by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 16, 2023) — On Thursday, reader Robert C. Laity followed up on his previous “conversation” with Microsoft Artificial Intelligence (AI) regarding the definition of “natural born Citizen,” one of the requirements in Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution for the president and commander-in-chief.
Laity commented after initially making the argument with AI that Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible to the presidency that it might have been the first time anyone queried AI, a rapidly-evolving tool both hailed and feared for its capabilities, on the meaning of the constitutional term of art which has been the subject of much conversation and controversy in recent years.
According to Encyclopedia Brittanica, “AI” is:
the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience. Since the development of the digital computer in the 1940s, it has been demonstrated that computers can be programmed to carry out very complex tasks—such as discovering proofs for mathematical theorems or playing chess—with great proficiency. Still, despite continuing advances in computer processing speed and memory capacity, there are as yet no programs that can match full human flexibility over wider domains or in tasks requiring much everyday knowledge. On the other hand, some programs have attained the performance levels of human experts and professionals in performing certain specific tasks, so that artificial intelligence in this limited sense is found in applications as diverse as medical diagnosis, computer search engines, voice or handwriting recognition, and chatbots.
To the question, “What is the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on society?” the outlet responds:
Artificial intelligence’s impact on society is widely debated. Many argue that AI improves the quality of everyday life by doing routine and even complicated tasks better than humans can, making life simpler, safer, and more efficient. Others argue that AI poses dangerous privacy risks, exacerbates racism by standardizing people, and costs workers their jobs, leading to greater unemployment. For more on the debate over artificial intelligence, visit ProCon.org.
According to IBM, the concept of AI encompasses a “strong” version and a “weak” version. “Strong AI is made up of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI). Artificial general intelligence (AGI), or general AI, is a theoretical form of AI where a machine would have an intelligence equaled to humans; it would have a self-aware consciousness that has the ability to solve problems, learn, and plan for the future,” IBM states in a detailed history of the invention. “Artificial Super Intelligence (ASI)—also known as superintelligence—would surpass the intelligence and ability of the human brain.”
In a list of AI “pros” and “cons” published last year, the resource marketingaiinstitute.com reported:
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated AI-powered digital transformation across businesses.
Research from McKinsey cites that 25 percent of almost 2,400 business leaders surveyed said they increased AI adoption due to the pandemic.
On Thursday, ABC News defined AI with:
ChatGPT, as well as similar programs like Google’s Bard, are AI-driven programs that speak back and forth with human users on a wide range of subjects.
Deploying a machine-learning algorithm, the chatbot scans text across the internet and develops a statistical model that allows it to string words together in response to a given prompt.
Introduced last November, ABC reported that a version of ChatGPT was incorporated into Microsoft’s Bing search engine and browser, “Edge.” “Bing AI was just recently added to my PC,” Laity told us after his first interaction with AI on the “nbc” issue. “I didn’t ask for it but it is now part of my applications when I do a search. I heard about the implications of AI and its potential and I wanted to try it out.”
In his earlier exchange, Laity began by stating unequivocally that “Obama is NOT eligible to be President. Never was.”
“I’m sorry, but your statement is not supported by the facts,” AI responded. “Barack Obama is eligible to be President of the United States because he is a natural-born citizen of the United States” with a superscript indicating the source of the statement to be usa.gov.
The “official website of the United States government” provides information to the public on government structure, available services, how to pay taxes and apply for a passport, among other things.
After this writer entered the search term, “natural born Citizen” at usa.gov, she was taken to a screen presenting results incorporating the search terms as whole as well as separately, more often the latter.
Farther down in the search, the results more closely matched our query.
The result titled, “Constitutional requirements for presidential candidates” contains a brief summary of Article II’s requirements, though without defining “natural born Citizen.” The “Qualifications for the Presidency” entry led to an “Analysis and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution” at a congressional webpage with the following commentary:
Like the age requirements for membership in the House of Representatives2 and the Senate,3 the age requirement for the presidency set forth at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 ensures that persons holding the office of President will have the necessary maturity for the position as well as sufficient time in a public role for the electorate to be able to assess the merits of a presidential candidate.4 In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Joseph Story stated:
Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age.5
The Framers appear to have adopted the requirement that citizens be natural born citizens to ensure that the President’s loyalties would lie strictly with the United States. By barring naturalized citizens from the presidency, the requirement of being a natural born citizen, as Justice Story explained, protects the United States from
ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elected monarchies of Europe.6 Article II, however, provided an exception for foreign-born persons who had immigrated to the colonies prior to the adoption of the Constitution.7 Justice Story explained that this was doneout of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country.8
While the Constitution does not define
natural born Citizen,commentators have opined that the Framers would have understood the term to meansomeone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.9 British statutes from 1709 and 1731 expressly described children of British subjects who were born outside of Great Britain as natural born citizens and provided that they enjoyed the same rights to inheritance as children born in Great Britain.10 In addition, in the Naturalization Act of 1790, the First Congress provided thatchildren of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens . . . .11 Consequently, under the principle thatBritish common law and enactments of the First Congressaretwo particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms,12 it would appear likely that the Framers would have understood natural born citizen to encompass the children of United States citizens born overseas.13 Such an interpretation is further supported by the presidential candidacies of Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone; Governor George Romney of Massachusetts, who was born in Mexico, and Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, who was born in Arizona before it became a state.14
The Framers appear to have adopted the fourteen-year residency requirement to ensure that
the people may have a full opportunity to know [the candidate’s] character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government.15 Justice Story further explained that the fourteen-year residence requirement isnot an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy as includes a permanent domicil in the United States.16
References Congress used include other sections of the Constitution, Federalist #64, Joseph Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution,” and a March 2015 article by former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement published at the Harvard Law Review Forum titled, “On the Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’” expressing the opinion that a natural born Citizen is “a citizen from birth by descent without the need to undergo naturalization proceedings
.” The article, however, failed to clarify that the congressional statute cited, the Naturalization Act of 1790, was repealed five years later.
The article was published within days of U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s announcement that he would seek the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election. Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban-citizen father who later took Canadian citizenship and a U.S.-citizen mother who may also have taken Canadian citizenship while the couple ran their business in Calgary, Alberta in the early 1970s. A number of open-records requests to the state of Texas revealed that on the documentation provided, Cruz was never asked if were a U.S. citizen; the U.S. State Department declined to release any documentation it might hold regarding Cruz’s citizenship or possible naturalization.
Resuming the dialog with AI on Thursday, Laity asked, “Doesn’t it make more sense to require that a President be born in the United States and that BOTH parents be US citizens themselves?”
“According to the US Constitution,” AI replied, “the requirements to be eligible to serve as President of the United States are: being a natural-born citizen of the United States, being at least 35 years old, and having been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. There is no requirement for both parents to be US citizens.”
As demonstrated by the ongoing conversation, AI correctly contended that the case of Minor v. Happersett dealt with voting rights and the application of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, it incorrectly refuted Laity’s assertion, paraphrased from the final opinion’s wording, that the U.S. Supreme Court found there to be “no doubt” that a person born in the U.S. to U.S.-citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.”
“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,” Chief Justice Morrison Waite wrote in his 1875 opinion. “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”
When Laity “corrected” AI, it acknowledged and “apologized” for its error.
“However,” AI continued, “it is important to note that this statement was made in passing while discussing the issue of whether the right to vote was one of the ‘privileges or immunities’ of citizenship protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The court’s ruling did not specifically address the definition of a natural-born citizen or establish a binding precedent on the matter.”
While AI stated it could not express opinion or “interpret legal definitions,” it conceded that “The definition of a natural-born citizen is a complex legal issue that has been the subject of much debate among legal scholars, and different people may have different opinions on the matter.”
“Ultimately,” AI concluded, “it is up to the courts to interpret the Constitution and determine the precise meaning of the term ‘natural-born citizen.'”
It seems to me that the sole usurper in the (108) years from 1776 to 1884 was Chester Arthur, who burned his papers to prevent detection of his subterfuge.
You’ll recall that Obama had HIS own records sealed.
The US knew that Arthur was a usurper but determined that after he died. A study of all the Presidents prior leads to a conclusion that all of them except for Obama and Arthur were born in the US to parents who were both Americans., excepting the first (7) Presidents who were not NBCs but were alive during the Revolution. (Grandfathered in).
Another (124) years passed before our nation’s second usurper showed up on the scene. That was Barack Hussein Muhammad Obama, Jr.
Since 2008, no less then a dozen ineligible persons have now seen fit to flout the NBC requirement. We currently have in office as President, the faux VP to usurper Obama and in turn his faux VP Harris.
Obama, Biden and Harris have no bona-fides to have been or to be POTUS and/or VP. Neither had Pelosi any bona-fides to advancing to that office since she conspired with Obama to usurp the Presidency of the US by fraud during time of war. Actions that constitute treason and espionage against the US under both 10USC and 18USC.
All of these facts taken into consideration indicate that our current and bona-fide President is actually Kevin Mc Carthy pursuant to the Presidential Succession Act.
“…Cruz was never asked if were a U.S. citizen; the U.S. State Department declined to release any documentation it might hold regarding Cruz’s citizenship or possible naturalization.”
It is criminal to deny voter information that is rightfully their intellectual property to posses before casting their vote. While our lawless government today protects attorney-criminal Cruz, Ilhan Omar, Obama, et al, with “PRIVACY of citizenship information”, all that citizenship cover-up is really just a collusive tactic to legitimize any candidate’s “PIRACY of citizenship information”.
Yet, all serious voters have a right to know, have a practical need to know and have a patriotic duty to know if their commander-in-chief candidate is a legal sole-U.S. citizen or an illegal government-covered-up “citizen of the world”-dual or multi-citizen intent on “fundamentally transforming” our Constitutional Republic to something else.
GOING FORWARD, MAKE ALL CANDIDATES PUBLICISE THEIR VERIFIABLE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF SOLE-US- CITIZENSHIP, OR ELSE, DENY THEIR AFFIDAVITS OF CANDIDACY AND REFUSE THEIR NAME ON BALLOTS . SIMPLE; STAND UP AND DO NOT STAND DOWN ON THIS ISSUE.
Vivek, who is running for POTUS, only acknowledges his parents to be “immigrants,” and he has never acknowledged whether those “immigrants” became citizens. Silence on this matter is very telling.
I concur 100%.
This used to be the purview of the national political parties—way back when they were acting as a gatekeeper to ensure that only qualified, patriotic American candidates entered the electoral process.
Now there are no gatekeepers; there is no vetting of candidates to ascertain their eligibility. That has given rise to questionable candidates and violations of constitutional law, as in the Obama and Harris cases.
Further, the lack of candidate screening has now given rise to an entire cadre of unqualified candidates, among them Niki Halley, Vivek Ramaswamy, and others.
In Luria v. United States, the Court declared, “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.” This statement rules out the possibility that “naturalized” citizens could be considered “natural-born.”
A Natural Born Citizen is one born in the USA, to parents who are U.S. citizens. The intent of the Constitutional Delegates is clear on this.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Sugarman v. Dougall concurred that the term “natural born citizen” refers to someone who is a citizen at birth, rather than someone who becomes a citizen through naturalization. He cited Vattell, an 18th-century Swiss jurist who wrote that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Rehnquist also cited Luria v. United States, which held that “the term ‘natural-born citizen’ has been used in English law for centuries and in American law since the first Naturalization Act” and that “it is doubtful that any court would today depart from this long-established meaning.”
Therefore, it is clear that the term “natural born citizen” refers to someone who is a citizen at birth, either by being born on U.S. soil or by being born to U.S. citizen parents, regardless of the location of their birth. This means that someone who becomes a citizen through naturalization, even if they have lived in the United States for many years and have demonstrated a deep commitment to the country, is not eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.
“Therefore, it is clear that the term “natural born citizen” refers to someone who is a citizen at birth, either by being born on U.S. soil or by being born to U.S. citizen parents, regardless of the location of their birth.”
Very well put, Randall.
Only pimps of Lady Justice might try to convince the less informed that one must be born of U.S. citizen parents in a foreign country in order to legally be recognized as a U.S.-presidential-ready “natural born [U.S.] Citizen” back home, and yet, instead, if that same child were to instantly leave said foreign country in utero and be born the very next day on U.S. soil, the citizenship of the parents doesn’t matter (?!) and that same child in also a U.S.-presidential-ready “natural born [U.S.] Citizen”.
From TREASON DAY 08-28-08 until today, two principal camps have sparred in heretofore unprecedented fashion over the meaning of John Jay’s “natural born Citizen” (nbC) cause-clause with one camp, ours here at The P&E, researching in PhD dissertation-level credibility for nbC to historically mean “born within and subject to sole-U.S. jurisdiction of U.S. citizen-parents from the tribe”, and the other camp of fraudsters, Obama lovers, lawless liberals, attorney-criminals, anti-Constitutionalists, “living Constitutionalists”, and downright quisling judges all over USA.
Much like today’s illegal open borders allowing illegal aliens to flood USA, Nancy Pelosi illegally opened up two centuries of U.S. precedential presidential citizenship borders on 08-28-08:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud#
I believe the knowledge accumulated EVERY DAY on this world-premier P&E website since 08-28-09 is power enough to legally and Constitutionally render Nancy Pelosi and her closest 08-28-08 nbC-usurpers as the leading candidates for the gallows for nbC-treason.
A Natural Born US Citizen must be BOTH born IN the United States (American Jus Soli) AND be born of parents who are themselves Citizens of the US (100% American Jus Sanquinis). This is the highest possible standard of citizenship. There are none above this standard. It is illogical to assume that any other standard could truly guard against intrusion of foreign influence in our highest offices. It is equally evident that the founders would have sought to ensure as high a standard as possible to safeguard the integrity of those offices.
““Ultimately,” AI concluded, “it is up to the courts to interpret the Constitution and determine the precise meaning of the term ‘natural-born citizen.’”
And that means, America loses…………
It IS up to the courts. However, Justice Clarence Thomas has stated that they are “Evading” the issue.
How then will they ever “determine the precise meaning” of NBC?
As for myself, as well as several others, I believe that contrary to what detractors of the definition in Minor say, “The Courts” HAVE already determined the precise meaning of Natural Born Citizen is.
Namely, “One born IN the US to Parents who are US Citizens themselves”.
Exactly. And this is why the evasive tactic of “waiting for the courts to define the term” is unnecessary. The term was precisely settled upon by the delegates as distinct from 14th Amdt. naturalized citizenship.
In parody to nationally renowned sports reporter Warner Wolf’s “Let’s go to the video-tape”, Let’s go to the SCOTUS!
I’m betting Chief Justice John Roberts votes Obama is A-OK, and clearly eligible….The only one who might disagree in my opinion is Clarence, (we are evading that one), Thomas…….
“I’m betting Chief Justice John Roberts votes Obama is A-OK, and clearly eligible…”
I agree with this statement, Bob68, and so might Thomas Jefferson:
“…but it is not from this branch of government we have most to fear… the Judiciary of the US. is the subtle corps of sappers & miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric….”- Thomas Jefferson
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0394
And here is evidence that our nationally “sindicated” judiciary network will only work now to cover-up their guilty knowledge and their back chambers complicity in allowing a known multi-foreign “citizen of the world” Obama be wrongly legitimized as a fraudulent and treasonous John Jay sole-U.S.-natural born Citizen:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/birther%20case%20list.pdf
While it is observed over time, and just expected, that judges in 50 states will naturally have differences of opinion on any controversial issue (like, say, no same sex marriages allowed in some states yet civil unions or “marriage” allowed for homosexuals in other states, and prohibition vs allowance of marijuana consumption state-wide, et al), on this Obama nbC-eligibility controversy VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE JUDGE IN THE LAND RULED UNANIMOUSLY TO BAND TOGETHER SOLIDLY, AS LIKELY PRESSURED TO DO SO IN SECRET BY U.S. GOVERNMENT OPERATIVES, TO SUMMARILY DISMISS ALL CHALLENGES TO OBAMA’S nbC-ELIGIBILITY AFTER PELOSI’S TREASON DAY 08-28-08.
So, I for one, do not recommend running to our modern-day guilty-knowledge U.S. Supreme Court as they will NATURALLY side with the nationally “sindicated” judges from every state in the Union.
Instead, I push for openly and publicly exposing PRECEDENTIAL PRESIDENTIAL observations of reality, wherein, all previous U.S. generations simply defined John Jay’s “natural born Citizen” to be “born in USA to USA citizen-parents from the tribe”, and only after Treason Queen Pelosi committed nbC-treason on 08-28-08 did USA historically ever get bogged down with sudden nbC-uncertainty:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/48856102/All-U-S-Presidents-Eligibility-Grandfather-Clause-Natural-Born-Citizen-Clause-or-Seated-by-Fraud#
How else could USA function 1789- 08-28-08 with such uniform understanding of nbC and yet, after 08-28-08, virtually all responsible political and judicial and academic and media parties suddenly seem dumbfounded and confused on just what John Jay’s “natural born Citizen” clause was ever supposed to mean?
ANSWER: treasonous behavior on 08-28-08 and subsequent nbC-treason cover-up AND ORGANIZED GOVERNMENT CRIME OF nbC-SUBTERFUGE until there is no further resistance from us “birthers”
Until We the People on Main Street USA and we “birthers” unite and “come out” and demand, and unleash our 15 years of densely accumulated patriot-knowledge of pre-08-28-08 understanding of John Jay’s nbC cause-clause, Obama’s precedential presidential nbC-“black male blackmail” on 08-28-08 will remain the supreme un-Constitutional law of the land, I surmise. Only we seasoned and united “birthers” can make a difference now on this nbC-crisis.
Active knowledge is power; captive knowledge is useless. – JD Mooers