by Joseph DeMaio, ©2023
(Jun. 26, 2023) — Introduction
Faithful P&E readers, two events precipitate this offering, which is intended to examine more closely one of the favorite “authorities” normally cited by the Left in its quest to redefine the term “natural born Citizen” as included by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the presidential “Eligibility Clause.”
The “authority” to be examined in this “deeper dive” is the March 2015 article produced by former U.S. Solicitors General Paul Clement (a Republican nominated by President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (a Democrat replacing Elena Kagan when President Obama elevated her to the Supreme Court) entitled “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.” And because this dive will be detailed and lengthy, of necessity, it will need to be divided into sections and, accordingly, readers are encouraged to keep supplies of their favorite caffeinated beverage nearby.
As a prefatory matter, it must be acknowledged that Messrs. Clement and Katyal, being former U.S. Solicitors General – the pinnacle of litigants for the United States before the U.S. Supreme Court – are extremely well-credentialed and, by the way…, smart. That said, even well-credentialed and smart lawyers can take legal positions at odds with other, contrary legal positions: that is why lawyers exist for their respective clients.
The article appeared in the Harvard Law Review Forum – a periodical not to be confused with the Harvard Law Review Journal published by the law school – at a time corresponding to the March 23, 2015 announcement by Senator Ted Cruz (R. TX) that he would be a candidate for the GOP nomination for president in the 2016 primary. Unsurprisingly, the article concluded that Sen. Cruz was eligible as a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.
There is no evidence that Sen. Cruz (a former Solicitor General of Texas) and Messrs. Clement and Katyal collaborated or coordinated their respective March, 2015 efforts. Again, all three men – Messrs. Cruz, Clement and Katyal – are intelligent, honorable and well-credentialed attorneys…, but on the nbC issue, we differ dramatically. Nothing personal, but even smart folks can on occasion err…, including your faithful servant.
The conclusion that Sen. Cruz was an eligible nbC was originally questioned by your humble servant here and here. For readers interested in a brief “preview” of what follows, they may wish to revisit those prior posts. The current offering will continue to challenge the Clement-Katyal conclusion that one need only be a “citizen at birth” or a “citizen by birth” with no need for further “naturalization” processing in order to be eligible to the presidency (or vice presidency) as a natural born Citizen. It is posited that this conclusion is at direct odds with the concerns of the Founders – and acknowledged by all sides of the debate – that all available measures be taken to prevent the insinuation of “foreign influence” into the office of the new constitutional republic’s “Chief Magistrate,” the President.
The first event prompting the deeper dive, of course, is the announced intention of Brandon and his vice-president, Kamala Harris, to again run for the nomination to be the Democrat candidates for President and Vice-President in the upcoming November 2024 general election. As the wreckage of their first term proves, a second term under those intellectual termites would be a cataclysmic disaster, particularly if, for whatever reason, Brandon were to be replaced by Harris as president.
The second event is the disclosure of a list of candidate debate qualifications or “criteria” recently announced by the Republican National Committee (“RNC”). That “vetting” document is intended to govern the upcoming debates among GOP candidates for nomination as that party’s choice for president. The very first requirement under the first “Candidate Status” category is: “Be eligible to run ([be a] natural born U.S. citizen, resident for 14+ years, 35 years or older).”
Unlike the Democrats, at least it seems as though the GOP is “going through the motions” of requiring proof that the eventual nominee will, at minimum, be a “natural born Citizen” as restricted by the Constitution. The critical question, however, remains: which definition of a “natural born Citizen” will the RNC impose and enforce? Will it enforce (a) the person must be born here to parents who are already U.S. citizens criterion, or (b) the “citizen at/by birth” with no need for birth here or further naturalization necessary, and the citizenship of both parents aside version?
Your humble servant posits that the correct answer should be “(a)” rather than “(b)” since, regarding the Founders under the nomenclature of the day, they understood that while there were doubts as to “b,” there were never any doubts as to “a.” On the other hand, the generally-accepted (if erroneous) definition and incessantly repeated narrative is “b,” so do not be surprised if the RNC takes this easier way out…, move along…, it’s settled…, nothing to see here….
Curious? Read on.
Look for Part 2 on Tuesday.
A nbC has no allegiance to any other nation, having known none other. Neither from the parents because they are citizens from their child’s birth.
A citizen is a dual citizen. Either born beyond US jurisdiction and or one parent is a foreigner under another jurisdiction. The Oath of Allegiance is taken to be only a US Citizen.
It seems clear to me that the GOP will again, like Clarence Thomas said, avoid the issue as is evidenced by Nikki Haley once again running and no ability to expose Ramaswamy’s parental status. The flood gates were opened with Obama and nobody in government wants them closed.
Closing the flood gates means those who are in government, both parties, could be charged with having committed treason for doing nothing to stop the total fraud Obama from being sworn-in. The chances of that happening are very slim…and none….
Very slim with Donald Trump as president, and none with anyone else……
I once put my feelers out to run for President (As well as Ward Council member in Tonawanda and Mayor). See: “Robert Laity for President” if you can drudge it up on the internet. It WAS years ago. If I WERE President “The chances of” getting to the bottom of the Obama usurpation would be one of my TOP priorities. I would appoint many of the very fine lawyers who have worked on this issue for over (15) years to a special presidential commission.,not to mention putting pressure on Congress and the courts to honor their oaths of office.
The other “Big Guy” elephant in the Washington DC swamp room that no one wants to talk about is Obama. He is the subversive Marxist/Communist behind all that is going on to the detriment of our nation and constitution … both when he was unconstitutionally in de-facto office as a usurper and now as the behind the curtains puppet-master totally controlling Biden and his administration. He is executing the goals laid out in his book “Dreams From My Father”.
Like many evil narcissistic megalomaniac very destructive tyrants in history, they like to write a book and tell you what they have planned. But not enough people read it or understand it. He told us what he wanted to do and he has been doing it.
Obama’s father wanted to see the USA’s economic, political, and military world power brought down. And Obama II is doing it. He should have never been allowed to gain the high office he did. He was constitutionally not eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military. No matter where Barack Hussein Obama was born, he is not constitutionally eligible since he was born a dual-citizen and is NOT a “natural born Citizen”, i.e., one born in the country with sole allegiance to one and only one country, born in the country to parents who were both U.S. citizens (born or naturalized) when their child was born in the USA: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2023/06/23/obama-kenya-my-country-tussker-my-beer-usurpation-of-high-office-my-lifetime-achievement/
CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
It’s clear that the Natural Born Citizen clause is about allegiance to the United States. The framers exempted those at the adoption of the constitution because they knew it would likely take a generation to produce individuals who would have sole allegiance to the United States.
Those with divided allegiances such as dual citizens can’t be Natural Born Citizens. By the way those allegiances aren’t optional the US govt states explicitly that dual citizens owe allegiance to both nations to which they hold citizenship and they’re subject to both nations jurisdiction as well. The framers would never have allowed such a compromised individual to assume command of the country ,those concerns were detailed in John Jay’s letter to George Washington in 1787.
As for Harris it depends if she holds or has held foreign citizenship, there’s a distinct possibility that she does or has and may not even know it as neither of her parents were US Citizens at the time of her birth so the question must be raised was Jamaican Citizenship bestowed upon her at birth? Interestingly the media never vetted this question to her.
Also it doesn’t matter if one renounces their foreign citizenship like Ted Cruz did in 2016 one is either a Natural Born Citizen or they’re not, writing a letter to a foreign country isn’t going to change that. It’s called the Natural Born Citizen clause not the Natural Middle Age clause.
The Analysis of Kaytal and Clement is wrong and here’s why. Native Americans were born in the United States and when the 14th amendment was passed Native Americans weren’t included because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, so Congress roughly 81 years after Jay’s letter didn’t want to bestow citizenship to individuals born on US soil because they’re subject to another nation’s jurisdiction.
It’ll require a candidate to challenge an opponent’s eligibility for the courts to define it , the courts will just ignore anyone else by claiming they don’t have standing. They do whatever possible to avoid rendering a legal decision on the matter.
Neither of Harris’ parents were naturalized Citizens when Kamala was born.
Both were born in a nation which belonged at one time or other to the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Her Mother in India and her Father in Jamaica.
By virtue of these birth circumstances Kamala Harris was born a Natural Born Subject/Citizen of Britain, by provision of the British Nationality Act of 1948.
She is at best a statutory citizen of the US and not an NBC.
Remarkably, Obama falls under the very same British Nationality Act. By virtue of being the son of a British Subject/Citizen and being “born in Hawaii” (a Past British controlled territory) Barack Obama was also born an NBSC of BRITAIN with dual US statutory citizenship by virtue of a purported birth in Hawaii.
There is another glitch. Hawaii was illegally annexed by US Naval Forces. See: “The Apology” made by William Clinton for illegally annexing Hawaii. Also see Glover Cleveland’s address to Congress on the issue. Hawaii may not even be a State.
BTW, The Sovereign Nation of Hawaii STILL has an active Consulate in NY State.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive”- Sir Walter Scott
As long as the Democrats/wanna-be Communists are in power, the nbC controversy in our constitution (Art 2, Sect 1, Phrase 5) will NOT be addressed. And, from the looks of things, my future Komrades, that could be a very very long time! This, too, assumes that there actually might be free and fair elections again some day (without any involvement on the part of our CIA), and a Supreme Court that is apolitical and unafraid to address important national security matters. Am I right, Chief Justice John G Roberts Jr (member of the Knights of Malta and God knows what else which might impinge on your lifetime Supreme Court duties!).
The original 13th amendment, TONA (Titles Of Nobility Amendment) would have solved the Roberts issue among others. As I have learned it had nothing to do with keeping lawyers out of Congress. The intent was to protect the country against espionage, influence peddling (Hunter Biden), graft, bribery (Bidens), meddling of foreign agents (lobbyists) in domestic affairs and elections of federal and State governments.
I am glad you brought this up.
A couple of terms our government uses are Titles of Nobility that are prohibited by 13A. The use of the words “Czar” and “Lady” as in “First Lady” are both used to describe nobility and in my opinion, inappropriate to use.
“First Lady of the United States” is NOT an individual elected office. We should NOT be referring to her as “FLOTUS”.
Jill Biden is Mrs. Joe Biden or Dr. Jill Biden and not “Lady” Jill Biden.
IMO one thing for sure is whatever the GOP settles on as “natural born citizen”, Obama will qualify. Otherwise, the GOP will be admitting they committed treason by not stopping John Roberts from swearing-in Barack Hussein Obama. They have no other choice at this point but to continue the lies they have told since 2008/2009 to protect Obama…to protect themselves………Obama’s race and once sworn-in ineligibility protection has proven to work, and he has effectively gotten the 3rd term he said he wanted………fundamental change continues……….
The 2008 Presidential election was a completely unconstitutional election. Neither Barack Obama OR John McCain were eligible. Neither an NBC. Bipartisan Scam or coincidence? You decide.
McCain helped to keep the attention off of Obama, so I am going for “bipartisan scam”. Thank you for that reminder…………