I wrote this piece during the election of 2016. It explains exactly what Natural Born means. Natural Born Citizen. What did the founders mean Redux? How does that requirement affect the president Obama and those running for that office. By RA Love I’m often stunned to hear officials and lay people try to re-define the meaning of NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. This phrase appears in the constitution as part of the requirements for the President and Vice President. Article II Section 1.5 states: 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. The statement seems pretty clear except for the first line up to the comma. We need to define NATURAL BORN CITIZEN and what the founders meant by “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”,. Lets tackle the last part of the line first: “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,.” Quite simply this lets the founders and other men of age (at that time) to be eligible for the office. Without this wordings there could be no one elected as president because at that time there was no person that fit the definition of Natural Born Citizen ( in the new United States). As part of that definition you had to be a citizen of the United States for 14 years. Because the republic was brand new, the founders were saying that if you were a citizen at the time of the adoption of the document then you were eligible. Now lets take a look at the part in question NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Natural Born Citizen is an interesting phrase. The thought that the framers would use that term for it just to mean a citizen born naturally by natural birth seems strange, as birth and natural born were most likely assumed at the time. So, it must mean something special. The framers new that in order to have a union that was secure and free from outside influence such as elected officials that might be influenced by foreign governments, they had to make sure that the founding documents had some written provision that excluded outside influence. Therefore the term Natural Born Citizen. But what does it actually mean? Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “The Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19, iit reads: § 212. Of the citizens and natives. (bold is mine) “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” Vattel definies the term quite eloquently. This is the meaning that the founders were referring to. But there is a problem. How are we to know that is what the founders were referring? Vattel wrote the Law Of Nations in French, did any of the founders even speak French as well as read the French language? This from the professional interpreter,dated July 4th 2012: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, first Secretary of State under Washington, and our third President spoke English, French, Italian, Latin, and he could read Greek, and Spanish. Benjamin Franklin, America’s first diplomat and well-known genius spoke English, French and Italian. Our second President: John Adams spoke English, French and Latin. President James Madison spoke English, Greek, Latin and Hebrew. James Monroe spoke English and French. So there we have it. The only thing we need to do is link the founding fathers with Vattel. In the memoirs, coorispondence and misalliance notes of Thomas Jefferson volume 3, Jefferson quotes Vattel in French. He refers to Vattel as an elightened an disinterested judge. This to any should be the final nail in the coffin, however many still are deaf blind and dumb. This by ether by design or ignorance is the crux of the matter. For there can be no doubt of the meaning of the term and what the founders were trying to say. We can also be of no doubt the POTUS (Obama) was never qualified to be president. By his own admission his father was a british subject. Obama’s qualification to be president was overlooked on purpose by the democrats and the wording of the document for his qualification was altered just slightly so as to look like it conformed to the constitutional requirements. Nancy Pelosi was right in the middle of the entire conspriacy. This would have been a simple problem to resolve. However our senators, representatives and yes even the Supreme Court refuses to address the issue. The complicit main stream press continues to ignore every piece of evidence licking the boots of the usurper Obama. The 2016 elections: Ted Cruz was born in Canada December 22,1970. His mother was an American citizen at the time of his birth but his father was not. His father later became a citizen in 2005. This is not what Vattel was saying. Naturalized citizen is not part of the narrative. Ted Cruz by Definition of natural born citizen is not eligible to be president. Marco Rubio mother and father were Cuban citizens naturalized in 1975. This was 4 years after Marco’s birth in Miami on May 28 1971. This from Wikipedia: Rubio was born in Miami, Florida,[2] the second son and third child of Mario Rubio and Oria Garcia. His parents were Cubans who had immigrated to the United States in 1956 and were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975. Folks I did not make this up. I am disturbed by the fact that Cruz is supposed to be a constitutional scholar and has not figured this out. Naturalized citizen is NOT the same as NATURAL BORN as defined by Vattel. The sad part is everybody knows this, the Supreme Court the press and most all of the senators and representatives who aren’t purposefully keeping there heads in the sand or ignoring it. Both Cruz and Rubio know that the left will never bring this up because of Obama’s non-eligibility. However this still doesn’t make it right. Many over the years have been trying to define or fix the phrase Natural Born Citizen. In my view you must go back to Vattel for the the original definition.