTORY.
Opinion:
Both Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy were born with dual national loyalties – (a.) India [parents (blood)] and (b.) U.S.A. [native (soil)]; therefore, both are not natural born Citizens. You can only be a natural born Citizen, if applicable, of one country, not two or more.
When it comes to citizenship, most authorities wrongly interpret the 14th Amendment two ways:
First, birth alone on U.S.A. soil does not make one a STATUTORY (by lawful authority) U.S.A. citizen, because most everyone ignores the phrase: “……, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If a newborn person is born on U.S.A. soil, one of the 50 states/Washington, D.C., to parents who are both non-U.S.A. citizens, whether these parents are in the U.S.A. legally or illegally, then that newborn is not subject to the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the U.S.A., because the newborn is subject to the jurisdiction of the country of the two non-U.S.A. citizen parents.
Second, birth alone on U.S.A. soil does not make one a natural born Citizen, clearly obfuscating the phrase “citizen at birth”, which also is applied to birth outside the 50 states/Washington, D.C. to a minimum of one U.S.A. citizen parent. Hello, Cruz. Besides, the only mention of “natural born Citizen” in any legal U.S.A. documentation is found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution and certainly is not found anywhere within the 14th Amendment nor in any current U.S.A. immigration/citizenship laws.
Both parents must be U.S.A. citizens at the time of an newborn’s birth on U.S.A. soil (50 States/Washington, D.C.) in order for the newborn to be a natural born Citizen.
Obama, Harris, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Gabbard, Haley, Ramaswamy, and McCain are/were unqualified Article II candidates and are/were nothing more than STATUTORY (by law) U.S.A. citizens. A natural born Citizen is a citizen by the law of nature – the natural act of being born in the country to two citizen parents of that country.
Summary: I believe that the Founding Framers of the U.S.A. Constitution ruled out dual loyalties when they added/included the natural born Citizen provision into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
My next opinionated dissertation will be on the citizenship of American Indians, aka native Americans, at a future time.