States Should Enforce “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement

The Constitution requires the president to be a “natural born citizen”. However, the term is not defined in the Constitution. Neither has a law or court ruling been made more exactly delineating the constraints of the term. The purpose of this post is not to re-hash the arguments about what “natural born citizen” means, but to outline a process that generates a legal standard for how it is enforced. The States are key to this process.

This proposal is to have one or more states enforce via legislation the implementation of the requirement in their state, according to their understanding of the requirement. If a candidate or political party sues the state, the Supreme Court will review the law and decide whether the details of the law are constitutional, according to the original intent of the framers. By this means, we can produce a general standard for the requirement that all states could adopt.

Related posts: Natural Born Citizenship

Simply stated, I believe the Framers intended for both parents to be 100% American at birth and the child should be born in the US. There are some additional details to be addressed for certain situations, but that is the basic idea. For over 200 years there was no controversy about this requirement. The controversy arose only in recent years when persons with very questionable qualifications began to become candidates.

Related: Revisiting the POPE option

However, legally, it does not matter what I believe or what any other non-expert, non-authority believes. I would like to see the states and courts work out what enforcement should be, according to the Constitution and the original intent. Let them do their duty and commit what they decide to law. That would start the process.

Today, there is a large constituency of people who corrupt the original meaning of the term, because they want to promote the internationalization of America or for whatever ideological or financial reason. Then, most of the population has not researched the issue and is just not well informed about the original meaning of the term. Many of them have been influenced by the media, which generally supports the abrogation of the constitutional requirement via manipulation of public opinion rather than using the legal system.

The term comes from the philosophy of natural law, on which our Constitution is based. To understand the meaning of the term and the Framers’ original intent, one should look at how it was used in the literature about natural law.

Article II, Section 1 (excerpt)

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

There are several ways that a legal definition of the term could be obtained.

  • The clearest and most straightforward way would be to amend the Constitution to better define the term, but at this time it is unlikely to pass Congress.

  • Congress could also pass a law outlining the requirements placed on candidates, but this is also highly unlikely at present for political reasons.

  • The Supreme Court could rule on requirements are for candidates. However, all attempts so far have been rejected by the courts, generally due to the plaintiff not having legal “standing”.

  • Finally, the States could enact a law requiring candidates to meet their natural-born citizenship requirements to be listed on the state ballot. (See the first reference listed at the bottom by Mario Apuzzo.)

The states enact many laws that determine how different aspects of the Constitution are implemented in their states. For one example, just consider the many gun control laws that have been made by states that delineate the limits of the Second Amendment. The “right to bear arms” is also not defined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, all the states pass numerous laws that constrain your right to bear arms. The courts review these laws for constitutionality. So, why should not the states do the same with the natural-born-citizen qualification for the presidency, delineating the exact qualifications with respect to the Constitution?

With states, we have 50 chances of passing a law that outlines the Framers’ original intent and requires candidates to comply. We don’t have to depend on a politically disinterested Congress alone. This would likely be very controversial and states may enact different versions of how the requirement will be implemented. However, this would just cause it to go quickly to the Supreme Court for adjudication. Then presumably there would then be no question of “standing” if a candidate or political party were to file such a lawsuit. So, this could be a means of obtaining a ruling on a more precise meaning of the term. It should be according to original intent, but also in the modern context of citizenship laws.

Such a procedure would also bypass the personal characteristics of any one candidate. When conservative activists pointed to Obama’s lack of constitutional qualification to be president, they were immediately accused of “racism”. That was a tremendous distraction, but would not be a problem if states pass a general law. The state law would be subject to review by the courts, rather than trying to have a specific candidate disqualified. The focus should be on developing a clear legal standard, which applies equally to every would-be candidate.

Related Posts:
Nikki Haley is NOT A Natural Born Citizen
What is the Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”?

Other References:
The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 by Mario Apuzzo
The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. (Retired)

Cover Image:

Nikki Haley Is NOT A Natural Born Citizen

Since Nikki Haley is not a natural-born citizen, she is not eligible to be president or vice president as is required by the Constitution. The reason is that her parents were not citizens at the time of her birth. According to her Wiki, her father emigrated to the U.S. in 1969 and she was born in January, 1972. An immigrant has to live at least five years in the country, before they can apply for citizenship. It may well be that Nkki Haley and her immigrant parents are all loyal Americans. I am not trying to demonize them. However, if they are, she should drop out of the race, because it would be unconstitutional for her to become President. She should do her country a favor and announce that she is not constitutionally eligible.

Nikki Haley with her parents from Punjabi, India.

Natural born citizens are those born of American citizens, who have no right to citizenship of another country. That is, they are not dual citizens at birth. Nikki Haley was a citizen of India at birth and could have registered as an Indian citizen, instead of American Citizenship or in addition to American citizenship, because her parents were Indian citizens.

Related posts: Natural Born Citizenship

Progressives are the main culprits, who think the Constitution should be interpreted “on the fly”. Progressivism is an ideology akin to communism and Nazism in its utopian, concept of using government to “perfect” society, according to their socialistic ideas. Their internationalist ideology is more important to radical leftist progressives than the Constitution, the law or the rights and welfare of the American people.

Those, who are enemies of the Constitution, want to be able to whittle it down, piece by piece, and mold it to support their anti-American, political agenda. If we allow them to arbitrarily ignore this part of the Constitution, what part can they not ignore?

A definition of “natural born citizen” can be found in a dictionary on progressive controlled website and in Wikipedia, but such sources can be manipulated by political elites, who favor internationalization of America. No one should trust such sources for the correct interpretation and the original intent of the Constitution, which was based on the philosophy of natural law. One should research the writings on natural law to discover what the meaning of the term was to the Framers of the Constitution.

Since the American people are so confused about the original intent of this term in the Constitution, a ruling from the newly conservative Supreme Court or a constitutional amendment is needed to clarify the eligibility requirements for the president and vice-president.

Related Posts:
What is the Definition of “Natural Born Citizen”?
States Can Enforce “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement for Presidency

Related Articles
Does Nikki Haley qualify as a natural born citizen?

Two Illegal Crossers Murdered By Smugglers For Not Paying Cartel

Two would-be, illegal border crossers were killed with rocks and another one shot, but not killed by smugglers when they tried to cross the border in Tijuana without paying their crossing fees to the local cartel coyote. In this report they quote the crossing fee to be $7-8K per person. This agrees roughly with what I heard in Tijuana a couple years ago, $8-10K, and that is just the fee to cross the US border. To be smuggled across Mexico costs more.

The smuggling fee is much higher in Tijuana and the California Border because there are less places where it is easy to cross, due the border being much better protected with bollard fencing, than in places, like Texas. It is a supply versus demand issue. The limited number of places to cross easily in California drives up the crossing fee that the local cartel demands.

See the Border Report article at this link.

2 migrants stoned to death by smugglers along border wall in Tijuana

The border is divided up by the cartels and leased to coyotes for some amount of money and a share of the smuggling profits. It is a lot like franchising a chain of businesses. It anyone tries to cross and is caught by those that own the rights to that area, they are likely to be punished severely and/or held for ransom if not killed, as these two were.

In the article it sounds like the cartels took over border recently, but that is not true. The cartels took over the border a couple of decades ago. Before that illegal alien smuggling operations were largely independent, mom-and-pop businesses.

This is probably the more likely punishment for illegal crossers who do not pay the cartel fee. It is another previously posted video about a kidnapping of illegal border crossers, probably kidnapped and held for ransom, because they had not paid the local cartel for crossing. Most times, the Cartel would likely prefer to torture them and hold them for ransom. After the ransom is paid they are likely to be killed in private, without it ever being reported in the news.

Bitchute Video: Cartel Kidnap-Torture Video Of Illegal Border Crossers

Just think of the enormity of the lie the Leftists tell the public that allowing them to come by paying the cartels to smuggle them across is the humane thing to do.

Party For Socialism And Liberation, San Diego’s Communist Party

The Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) is a national, communist party with a chapter in San Diego. Locally, they do not generally declare it explicitly in public but are fairly open about their political extremism on the website and at more private events. While there are a number of other groups in San Diego that follow a communistic ideology, the PSL is probably the most open about it.

Relationship with International Communism

Two of their central committee members during a visto to the Turkish communist party said it very explicitly in an interview with the International Communist Press (ICP), which was posted on the ICP website. Click here to see the original article. One paragraph from the interview is shown below:

LOCAL Activities in San Diego

PSL Communists have been running for office, speaking out at government meetings of local government and participating in protests.

Antifa and the PSL communists are natural allies. In this video, a small group of Proud Boys meetup with a similar group of PSL communists wearing their signature red and white shirts with several antifa. This happened at an anti-Trump protest in 2017. Antifa is an anarcho-communist movement, as described in Andy Ngo’s book, “Unmasked” and numerous other sources.

The taller antifa with a bushy beard in dark clothes with a dark green ski cap is Jesse Cannon, aka “Tall Can”. Jesse is the lead of the antifa cell in San Diego. At the time of his writing, he is being prosecuted with a number of other Antifa for felony conspiracy to riot. The video just shows that the PSL works readily with other local communistic groups and fellow travelers, including Progressives.

The local PSL supported three candidates for office in 2022, shown below, Marco Amaral for the California state Superintendent of public schools, Jose Cortez for US Congress and Steven Estrada for the City Council of Long Beach.

Communist-backed candidates for public office in 2022
Communist-backed candidates in 2022

See a post about Amaral Marco running for State Superintendent here:

Marco Amaral – Communist For CA State Superintendent of Public Instruction

In this video, several of the PSL members in San Diego speak out for the right of biological male transgenders to use women’s restroom and showering facilities. I do not mean to imply that these were the only communists at these events. They are just the ones that were most easy to identify in the videos.

Watch on Bitchute

In California and probably several other states, this is completely legal, even exposing his genitals if the person still has his male sex organs, unless the transgender is already registered as a sex offender. Of course, most who have in the past or will in the future commit sexual crimes, have not yet been caught, prosecuted and convicted. So, most perverts will not be on the registry and will still be able to use women’s facilities if they just claim to identify as a woman.

Communists have also for many decades often called themselves “Progressives” to avoid the stigma associated with communism. Progressivism is a utopian ideology that is philosophically related to communism. The concept of both ideologies is to use the government to create a utopian “perfect” society and a perfect world. In fact, that was the Nazi/Fascist concept, also. They just have different ideas about what a perfect society is.

Click the image below to expand and see the details. The image of the woman on the left of the revolutionary banner has a copy of the Communist Manifesto tucked under her arm and a plant that from afar appears to be a bomb with a lite fuse. That shows plain enough what their beliefs are.

PSL Communists on the march in the streets of San Diego
PSL Communists on the march

Transgender Use of Women Facilities – Santee, California

Citizens testify before the City Council about whether transgender males should be able to use in this case a female locker room and showers. California and a few other progressive states have pass laws that allow men who identify as women to use public restrooms, whether they have a penis or not, unless they are a registered sex offender. A transgender, biological man, who goes by Christynne Lili Wrene Wood, originally Christopher Wood, was using a women’s locker room at a YMCA in Santee, Ca. A 17 year-old girl, Rebecca Philips, complained about it at a Council meeting and the video went viral.

Wood claims to have had surgery to remove his penis and testicles and create a vagina via plastic surgury. Several years earlier was involve in a similar situation with Crunch Gym in El Cajon. California state officials sued on his behalf and he received an undisclosed monetary settlement. In this earlier incident, he reportedly have not yet had a sex-change operation. To me, it seems that his action in Santee was a provocation, because he seems to enjoy the notoriety and may receive another monetary settlement from it.

Santee City Council Debate #2
Transgender Use of Women’s Facilities (2/8/23)

View on Bitchute or Facebook

Santee City Council Debate #1
Transgender Use of Women’s Facilities (2/8/23)

View on Bitchute or Facebook

Related Videos and Links

Trans-Identified Male Charged With Indecent Exposure After Using Women’s Changing Rooms At Ohio YMCA

YMCA Transgender Update Video – Xenia, Ohio

A transgender, biological man exposed his erect penis in the women’s facility at a spa in Los Angeles. After much delay he was finally charged with feloney indecent exposure, but only because he was a register sex offender. It’s not clear from the law that he could have been charged if not already registered as a sex offence. Unregistered sex offenders may get a free pass under California law to expose themselves at will in women’s facilities.

Transgender biological male charged with felony indencent exposure at Wi Spa in Los Angeles

Posted for use as cover image