Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress

1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel.  But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.

A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provision in the Constitution made him a Citizen – no Act of Congress made him a Citizen – just as no provision in the Constitution or Act of Congress determined his eye or hair color. His citizenship, eye color, and hair color are all inherited from his parents. THAT’s what a natural born citizen is. READ all of the sections on this which Vattel wrote:  By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.   In my first paper, you can find the links to Vattel and other original source documents illustrating the original intent of “natural born citizen”.

2. Our first generation of Presidents were all born as subjects of the British King. There were no US citizens until July 4, 1776 when we proclaimed our Independence.  Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 contains a grandfather clause which permitted our first batch of Presidents to qualify. They were citizens at the time of the Adoption of our Constitution.

3. It appears that both of Donald Trump’s Parents were Citizens at the time he was born.  It is irrelevant that his Mother was an immigrant:  She came here from Scotland; and later became a US Citizen during 1942 – several years before Donald was born.  Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.  [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably irrelevant.]

4. I found another article on this topic which is excellent:…/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-…

5. Our Country would be so much better off if people would stop spouting off about this subject until after they become well-informed. And they can’t become well-informed until they have studied this carefully using original source documents and read all the original source documents I cite in my first paper.

And you must detach the result you want from your thinking when you are studying. TRUTH sheds its own Light – and you will NEVER get that Light until you love TRUTH above all things including the outcome you want.  I am well aware of the disgraceful cases where peoples’ views on this issue are determined by whom THEY want for President.

Be sure to read the short article in the LA Times.  The law professor author discusses the 3 ways of reading our Constitution:

  • original intent (yours truly);
  • textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
  • it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.

Which are you?  Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide.

Jan 17, 2016


Postscript added Jan 18, 2016:

People are confused about the effect of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.  I’ll explain:

There is a difference between:

  • a “natural born citizen” (who inherits his citizenship status from his parents by the “laws of nature” alone – like eye color); and
  • someone who becomes a “citizen” by operation of a man-made Proclamation or law such as the Declaration of Independence, a clause in the Constitution, or an Act of Congress.

One of the purposes of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves.  That generation of freed slaves became Citizens by operation of a man-made law:  the 14th Amendment.  So they became Citizens, but they were not “natural born” citizens, because they weren’t “born” as citizens from parents who were citizens.

However, after that first generation of former slaves became citizens,  their children were “natural born” citizens because they were born of citizens.

Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with “natural born citizens”, i.e., those who are born of parents who are already citizens.

Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has to do with the creation of new Citizens by operation of man-made law.

Under some peoples’ misreadings of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, illegal alien muslims could come here and drop a baby and the baby could later be President!   Our Framers didn’t want that!  They wanted only people who were born of parents who were already citizens to be eligible to be President.   And supposedly we would have standards for deciding who qualified for Citizenship….

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

January 17, 2016 - Posted by | Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, natural born citizen, Ted Cruz, Vattel | , , , , , ,


  1. HOW did Obama bypass the “natural born citizen” rule of the Constitution? His presidency was illegal?


    Comment by Nadine Meade | February 14, 2021 | Reply

  2. Dear Ms. Hulda, this country went through turmoil with Barack Hussein Obama who was NOT constitutionally eligible to be president of the United States since he was not a “natural born citizen”. Obama was FORCED upon us by the Democrat Party, aided and abetted by Congress and the courts. Then the GOP (Republicans) tried to do the same thing with Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio. Now the Democrats are trying again with Kamala Harris who is being touted as being on Biden’s shortlist for Vice-President. I know that Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California on Oct. 20, 1964, I also know that her father, Donald J. Harris, is a native of Jamaica, and her mother, Shyamala Gopalan Harris, was born in India and both immigrated to the U.S., but neither of them became “Naturalized” until AFTER Kamala’s birth, which means Kamala is a citizen, but NOT a natural-born citizen. What I find curious is that while trying to research her parents backgrounds, is that there seems to be no record or information as to exactly when here parents were naturalized. I even tried to look up their immigration and naturalization through government records and kept drawing a blank there also. When trying to do a FACT CHECK search on Kamala’s eligibility status, I keep getting at least ten sites stating that she IS eligible because her parents were LEGAL residents of the U.S. at the time Kamala was born. Unless I am missing something, being a legal resident and a naturalized citizen are NOT the same thing.

    By the way, I have sent emails to every single one of the FOX News Channel show hosts asking why none of them, even their so-called “constitutional experts” never bring up Kamala’s eligibility when ever they talk about her as a possible v.p. candidate. None of them have responded to my inquiry, but I guess that is no big surprise.

    Archbishop Gregori

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Sayedna Gregori | June 23, 2020 | Reply

    • Every word you say is true. But people don’t care about things like that anymore. They want whom they want for President, and they don’t care what the Constitution says.

      THAT is the mindset which is destroying this Country. People want to follow their own opinions, or what “everybody says”, instead of consulting transcendent standards – such as our Constitution.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | June 23, 2020 | Reply

  3. […] Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Con… […]


    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen Explained – Speak Up America | March 1, 2019 | Reply

    • A “natural-born” citizen is a child whose parents are citizens of the nation in which they are born. Both parents, not just one. You can’t be a natural-born citizen of
      two different nations with arents of two different nations.


      Comment by yogiman | October 24, 2020 | Reply

      • Right; except that location of birth is irrelevant. It is the citizenship of the parents alone which matters. E.g., if a US Citizen serviceman stationed abroad and his lovely young US Citizen wife have a child who is born on foreign soil, the child is BORN a US Citizen. The baby has the same status as his parents.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | October 24, 2020 | Reply

  4. Since cruz’s mother was a citizen when he was born, wouldn’t he inherit his US citizenship from her? Isn’t it true that he was not naturalized, but a citizen from birth. wouldn’t that make him a US citizen? Wouldn’t the Naturalization Act of 1790 consider him a natural born citizen? ins, PH


    Comment by Con Ma | February 23, 2017 | Reply

    • you break my heart, Con Ma. Watch the video. read the papers. Look at the original source documents. forget what you have heard or always believed.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 23, 2017 | Reply

      • the father at the time when the forefathers created the constitution meant the father had to be natural born , because women then had no rights. but in my opinion, when the mother gained rights i would say then BOTH parents have to be natural born.

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by steve | February 23, 2017 | Reply

        • Of course, our Constitution is not properly a matter of personal opinion! I think the best course of action is an amendment defining “natural born citizen” as one whose parents – both of them – were already US Citizens at the time the baby is born.

          At the time of our Framing, a married woman’s legal identity was subsumed into that of her Husband: She was “Mrs. John Smith”.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 24, 2017 | Reply

  5. So there should be no “Anchor babies” then. “A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status.” According to this statement babies born to illegal Mexican parents are Mexican, not American. You can’t have it both ways, either Ted Cruz is Canadian or Mexican babies are as illegal as the parents.


    Comment by Greg E. Uhrig | February 27, 2016 | Reply

  6. being “natural ” is the key word here . wouldnt it be both parents having to be natural born in the united states ? i understand where the framers let a generation pass before the requirements kicked in . but, being they just claimed that the father was only counted i wouldnt call that something thats natural. how do you see it ?


    Comment by steve | February 21, 2016 | Reply

    • I’ve addressed all these issues in my various posts under the Category “natural born citizen”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 21, 2016 | Reply

  7. Publius,

    Your research is impeccable. The source documents you provide from our founding are the Truth and those that cannot conform their mind to the reality that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen (neither is Rubio) are the ones with an agenda. Either out of ignorance or willful pride, those that refuse the source material (ratified intent documents, transcripts from the Constitutional convention, et al) in favor of the weaker, and let’s be honest, dubious assertion that court precedents overruled the Constitution is absurd, of no force, and a lesson in the dangers of nominalism. As well, it is blatantly noticeable that those carrying water for the dubious arguments against ratified intent, are quick to anger and name call, again, out of pride due to their lack of factual and Truthful knowledge of the facts. The Truth is the Truth, those that choose to ‘believe’ otherwise are, again, not conforming their minds to reality and may actually be a psychosis is some sort.

    Vattel’s Law of Nations is clearly the foundation upon which all of this rests.

    Anyway, keep up the Good work.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Craig Silverman | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Thank you; and yes, I have seen that some of Cruz’ supporters are nasty!

      But what worries me more is the willingness to twist the Constitution and the historical documents in order to “justify” the result they want.

      This elevation of “what I want” above TRUTH is the moral degeneration which is causing our collapse. One must NEVER sacrifice Principle for Expediency. Truth does shed her own light; but one has to love Truth above “getting the answer I want” to get that Light.

      And I have not posted some real nasties!

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

      • Most graciously yes to all Publius. I would state it as; the paradigm of illogical, and therefore illegitimate, thought that Cruz, Rubio, and Obama supporters subscribe to has been only reinforced when they are presented with the actual factual and Truthful information. Because, they either can’t or won’t understand and/or recognize their error in thought because they want the outcome they want as you correctly state. And in doing so, represent the enemy domestic. When pressed to produce said ‘original sources’ they say they have, they are unable to produce them because they do not exist for their argument or stance and relegate themselves to feel as though they are right in their contradiction to the Truth, and in denying said Truth, expose their bad faith. Or to mean, if they are not receptive to the Truth as presented, then they are in error, and are not acting in Good Faith. Be well.


        Comment by Craig Silverman | February 5, 2016 | Reply

  8. After reading several different original sources concerning this topic I believe that Ted Cruz would be eligible as a ” Natural Born Citizen” for the following reason:
    His Mother was a Natural Born Citizen of United States Citizen at the time of his birth. She was not an alien that was naturalized. The 1940 Naturalization act granted that her child would “…have acquired at birth her nationality status”.

    William Blackstone wrote in his commentaries of 1765 the following:
    “When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain”.

    Just as Parliment amended what constituted a Natural Born Citizen, noting very few exceptions, so did Congress in 1940. If both of Cruz’s parents were Naturalized citizens, he would be ineleligible. However, his Mother was a Natural Born citizen and with the passage of the 1940 Naturalization act, he is eligible. You can still be a strict Constructionist and believe that he is eligible.


    Comment by Rick Montes | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Please read my original paper on natural born citizen, and do not confuse natural born subject with natural born citizen as so many others have done.
      And read my post on coverture.
      And remember! Congress can’t amend the Constitution by making a law!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

      • Citizen or subject? The British used subject…we used Citizen. Using common sense, and the past as a guide, Blackstones argument works for Citizen as well as it did for subject.


        Comment by Rick Montes | February 4, 2016 | Reply

        • We are in worse trouble than I thought if Americans don’t know the difference between “subject” and “citizen”

          And you are using your “common sense” as a guide in this issue?! God preserve us from Peoples’ “common sense”!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 4, 2016 | Reply

    • Except she wasn’t she held Canadian citizenship before dual citizenship was permitted, Cruz has no CRBA

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Esperanza | February 21, 2016 | Reply

      • Do you have any PROOF that Ted Cruz’ Mother was a Canadian Citizen when Ted was born? I have heard that – but never seen any documents… What is needed is the Certificate naturalizing her as a Canadian citizen. Or perhaps Ted’s Canadian birth Certificate shows her citizenship. But even if she were a US citizen when Ted was born, his Father was NOT a US citizen..


        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 21, 2016 | Reply

        • Under Canadian law in the 1960’s Cruz’s mother became an ‘automatic’ Canadian citizen by being married to/and living with Rafael Cruz for 1-year in Canada (see 4th paragraph). Ted Cruz says his parents married in 1969, but there are reports from Rafael that they actually married sometime between 1966 and 1968 which would put the marriage having taken place most likely in Canada.

          Cruz’s mother also failed to meet the required 10-year physical residence in the U.S. w/5 of those years directly prior to the birth of Ted as she lived in England from 1960 to mid-late 1966 and then went to Canada until 1975 (see 3rd paragraph below), as follows:

          Cruz’s mother divorced her first husband in 1963 (per Alan Wilson her ex-husband). They moved to London, England in 1960 where Eleanor continued to live until sometime after the death of a child she had, Michael Wilson (not Alan Wilson’s son – he says they were definitely divorced, but gave her permission to use his name for the birth certificate).

          London records identify a Michael Wilson was born and died in 1966 and was buried in Kensal Green Cemetery in Kensington, a London neighborhood. Eleanor then returns to Houston sometime in 1966 after the crib death of her son, where she meets Rafael Cruz. Cruz states that they moved and was living in Canada sometime around 1966-1967 (he states they lived there for 8-years returning in 1975 so that makes it 1967). He became a Canadian Citizen in 1968. He and Eleanor were married in 1969 but where…Canada? Most likely. Someone needs to find the marriage certificate.

          And because she lived in London from 1960 to sometime in 1966 after the death of her first son, and then almost immediately ends up in Canada with Cruz sometime around 1967, she CLEARLY did not meet the required 10-year physical U.S. residency requirement which requires that at least 5 of those years must be spent physically within the U.S. BEFORE the birth of the child. Alan Wilson continues to live in London and is still a U.S. citizen.

          At the time Cruz was born in 1970 Canada did not recognize dual citizenship and per their laws if you are born on Canadian soil (and even today in an airplane over Canadian airspace) you are a Canadian born citizen only (in 1970). Their dual citizenship clause was changed in 1977.

          Additionally, Canadian documents show that Cruz’s parents were listed as and voted in the 1974 Canadian Federal elections as Canadian citizens. Canadian law at that time stated that a spouse (Cruz’s mother) who was married to a Canadian Citizen (his father became one in 1968) and lived in Canada with said husband for 1-year AUTOMATICALLY became a Canadian citizen, which would account for the information that they voted in 1974 as Canadians and that their names appear as Canadian Citizens on the 1974 Canadian Election Voter list.

          This could quite possibly be the reason why Cruz hasn’t produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to substantiate his U.S. citizenship because he doesn’t have one. Per U.S. law, even at that time in 1970, it is up to the U.S. Consulate to determine Cruz’s birth citizenship. If his parents went to the Consulate to report it, the Consulate may have refused citizenship based on the fact that Cruz’s parents were Canadian citizens by virtue of his father becoming one and his mother meeting the statute of being married to one and living in the country for the 1-year required time, which makes little Ted a ‘natural-born CANADIAN’ citizen just like Rand Paul stated. Per Canada, they stated Ted was/is a Canadian and nothing more.

          He also was not given a U.S. passport at birth as it was recently released that he did not get a U.S. Passport until he needed one for a High School trip abroad. If had one at birth, he would have been renewing it. Law also requires children born abroad to U.S. citizens to take an oath upon reaching the age of 18, which coincidentally was, I believe, the age he got his passport.


          Comment by Charon | February 23, 2016 | Reply

          • Well, I hadn’t heard that; BUT it’s actually simple and turns on this: Was Ted’s Father a US citizen when Ted was born? Answer “No”. That’s all you need to disqualify Ted.

            And on top of that, Ted didn’t renounce his Canadian citizenship until May 14, 2014!

            Are the Americans who support Cruz NUTS? How can anybody who hasn’t been sound sleep for 225 years claim Ted is eligible to be President of the US???


            Comment by Publius Huldah | February 23, 2016

          • That law is garbage. First of all, dual citizenship wasn’t “recognized”… it doesn’t mean they they didn’t allow it because they did. She wasn’t forced to give up any citizenship or take on any citizenship under any law so this whole story about her citizenship is a dead end… and this is coming from someone who doesn’t like Ted Cruz at all first and foremost. The fact that’s he’s not a NBC is just icing on the cake and adds another reason not to vote for him. So don’t mistake me as someone standing up to him or his mother when I say this whole situation with her citizenship is just nonsense.


            Comment by Kenley (@Makexevil) | March 9, 2016

          • Do have links to original sources proving what you have said? I see many assertions in your post, but no evidence. I’m not disputing the facts you allege – I don’t know one way or the other. That’s why it’s always good to provide EVIDENCE!


            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2016

          • First, it is said, that at the time of Ted’s birth, his parents had been living in Canada for 4 years. While the Canadian Citizenship Act of 1947 was still in effect his parents would have had to been living there for at least 5 years to even qualify for Canadian citizenship. Maybe someone can add to this, but I do not know the exact dates that each parent moved to Canada. It’s said that they didn’t meet until 1969 and they would’ve likely moved there at completely different times. It’s possible that both met the 5 year requirement for citizenship before Ted was born and that only 4 years is a lie or just misinformation, but there is absolutely no proof.

            But what really kills this issue is that, although Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977, there were some situations where Canadians could, nevertheless, legally possess another citizenship. For example, migrants becoming Canadian citizens were not asked to formally prove that they had ceased to hold the nationality of their former country. Similarly, children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign citizenship they had acquired by descent. Also, holding a foreign passport did not, in itself, cause loss of Canadian citizenship.


            The only thing that is said on their government website is: “In general, Canadian citizens who acquired citizenship of another country automatically lost Canadian citizenship (dual citizenship was not recognized).”

            Notice that not only is it only referring to people who were already citizens who acquire foreign citizenship afterward, but that is say that dual citizenship was not “recognized.”


            Comment by Kenley (@Makexevil) | March 10, 2016

          • We don’t need to go into all of that! Because we KNOW that when Ted was born, his Father was not a US citizen. And we KNOW that Ted did not renounce his Canadian citizenship – however he got it – until May of 2014. So Ted is not a natural born citizen within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5. That is also sufficient to disqualify him from being eligible to be a US citizen.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2016

          • Isn’t the whole point/purpose of the NBC clause to make sure that we have a president with single allegiance to our country and our country, only? It is only confusing because of court rulings, immigration regulations and everyone’s personal desires. Original intent is plain and simple. They were warning us to not choose a president who would/could have allegiance to some foreign country and who may make decisions based on that dual interest.

            It only makes sense that a child growing up in a home where a parent was a citizen of another country would be hearing about how good it was or how bad it was back home and about the politics of the “home” country. If a person has or had a dual citizenship, that in itself seems to indicate a dual interest in multiple nations.

            Even if you believe that Cruz is the best choice, we need to be above our personal feelings when it comes to such important issues. We were upset, even angry, over Obama not being qualified to be president due to the NBC clause (among the many other reasons). We waved the Constitution around from our high perches atop our soapboxes. But,….now that we want someone in about the same circumstance (Cruz or Rubio), we find ourselves scouring the court rulings and laws of foreign nations, even to go so deep as checking Widipedia for our original source. We just want to find that “smoking gun” that will allow our conscious to be clear to vote for someone who, in our hearts, we know does not qualify under the original intent of the founding fathers.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Mike F | March 10, 2016

          • I love you, Friend Mike!
            You nailed it.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2016

          • Of course we don’t need to go over all that, but there are many people trying to discredit his citizenship entirely in hopes that it would render him ineligible for Senate as well. I just see it as a desperate overreach. My theory on why his records are sealed is that his mother never filed the CRBA until just before they moved to the US. Cruz would have needed a passport to enter the country and the only way to get that was to essentially register him with the US to prove that he even exists. Without the CRBA the US wouldn’t know about him and he technically wouldn’t be recognized as a US citizen without it.


            Comment by Kenley (@Makexevil) | March 10, 2016

          • My concern is to keep him out of the White House because he – along with the establishment elite of both parties – supports the North American Union where Canada, the US, and Mexico merge. My post on this with a link to the Task Force Report on the NAU can be found under the Category “Ted Cruz”.

            That’s why I brought it up that Cruz is not a “natural born citizen”.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2016

          • With all of the naturalized US Citizens within the Senate, Congress, administrations & Courts along with all of the “foreign money” circulating among the political class maybe it’s time for an Amendment that would include the eligibility of the Congress & Senate to also be US natural born Citizens.

            Problem is they do not know the LAW well enough to know what a US natural born Citizen is.


            Comment by slcraignbc | March 10, 2016

          • except for repealing some of the BAD amendments Americans got manipulated into approving, our Constitution doesn’t need amending – it needs reading and faithfulness.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2016

          • That seems like a seriously convoluted list of events.

            What’s this ‘5-years of physical residence’ thing?


            Comment by Jefferson | March 10, 2016

          • MY point is that none of that matters since we know Ted is not a natural born citizen eligible to be President.
            I leave it to the Texans to get rid of a US Senator whom they elected who may not even be eligible to be their Senator.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by Publius Huldah | March 10, 2016

      • Ted Cruz has sealed his Birth Certificate papers, including his Mothers, but regardless, take a look when he applied for his US Citizenship, which was May of 214, you have to have been a citizen for a certain amount of time before applying for an application to be President, yes, he was a Senator, and this was like putting the horse before the cart, it was illegal for him to be a senator..


        Comment by Mandm Wynn | March 9, 2016 | Reply

        • Right – I don’t know WHEN or IF Ted Cruz became a US citizen. And yes, he may be ineligible to be a US Senator. Art. I, Sec. 3, clause 3, US Constitution, requires US Senators to have been US citizen for at least 9 years.

          What is distressing is the great numbers of Americans who don’t care. They have been told he is “the most consistently conservative candidate” for the R nomination for President, and they believe it. Never mind that he spits his contempt for our Constitution by ignoring the eligibility requirements for office.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2016 | Reply

  9. “According to US legal opinion, Ted Cruz’s birth circumstances make him a ‘naturalized’ citizen, not a natural born citizen.
    1898, Supreme Court, US v. Wong Kim Ark -“A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being NATURALIZED, …by authority of Congress, exercised …by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens…”
    1951, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, Zimmer v. Acheson -said of someone who was born outside the United States to two US citizen parents, acquiring their citizenship under statutes, that the nature of their citizenship “status as a citizen was that of a NATURALIZED citizen and not a native-born citizen.”
    1956, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Wong Kam Wo v. Dulles -in a case pertaining to men born outside the United States to a naturalized US citizen father, noted that a statute is “a naturalization law in the constitutional sense.”
    1971, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on foreign-born children of US citizens: “Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as NATURALIZED citizens, the use of the word “NATURALIZE” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a NATURALIZED citizen.”
    It appears that the position of the courts for well over a century is that foreign born children of US citizens who acquire their citizenship wholly through Congressional statutes are “NATURALIZED” citizens.”

    Natural born citizen’ defined in United States public record:
    1862 – Congressman John Bingham, 14th amendment author –
    “Rafael Edward Cruz and Marco Rubio are absolutely ineligible for the office of president and vice president.”


    Comment by Michael Watson | January 26, 2016 | Reply

    • Supreme Court opinions are NOT a good place to learn the Constitution – they get it wrong more often than not.

      Our Framers would be disappointed in Americans for their obsession with supreme Court opinions. For Heavens’ sake! They aren’t even included in “the supreme Law of the Land”! See Article VI, clause 2

      Now WHY did our Framers exclude supreme Court opinions from the “supreme law of the Land”?


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2016 | Reply

      • What a poor excuse. You’re the one who should be ashamed. I can already see that there’s no use proving you wrong because you refuse to change you stance… For what reason, I don’t know. Maybe there’s some kind of agenda here.

        In all of these cases the courts carefully look at everything at their disposal… The SAME information that you have! So for you to think that you are somehow above them where your opinion is absolute and theirs mean nothing is just pure and blatant ignorance. These justices are skilled in judicial restraint… careful not to contradict any law or previously established precedents. If they cant find a decisive answer to a problem then they must give their best opinion based on the information at hand… It’s not their own personal opinion (like you have here) it’s rather the more logical answer. So I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with you because most of the above are not opinions or logical answers… they’re facts, but you’re choosing to turn a blind eye to them. These people are acquiring citizenship via statutes established by law… Would you mind explaining why section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act covers your exact definition of a natural born citizen and why, in spite of this, you still think they aren’t naturalized as a result? It directly contradicts your statement that “no Act of Congress made him a Citizen”.


        Comment by Michael Watson | January 26, 2016 | Reply

        • With all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about.
          Government is God, right? The supreme Court is ABOVE the Constitution, right?
          And The People must obey government, right?

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2016 | Reply

  10. The Constitution did not delegate to Congress the right to determine who was a Citizen by birth. Article I, Section 8 delegated the power to establish a uniform law on naturalization, not the right to determine citizenship by birth. From 1776 until the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the question of who is a natural born citizen was left to State Law, notwithstanding the acts of Congress. One complaint about the Article of Confederation was the fact that each State had the right to determine its own naturalization law. Southern States objected to granting the national government the power to determine who was a citizen because they feared that slaves would eventually be declared to be citizens. If a State determined that a person was a citizen by birth, that person met the qualifications for President. The Constitution did not define the phrase because only the states could make the determination.

    A proper analysis of the original intent would be a review of the Naturalization laws of each of the 13 states that ratified the Constitution as that was the controlling law. Ted Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware but moved to Texas prior to moving to Canada. Reference could be made to Texas and Delaware Law prior to 1868. The enactment of the 14th Amendment eliminated the power of the States to determine citizenship.

    Art II, Section 1 Cl 4 provides:

    4. 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.

    Unlike the requirements for the House and Senate (be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen), it seems that the President is not required to be an inhabitant at the time of his election, but he or she must have resided in the US for 14 years. It certainly seems odd that the person is required to be a natural born citizen but not an inhabitant at the time of election. I wonder if it was drafted in this manner so that Thomas Jefferson could be elected president.


    Comment by James Horan | January 26, 2016 | Reply

    • 1. Right, Congress has no power to define – and redefine from time to time – “natural born citizen”. We must use the definition our Framers and those who ratified the Constitution used. The BEST EVIDENCE OF THAT DEFINITION is documents used by our Framers or written during the Framing Era. I cited Vattel, Ramsay’s dissertation, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 – these documents reflect the understanding of the term.

      2. States get to define – and redefine from time to time – terms in the Constitution by means of State Statutes? Rubbish! We don’t need to amend the Constitution via “amendments”? States can just make a law which redefines words??

      3. Your post reflects considerable confusion in your mind: you are all tangled up in irrelevancies about “naturalization”! Read Sections 212 -217 of Vattel. You will never understand the Truth as long as your goal is to legitimize Cruz’s candidacy. You remind me of the para I highlighted in pink here:

      But that is an indicator of our moral collapse: As a people, we don’t care about Truth – all we care about is what we want.

      4. Your last para is astonishing. Didn’t you learn how to diagram sentences? Yet some people are so desperate to legitimize Cruz’ candidacy that they have argued that Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 means that anyone who has lived here for 14 years can be President!

      I won’t spend any more time on this – if you want to know the Truth, read all of what Vattel wrote on this topic; make a chart of what Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 actually says; detach yourself from the result you want; etc.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2016 | Reply

    • This video – 47 seconds long – reveals the true nature of the man for whose sake you pervert the Constitution:


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2016 | Reply

      • Don’t you think holding someone to what they said as an 18 year old is unreasonable? Who could pass that test, judged by today’s standards?

        First of all, he was trying to impress whoever was holding the camera. Secondly, you obviously believe he hasn’t learned anything in his next 30 years; going to law school or as a practicing lawyer, Senator, husband, or father.

        Lastly, you speak of Truth, but don’t use your own name when you criticize others. Real nice.
        “The lips of the righteous know what finds favor, but the mouth of the wicked only what is perverse.”


        Comment by Jon Banner | January 26, 2016 | Reply

  11. Publius Thanks for your help. Look there’s a video out there with Mark Levin that contradicts what your conclusions . Could you please watch it and give us your comments:


    Comment by Jim Eckland | January 25, 2016 | Reply

    • I hear that Mark Levin supports Ted Cruz for President. During the last election, he wanted Marco Rubio to be Romney’s running mate.

      So of course Levin would fabricate an argument on the “natural born citizen” issue which would permit those two to be President!

      The People should act as Jurors and look at the Evidence I have produced – and evaluate the arguments I have made.

      They should do the same with what Levin is saying.

      Ultimately, the People will decide if they even care what our Constitution requires and if they are willing to adhere to it – OR whether they say “to hell with the Constitution – I’ll vote for whomever I want.”

      My opinion of Mark Levin’s work is shown here:

      There is no need for me to discuss his theory as to why Rubio and Cruz are natural born citizens.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 25, 2016 | Reply

  12. It appears that my comment, posted just below, went over your heads. So I’ll say it another way:

    My website is not an “opinion forum”. If you wish to bloviate about your opinions on constitutional issues, do so on your own website, in emails to your friends, or on soapboxes in public parks.

    But not here.

    I don’t permit ignorant people to lecture me about matters they do not understand; and I don’t permit people to post misinformation on my site.


    Comment by Publius Huldah | January 22, 2016 | Reply


    1. Please refer to my first paper on this topic:

    If you have quotes from our Framers from original source documents which I did not mention in that paper, please provide the quotes and links to where they said it. That is how we establish the definition of “natural born citizen” our Framers – and those who ratified our Constitution – had in mind

    2. In western civilization, we had the Age of Faith, then the Age of Reason, then the Age of Romanticism, then the Age of Existentialism. Existentialism morphed into our current obsession with our own “opinions”. So today, we are in the Age of Opinion – every Tom, Dick, and Harry has an opinion – and they love their Opinions above all other things!

    3. But I never got past the Age of Reason – so I go with FACTS and LOGICAL ANALYSIS. Opinions are of no relevance or interest.

    4. Another Point: Medieval philosophers disputed endlessly on such important matters as “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

    It seems that several of you highly opinionated gentlemen all agree that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and so is not eligible to be President for the reason that his father was not a US citizen at the time Ted was born. That is sufficient to disqualify him.

    Some of you are very proud of what you believe is a profound understanding of federal court jurisprudence. But if you were as familiar with it as you believe, you would be aware that federal courts have not answered hypothetical questions. Also, they will make their holding on the issue which they say is determinative – and then announce that there is no need for them to address the other issues.

    So instead of your endless disputes and parading of your opinions that a person must be born within the United States in order to be a natural born citizen, why don’t you give it a rest and learn the enumerated powers delegated to each of the 3 branches of the federal government?


    Comment by Publius Huldah | January 22, 2016 | Reply

  14. Please continue to educate whoever is fortunate enough to arrive at this most educational site.


    Comment by Donald C. Vice | January 20, 2016 | Reply

    • Thank you!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016 | Reply

  15. Author: I am confused.
    I can be a natural born Citizen if I was born in London, U.K. if just my father is a U.S. citizen and my mother is a non-U.S. citizen??????


    Comment by Frank O'Pinion | January 19, 2016 | Reply

    • The common law doctrine of “coverture” does confuse the issue – as I have pointed out. See also: And remember, at the time of our Framing, American men generally married women from …. here.

      And I am not intimately familiar with English law on this subject. Under the English common law, persons born in England were generally “born” as subjects of the English Monarch – they were “natural born subjects“. I don’t know if that is still the case under English law. It might be that under your hypothetical scenario, you would be claimed by the Queen as one of her “natural born subjects”.

      But I read somewhere that the mindset of the English People is changing – they are now seeing themselves more as “citizens” and less as “subjects”.

      Fortunately, the cases of Rubio and Cruz are not complicated.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016 | Reply

    • No, they are not natural born if born outside recognized US territory regardless of parents. One must be born to citizen parents within the US. It still takes an act of congress to determine if a child born outside of the US is a citizen. It is not within Congress’ power to bestow natural-born citizenship on anyone nor change it’s meaning. The framers strictly rejected the English common law definition.


      Comment by Kenley Noltensmeier | January 22, 2016 | Reply

      • Clear your mind of the O’Pinions of which you are so proud, and start over. After your mind is cleared of the O’Pinions, read the original source documents from our Framing Era – and learn what our Framers said. I have quotes & links in my first paper on this topic.

        As a People, we love our precious “opinions” above all things – including Truth. Which means, that our Pride and Egos and Vanity are really all we care about. And THAT is the connection between the moral collapse of a People and their slide into Tyranny.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | January 22, 2016 | Reply

  16. Dear Publius:

    Thomas Lee, attorney, author to the L.A. Times articles mentions

    The Naturalization Act of 1790 which says, in part,: “And 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:…”

    He continues to mention the Naturalization Act of 1940, but unfortunately he fails to mention that on January 29, 1795 the whole of the Naturalization Act of 1790 was repealed, and replaced by the Naturalization Act of 1795 which says, in part, in Section 3 that “…and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:..”

    The source for both earlier is

    Article II, Section I of the Constitution says, in part, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;…”
    In Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, Representatives and Senators are only required to be Citizens and not natural born Citizens, respectively.

    In Chapter 19, Section (§ 212), of the Law of Nations, Vattel says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    You partially note, in Section, (§ 215), that “By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular,…”
    It is clear that after the date of the adoption of the Constitution, the Citizens are ineligible to the Office of the President. This includes Senators Cruz, Rubio, Governor Jindal, and Obama since these clearly fail the parental test. So, at this time, only natural born Citizens are eligible.

    It is clear that the Constitution, by its very words, recognizes at least two types of Citizens.

    It is clear that the Naturalization Act of 1795 says the persons born outside the territorial limits and the jurisdiction thereof the United States are only Citizens and not natural born Citizens. This agrees with Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

    You have repeatedly told us the birth location is irrelevant, that children follow the condition of their fathers.

    The condition of the fathers is still being followed when Vattel says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” If children are born outside the territorial limits and the jurisdiction of the United States, the children still follow the condition of their fathers. But that does not mean those children are natural born Citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1795 settles that issue.

    The birth location does not infringe on the rights of natural-born citizens, nor does the birth location infringe on the rights of citizens. The key is that after the adoption of the Constitution, citizens are not eligible to the Office of the President. The rights of citizens are not infringed upon when they are declared ineligible, since they have no original right to be President.

    So, I can only conclude that birth location is relevant.

    If it is not true that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” then why did Vattel write those words?


    Comment by Hugh | January 19, 2016 | Reply

    • Vattel uses a format for “Laws of Nations” which was well known in earlier times when people wrote scholarly treatises instead of the opinions pieces which are the rage today – and which everyone feels qualified to write – no matter what the topic. And no matter what the writer’s background.

      In the format Vattel used: Instead of one para which is 5 pages long and which says everything in the same para, the discussion is broken up into separate numbered paras: The general Principle is stated first – then in subsequent numbered paras, specific applications are discussed. This permits an orderly analysis. It’s a well known format – all the older lawyers know this format. [I don’t know about the young lawyers.]

      If you will go to a Law Library and ask the Librarian to show you Corpus Juris Secundum – and if you spend some looking inside and read one of the topics the whole way through, you will see what I mean.

      THAT is the format Vattel used.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016 | Reply

      • Publius:

        I used this link, and you know very well that any edition of Law of the Nations uses that format. In fact, I referenced some of the paragraphs.. It is clear that you really don’t want to answer my question.

        Of course, the Founders, and the early Supreme Court Justices were well aware of the Constitution, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and the writings of Vattel.

        If the issue of natural born Citizen came before the Chief Justice John Marshall,, would he and the other Justices correctly rule that anyone born outside the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born Citizen since the adoption of the Naturalization of Act of 1795 when that clearly says that those people are just citizens, the 1790 having been repealed?. Under the principle of statutory construction, the Justices would be in error. You cannot place words into a law, statue, or act that just are not there.

        Have a good day!


        Comment by Hugh | January 20, 2016 | Reply

        • Do not presume to know what I want and don’t want.

          And I do not presume to know what Justice Marshall et al would have done in an hypothetical case.

          Congress may not amend the Constitution – define and re-define words in the Constitution – by means of passing a Law. See Article V, US Constitution which provides that the Constitution is amended by …. Amendments duly ratified.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016 | Reply

          • Please excuse me, Publius, for being presumptuous. Presumption is the lowest form of knowledge. After speaking with you, I realize once again why I am not an attorney.If I understand you correctly, you have said and are saying that birth location is irrelevant concerning natural born citizen eligibility. If a person, born of two citizen parents, can be born in any location and be eligible, then why does Vattel say that ,“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens,” ? He does say that they are born in the country.

            I have never gotten an answer to this question, and I have asked at least one other writer.

            Thanks for your time!.


            Comment by Hugh | January 20, 2016

          • Well, I have answered that same question many times – and I always give the answer I have given you several times before in this forum: you must read past the first paragraph Vattel wrote on this topic. This is the last time I am answering the same question from you. Stupidity is not an endearing trait.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 21, 2016

  17. Best YouTube out there IMO:

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by mertmelfa | January 19, 2016 | Reply

  18. […] reposted with permission from Publius Huldah’s Blog, the opinions and views shared do not necessarily reflect the views of Sons of Liberty […]


    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen Status Is Inherited – It’s Not Bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress » Sons of Liberty Media | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  19. Publius: Thank you for your time and research on this. Too bad this was a non issue in 2008 as the least vetted President in our lifetime escaped any scrutiny. Unbelievable actually considering college transcripts etc. My favorite happens to be Cruz. Most analysts call him the smartest and most conservative ( no coincidence ) so that about covers it for me, but sounds like he doesn’t pass the test. Realizing that two ( or 200 ) wrongs don’t make a right please allow me to suggest something. Two players of comparable ability are playing 1 on 1 basketball, only 1 of those is allowed to play by football rules. Who is likely to win? With this in mind, if conservatives play by the rules and liberals don’t ( executive orders, Supreme Court writing law etc ) who is likely to prevail? Seems that Trump or Cruz ( possibly Rubio but less likely in my opinion since the RINO’s have not denounced him ) will need to do the same to undo what Obama has done to us. Your thoughts appreciated much. John Mullins PS Realizing this is a slippery slope.

    From: Publius-Huldahs Blog Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 2:30 PM To: Subject: [New post] Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress

    Publius Huldah posted: “1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel. ” Respond to this post by replying above this line

    New post on Publius-Huldah’s Blog

    Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress by Publius Huldah

    1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel. But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.

    A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provisi


    Comment by John Mullins | January 18, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, my Friend, it all becomes simple when one realizes that one must NEVER compromise on Principles.

      We have been told that Cruz is “conservative”. Throughout the past decades, we have been told the same thing about other politicians who turned out to be statists. So we must always distinguish between what people say and their fruits. In Ted Cruz’s case, there is a large gap. Here are three things to look at: Be sure to click on the hyperlinks and be sure to read the CFR Task Force on the North American Union – Heidi Cruz is involved:
      the 3 most recent articles here:

      Principles don’t “get in the way” – they exist to guide us and help us. Always.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 19, 2016 | Reply

      • Publius can you offer your opinion on Trump?


        Comment by mertmelfa | January 20, 2016 | Reply

        • Well, it’s a fair question. When NONE of the candidates – and I mean NONE – demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever of what is in our Constitution – what is a person to do? Whoever gets elected will take an oath to preserve, protect and defend our Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 1, last clause). An honorable person can’t take that Oath if he hasn’t read our Constitution and has no plans to read it.

          The reason Americans won’t read our Constitution is that they really don’t believe that they should have to submit to external transcendent standards – they want the “freedom” to do whatever they think is a good idea. [THAT is the belief which is rapidly destroying this Country.]

          So what is an American citizen to do? Of all the candidates for the R nomination, it seems to me that Trump is the most competent – he must be a good manager. He does have a backbone [a rare thing today]; and he seems to be a decent human being.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016 | Reply

          • I believe that TRUMP has a nativist Patriots affection for the Constitution. The, Our Country ’tis of thee, sweet land of Liberty, of thee I sing, kind of homestead love, God, family, country.

            I believe TRUMP is looking through the doom & gloom across the land and has glimpsed the situation and circumstances that inspired Francis Scott Keyes to pen the poem of doubt, hope & victory; O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave; O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave? …. and has heard the call to arms.

            I believe that TRUMP would have offered his life, fortune and sacred honor to any group or person he believed had the ability to navigate the political waters and be elected to right the Ship of State, but after looking at what the field & parties had to offer, after soul searching and conferring with those he loves & holds dear, after looking in the mirror and seeing a person as good as any he decided to pledge his life, fortune and sacred honor to America’s cause and offer himself as the gang-plank over the troubled political waters so to take hold of the abandoned & aimless helm.

            America 1st IS a “nativist” theme and in some countries it may be called racist & bigoted, but in the United States of America that should not and can not be true because a person can not be considered as a “native” of the United States unless, or until, they are a US Citizen and a person becomes a US Citizen regardless of sex, race, religion or country of origin. Under US Law, once a person IS a US Citizen, then so too are their children at birth or otherwise.

            No, American nativists America 1st attitude has little to do with where a person is from, but rather where those who are US Citizens invest their loyalty & allegiance, 1st generation or multi-generational.

            I believe that TRUMP will provide the platform by which ‘Constitutional Conservatism” can be put on honest display so that the deceits of the many other doctrines can be shown for their true worthlessness in comparison.


            Comment by slcraignbc | January 20, 2016

          • Well, I am not sure I follow everything you said, but I have no doubt you have a good heart. But Trump does need a Constitution Tutor.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016

  20. Huldah, thanks much for the educated- constitutional info that you send me.. I do appreciate it .. God Bless YOU !!!! thanks again, dominic masi


    Comment by | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  21. Thank you for this information. It is infuriating to listen to ignorant people, including arrogant lawyers, who spout off about this issue without any factual information to support their “belief” about Article II eligibility.

    So why has this not been used against Ovomit? Is there not even ONE court in the US where the Constitution will be enforced?


    Comment by Mike Travis | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  22. Sorry, Publius… but I disagree. You claim, “Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel…” This has been the basis for at least SIX SUPREME COURT DECISIONS. The single line that to be natural born, one must be born of TWO CITIZEN PARENTS and BORN IN COUNTRY was used by John Jay to George Washington corrected the 1790 “out of country” mistake. It became clear in 1795 that one MUST BE BORN IN COUNTRY. Neither history nor the Supreme Court backs up your new theory!


    Comment by ednoonan7 | January 18, 2016 | Reply

    • I trust you understand that your “agreement” is not the Standard of Truth.
      The issue is not whether you “agree” or “disagree”; but whether what I wrote is True or False.
      If it’s True, honor requires you to accept it.
      If it’s false, then prove it!

      But as to your ability to prove it: I do not wish to wound your vanity, but I haven’t found many non-lawyers who know the difference between the “holding” in a supreme Court opinion and mere “dicta”. Here is a brief explanation of the difference:
      Do you have any supreme court cases which “hold” your position? I am unaware of any such opinions; but of course, I haven’t read every opinion they ever wrote.

      And would you please provide a link to the original documents of John Jay to which you make reference? Before I wrote my first paper on this several years ago, I spent weeks scouring the internet looking for original source documents defining “natural born citizen”. Of course I may have missed some of the original source documents. I will be most appreciative if you will give links to any relevant original source documents I missed. [But be careful not to fall into the mire of confusing “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen” as many others have done.]

      Do you not see that the fundamental concept of “natural born citizen” is that, by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. The key is “by the law of nature alone” – not Constitutions, not statute law, and certainly not supreme court opinions!

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 18, 2016 | Reply

      • RE: Do you not see that the fundamental concept of “natural born citizen” is that, by the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular. The key is “by the law of nature alone” – not Constitutions, not statute law, and certainly not supreme court opinions!
        This is sweet sounding, but it hardly follows the actual “law of nature” (aka God’s law) or even the so called “natural law”. If it did, you should be able to find biblical references to it… but there is none!

        How long has it been since you went to Sunday School? Did you not ever learn about “the principle of Birthright?” It was first written about in Genesis 25. You can clearly see that not ALL children “followe the condition of their father!” Only the oldest was allowed such a privilege.

        The birthright is emphasized in the Bible because it honored the rights or privileges of the family’s firstborn son. After the father died, or in the father’s absence, the firstborn son assumed the father’s authority and responsibilities.

        In addition to assuming the leadership role in the family, the recipient of the birthright inherited twice that received by the other sons.

        But it was through the later teaching of the Savior that ALL MEN THAT FOLLOWED HIM could receive equal BIRTHRIGHT! We would ALL receive his Father’s inheritance.

        Using this example, can you not see that one’s birthright in Christ’s time was a definite part of the equation of whether or not one became a member of Christ’s church? A Roman in Rome had less of a chance of becoming a Christian than a Jew in Bethlehem. The PLACE of one’s birth had a direct bearing on whether or not a person could enter the Kingdom of God. (“…except a man is born of the water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”)

        And too, you have the best chance of getting into the “Kingdom of God” if you have Godly parents. If your parents are crack-heads and steal for their next fix, then you have less of a chance to live a life that will get you “born of the Spirit.”

        Our Constitution (via Vattel) merely mirrors the plan of salvation as presented to us via the scriptures. To be a natural born citizen of the Kingdom of God, you do better when you have a righteous set of parents AND ARE BORN IN A KINGDOM where the opportunity is absolutely present!

        Your “natural law” argument that “place of birth” is unimportant in ANY plan of redemption is silly and unfounded. I remain steadfast in my belief that a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN requires TWO CITIZEN PARENTS + BORN IN THE KINGDOM.


        Comment by ednoonan7 | January 19, 2016 | Reply

        • I asked you to support your claims about supreme Court opinions and John Jay’s statements – with links to where these things were said!

          I have not presumed to write about God’s Plan of Redemption.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 20, 2016 | Reply

  23. Um…you are equivocating a person born in Canada with a person born in Hawaii, while accusing people of spouting off about things which they know nothing about. Why would anyone read past such blantant bias and misinformation contained in your premise?


    Comment by Truth first | January 18, 2016 | Reply

    • equivocating“? I suggest you don’t know what that word means! Look it up!
      Yes, some people do spout off about things they know nothing about – as we receive daily proof.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  24. Nice timely article. Thanks for your labors.


    Comment by jimeckland | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  25. PH, this is the best possible way to state it!! I cringe when I read the paper and see who all is seeking “answers” from attorneys and all the others!!! I do so wish they all knew to go here to see your published response to this QQ!!!!

    Loving you, as always, Carol


    Comment by Carol Boggs | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  26. “Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide.”
    Boy, that is for sure. I really wonder just how many would actually choose the first choice of “original intent” if they realized how different things would be from what they are now. Off of the top of my head, here are some of the perks they would have to give up: Earned Income Tax Credit, free lunches for their kids in school, food stamps, social security, Medicare, Obamacare, free cell phones, any federal unemployment benefits, etc.
    At the same time, we would not have high income taxes (this only affects those who actually pay taxes now), but maybe those with lower incomes would have to start paying “their fair share”. If taxes were only collected to cover items authorized in the Constitution, income taxes would not be a major burden to anyone.
    We like to claim we are “original intent” people, but would we be willing to give up all the extras we have grown accustomed to over the decades?
    Side benefits of individual responsibility would be: a sense of pride in taking care of our own family, men would have to be men again, charity would come from the giver to the needy and not from government, it would not be such a sought after job to win an election that one would pay millions to get elected to a job that paid thousands.
    To be honest, I cannot even imagine how different things would be if the government followed the Constitution.
    Thanks PH for another great article.


    Comment by Mike Foil | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  27. Publius:

    Can I post this on Camp Constitution’s blog?

    Hal Shurtleff


    Comment by shurtleffhal | January 17, 2016 | Reply

  28. Thank you……The assault on the Constitution is never ending. A major problem we have today is the fact even our president is not eligible so there are many saying their ineligible candidate should be admitted since Obama was………meaning two wrongs make a right.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by George Fuller | January 17, 2016 | Reply

  29. Thank you. Passed on to those that were at the barbeque and members of my family.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by wethepeoplehandbook | January 17, 2016 | Reply

    • Thank you! When I am not sitting at my computer working on this stuff, I am constantly thinking about “How can I reach the American People – how can I explain it so they can understand?” I dream about this stuff. I wake up in the middle of the night [all night long] thinking about this stuff. It finally hit me like a ton of bricks to illustrate the inherited natural born status with inherited hair and eye color.

      Now, if I can just find out how to explain the BBA so they can understand how it guts our Constitution. There are some evil people in the country behind these amendments – and Americans are not equipped to deal with this level of evil.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 17, 2016 | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: