Natural Born Citizenship and National Security

© 2009 drkate

For more than a year, our legitimate questions of Barack Obama’s eligibility have been dumbed down, ridiculed, and ignored as if to even raise the issue was somehow racist, anti-American, and being a ‘sore loser’.

Our opposition has used every tool and resource to obfuscate the truth, and the Courts have all ducked their responsibility using various  technicalities of law to deny standing and jurisdiction, or stating the absurdity that properly brought constitutional cases are a ‘political question.’  Is the Constitution now up for a vote?

Well personally I am sick of it, and refuse to back down.  The people who are ‘dumb’ about this issue are the Congress, Obama, Gibbs, the obots, and the media.  We know it, and they do too.

I was thus surprised and humbled be appointed the chair the Subcommittee on Article II Eligibility at the Continental Congress 2009.   A chance to do something about this had dropped in my lap!

In open forum CC2009 delegates indicated considerable concern about Obama’s refusal to document himself, and at the same time expressed fear of being labeled, with many delegates to the Congress wishing to stay away from this ‘too controversial’ issue.  So the task was pretty clear, and serious.  How do we understand the significance of this issue without bringing in all the conflict or bamboozling?

Well,  the Continental Congress 2009 blew the lid off the whole operation.  Article II eligibility is not about  anything petty thing…it is about the national security interests of the United States.  And Americans are finally going to hear the truth.

Article II:  A National Security Safeguard

The Framers of the Constitution required a special class of citizenship to hold the office of the President when they wrote the phrase  ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II, in front of the first use of the word ‘Citizen’.  I agree with Jefferson’s Rebels–it is critical to know how the original words were written in order to understand their significance:

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

Notice the emphasis on the words ‘natural born’ before the first use of the word Citizen, and that ‘ Citizen of the United States at the ‘Adoption of this Constitution’ is an active phrase–indicated by the capitalization of the word Adoption.

So of course the ‘controversy’ has been about the natural born citizen clause, but ONLY because no one wants the American people to know what that phrase means.  Thus the ‘dumbing down’ of the issue to a single criterion–born in the USA.

We have argued about this definition for more than a year, filed dozens of lawsuits, and have been met with ridicule, judicial inventions, and stupidity.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on it; the Constitution has not been amended; and the Congress refuses to take its responsibility seriously.  Is it Blackstone or Vattell?  Is it geography, or is it also about ‘blood’?

Find it in the Constitution

The charge of the subcommittee was to move through this.  And, to find our answers not in court cases, but in the Constitution.  The fact that the only place in the Constitution ‘natural born citizen’ is mentioned is in Article II, for the requirements of the Presidency is significant.

The concept of ‘natural born citizen’ then, vested only in the President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, implies a criterion of loyalty–the founders wanted their Commander in Chief to be singly loyal to the United States.

So given that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, and that the Constitution has not been amended, where do we find the definition of ‘natural born citizen’? The answer lies in Article I.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 states, in enumerating the powers of Congress, that:

…To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations

The “Law of Nations” is a body of law that the Founders respected and understood to be a guiding body of law for all nations. Thus, the definition of ‘natural born citizen’  must also be found in that body of law called ‘the law of nations’.

Using this body of law, ‘natural born citizen’ is defined, not as a superior form of citizen, but as a national security requirement and safeguard  to prevent the invasion of the White House and take-over of our armed forces.  Our founders insisted on this loyalty, trusting their lives only to a loyal citizen; and so should we, the people.  Especially in the context of real threats faced by our Nation in the 21st Century.

Resolution and Actions of the Continental Congress 2009

Based on our research, the Subcommittee on Article II eligibility crafted two documents.  The first is a statement of the facts as we saw them on this subject, including the definition of ‘natural born citizen’, and remedial instructions to the States and to Congress for addressing this issue.

The real action, we believe, is on the state level now: the states have the power to refuse to place any candidate’s name on their state ballot who does not meet the requirements for the office.  Thus we recommend to the States the enactment of legislation to provide for this safeguard against usurpation of the office of the President.

Because Congress has obfuscated on this issue as well, to the great peril of America, we have crafted a ‘Presentment’ to Congress’ and indicated that the proper course of action now is to investigate immediately Obama’s qualifications and, if found to be unqualified, to remove him immediately using the Constitutional methods available.  Further, we have requested that Congress call for the appointment of a Grand Jury to investigate, and bring to trial, any and all parties that were complicitous in placing Obama in office.

Resolution of the Continental Congress 2009

Article II Eligibility


WHEREAS, the Continental Congress 2009 (CC2009) was convened to defend, and not amend, the Constitution of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 has examined, among other things, the Constitutional  requirements for the office of the President  as originally and precisely articulated in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution:

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;

WHEREAS, the CC2009 finds that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution requires a specific class of citizenship to be eligible to hold the office of the President, as indicated by the fact that Article II includes two adjectives before the first use of the word ‘Citizen’, but not  in front of the second ‘Citizen’; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that Article II has not been amended to alter or change these words, nor their meaning, and that no Court has ruled on the direct meaning of this clause; and

WHEREAS, the CC2009 finds that until the Supreme Court rules on the natural born citizen eligibility clause, or the Congress amends the Constitution,  the acceptable definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is derived from that body of law referred to as the ‘Law of Nations’, referenced in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; and

WHEREAS, the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I is a direct recognition that the Founders respected this body of law; and

WHEREAS, in writing about that body of law, Emmich Vattel defined a natural born citizen[i]:

To be a natural born citizen means one must be born on the soil of parents who themselves are citizens.

WHEREAS, the CC2009 further finds that the term ‘natural born Citizen,’ as specified only for the office of the President, is chiefly concerned that the President have a singular allegiance to the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, the CC2009 finds that the natural born citizen clause does not establish a superior form of citizenship, but instead establishes  a national security safeguard against foreign invasion of the White House and takeover of the United States Armed Forces; and

WHEREAS, the CC2009 finds that the life, liberty, and property interests of Americans could be irrevocably injured, harmed, and threatened should a foreign national usurp the office of the Presidency; and

WHEREAS, the CC 2009 finds that no regular or established administrative mechanism exists at any level to ensure that the President meets the eligibility requirements of Article II; and

WHEREAS, the CC2009 finds that there is an immediate need to establish such a mechanism,


Instructions to the Congress of the United States

  1. The CC2009 instructs the Congress of the United States, in coordination with the several States, establish regular administrative mechanisms and procedures for the verification of citizenship and birthplace of candidates or nominees for the office of the Presidency.  Such procedures shall provide for the verification of all nominees for the office of the President and his successor, and provide for making the determinations available to the public.

Instructions to the Several States

  1. The CC2009 instructs the several States to enact legislation to provide for the verification of a candidate for President as a condition for participating in the State general election for President and to provide for the dissemination of the information to the public.

Recommendations for the Citizenry

  1. The CC2009 reminds the citizenry that the protection of life, liberty, and property guaranteed under our Constitution depends heavily on an informed public, and that Constitutional Republic cannot survive without it.
  2. The CC2009 reminds the citizenry that in the 21st Century, America faces significant security threats, and that it is important to ensure that holders of every elected public office, especially the President of the United States, understand their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
  3. The CC2009 encourages the citizenry to study the attached instructions to Congress and the States, and to use every tool possible to ensure that the citizenry ensure for themselves and activate their state legislatures to verify that a Presidential candidate is eligible to serve under Article II of the Constitution.

[i] Emmich Vattel, 1797.  The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XIX, pp 103-104; London.


The Revolution to Restore our Republic

The Presentment to Congress up next.

86 Responses to “Natural Born Citizenship and National Security”

  1. 1 jbjd November 23, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    drkate, using only the logic you present, I will point out just a couple of the fatal flaws in the reasoning behind the definition of NBC fabricated by the CC.

    You write,

    The fact that the only place in the Constitution ‘natural born citizen’ is mentioned is in Article II, for the requirements of the Presidency is significant.

    In other words, you are conceding that, when the Drafters wanted to make a point that the Presidency is different from, say, becoming a member of Congress, they knew how to differentiate among these positions.

    Yet, you further write,

    So given that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, and that the Constitution has not been amended, where do we find the definition of ‘natural born citizen’? The answer lies in Article I.

    Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 states, in enumerating the powers of Congress, that:

    …To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations…

    And, from this passage in Article I mentioning ‘the Law of Nations,’ you extrapolate,

    The “Law of Nations” is a body of law that the Founders respected and understood to be a guiding body of law for all nations. Thus, the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ must also be found in that body of law called ‘the law of nations’.

    In other words, you credit the Founders with intentionally adding the language, “natural born” only to Article II; yet you imply they accidentally only qualified Congress’ duties to enforce the “Law of Nations” in Article I but meant this to apply to Article II as well.

    Finally, you link some special meaning to the capitalization of words. Notice, the words that are capitalized in the original Constitution are nouns. Thus, the Law of Nations does not refer to Vattel’s book but rather to a general standard of exchange AMONG nations, and not to the internal governance of any country.

    As to telling states what is the definition of NBC, you write,

    The real action, we believe, is on the state level now: the states have the power to refuse to place any candidate’s name on their state ballot who does not meet the requirements for the office. Thus we recommend to the States the enactment of legislation to provide for this safeguard against usurpation of the office of the President.

    States have no right to determine who meets the requirements for office; only the Constitution and the federal courts can do this. States only have the right to determine who can use their ballots. No one usurped the office of President; I repeat, no usurped the office of President. Barack Obama was lawfully elected by the Electors; and their vote was lawfully ratified by the Congress. He was lawfully sworn in to office by the Chief Justice.

    drkate, if the CC lawyers advising you were less interested in validating their work, past and present, by making sure their ideas as to what is a NBC triumphed; and more concerned with maintaining protocols of legal statutory construction, etc., even being a layperson, you would not have made such rudimentary mistakes in legal reasoning.

    P.S. Our conversation on Revolution Radio last week inspired my latest article, which has gone viral.

    • 2 drkate November 23, 2009 at 8:21 pm

      Thanks jbjd.

      the Law of Nations is indeed, NOT a book. It is a body of law about which Vattel wrote. That is the only treatise that exists about the Law of Nations and was written in 1758.

      I do not see this the way you do. I am challenging anyone to find a different definition, given that the Supreme Court has not ruled on it, the Constitution has not been amended, and, this issue has never been brought up before.

      I choose to use the Court’s and Congress’ failure to address this issue against them. Where else would you go then? You have to refer to the Constitution.

      I also disagree about the capitalization and do attribute meaning to it. This can be verified easily.

      Finally, no lawyer ‘advised’ that we come to this conclusion. This is the conclusion of the people at this Continental Congress. The ball is in the detractors court, and so far I am not persuaded.

      • 3 jbjd November 23, 2009 at 8:34 pm

        drkate, I just assumed, since you linked to Leo’s blog and, since both he and Orly were ‘instructors’ at the CC; and since you are not a lawyer, that you at least consulted with these lawyers before venturing into legal posturing. I know I would come to you before drilling a well.

        • 4 drkate November 25, 2009 at 8:17 pm


          This was a gathering of citizens, mainly non-lawyers. While we had instruction from one attorney–Taitz–the presentation was primarily a summary of the cases that are underway. Of course all the attorneys have their definition of NBC.

          But your normal citizen does not appreciate the legal bamboozling, obfuscation, and ‘secreting’ of the solution, if you will, by every attorney claiming their case is right.

          Here are the things we know:

          1. No court will rule on NBC and thus define it, and the Supremes have not ever ruled on it.
          2. There is no mechanism to verify eligibility.

          The states have the right, under the 10th amendment, specify the conditions for a candidate to use their ballot. If the STates require, as a matter of national security, proof of citizenship and birthplace, that is their right.

          What definition should they use, in light of all the confusion?

          The one in the Constitution, and the body of law referenced by the Founders. Every word in that Constitution is important and carries weight. Each section relates to the other.

          And, this is not legal posturing. That is not what the CC2009 did.

          You also must understand that just because the CC2009 took this route doesn’t mean we don’t know about and support the work you have uncovered, the election fraud.

    • 5 jtx November 24, 2009 at 10:17 am

      I found your “three-card-monte” thread interesting in pointing out the Bauer attempted scamming of the court system – perhaps he learned that from his client BHO.

      I would say though that you failed to point out that Bauer made a “mis-statemtnt of fact” (aka a lie) when he claimed his client had :
      “… publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate …” when in fact it was no such thing but merely an image on a computer screen of something not certified that was called a Certification of Live Birth – not a Birth Certificate.

      Legalistic word games are all well and good, but I more surely agree with Dr. Kate’s observations about the law of nations (or Law of Nations), Vattel, the founders reasons for including the terminology in the Constitution as well as the fact that they felt no need to define the term of are “natural born citizen” further.

      There are some very good – and more legally-oriented – discussions of all of this with respect to the Kerchner et al action presently in Appeals as shown in this informative (and funny) video:

      • 6 jbjd November 25, 2009 at 11:33 am

        I would say though that you failed to point out that Bauer made a “mis-statemtnt of fact” (aka a lie) when he claimed his client had :
        “… publicly produced a certified copy of a birth certificate …” when in fact it was no such thing but merely an image on a computer screen of something not certified that was called a Certification of Live Birth – not a Birth Certificate.

        No, I did not; I clarified in the text, the document said, “Certification” but BO re-labeled this his “Birth Certificate.” FYI, HI DoH officials have begun to refer to the Certification as a Certificate (although they did not do this until after the nomination(,

  2. 7 IL.Blue November 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Well I for one think you made outstanding points. It’s been clear for me since day one of this , it is about Knowing POTUS has loyalty to America and the people of THIS COUNTRY.

    The citizens need to have that assurance. Personally I think all members of Congress, Senate, Supreme Court and all high officials of state and federal govt should judged by same criteria.

    Too many show loyalties to other countries before U.S. It has ALWAYS upset me greatly to see and hear this from these govt leaders.

    Thank you, Dr. Kate,

    I posted this for you, 🙂 Hope you got home and took sometime to Sleep.

    • 8 drkate November 23, 2009 at 9:03 pm

      Thanks for posting, IL Blue!

      When in my own self I moved beyond the word ‘loyalty’ to ‘national security’, it all made sense: the obfuscation; judicial tyranny; the media; the argument over definitions; the ridicule.

      And then you can easily get to the concerted effort to install a usurper. That is scary.

      I won’t rest until this is over! 😯

      • 9 tminu November 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm

        It’s a mathematical logic set…
        There’s only one permutation omitted from the 14th amendment which defines a CITIZEN, that is the one requiring jus soli jus sanguinis both parents.
        NBC is not in the 14th amendment, Minor v. Happersett concurs .
        A2’s use of OR means NBC ≠ CITIZEN, never amended.
        Therefore as there is no other possible permutation remaining, NBC can be, nothing but, jus soli jus sanguinis both parents, for NBC!

        1 point for US citizen mother
        1 point for US citizen father
        1 point for being born in-country

        NBC requires 3 points.

        • 10 jbjd November 23, 2009 at 11:21 pm

          Not necessarily. For example, all of the big name drafters were born here, EXCEPT for Alexander Hamilton, arguably the most intelligent person involved in the founding of the new government. Was that “or” meant for him?

          Logic will not create a legally binding definition where the courts remain silent.

          • 11 tminu November 24, 2009 at 1:33 am

            I don’t get why you’re listing a Secretary of the Treasury?
            He was not a president.

            • 12 jbjd November 24, 2009 at 4:19 am

              Very funny. None of them was President until AFTER the Constitution was drafted and ratified. And then, Hamilton once GW became our first President, Hamilton became our first Secretary of the Treasury. But according to the wording of this new Constittion, he could have been President someday, too, if he hadn’t been killed in a duel.

          • 13 jtx November 24, 2009 at 10:38 am

            I think the “or” grandfather clause you mention was meant for all of the founders, not just Hamilton. Whether born in the US or not since they could not possibly have been “natural born citizens” before the founding of the country but were merely “subjects” of King George. And the clause would certainly have covered Hamilton had he lived.

            Hamilton did, though, leave valid and lasting instructions to the Bank of New York (which as you know he founded) as he rowed over to NJ to duel Burr when he reputedly said “Don’t change a thing ’till I get back!”. Only in this 21st century did they change when they merged with the Mellon organization to form BNY-Mellon. Hamilton might even be pleased – who knows? It looks as though his verbal instructions lasted longer than our Constitution!!

            Since these men risked everything to found this country (and write the Constitution), they certainly recognized the rationality of allowing themselves the eligibility (not the right) to be a potential President – and several became that very thing as history tells us. These original citizens (let’s call them) were not and could not have been “natural born citizens” (whatever that might be found to mean) since the concept of citizens being sovereign rather than merely being subjects of the King had no valid legal effect. There was no country to be born into, natural or otherwise.

            So I ascribe to Dr. Kate’s interpretation of things for the most part, however, and I too find the capitalization meaningful (and not all such word use is with nouns BTW).

          • 14 drkate November 25, 2009 at 8:20 pm

            Disagree, jbjd. Yes, Alexander Hamilton was considered in that “or”….as they all became citizens of the united states when they won the revolutionary war.

            • 15 jbjd November 26, 2009 at 5:41 pm

              The psychological mindset of ‘being American’ that precipitated the 14-year residency requirement found in the Constitution, preceded the adoption of the Constitution. Indeed, the United States of America is mentioned in the preamble to the Constitution, that is, before the document was even adopted. I have explained this before (and Leo expanded on my explanation, on his blog.) The first Continental Congress met in 1774; the “shot heard round the world” happened in 1775; and the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776. The Constitution was written in 1787 and, as expected, the 9th state ratified the document in 1788, making it the law of the land. George Washington was elected the first President that same year, inaugurated in 1789. Thus, 14 (fourteen) years had passed between the mindset of ‘being American’ first coalesced, and election of the first President. The Founders/Drafters considered anyone who had lived through these heady times was sufficiently wedded to the concept of being American so as to be most likely to demonstrate total allegiance to the country.

  3. 16 stand up and fight November 24, 2009 at 7:37 am

    Only the office of president of the United States requires that the person holding that position be a natural born citizen.
    That fact alone speaks volumes as to the definition of natural born citizen.

  4. 17 Katie November 24, 2009 at 11:44 am

    I’m just sitting at my keyboard trying to think of something to write. This story speaks for itself. And it’s another indication of where the usurper’s loyalties lie. It isn’t with the U.S.M.C.

    Obama Sides with Terrorists

    Bill Levinson says that the Obama Justice Department is seeking to block enforcement of judgment against Iran for murder of 241 United States Marines.

    In 1983, 241 United States Marines were murdered by a suicide bombing. A Federal court ruled that Iran was complicit. The court ordered Iran to pay the families of the murdered service members $2.65 billion. The Boston Globe reports that the Obama Justice Department has, in an effort to appease Iran, intervened to quash the judgment; in other words, Barack Obama has sided openly with terrorists who murder U.S. Marines.

    IsraPundit blog reported previously that the Obama State Department (Hillary Clinton) has cut off funding for Freedom House and other organizations that report on human rights violations in Iran and other countries. Now Obama and his Justice Department (Eric Holder) have made themselves, at least morally if not legally, willful accessories after the fact to terrorism against the Armed Forces of the United States.

    What about rule of law, Holder? Didn’t you swear to uphold the law when you took office? That is what you tell us all the time when you say your duty requires you to prosecute CIA personnel for alleged mistreatment of terrorists — and don’t forget the Black Panthers, either. The truth, Eric Holder, is that your “duty” seems to consist of selective enforcement of laws to meet the needs of Barack Obama.

    The law, as interpreted by a Federal court, says that Iran is liable for its role in the murder of 241 United States Marines. Obama and Holder wish to deny justice to the Marines’ families so they can appease the butchers of Tehran. Barack Obama has accordingly forfeited the trust and respect of the American people and the Armed Forces, noting again that his Administration has made itself at least morally an accessory after the fact to terroristic violence against the Armed Forces. We cannot possibly imagine how any United States Marine would now want to be posted to the White House, which was once a position of honor but which would now involve saluting and saying, “Sir,” to an individual who seeks to condone the murder of Marines.

  5. 18 jbjd November 24, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    What any of us writing here believes the Founders/Drafters meant by the use of the term, NBC; or how well any of us backs up such belief is irrelevant to the discussion of what is a NBC. At a minimum, certainly, we surely can agree, defining this essential term is not a popularity contest.

    The fact that the people on this blog cannot conclude unambiguously the words of the Founders/Drafters mean THIS versus THAT in relation to NBC, notwithstanding we can cite evidence supporting this hypothesis or that, proves my point: no legally binding definition of NBC can be said to exist, where the federal court has failed to issue such definition.

    • 19 jtx November 24, 2009 at 12:42 pm


      You are ignoring the several SCOTUS actions that clearly DO accept the term of art than many of us recognize as the meaning of “natural born citizen”. You need to follow up some of the websites referenced in the video shown earlier.

      It matters not a fig to me that you don’t believe it. I think there is ample evidence for what a NBC might be – and the definition will be found to be the “Vattel definiton” (so mis-named) of 2 US citizen parents and born in the good ol’ US of A!

      You’re certainly welcome to your opinion but it is surely becoming that of a minority of the citizens if you believe that the definition is merely born in the US. That would make all anchor babies eligible as well as a child of Osama bin whatever if he crossed illegally into the US and had HIS anchor baby here, too. That’s hardly rational so surely that’s not what you believe since one would think you’d be rational.

      • 20 jbjd November 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm

        Ah, the ‘straw argument’ rears its ugly head. First, you cleverly indicate I hold an opinion I have never espoused – “if you believe that the definition is merely born in the US” – and then, make sure I look like a fool for espousing that definition. What is foolish is to hint that holding an opinion, whatever opinion that is, which puts one in the minority of thought, necessarily means, one is wrong, according to the law.

        Tsk, tsk, jtx.

      • 21 tminu November 24, 2009 at 2:15 pm

        jbjd Alexander Hamilton never made a bid for presidency.
        Notice he’s not on the ballot?

        I’ve seen this bot argument before, you guys must pow-wow for these ridiculous points. Hamilton was a prized policy maker.

        So you bots sit down and make up out of thin air, that Hamilton shoulda/coulda/mighta been president, and he was born in the Caribbean, so therefore that changes the definition of Natural Born Citizen????
        That’s not even noteworthy except for being laughable.

        Hamilton would only have been required to be a Citizen since he was alive at the time of the ratification. Hamilton was a Citizen at the time of ratification, not that he ever ran for president anyway.

        What’s interesting is that the bot propaganda machine contradicts itself. The fault-filled Illinois opinion (which cites WKA then concludes the opposite) was put out to give a cite-point for Obloggers that jus-soli-only is ALL that’s required for NBC. And yet here you Obloggers are trying to say that Hamilton who was not jus-soli was eligible therefore redefining NBC? HUH??? Just give it up Obots, logic and truth has a life all its own. What you’re saying is “blablabla”.

        The mathematical logic still stands. The word “OR” distinguishes “Natural Born Citizen” from mere “Citizen” in A2. Never amended. NBC is the only permutation not described by all definitions of Citizen. The 14th does not mention NBC, Minor also says 14th does not define NBC, then goes on to define NBC as requiring all 3 points…as it is redundantly defined in the same manner elsewhere.

        There just IS no other permutation left for NBC…
        NBC requires 3 points
        jus soli, jus sanguinis both parents.

        • 22 jbjd November 24, 2009 at 6:51 pm

          Ah, straw arguments AND name calling.

          jbjd Alexander Hamilton never made a bid for presidency.

          Notice he’s not on the ballot?

          I’ve seen this bot argument before, you guys must pow-wow for these ridiculous points. Hamilton was a prized policy maker.

          So you bots sit down and make up out of thin air, that Hamilton shoulda/coulda/mighta been president, and he was born in the Caribbean, so therefore that changes the definition of Natural Born Citizen????
          That’s not even noteworthy except for being laughable.

          One of these ‘things’ is different from the others. Can you guess which; and why?

          1. the Adamses, John and Samuel
          2. Jefferson
          3. Washington
          4. Jay
          5. Madison
          6. Monroe
          7. Paine
          8. Hamilton

          If you said Hamilton, you are correct! He is the only one of these well known ‘founders’ who was not born in the American Colonies. Thus, when the drafters included in the Constitution the alternative condition to eligibility for POTUS that, a non-natural born citizen who is a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is also eligible to be POTUS (in a few years after this document is ratified by the majority of state legislatures and we get down to electing the POTUS), they could have intended this ‘grandfather clause’ to exempt the brilliant Hamilton from the otherwise exclusionary requirement of being natural born.

          • 23 tminu November 24, 2009 at 7:08 pm

            Thomas Paine was born in England.
            Up to Zac Taylor, the necessity of the grandfather clause is evident, for none of the other founders’ parents were US citizens at birth, nor were many of the early presidents’ parents US citizens at the time of their birth.

            And so, the usefulness of the distintion of Natural Born Citizen from mere Citizen in Article II is self-evident.

            • 24 jbjd November 24, 2009 at 9:46 pm

              Sorry; I accidentally left Paine on the list. (I had a list of non-American Founders and Paine was not on that list. Turns out, the authors did not consider him a Founder.)

              • 25 drkate November 24, 2009 at 10:48 pm

                JBJD, please understand this. I am using the argument that no court has ruled, and the constitution has not been amended against them. Where do you go for the interpretation then? You must go to the constitution.

                That was both the difficult and the hard part here. The Subcommittee of the CC2009 debated all of this. It is simple.

                Now if a court wants to rule, then go for it. all other arguments are specious now. No one can find an argument for ‘born in the usa’ only. ON the other hand, born in the US of 2 citizen parents can be found. Book II Chapter XIX, pp 103-`04 vattel.

                Inventing hairs to split on this one misses the point.

    • 26 drkate November 25, 2009 at 8:24 pm

      jbjd, again, you have missed the point. I am sorry this does not fit within your ‘logic’ model. It was not intended to.

      Are you saying ‘we the people’ have no right to define what kind of person leads our country and demand that he be loyal?

      are you saying we should ‘wait’ for someone supposedly with some superior knowledge to tell us what that is?

      no thank you. I am interested in preventing the take over of the White HOuse and our armed forces. In fact I think this ridiculous arguing and legal splitting hairs has in fact contributed to the on-going usurpation.

  6. 27 DBB November 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm


    Might it not be wise to specify “United States” President or Presidency in your Instructions to Congress/the states just so everyone is clear as to what presidency you are talking about.

  7. 29 tminu November 24, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    Lame Cherry:
    Obama’s support of terror, Al Qaeda’s silence, retreat into Xianxang safety zones (remember Obama also freed Xianxang terrorists in Palau, Bermuda)…heralds imminent domestic terror attacks, in cities and in rural areas, staged to maximize media time and terror.
    “Obama’s Suicide Bombers”

  8. 30 Mimi November 24, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    So, what is the next move by the patriots?

  9. 31 Mary November 24, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    dr kate,


    1. Found tis at another blog. so I can set the commenter straight. Many thanks.
    This is what Wikipedia is peddling as the definition of NBC. I believe it’s the obots rewriting American history and law. Perhaps you or someone else here can correct it.

    2. I would appreciate a link to the definitive article on NBC. If convenient, e-mailing it to me might be easiest.

    It wouldn’t matter if barky was born in the U.S. or overseas. His mother was an American and that makes him an american citizen…though he gets a lower case “a” cuz he’s an azzhole. So, though he may be eligible, he isn’t fit as far as I’m concerned to be POTUS.
    “The requirements for citizenship, and its very definition in American statute law, have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”[9] To date, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has been the only U.S. law explicitly conferring statutory “natural born” citizenship. In 1795, Congress removed the words “natural born” from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”[10]”

    • 32 tminu November 24, 2009 at 7:14 pm

      The bots have full time staff altering the Wiki definition of NBC and WIKI worked with the Obama campaign, so they foster the censorship, as soon as you post a legitimate SCOTUS precedent or as soon as you post Vattell, Bingham, SR511, Minor, WKA, etc…
      BAM!!! it’s gone within an hour.

      Their mission is to confuse people into thinking Citizen is NBC. I once posted the legal definition of the word “OR” in Article II differentiating NBC from Citizen, BAM!!! gone in minutes.

      Wikipedia is just a communist propaganda site, as is factcheck, snopes, and the MSM.

      • 33 Miri November 30, 2009 at 2:56 pm

        tminu: I read an article recently, can’t remember where, but it said that Wikipedia is rapidly becoming obsolete. People aren’t using it; people aren’t contributing to it; people are sick of their sometimes censorship and often times lack of accuracy. They’re now proposing to have a regular staff of “fact checkers” to make sure that what goes on the pages is correct and to avoid squabbles. I hope they don’t subcontract the job out to that other supposedly fair, balanced, nonpartisan cabal of factcheckers:, they of the infamous COLB.

    • 34 Quantum Leap November 24, 2009 at 7:16 pm

      Naturalized. That’s the key word in your post. Naturalized is not natural born. Although, he isn’t even naturalized. He never got his citizenship. See post below.

  10. 35 Quantum Leap November 24, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Natural Born Citizen = a baby of 1 mother and 1 father who were born in the united states. Obama = 1 father born in Kenya = non natural born citizen. End of story.

    Obama = permanent resident alien green card holder who is now threatening the Catholic church and bishops via an “old friend”, to change their views and beliefs about certain long held beliefs. Threatening to out them as closet queers. That’s the obama way. As if no one knows the nuns and priests are gay. Give me a freakin break. Everyone knows.

    38% support the deathcare bill. The people don’t want it. obama is the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

    Furthermore, drkate doesn’t need a Lawyer sheepskin to know the law anymore than I need a mathmetician sheepskin to be a math scholar or artist or any other self aquired knowledge. Amazing how self taught is shunned and discredited and a sheepskin is the be all, end all, even if the person had his other classmates take his freakin tests to pass and get the freakin diploma. ya know? Knowledge is knowledge regardless of whence it comes. You wouldn’t need to turn to drkate for an analysis of water run-off if you studied it in depth yourself. Just think of gravity and the path of least resistance and you are half way there. Capice? It takes a little brains a whole lot of common sense and talent to know what’s up with stuff. Sheepskins are for sheeple who have no power to think.

  11. 37 d2i November 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm

    Settled law vs intent in the construction of Article II are two totally different legal definitions, correct? why then is it challenged when an individual, such as drkate, expresses her factual understanding of intent by the Founding Fathers who obviously used Vattell’s Laws of Nations as the template to forge compromise on the passage of Article II in the US Constitution wrong b/c prior to 2009 no one had challenged the definition for the SCOTUS to settle it? This may be an intrinsic fact BUT that by no means makes others understanding of what the definition is WRONG. It makes it unsettled…that’s it.

    I’ve always found jbjd’s approach to this question troubling. It’s a circular debating style that seems to serve no genuine purpose other than to challenge us to think. I certainly don’t disagree with jbjd, who is by no means an obot, and I don’t disagree with drkate. Therefore, both IMHO are entitled to their own arguments and both are correct in their stances. I just fall on drkates side of this coin b/c it’s rooted in the fact that these former Brit’s wanted no one else to wield such power as CIC other than one who was only LOYAL to the US and their treasure. No other argument makes sense to me, thuse I ignore them.

    I also concur with drkates growing understanding of why Article II was inserted, that is, the best our Founding Fathers could have done to ensure our President was loyal to the United States of America was to make sure he/she was born here by two citizens. Again, it goes back to loyalty which infers national security.

    I think of myself in this definition of the law. I have no loyalty to any other nation ONLY the United States and her citizens. Therefore, my entire resume has everything to do with supporting, working with and assisting Americans NOT another country’s citizens. I think of Sarajevo back in the 90’s when Milosovec, an American, ruled the nation and did everything in his power to destroy the country and her people. He held no loyalty to the Sarajevans. Why on earth would our Fore Fathers NOT want to ensure that the country THEY founded would not have loyal said loyal servant in the highest position of the land?

    Thus, I don’t disagree w/jbjd regarding the fact the question has never been settled, but where I do disagree is in the fact that just b/c the question hasn’t been settled by SCOTUS that those of us, including jbjd, who have studied the history doesn’t our educated and studied understanding behind the intent of the insertion and the meaning and the reason behind Article II’s insertion doesn’t have merit.

    Therefore, until it is settled I am going to rely on history and the intent, 2 American citizens born on American soil, which I have come to believe was our Founding Fathers true intent and reasoning for inserting it into the US Constitution.

    • 38 tminu November 24, 2009 at 8:59 pm

      Obotfuscation is the Obot tactic du jour.

      There’s no need for obotfuscation however, because…
      No other permutation remains besides jus soli jus sanguinis both parents for NBC, since all others are covered by the definition of Citizen.
      “OR” in Article II clearly means NBC is not the same thing as Citizen.

      This is pure logic. Never mind Bingham, WKA, Minor, SR511, Law of Nations…

      There just is no other answer.

      NBC=jus soli jus sanguinis both parents

    • 39 jbjd November 24, 2009 at 9:41 pm

      I’ve always found jbjd’s approach to this question troubling. It’s a circular debating style that seems to serve no genuine purpose other than to challenge us to think. I certainly don’t disagree with jbjd…

      Assuming that you have “always” found my approach “troubling,” one can only speculate as to why you withheld your dissent until now.

      I have never publicly expressed my beliefs as to what the Founders intended by the term NBC except in a brief concurrence with drkate on the last radio broadcast. Obviously, you missed this. I do occasionally offer alternative explanations as to what the Founders/Drafters could have meant because I am so troubled by the willingness of so many purported “patriots” to supplant reason with THEIR interpretation of the document those Patriots created. Of course, I have studied history; of course, I have studied the law. Naturally, I have opinions. But I am not the arbiter of the Constitution’s truth; and neither are you.

      drkate has stated that it is the intent of the CC to petition state governments to adopt a particular view of the Constitution. I not only object to such imposition of thought but I also object to the hubris with which lay people purport to bypass 200+ years of methodology in statutory construction and Constitutional scholarship, to tell us – me – what the document really means. I resent that the same people whose opposition to what can be characterized as self-serving interpretations of NBC propounded by the ‘opposition’; would now impose their own interpretations on us.

      I could not care less as to the individual interpretations people ascribe to the original intent of the Drafters; or whether they adopt a Constitutional methodology of original intent or ‘living document,’ to reach their conclusions. But I am as fearful of becoming enslaved by zealots on one side as on the other.

      And I am most afraid of people like you, d2i, who choose to characterize attempts to get people to see there is more than one side to their argument; as tantamount to saying, because there is another side to the argument, this means, their thinking has no merit. Or worse, who would denigrate the very act of stimulating thought, as serving no genuine purpose other than to “challenge us to think.” No; these are YOUR words, and not mine.

      Let me emphasize, just because a particular lay interpretation appears to make sense to lay people does not mean it could survive critical judicial scrutiny. (Keep in mind, many of the people involved with founding this government were trained as lawyers.) If I point to a flaw with the legal methodology, this does not mean, I am pointing to a flaw in the character. That people like you – and you are by no means alone – continue to label theories of statutory construction as ‘belonging’ to one person or another scares the hell out of me. Practically speaking, the meaning of the Constitution is only ascertained when the federal bench rules, this it what it means. This is why I seldom express my personal views as to what the document means; or engage in endless speculation as to what the Constitution means. I already did that in law school. And besides, I am too busy doing actual work to change the status quo.

      Finally, I want to repeat my strenuous objections that anyone who expresses an opposing view would direct such dissent to the person and not the work. While there are few absolutes in interpretation, no interpretation is valid or invalid based only on who is espousing that view.

      • 40 drkate November 25, 2009 at 8:32 pm

        Wow. That was surely an insult, jbjd. And, yet I respect your right to express your viewpoint.

        You underestimate the American people, and rashly call them ‘false patriots’. I am sure the Delegates of the CC2009 would like to hear that.

        I suggest you study the 10th amendment. And stand on your statement of ‘unsettled law’. To fail to address this issue now, in light of the legal obfuscation and silliness, could also be ‘never less than a treason’.

        The beauty of the CC2009’s work is that it is SIMPLE BUT ELEGANT. That is probably what drives all the attorneys crazy. Not too splashy is it? Gee, even a citizen could figure it out. Find it in the constitution.

  12. 41 ladysforest November 24, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    As I have mentioned on here before I was born a dual citizen.

    Bout a week ago I had a “conversation” with my eldest boy about the whole NBC/Birth Cert. issue. He was inclined to puff about anyone born here “should have a right”. No, I didn’t kill him. I was even patient (he’s old enough to know better) and explained about the national security angle. I said to him, “Son, your Granddad is from Hungary, do you think if I was President I wouldn’t have a big soft spot for Hungary although I’ve never been there?” He laughed and said, “Yeah, I guess you would”. Then I said to him, “Even though you’ve never had dual citizenship, wouldn’t you, yourself, have a soft spot for anything to do with Hungary if YOU were President?” He laughed again and again said, “Yeah, you’re right about that”. So, there you have it. Nuff said.

  13. 43 Bobby G November 24, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    I’m curious, is there not any record of the discussions of the Congress that in 1795 corrected the definition of “Natural Born” Citizen by removing that description, “natural born”, from the previous Congressional ruling (1790) that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”
    It seems to me that the 1795 Congress was perfectly aware of what the founders intended, hence the removal of the erroneous definition in 1790 logically infers that the leaders of those days knew exactly what the term Natural Born Citizen meant and/or was intended to mean. Therefore, the simple fact that Barry admitted his father was a Kenyan makes him either a usurper because of his father’s citizenship or a liar, if his father was not in fact Obama Sr. Frankly, I am disgusted with either possibility and all of the American officials like, SCOTUS, Congress, Pelosi, DNC, FBI, CIA, Secretarys of State for the states that put Obama on the ballot, and all private citizens who have grown up with Obama and know his true story. I had to show my “Certificate of Live Birth” to get my driver’s license and my job, my son had to show his “Certificate of Live Birth” to play Little League Baseball, my daughter had to show her “Certificate of Live Birth” to play competitive softball and soccer. Why on earth do the citizens of the United States allow this charade or at best non-disclosure of evidence of eligibility to continue? How many of us have been required to disclose our birth records, school records, medical records and other historical facts to get to the position we are in? Everyone involved in this coverup needs to be excused from our service, some need to be imprisoned. The “Anointed One” now has the approval of less than 50% of us, the majority should be able to cause some investigation especially in view of the fact that everything Obama has promised has failed to materialize at least in any substantial way. While “common sense isn’t too common anymore”, this administration is quickly proving that it is nearly non-existent in the Federal Government!

    • 44 drkate November 24, 2009 at 10:56 pm

      Thanks for bringing that up. The CC2009 had a lot of information to work with, including those two acts. This was even more proof to us that our conclusion about the Law of Nations as a body of law the founders respected.

    • 45 jbjd November 25, 2009 at 9:30 am

      Bobby G, what you point to is the “legislative history” of these 2 (two) laws. Did you know, volumes are published of legislative history? In some cases, accessing the legislative history informs judicial interpretation. Hopefully, when a case on point reaches the SCOTUS, the litigants will argue just that.

  14. 46 kay November 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm

    right on BobbyG 😉

  15. 47 d2i November 25, 2009 at 7:57 am

    There are two arguments here – one is the intent behind the inclusion of Article II by our Founding Fathers AND the other is that the intent has not been argued or settled by a court of law.

    I am more than aware of the arguments made on the latter part of the argument by you, jbjd, because I’ve read them through your numerous responses at various blog sites throughout the last year. I do not disagree with you although you believe I do.

    I am also informed by arguments posed by lay people and others who have studied law that they too have studied constitutional law and have arrived conclusively that the intent behind Article II was two American citizens born on US soil.

    My personal conclusion is until the law is SETTLED in a court of law I firmly stand behind what I have come to understand as the INTENT of the FF insertion of Article II.

    Like it or not, lay people can think for themselves and justly defend whatever position(s) they choose to take. I take issue with the position that only lawyers who were taught by other lawyers are the only ones with the right to offer opinion. I find that extraordinarily troubling and rather hubris.

    It’s lawyers who got us into this damned mess so why on earth would I or others place our trust in their tortured meaning of Article II, and I exclude you, jbjd, from this statement. I’ve grown tired of the argument. If this is the position CC2009 is taking on Article II then I’m in full agreement, always have been always will.

    When the question is settled in a reputable court of law then we can debate whether the ruling does harm or not. Until such time, I have as much right as any attorney to express my opinion and to stand by the knowledge gained of my lay person understanding as to the FF intent.

    As ladysforest stated, nuff said.

    • 48 jbjd November 25, 2009 at 10:40 am

      Yes, but, it makes no sense to argue, for example, ‘We know what the Founders meant for Article II because they explicitly told us what they meant in Article I.’ Rather, the protocol for statutory interpretation compels the opposite result. That is, fact the Founders specifically reference a body of law in Article I evidences just the opposite interpretation. Put another way, they showed us, they know how to include that reference if they wanted to; and by its omission, they indicate, they did not want to include reference to that definition. Please, before anyone hammers me, make sure you understand I am not saying, the Founders cannot have intended the definition of NBC you would have us adopt. I am merely saying that interpreting their meaning by basing claims on statutory construction means, one must follow the protocol for statutory interpretation.

      • 49 drkate November 25, 2009 at 8:36 pm

        you are inventing hairs to split. Step back and look at the big picture.

        • 50 tminu November 25, 2009 at 10:02 pm

          it’s just obotfuscation, its purpose is to prevent seeing the forest for the trees
          it’s not complicated it’s “duh”

          NBC has no statute because, come on…ask yourself

          what possible need to assign US citizenship to someone both born to only US citizens on US soil? that’s why there’s no statute or law defining NBC, only for mere citizens…US code 1401/14th amendment, which nowhere mentions NBC

        • 52 jbjd November 26, 2009 at 6:34 am

          Characterizing my efforts to explain the judicial analysis that is applied to statutory interpretation, as disingenuous – “you are inventing hairs to split” – presumably because you dislike that such application to the Constitution contradicts the conclusions reached as the result of your analysis, is petty and spiteful, especially when you have no training in this discipline. Your response to my comments points to why I am able to find so many holes in this proposed action. That is, its proponents try to substitute emotional desire for studied legal reasoning. (This reminds me of Leo all over again. He demanded the courts violate the separation of powers doctrine by interpreting the fact, the SoS in NJ took an oath to support the Constitution; as tantamount to finding (in legislation defining her job), she must vet candidates who only want the state to print their names on the ballot, for Constitutional eligibility for the job. And after all the courts, state and federal, rejected such faulty legal analysis, he posted a photograph of the Justices SCOTUS over which he superimposed the word, “WUSSY.” So, he calls detractors cowards; and you call me, intentionally petty and combative. For the purpose of painting detractors as wrong, this is a distinction without a difference.)

          • 53 drkate November 26, 2009 at 9:14 am

            jbjd, you are argumentative and take so much personally that it is difficult to even write one’s opinion. I am sorry you took offense…however, you are not going to make any points by insulting those who are not lawyers.

            I disagree with just about everything you have said here. But you make it difficult to make a point because you choose to insult anyone with a different opinion.

            I greatly appreciate your work, but sometimes you too are out of your league. Particularly when it comes to regular non lawyer citizens. I don’t appreciate the contempt which drips between the lines.

            • 54 tminu November 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm

              I don’t know but it seems jbjd and d2i act somewhat like good bot bad bot.

              • 55 d2i November 29, 2009 at 8:56 pm



                you make me laugh.

                do i know jbjd, yep, and she well knows me. she and i have posted on several “common” blogs over the last year and a half. i helped her for awhile and enjoyed learning from her…she’s good…doesn’t mean she’s right BUT it doesn’t mean she’s wrong either. She’s shone sunlight in areas of the law I never thought of, but then why would i, the last thing i am is a lawyer.

                but no. i can’t imagine jbjd being an obot tminu. and i know for certain, that i am not an obot…never have been and damned well never will be.

                but i do get some of her arguments…not all…but some…and they are well worth one’s time to look at and learn from…they are good. truly, not blowing smoke up any body’s arse…

            • 56 Miri November 30, 2009 at 3:21 pm

              Well, said, drkate. (Sorry that I’m days behind on my reading.) 🙂

  16. 57 tminu November 25, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’ means citizen, au naturel, naturally


    100% of ALL other permutations require a statute/law to define it

    EXCEPT for jus soli jus sanguinis both parents

    that’s why it’s NATURAL
    it’s the only one that’s NATURAL

    • 58 tminu November 25, 2009 at 3:13 pm

      Natural Born Citizen Needs&has no defining Statute to define it

      that’s why it’s called “NATURAL”
      because NATURALLY that baby can only be a citizen of the USA
      since both its parents are US citizens and the child born in-country

      very natural, au naturel


      100% of ALL other forms of citizenship require and have statute to define them (14th amendment US Code 1401)–ALL of them EXCEPT Natural born Citizen
      for obviously there is no need, child has zero other citizenship ties
      jus soli jus sanguinis both parents=NBC

  17. 60 Yousaidit November 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Re the national security angle for limiting the Presidency to “natural born” only, it makes me ponder those 3rd generation English Muslims involved in the subway bombings in England. Legally, those bombers would appear to be “natural born Englishmen” but their allegiance was strictly to their Arab origins and Muslim faith. It makes one wonder about “natural born” being any kind of preventative to misguided loyalty.

    • 61 tminu November 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm

      Muslims do not put any nation before Islam, which called for their jihad.
      Remember the English translation of Obama’s Audacity of Hope from the Indonesian title is: ‘Jihad from Jakarta to the White House’

      If I had a relative killed at Fort Hood I’d directly blame Obama.

  18. 62 tminu November 26, 2009 at 8:03 pm

    I’d just like to remind everyone– “Sen. Nickles (OK) along with Landrieu (LA) and Inhofe (OK) brought forward S. 2128 in February 25, 2004, the Natural Born Citizen Act, a bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in Article II of the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.”
    The bill went on to try to redefine NBC as virtually any ‘ol citizen. This is obviously unconstitutional since Article II Section 1 Clause 5 makes it clear by use of the word “OR” that Natural Born Citizen is NOT a “Citizen” (which is granted by statute, the only omitted permutation being that of jus soli jus sanguinis both parents).

    February 28, 2008, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) introduced a bill to the Senate for consideration. That bill was known as S. 2678: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act. The bill was co-sponsored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), and Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK).

    You have to understand, Inhofe came out not long ago acting like a NBC constitutional proponent…he’s a pod person!!!

    etc etc

    These people knew they were going to shove Obama down our throats Constitution be damned. They sure put on a pretty good show but their names on these bills ahead of his run, show and prove their conspiracy.

    OK is infected with communist RINOs, Coburn Inhofe and Nickles are all traitors.

  19. 63 kay November 26, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Thank you Dr. Kate!
    You are such a super Hostess with a wonderful open mind!

  20. 64 HistorianDude November 28, 2009 at 8:29 am

    Ignoring that the body of law referred to as “The Law of Nations” and the treatise by de Vattel with a title later translated as “The Law of Nations” are two completely different things… the problem here is entirely one of possibility v. impossibility.

    The first English translation of de Vattel that included the phrase “natural born citizen” did not exist until ten years after the Constitution was set in stone. The phrase never once passed through de Vattel’s pen or lips… it is an original insertion made 30 years after his death.

    As such… unless you believe in time travel… it is impossible for “The Law of Nations” to have had any influence over Article II of the US Constitution.

    • 65 drkate November 28, 2009 at 9:51 am

      Wrong. 1758 was the text they used. Did you know the founders knew several languages?

      So rather than providing speculation here, I want you to go find the text I have sited for ‘natural born citizen’. Because you have not convinced me at all.

      Historian? Right. Thanks for dropping by.

    • 66 drkate November 28, 2009 at 11:35 pm


      Intellectual honesty begins at home.

      It is likely Vattel had more influence than English common law in this matter…and the context of the words used are quite important. If you insist that Vattel used the words ‘native’, why didn’t the Founders? Do you see that Vattel’s description of ‘native’ differs from English common law? Do you ascribe any significance to that?

      • 67 HistorianDude November 29, 2009 at 4:16 pm

        I ascribe no significance to de Vattel whatsoever in any discussion of US Citizenship.

        Again… it is a simple historical fact that de Vattel can not possibly have had any influence whatsoever on Article II of constitution sans time travel.

        You were also factually in error when you asserted that the 1758 text was used by the framers. In actuality they used one of the three copies of the 1775 Amsterdam text that had been given to Ben Franklin. It was donated by him to the library that was used during the Constitutional deliberations.

        • 68 drkate November 29, 2009 at 5:10 pm

          Well we disagree then. Thanks for the information on the 1775 version that was used by Ben Franklin in deliberations of the Founders. The concept of ‘natural born’ versus ‘native’ was in fact a big part of the discussion. If the Framers intended ‘native’ as in English common law, they would have used it.

          “Time-travel” is pretty funny coming from a supposed ‘historian’….do you ascribe to anything where the authors are dead and unable to present their work in context? lol

        • 69 ksdb November 29, 2009 at 8:36 pm

          I’m not following how you ‘ascribe’ no significance to de Vattel and then turn around and admit one of the founders had one of his texts. This would undermine your argument, no??

        • 70 tminu November 29, 2009 at 9:26 pm

          Then focus on the Constitution itself, with which you should have not dispute, and since by use of the word “OR” in A2S1C5 NBC is shown to be distinctly different from “Citizen”, what then do you believe the difference is?

          I know, but do you?

  21. 71 ksdb November 29, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Speaking of history, would just point out that prior to the emergence of Obama’s natural born citizenship deficiency, it was generally accepted that Alexander Hamilton was the reason there’s a so-called ‘grandfather’ clause in the Constitution for being a citizen at the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The founders considered themselves to be NBCs, but did not consider Hamilton to be one, so the clause would have allowed him or others like him (born off of U.S. soil, but who later became U.S. citizens) to be eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

    Keep in mind that at the founding, citizenship status would have been determined by the individual states and naturalization powers were given to the Federal congress. The other thing to understand is that if native-born was the same thing as natural born, then there was no need for the 14th amendment. That amendment didn’t create natural born status for all who were native born. Instead, it created at-birth Federal and state citizenship status for those who were native born and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but were not previously eligible for citizenship in their state of birth … which would have been for former slaves.

    Obama’s audacity is in alerting everyone that he was not natural born and challenging anyone to do anything about it. If we follow jbjd’s advice, we work on preventing this from occurring again, which is good, but I tend to think we can still find a way to remove Obama from office for fraud. At some point, the truth will come out that his COLB is fraudulent. It’s going to take massive public pressure to force him out office, but there’s no reason to presume it can’t happen.

    • 72 drkate November 29, 2009 at 5:12 pm

      Thank you for that clarification. And yes, if the founders intended ‘native’ they would have used that word….and the 14th would have been unnecessary and ‘anyone’ could be president.

      It defies logic to think any other way.

    • 73 tminu November 29, 2009 at 9:30 pm

      Hamilton, born in the Caribbean, NEVER ran for POTUS.
      Paine was born in England.
      And that’s made-up “stuff” that “the founders considered themselves to be NBC”…pffffffffffft.
      They considered themselves to be CITIZENS and up to Zac Taylor they were nothing but that, yet still eligible because of the grandfather clause. After that time, all presidents openly had 2 US citizen parents, except Obama and except Chester Arthur who was a usurper because he lied (he had to have lied because the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in effect in his era made Chester not even a US Citizen AT ALL should he have announced he was also a British Citizen).

      I love the way the bots make up stuff then expect everyone to just believe it.

      • 74 ksdb November 29, 2009 at 10:17 pm

        The grandfather clause would have allowed Hamilton to run for president. Note the comment in this article:

        “The phrase ” or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” is said to be the only provision in that document inserted in respect to one man. That man was Alexander Hamilton, who, born on the island of Nevis in the West Indies, …”

        Source: Time Magazine, 1923,9171,715505,00.html

        The founders DID considers themselves to be NBCs. Let’s recall John Jay’s letter to George Washington:

        “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.”

        Are you saying that Jay, Washington and the other founders considered themselves to be foreigners?? He’s not talking about a goal for 35 years after the founding of the nation.

  22. 75 tminu November 30, 2009 at 1:21 am

    Time magazine?????????????????????
    Time magazine is making an opinion statement, not based on any historical document. And given Time’s having Obama on the cover 10 times, I don’t even trust their archives on an opinion. Hmm, let me check. Oh and gee, that one TIME page was modified by the web master TODAY!!!
    Modified: Monday, November 30, 2009 12:09:01 AM
    so, double pffft

    Alexander Hamilton, who never ran for president, was a critical policy person. Of late I’ve heard this repeated bot mantra that the grandfather clause was only written for him, which is ridiculous since again, it was used by ALL until Zac Taylor!

    And John Jay never said HE or George or any of the early potus-s were NBCs. In fact he verifies why Obama is not eligible…he’s a foreigner, born of a foreign father. The founder’s greatest fear would have been infiltration by a foreigner, particularly a Brit having just fought a bloody war against GB. And here Obama is a Brit.

    Jeez, now this is really reaching bot stuff. It’s amazing how this consistent meme flows out all synchronized, like from Dr. Evil’s Bot Central Constitutional Obfuscation Centre. You professional bot obfuscators (botfuscators) are sent out to create a “message” that bears no resemblance to logic nor which is based on fact.

    What do you think you can rewrite all logic???

    Hmmm so let’s take your bot-non-logic and put it to the test shall we? You’re trying to say that the founders, who were born of non-citizens, were NBCs, just because they were born jus soli. That is the current desperate bot-meme, that jus-soli only is NBC. Thus Kim Jung Il’s baby born on a boat in US territorial waters is as well to the nimrod who thunk of this one.

    Except jus soli-only as NBC cannot be, because the 14th covers jus-soli-only and that permutation is only a Citizen and per A2S1C5 thus cannot be NBC, as well per Minor.
    Further, you’re trying to assert that jus-soli-only, not even naturalized, is NBC whereas aside from modern citizenship laws, such a permutation was not even a US citizen at all. Check out the Civil Rights Act of 1866. See that’s why Chester Arthur lied about his father’s citizenship, he could have been deported. And that’s why Obama lied at his unauguration that his father was an “immigrant” so said he, when in fact he never was nor wanted to become a US citizen. They lied both of them, because they both knew jus-soli-only does not make one NBC. Obama said he was native born, but he did not extrapolate that to being NBC because even he knows they’re not the same thing.
    The founders were serious Birthers, and having abjured all allegiances to Britain, were Naturalized US Citizens, but even they did not consider themselves NBC.

    Even today, the modern naturalization oath requires one to abjure ALL allegiances, which Obama has not done, so by gradation he falls below even that level of citizenship.

    • 76 Ali November 30, 2009 at 2:08 am

      You rock tminu 🙂

    • 77 ksdb November 30, 2009 at 9:41 am

      Thou doth protest too much about ‘bots’ … and you’re deflecting with pointless comments about when the Time Magazine web page was updated. I cited the content of that story months ago because too many people are ignorant about the meaning of the grandfather clause. There are plenty of other historical sources pre-Obama that agree with that same assessment. It’s not based on a random opinion. Hamilton actively campaigned against the NBC requirement … obviously for selfish reasons, and that clause would have allowed him and other like him to run for president. Hamilton would have failed to qualify as an NBC for both jus soli and jus sanguinis reasons. Not so for any of the presidents from Washington forward.

      Also, in order for the errant interpretation of the grandfather clause to make sense, John Jay’s letter should have mentioned that grandfather clause or a similar exemption if he didn’t think of himself or Washington as NBCs, else it would be years before anyone could qualify. He didn’t write, “I think one day years from now our CinC should be a natural born Citzen …” These founders rejected British loyalties and considered themselves citizens of the colonies where they and their parents were born and thus natural born citizens of THEIR new nation.

      The rest of your post contains a lot of rambling nonsense and has nothing do with anything I’ve posted. I’ve not stated anything about a jus soli-only requirement. Kim John Il??? What utter nonsense. Face the facts. You misunderstood the grandfather clause and who it was intended for.

      Chester Arthur is irrelevant to my post too. His parents were permanent immigrants and Obama’s were not. There’s not a very strong case to show that Arthur wasn’t born in America while many, many questions still remain about Obama’s place of birth.

      • 78 Ali November 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm

        I disagree with your opinion/interpretation of the nbc clause and surrounding events (John Jay, etc.). We all have opinions (now and throughout history), and they are just that. Yes, my thoughts on the topic align with those of tminu, Dr. Kate, TD, Leo Donofrio, 🙂 our Founders/Framers….
        I’m grateful to tminu for having the stamina to counter the many intentional inaccuracies, and I support tminu in calling a spade, a spade.

        • 79 ksdb November 30, 2009 at 3:16 pm

          I applaud your well-intentioned integrity, Ali, but you’ve failed to express a logical reason to support your objection to ‘my interpretation’ which is simply based on the long-held understanding of what the grandfather clause was intended to do.

          John Jay’s letter makes a distinction between foreigners and natural born citizens. He doesn’t talk about a middle ground or a country that has to wait for several years until it has natural born citizens.

          The founders had strong citizenship identities to their colonies/states. For example, Washington, Madison and Jefferson all considered themselves Virginians, and certainly would have put that ahead of being subjects to the British crown. Certainly they didn’t consider themselves to be dual citizens or citizens of the world.

          That grandfather clause gave persons who fought on the side of independence (like Alexander Hamilton) a chance to be president, even if they weren’t born in the United States, but it certainly didn’t mean that those born in the colonies were not NBCs, unless they were British loyalists.

  23. 80 d2i November 30, 2009 at 10:35 am

    well, here ya go – looks like there may be some lingering doubt about “Ike’s” citizenship –

    • 81 ksdb November 30, 2009 at 10:53 am

      Interesting find, although it doesn’t really address his citizenship. I’m from Ike’s boyhood hometown, Abilene, Kan., and we would love to claim that he was born there. There isn’t any obvious motivation for him or his family to lie about where he was born. It sounds like it was a home delivery. Since the family didn’t stay in Texas long, maybe they neglected to file the paperwork to get him a birth certificate. Now if we only figure out what Obama’s excuse is.

  24. 82 Eliza December 15, 2009 at 9:45 am

    Scottish Ritual Freemasonry/World War Three agenda. Urgent nonfiction. BARACK OBAMA – check his Masonic details.

    Your attention is drawn to the non-fiction details/PRESS RELEASE/Author Interview UNEDITED on

    Examination shows both urgency and current affairs.

    Your help will be appreciated re furthering public awareness of these authenticated details.

    Thank you for your time.

    Eliza Earsman.
    Ireland temporarily.

    • 83 drkate December 15, 2009 at 9:51 am

      Thank you for the link. I wonder if you would be so kind as to post a few paragraphs from the text…I think that will inspire many to buy the book…

  1. 1 The Usurper and the Courts « drkatesview Trackback on February 23, 2010 at 12:05 am
  2. 2 Traitors and Treason « drkatesview Trackback on March 23, 2010 at 2:06 am
  3. 3 A Conspiracy of 12 « drkatesview Trackback on April 13, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Comments are currently closed.

November 2009
« Oct   Dec »

Recent Comments

Get Your Copy at

All Pets Haven

Blog Archives

Just follow copyright law and nobody gets hurt!

The contents of this blog are protected under U.S. Copyright Law, United States Code, Title 17. Requests for use of active and archived articles in this blog must be presented in writing in the comment section, and proper attribution is expected. Thank you in advance.

drkatesview thanks you!

Since 8/15/09


Listen to drkate’s Revolution Radio

RSS Big Government

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS Logistics Monster

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Thinker

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS American Spectator

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Button 1 120 by 90

%d bloggers like this: