by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Ret), blogging at cdrkerchner, ©2024

(Sep. 17, 2024) — During the process of developing the U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. At some point, he also suggested to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Another version of Hamilton’s proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the convention’s deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand – pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamilton’s proposed Constitution was not accepted.
Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
Many of the founders and framers rightly had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s treatise on Natural Law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” or “born a Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents, both of them, when their child is born, as per natural law.
The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.
John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. “
See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:
“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 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.”
There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.
Hamilton’s proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. See Madison’s comment in his journal of the convention re this fact in which it reports as follows: ” … Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations. …” — 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 619-630 (1911) – page 619. But that citizenship status for who could be President was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.
Jay’s proposal and recommended clause added the additional adjective of “natural” before simply being a “born Citizen” which was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.
Read the rest here.


Comments
7 responses to “Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2024: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided — No It Is Not!”
Tidbit – The Constitution of Jamaica 3C- Every Person born outside of Jamaica shall become a Citizen of Jamaica, on the sixth day of August, 1952. In the case of a person born on or after the sixth day of August, 1962. If at that date, his father or mother is a Citizen of Jamaica by birth, descent or registration by virtue of marriage to a Citizen of Jamaica. Dual Citizenship (?).
To date, I know if only (2) lawsuits brought against Kamala. One in Texas to have her removed from the ballot because she is not a,”Natural-born Citizen”. The second is out of New York State.The lawsuit was refused to be heard, The lawsuit is on appeal to the Supreme Court. Have written President Trump numerous times. Disappointing to think that the Tromp team hasn’t brought the fact to the MAGA followers, as yet and the American people.
Check out this news: http://www.thepostemail.com/2024/09/20/state-attorneys-general-have-standing-to-challenge-presidential-eligibility-researcher-says/ and the filer’s website: http://www.naturalborncitizen.us
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Obama and Harris are not Natural Born Citizens of America, Obama was born in Kenya, Africa by his own Omission and I have a copy of his African Born Birth Certificate on my Computer. He came to America using a Indonesian Passport and applied for a JW Fulbright Scholarship which was only designed for Foreign Exchange Students. Harris is an Anchor Baby, neither of her Parents were Born in America. The Evil CABAL/CIA Gov. pushed both of them into Office-disobeying America’s Constitution…
“Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787″
Hamilton’s June 18th draft (often called “The British Plan”) was modelled after the English system. It did not have a president but an executive called a Governour who served a life term.
[“The supreme Executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governour to be elected to serve during good behaviour-the election to be made by Electors chosen by the people in the Election Districts”]
Hamilton left the Convention at the end of June, missed all of July and attended only one day (August 13th) in August. He finally returned for good on September 4th, 1787.
[Interesting fact: August 13th was the day the Convention delegates debated whether members of the House should be limited to natives and Gouverneur Morris suggested grandfathering in “any person now a Citizen” to the 7 year limitation]
In later years Hamilton was accused of wanting a monarchy based on his June 18th plan.
[“The assertion of the Jacobins, that you are an aristocrat & a Monarchist, is not new: But at a late meeting of the sect in this town, one of their leaders declared “That General Hamilton proposed (&, it was understood, advocated) in the general Convention, That the President of the United States, and the Senators, should be chosen for life: That this was intended as an introduction to Monarchy: And that the Federalists of this county (Essex) had adopted General Hamilton’s plan.” Letter to Hamilton by Timothy Pickering April 5th, 1803]
Hamilton responded to the accusation in a letter to Timothy Pickering on September 16th,1803. In that letter he mentions his second draft constitution.
[“Accordingly, it is a fact, that my final opinion was against an Executive during good behaviour, on account of the increased danger to the public tranquil[i]ty incident to the election of a Magistrate of this degree of permanency. In the plan of a Constitution, which I drew up, while the convention was sitting & which I communicated to Mr. Madison about the close of it, perhaps a day or two after, the Office of President has no greater duration than for three years.”]
Happy Constitution Day
Hamilton draft British Plan June 18th, 1787
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp
Pickering Letter to Hamilton April 1803
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0080
Hamilton letter to Pickering September 1803
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-26-02-0001-0114
Footnote: Max Farrand says this about the second Hamilton draft Constitution.
“The document that has just been discussed [June 18th Plan] is to be distinguished from the following, which was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.”
The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/naturalborncitizen/TheWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyandHowofNBC-WhitePaper.pdf
“ the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution:”
What do you think about the early use of the term “natural born citizen”?
It was used in state (Massachusetts) naturalization acts as early as 1785.
John Adams used it in a proposed articles to the Us/English peace treaty of 1783.
[“ 1. The Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, Shall enjoy in all the territories and every of the Said United States, all the Rights Liberties Priviledges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States—and on the other Hand, all the Citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain, all the Rights, Liberties Priviledges and Immunities and be subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the Legislature of the other shall judge fit to except.”]
And again in April 1786 with a proposed treaty of commerce with Great Britain.
[“The Subjects of His Britannic Majesty may frequent all the Coasts and Countries Bay’s, Harbours, Creeks, Rivers and Ports of the United States of America, and reside and trade there, in all Sorts of Produce, Manufactures, and Merchandize, and Shall pay within the said United States, no other or greater Duties, Charges, or fees whatsoever than the natural born Citizens of the United States themselves are or shall be obliged to pay; and they shall enjoy all the Rights, Priviledges, and Exemptions in trade Navigation and Commerce which the natural born Citizens of the said United States do or shall enjoy.”]
In both cases he was consulting with John Jay about the treaties. Obviously Adam’s definition of natural born citizen did require two citizen parents like Vattel’s did.
1783 treaty proposal
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22natural%20born%20citizens%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=1&sr
1786 treaty proposal
https://founders.archives.gov/?q=%22natural%20born%20citizens%22&s=1111311111&sa=&r=4&sr=