Cruz Obama and the Eligibility Clause, Attorney Monte Kuligowski, Founders insistent upon birth in US, Born with natural undivided allegiance to US, Worst case scenario already happened? Obama?, President with foreign anti traditional American mindset


Cruz Obama and the Eligibility Clause, Attorney Monte Kuligowski, Founders insistent upon birth in US, Born with natural undivided allegiance to US, Worst case scenario already happened? Obama?, President with foreign anti traditional American mindset

“According to the  US Constitution Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells



From American Thinker March 29, 2015.

By attorney Monte Kuligowski.

“Cruz, Obama, and the Eligibility Clause”

“Remarkably, we never got an authoritative High Court ruling on what the U.S. Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause actually requires as related to Barack Obama. As such, Ted Cruz has a big “birther” target on his back.

Because Cruz was born to a foreign father on foreign soil, Donald Trump believes that Cruz is ineligible for the presidency. The Donald and many others believe that a U.S. birth would have solved Cruz’s constitutional problem. Under that view, there is something magical about a U.S. birth even when dual citizenship is coincident.”

“Most everyone agrees that naturalized U.S. citizens are barred from holding the high office. In fact, the answer to the question Why are naturalized citizens barred? is the key to understanding the purpose of the natural born citizen eligibility clause.

A naturalized citizen once held allegiance to a foreign government. He was required to renounce all foreign allegiances to become a U.S. citizen.

So naturalized citizens are excluded from the presidency for clear reasons. Yet a simplistic rule is used to determine natural born eligibility without any consideration of the reasons naturalized citizens are ineligible.”

“To get it right, we must ask what the understanding of an Article II natural born citizen was at the time of its ratification. To have been born a U.S. citizen at the time of our Constitution’s ratification meant that one was born with sole allegiance to the United States. So by necessity, an Article II natural born citizen is one born with natural, undivided allegiance to the United States. That is reasonably the heart of the natural born clause.

Though the previous definition is intellectually honest and an accurate statement, we must acknowledge that, like many constitutional provisions, the natural born citizen clause has been eviscerated with bad precedent – in this case, to accommodate Mr. Obama.

Short of a constitutional amendment, the original purpose of the clause is gone forever. It’s not right, but something so monumental is not going to revolve without some degree of revolution. The requirement of undivided natural allegiance at birth for future candidates would undermine the Obama presidency, and not enough government workers in black robes would ever let that happen.

Alas, from this point forward, the clause effectively means that anyone born a U.S. citizen can become president, regardless of prior foreign allegiance.

I suppose some comfort may be taken in the fact that the unimaginable, worst-case scenario has already happened. What the founders sought to safeguard against has come to pass: a U.S. president with a foreign, anti-traditional American mindset has inflicted immeasurable havoc upon our system and way of life. At least the odds of it happening again, especially consecutively, are slim.”
Read more


CDR Charles F. Kerchner filed a lawsuit against Obama on January 21, 2009.

“47. Hence, at the time of his birth on August 4, 1961, Obama was born to a U.S.
citizen mother but not a U.S. citizen father.
48. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore
cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Endnote 9.”

“9. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to George Washington. This specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance
and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country.
Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign
influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington
agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well-known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings.
Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others.
The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.”

(Endnote 14 in amended complaint)


Related News

  • Coleen Rowley memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller May 21, 2002, FBI special agent and whistleblower
  • Hillary Clinton: “she is, in my judgment, an evil force, an embodiment of evil”, Herbert London, Ph.D, “Hillary Clinton is an inveterate liar”
  • Schippers Exposes Impeachment Debacle, David Schippers interview by Insight Magazine December 8, 2000, Democrat Schippers book Sellout
  • Obama’s Intelligence Adviser Involved in Security Breach, John Brennan Analysis Corp. employee cauterized Obama file, Newsmax January 12, 2009
  • Video shows Hillary shunning homeless man, Clintons’ 1992 presidential campaign, “My name is Hillary Clinton. You going to vote in the primary?”, He asks Clinton staffer for a dollar. Instead female aide gives homeless man a voter registration card and urges him to vote, Newsmax December 7, 1999
  • Starr says Clinton ‘chose deception’, Clinton lied under oath obstructed justice and attempted to thwart not just Paula Jones’ sexual harassment lawsuit but Starr’s grand jury probe as well, House Judiciary Committee, CNN November 18, 1998
  • Paula Corbin Jones Plaintiff, v. William Jefferson Clinton and Danny Ferguson Defendants, For the deprivation and conspiracy to deprive Plaintiff of her federally protected rights, Clinton lowered his trousers and underwear exposing his erect penis and asked Jones to “kiss it.”
  • Accused of rape why won’t president Clinton scream his innocence?, Juanita Broaddrick of Arkansas accused him of raping her in 1978, Why isn’t President Clinton behaving like an innocent man?, Uses his legal wordsmiths as human shields, Newsmax March 2, 1999
  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked as *