As a two-time member of the US Electoral College, I have researched the issue of presidential eligibility quite thoroughly and I believe I have developed an understanding of what the Founders intended that many in the political world still refuse to acknowledge.<\/p>\n
Most significantly, the Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he\/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his\/her future conduct and intellectual development.\u00a0 Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the \u201cnatural born,\u201d was the fear that a future president\u2026 during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually\u2026 would be exposed to an environment or an ideology which might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 That is why the Founders understood a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen to be a person who was born to parents, both of whom were US citizens at the time of his birth.\u00a0 It did not provide an absolute guarantee that we would not one day find a dedicated socialist in the White House\u2026 as we have witnessed in recent years\u2026 but it provided at least some insurance against such an occurrence.<\/p>\n
A perfect example of \u201cwhat might have been\u201d is Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).\u00a0 Born in Canada, his father was a citizen of Cuba who, as a teenager, was a member of the Cuban resistance headed by Fidel Castro.\u00a0 He made his way to the United States in 1957, enrolled at the University of Texas, and graduated with a degree in mathematics in 1961.\u00a0 Later, after being transferred to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and acquiring Canadian citizenship, he and his wife became parents of a son, Raphael Edward \u201cTed\u201d Cruz, the current junior senator from the State of Texas and a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.<\/p>\n
During that campaign, the American people. were convinced that the Cruzes, father and son, were both solidly anti-Communist patriots.\u00a0 But that\u2019s only what we were told.\u00a0 What if the exact opposite were true?\u00a0 What if the elder Cruz had been a dedicated Communist, a Fidelista<\/em> in sheep\u2019s clothing?\u00a0 And what if he had spent decades indoctrinating his own son in all the benefits of life in a socialist Utopia?\u00a0 His son, Senator Ted Cruz, a conservative firebrand in the United States Senate, would have become the perfect \u201cManchurian Candidate.\u201d<\/p>\n But now, less than two years prior to the 2020 presidential election, we find that the tendency of Democrats to embrace style over substance rearing its ugly head once again. \u00a0As they did in 2008, they are offering for our consideration a candidate who is not eligible to serve as president or vice president.\u00a0 I refer, of course, to the junior senator from California, Kamala Harris.<\/p>\n Harris\u2019s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, emigrated to the US from India in 1960 and her father, Donald Harris, emigrated to the US from Jamaica in 1961.\u00a0 Under US law, an individual cannot apply for citizenship until they\u2019ve held a \u201cgreen card\u201d for a minimum of five years.\u00a0 Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964.\u00a0 At best, her mother was a legal non-citizen resident of the US for just 4 years, 9 months, and 20 days when Sen. Harris was born.\u00a0 Her father was, at best, a legal non-citizen resident for just 3 years, 9 months, and 20 days when she was born.\u00a0 Neither parent could possibly have been a U.S. citizen when Kamala Harris was born.<\/p>\n What few Americans recognize is that there are only two (2) jobs in the entire United States\u2026 public sector and private sector combined\u2026 that require the incumbents to be \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 Those two jobs are President and Vice President of the United States.\u00a0 Ms. Harris can be Mayor of San Francisco, she can be Governor of California, she can be an Ambassador, she can be a Federal Judge, she can even be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.\u00a0 None of those jobs require \u201cnatural born\u201d status.\u00a0 But unless her parents were both US citizens when she was born, she cannot hold either the presidency or the vice presidency.\u00a0 If she was born on American soil, she is a US citizen, but just being born on US soil does not make one a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen.\u00a0 One must be born of two US citizen parents in order to qualify as \u201cnatural born.\u201d<\/p>\n When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the US Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.\u00a0 So, is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with dual\/divided loyalties \u2013 e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship \u2013 to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?\u00a0 Not likely.\u00a0 It is a preposterous notion on its face.\u00a0 To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the consensus among many in the political\/legal world today is that the terms \u201cCitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen,\u201d as used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, are synonymous.\u00a0 They are not!!<\/p>\n This issue is still being falsely characterized because liberals and Democrats simply cannot afford to have the \u201cnatural born\u201d issue thoroughly examined.\u00a0 If it were, the American people would finally come to understand that, at birth, Barack Obama held dual US-British citizenship by descent from his father and his mother.\u00a0 To expose Obama\u2019s lack of eligibility at this late date would create the greatest constitutional crisis in history and would likely tear the nation apart.<\/p>\n So, the question arises, is there proof of the contention that the Framers intended the terms \u201cCitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d to be mutually exclusive?\u00a0 The answers is yes.\u00a0 It all revolves around the purpose and the meaning of the tiny word \u201cor,\u201d which precedes a \u201cgrandfather clause\u201d in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution<\/p>\n At the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0 The former British subjects who\u2026 having renounced all foreign To fully understand the significance of the words, \u201c<\/em>or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution\u2026,\u201d<\/em> it is also necessary to recognize three significant dates:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0 July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration of Independence The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.\u00a0 However, the only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.\u00a0 To solve that problem, the Framers added a \u201cgrandfather clause,\u201d making it possible for newly-minted US citizens\u2026 all residents of the United States for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them \u201cnatural born\u201d because they were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens prior to the day the Declaration of Independence was signed\u2026 to serve as president.\u00a0 This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born subsequent to July 4, 1776, reached age thirty-five.<\/p>\n George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen,\u201d but not a \u201cnatural\u00a0born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.<\/p>\n John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October 30, 1735, forty-one years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen\u201d because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.<\/p>\n Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13, 1743, thirty-three years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen\u201d because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.<\/p>\n James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28, 1758, eighteen years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; were all \u201ccitizens\u201d because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.<\/p>\n However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a \u201ccitizen,\u201d he was a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen\u2026 the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after<\/em> the signing of the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n A great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation\u2019s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration<\/em> covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.\u00a0 All were \u201cgrandfathered\u201d and made eligible under the phrase, \u201cor a Citizen<\/em> of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution\u2026\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n Every U.S. president since Van Buren\u2026 with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was reportedly a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth\u2026 has been a \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever hold even partial allegiance to a foreign nation or be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation, as is the case with all dual citizens.\u00a0 It is for this reason that the Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to those who are \u201cnatural born\u201d <\/em>citizens, and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.\u00a0 <\/em>There can be no exceptions.<\/p>\n Were that not the case, and had the Framers considered the terms \u201ccitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d to be synonymous, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would now read, simply, \u201cNo Person except a Citizen of the United States 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n The Constitution of the United States is not set in stone.\u00a0 Within its pages it provides for an orderly process with which it can be amended from time to time, as the need arises.\u00a0 However, we are a nation of laws with a Constitution that must be enforced precisely as the Framers intended.\u00a0 To turn our backs on the clear intent of even one single constitutional principle, for no better reason than political expediency, is an abomination.<\/p>\n In 2008, Democrats were able to craftily define the issue as one relating to Barack Obama\u2019s place<\/em> of birth, and to label those who insisted he lacked eligibility by reason of not being born on American soil as \u201cbirthers.\u201d\u00a0 It became the deadly \u201cthird rail\u201d of the 2008 campaign, effectively preventing any honest debate of the issue.<\/p>\n Thusly, on two occasions in our political history we have allowed the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 to be twisted and contorted to fit the political mood of the day.\u00a0 We cannot allow that to happen again.\u00a0 We cannot allow our Constitution to be amended by popular fiat.<\/p>\n Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.\u00a0 He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma\u2019s Green Country.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n As a two-time member of the US Electoral College, I have researched the issue of presidential eligibility quite thoroughly and I believe I have developed an understanding of what the Founders intended that many in the political world still refuse to acknowledge.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Most significantly, the Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he\/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his\/her future conduct and intellectual development.\u00a0 Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the \u201cnatural born,\u201d was the fear that a future president\u2026 during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually\u2026 would be exposed to an environment or an ideology which might cause him to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.\u00a0 That is why the Founders understood a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen to be a person who was born to parents, both of whom were US citizens at the time of his birth.\u00a0 It did not provide an absolute guarantee that we would not one day find a dedicated socialist in the White House\u2026 as we have witnessed in recent years\u2026 but it provided at least some insurance against such an occurrence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A perfect example of \u201cwhat might have been\u201d is Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).\u00a0 Born in Canada, his father was a citizen of Cuba who, as a teenager, was a member of the Cuban resistance headed by Fidel Castro.\u00a0 He made his way to the United States in 1957, enrolled at the University of Texas, and graduated with a degree in mathematics in 1961.\u00a0 Later, after being transferred to Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and acquiring Canadian citizenship, he and his wife became parents of a son, Raphael Edward \u201cTed\u201d Cruz, the current junior senator from the State of Texas and a leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n During that campaign, the American people. were convinced that the Cruzes, father and son, were both solidly anti-Communist patriots.\u00a0 But that\u2019s only what we were told.\u00a0 What if the exact opposite were true?\u00a0 What if the elder Cruz had been a dedicated Communist, a Fidelista<\/em> in sheep\u2019s clothing?\u00a0 And what if he had spent decades indoctrinating his own son in all the benefits of life in a socialist Utopia?\u00a0 His son, Senator Ted Cruz, a conservative firebrand in the United States Senate, would have become the perfect \u201cManchurian Candidate.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n But now, less than two years prior to the 2020 presidential election, we find that the tendency of Democrats to embrace style over substance rearing its ugly head once again. \u00a0As they did in 2008, they are offering for our consideration a candidate who is not eligible to serve as president or vice president.\u00a0 I refer, of course, to the junior senator from California, Kamala Harris.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Harris\u2019s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, emigrated to the US from India in 1960 and her father, Donald Harris, emigrated to the US from Jamaica in 1961.\u00a0 Under US law, an individual cannot apply for citizenship until they\u2019ve held a \u201cgreen card\u201d for a minimum of five years.\u00a0 Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964.\u00a0 At best, her mother was a legal non-citizen resident of the US for just 4 years, 9 months, and 20 days when Sen. Harris was born.\u00a0 Her father was, at best, a legal non-citizen resident for just 3 years, 9 months, and 20 days when she was born.\u00a0 Neither parent could possibly have been a U.S. citizen when Kamala Harris was born.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n What few Americans recognize is that there are only two (2) jobs in the entire United States\u2026 public sector and private sector combined\u2026 that require the incumbents to be \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens.\u00a0 Those two jobs are President and Vice President of the United States.\u00a0 Ms. Harris can be Mayor of San Francisco, she can be Governor of California, she can be an Ambassador, she can be a Federal Judge, she can even be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.\u00a0 None of those jobs require \u201cnatural born\u201d status.\u00a0 But unless her parents were both US citizens when she was born, she cannot hold either the presidency or the vice presidency.\u00a0 If she was born on American soil, she is a US citizen, but just being born on US soil does not make one a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen.\u00a0 One must be born of two US citizen parents in order to qualify as \u201cnatural born.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n When the Founders met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the US Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.\u00a0 So, is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after the British surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with dual\/divided loyalties \u2013 e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship \u2013 to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?\u00a0 Not likely.\u00a0 It is a preposterous notion on its face.\u00a0 To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.\u00a0 Nevertheless, the consensus among many in the political\/legal world today is that the terms \u201cCitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen,\u201d as used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, are synonymous.\u00a0 They are not!!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This issue is still being falsely characterized because liberals and Democrats simply cannot afford to have the \u201cnatural born\u201d issue thoroughly examined.\u00a0 If it were, the American people would finally come to understand that, at birth, Barack Obama held dual US-British citizenship by descent from his father and his mother.\u00a0 To expose Obama\u2019s lack of eligibility at this late date would create the greatest constitutional crisis in history and would likely tear the nation apart.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n So, the question arises, is there proof of the contention that the Framers intended the terms \u201cCitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d to be mutually exclusive?\u00a0 The answers is yes.\u00a0 It all revolves around the purpose and the meaning of the tiny word \u201cor,\u201d which precedes a \u201cgrandfather clause\u201d in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution<\/p>\n <\/p>\n At the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0 The former British subjects who\u2026 having renounced all foreign allegiances and having 3)\u00a0 A class of citizens comprised of those who emigrated to the United States after July 4, 1776, <\/p>\n To fully understand the significance of the words, \u201c<\/em>or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution\u2026,\u201d<\/em> it is also necessary to recognize three significant dates:<\/p>\n 1)\u00a0 July 4, 1776, the date on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, making all The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.\u00a0 However, the only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.\u00a0 To solve that problem, the Framers added a \u201cgrandfather clause,\u201d making it possible for newly-minted US citizens\u2026 all residents of the United States for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them \u201cnatural born\u201d because they were born to parents who were not U.S. citizens prior to the day the Declaration of Independence was signed\u2026 to serve as president.\u00a0 This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born subsequent to July 4, 1776, reached age thirty-five.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n George Washington, our first president, was born at Wakefield, Virginia on February 22, 1732, forty-four years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen,\u201d but not a \u201cnatural<\/p>\n born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n John Adams, our second president, was born at Braintree, Massachusetts on October 30, 1735, forty-one years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen\u201d because he was born in Massachusetts, but he was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth and owed their allegiance to the British crown.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Thomas Jefferson, our third president, was born at Shadwell, Virginia on April 13, 1743, thirty-three years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 He was a \u201ccitizen\u201d because he was born in Virginia, but he was not a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen because both of his parents were British subjects at the time of his birth.<\/p>\n James Madison, our fourth president, born in Virginia on March 16, 1751, twenty-five years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; James Monroe, our fifth president, born in Virginia on April 28, 1758, eighteen years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; John Quincy Adams, our sixth president, born in Massachusetts on July 11, 1767, nine years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; and Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, born in South Carolina on March 15, 1767, nine years before<\/em> the Declaration of Independence; were all \u201ccitizens\u201d because they were born in what came to be the United States of America, but they were not \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n However, Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after<\/em> the Declaration of Independence.\u00a0 Unlike his seven predecessors, he was not just a \u201ccitizen,\u201d he was a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen\u2026 the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to US citizen parents after<\/em> the signing of the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n A great many patriotic, but ill-informed, Americans refuse to accept the fact that, while the Founders intended that only \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens should ever serve as president, there were no 35-year-old \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens available during the first 35 years of our nation\u2019s history. Accordingly, it became necessary to provide an exemption of limited duration<\/em> covering those citizens born prior to July 4, 1776.\u00a0 All were \u201cgrandfathered\u201d and made eligible under the phrase, \u201cor a Citizen<\/em> of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution\u2026\u201d <\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Every U.S. president since Van Buren\u2026 with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was reportedly a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth\u2026 has been a \u201cnatural born\u201d U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Framers found it inconceivable that a president of the United States, commander in chief of the Army and the Navy, should ever hold even partial allegiance to a foreign nation or be required to obey the laws of a foreign nation, as is the case with all dual citizens.\u00a0 It is for this reason that the Constitution limits candidates for president and vice president to those who are \u201cnatural born\u201d <\/em>citizens, and to those who were citizens of the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted.\u00a0 <\/em>There can be no exceptions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Were that not the case, and had the Framers considered the terms \u201ccitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d to be synonymous, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution would now read, simply, \u201cNo Person except a Citizen of the United States 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The Constitution of the United States is not set in stone.\u00a0 Within its pages it provides for an orderly process with which it can be amended from time to time, as the need arises.\u00a0 However, we are a nation of laws with a Constitution that must be enforced precisely as the Framers intended.\u00a0 To turn our backs on the clear intent of even one single constitutional principle, for no better reason than political expediency, is an abomination.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In 2008, Democrats were able to craftily define the issue as one relating to Barack Obama\u2019s place<\/em> of birth, and to label those who insisted he lacked eligibility by reason of not being born on American soil as \u201cbirthers.\u201d\u00a0 It became the deadly \u201cthird rail\u201d of the 2008 campaign, effectively preventing any honest debate of the issue.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Thusly, on two occasions in our political history we have allowed the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1 to be twisted and contorted to fit the political mood of the day.\u00a0 We cannot allow that to happen again.\u00a0 We cannot allow our Constitution to be amended by popular fiat.<\/p>\n Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.\u00a0 He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma\u2019s Green Country.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As a two-time member of the US Electoral College, I have researched the issue of presidential eligibility quite thoroughly and I believe I have developed an understanding of what the Founders intended that many in the political world still refuse … Continue reading
\nallegiances and having pledged to each other their lives, their
\nfortunes, and their sacred honor\u2026 became citizens of the United
\nStates when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July
\n4, 1776
\n2)\u00a0 The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens
\nJuly 4, 1776, the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens of the United States,
\nand all less than twelve years old at the time the Constitution wa,
\nratified on June 21 1788; and
\n3)\u00a0 A class of citizens comprised of those who emigrated to the
\nUnited States after July 4, 1776, having taken a loyalty oath and
\nhaving renounced all foreign allegiances.<\/p>\n
\nwas signed, making all citizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of
\nthe United States;
\n2)\u00a0 June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New
\nHampshire made the Constitution the official law of the land; and
\n3)\u00a0 July 4, 1811, the date after which the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens\u2026
\nthose born to US citizens after<\/em> the signing of the Declaration on
\nJuly 4, 1776… became thirty-five years of age.<\/p>\n
\npledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor\u2026 became citizens of
\nthe United States when the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776;
\n2)\u00a0 The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first
\n\u201cnatural born\u201d citizens of the United States, and all less than twelve years old at the time the
\nConstitution was ratified on June 21, 1788; and<\/p>\n
\nhaving taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.<\/p>\n
\ncitizens of the thirteen colonies citizens of the United States;
\n2)\u00a0 June 21, 1788, the date on which ratification by the State of New Hampshire made the
\nConstitution the official law of the land; and
\n3)\u00a0 July 4, 1811, the date after which the first \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens\u2026 those born to U.S.
\ncitizens after<\/em> the signing of the Declaration on July 4, 1776\u2026 became 35 years of age.<\/p>\n