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\n\n\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. Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
That is why the Framers 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.<\/em> That requirement provided no absolute guarantee that we would not one day find a dedicated socialist in the White House, but it provided at least some insurance against such an occurrence. To understand the Framers\u2019 concerns, one need only examine the leftist political influences that caused Barack Obama to seek to \u201cfundamentally change\u201d the government and the culture of the greatest nation on Earth. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another example of what caused such concern among the Framers is Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who, along with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA), failed to meet the \u201cnatural born\u201d standard required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. Born in Canada, Cruz\u2019s father was a citizen of Cuba who, as a teenager, was a member of the Cuban resistance headed by Fidel Castro. He made his way to the United States in 1957, enrolled at the University of Texas, and graduated in 1961with a degree in mathematics. Later, after being transferred to Calgary, Alberta, by his employer 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\n\n\n During that campaign, the American people were led to believe that the Cruzes, both father and son, were solidly anti-Communist. But that\u2019s only what we were told<\/em>. What if the opposite had been true? What if the elder Cruz had been a dedicated Communist, a Fidelista<\/em> in sheep\u2019s clothing? And what if he\u2019d spent decades indoctrinating his son behind closed doors in all the benefits of life in a socialist Utopia? His son, a conservative firebrand in the U.S. Senate, would have become the prototypical \u201cManchurian Candidate.\u201d It is precisely that sort of familial background that caused the Framers to limit access to the presidency only to the \u201cnatural born.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But now, just three months prior to the 2020 presidential election, we find that the tendency of Democrats to embrace style over substance rearing its ugly head once again. As they did with Barack Obama in 2008, they are offering for our consideration a candidate who is not eligible to serve as president or vice president. I refer, of course, to the junior senator from California, Kamala Harris, who is touted by leading Democrats and mainstream media sycophants as the leading contender to be the Democratic Party\u2019s candidate for vice president in November.<\/p>\n\n\n\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. Under U.S. law, an individual cannot apply for citizenship until they\u2019ve held a \u201cgreen card\u201d for a minimum of five years. Kamala Harris was born on October 20, 1964. 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. Her father was, at best, a legal non-citizen resident for just 3 years, 9 months, and 20 days when she was born. Neither of Senator Harris\u2019s parents could possibly have been a U.S. citizen when she was born. Therefore, she cannot claim status as a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\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. Those two jobs are President and Vice President of the United States. The term \u201cnatural born,\u201d by its very nature, implies that the \u201cquality\u201d of an individual\u2019s citizenship must be absolute\u2026 totally unencumbered by any modifying terms such as \u201cdual,\u201d \u201cnaturalized,\u201d or \u201cbirthright.\u201d Ms. Harris can be Mayor of San Francisco, she can be Governor of California, she can be a Federal Judge, she can even be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. None of those jobs require \u201cnatural born\u201d status. But unless her parents were both US citizens when she was born, she cannot hold either the presidency or the vice presidency. If she was born on American soil, to legal resident aliens, she is considered to be a US citizen, but just being born on US soil does not make one a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen. One must be born of two US citizen parents in order to qualify as \u201cnatural born.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n When the Framers met in Philadelphia in September 1787 to approve the final draft of the U.S. 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. 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 have allowed 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? Not likely. It is a preposterous notion on its face. To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, the consensus among many in the political\/legal world today is that the terms \u201cCitizen\u201d and \u201cnatural born Citizen\u201d are synonymous. They are not!! 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? The answer is yes. It all revolves around the purpose and the meaning of the word \u201cor,\u201d preceding a \u201cgrandfather clause\u201d in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Constitution requires that, in addition to being a \u201cnatural born\u201d citizen and 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. 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. 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 US citizens prior to the Declaration of Independence\u2026 to serve as president. This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to U.S. citizen parents subsequent to July 4, 1776, reached age thirty-five.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because they were born to non-US citizens prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the first seven presidents of the United States \u2013 Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, J.Q. Adams, and Jackson \u2013 were all \u201ccitizens\u201d of the United States, but none were \u201cnatural born\u201d citizens because their parents were not US citizens at the time of their birth. <\/p>\n\n\n\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. 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\n\n\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. 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\n\n\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\n\n\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. 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. <\/em>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> 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 It became the deadly \u201cthird rail\u201d of the 2008 campaign, effectively preventing any honest debate of the issue. Thus, 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. We cannot allow that to happen again. We cannot allow our Constitution to be amended by popular fiat. If Kamala Harris were to be properly vetted, she would be found to lack the qualifications necessary to the office of Vice President. 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
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"