4

Letters

Last Update 4 maanden geleden

MG01 Letter KH01 Letter JJ01 Letter RD01 Letter

KH01 Letter

Kamala Harris Affidavit

William Jackson

Last Update 4 maanden geleden

Affidavit to Candidate Kamala Harris

Kamala Devi Harris

Acting as Vice President of the United States

Office of the Vice President

c/o The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20500


Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth


Attention Mrs. Harris,


I, Dr. Frederick David Graves, American Justice Foundation® 19420 Heritage Harbor Parkway Lutz, Florida 33558. Questions? Call 866-LAW-EASY,

the undersigned, make this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth of my own free will, and I hereby affirm, declare and swear, under my oath, that I am of legal age and of sound mind and hereby attest that the information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.


This letter is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights to the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments, and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 1: Declaration of Rights, Section 1 - 27 and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 2 General Provisions, Section 5(b): Public Officers and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 6 Suffrage and Elections, Section 3: Oath, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”


Are you an enemy of the 1787 Constitution? Please reply. We would like to know if you are an elected official who follows the 1787 Constitution.


Basis of Law and Facts in this Presumptive Affidavit of Complaint:


1. The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land and supersedes all other lesser law, statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances and the State Constitution.


2. What is written in the referenced national Constitution is valid, authorized and enforceable. What is not written in the national Constitution is prohibited by that Constitution.


3. Article I, Section 1 of the national Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. The Constitution does not authorize legislative power in any form to the Executive and Judicial Branches.


4. Article I, Section 10 of the national Constitution declares No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.


5. Article III, Section 2 of the national Constitution and Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and also, Article VI, Clause 2-3 of the national Constitution declares All Americans are guaranteed a Constitutional Republic.


6. When the State Legislature creates law for the people, that law must be constitutionally compliant specific to the Bill of Rights or it is not valid law binding upon the people.


7. A law must be valid to exist and must exist to be lawfully enforced.


8. All elected and appointed public officials who serve the people, including you, Kamala Devi Harris, Vice President of the United States, are required to take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution before assuming office.


9. Any act passed by any legislature and any action committed by any public officer either supports and upholds the Constitutions, national and state, or opposes and violates them. No public officer has the constitutional authority—or any other form of valid, lawful authority—to oppose and violate the very documents to which s/he swore or affirmed his or her oath.


10. Any unconstitutional actions committed by any public officers, including you, Kamala Devi Harris, Vice President of the United States, invoke the self-executing Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the 14th Amendment, by which the errant public officers immediately vacate their offices, upon commission of their crimes, can no longer hold public office and forfeit all benefits thereof, including salary and pension.


11. Executive orders are not authorized in the national Constitution, therefore are prohibited by the national Constitution.


12. The national Constitution and the Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgement.


13. From Title 7-Government Organization and employees, Part III-Employees, Subpart B-Empooyment and Retention, Chapter 33-Examination, Selection and Placement, Subchapter II-Oath of Office: An individual, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit, shall take the following oath, 5 USC §3331. Oath of office. Please provide your Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® Number for the court.


If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut, in kind, that

with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within 30

days of this letter’s date, and support your disagreement with evidence,

fact and law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement

with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true,

correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable agreement attesting to this,

fully binding upon you, in any court in America, without your protest or

objection and that of those who represent you.





All Rights Reserved,





Dr. Frederick David Graves

Full Printed Name, Affiant




Notary Statement

In the State of ________________

County of _________________

I swear that on this ____ day of __________________, the above named Affiant/Declarant,




_____________________, appeared before me, and, of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of Complaint.





__________________________________

Notary Public Seal:









My Commission Expires:______________ Date:




References


Oath of Office

files.floridados.gov/media/702653/dsde56-oath-acceptance-sept-2023.pdf


Constitution

files.floridados.gov/media/693801/florida-constitution.pdf



END OF COPY



New Address

Kamala Devi Harris

Residence of the Vice President

Number One Observatory Circle NW,

Washington, DC 20008


Presumptive Letter and Affidavit/Declaration of Truth


Attention Mrs. Harris,


I, Dr. Frederick David Graves, American Justice Foundation® 19420 Heritage Harbor Parkway Lutz, Florida 33558. Questions? Call 866-LAW-EASY,

the undersigned, make this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth of my own free will, and I hereby affirm, declare and swear, under my oath, that I am of legal age and of sound mind and hereby attest that the information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.


This letter is lawful notification to you, pursuant to The Bill of Rights to the National Constitution, in particular, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments, and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 1: Declaration of Rights, Section 1 - 27 and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 2 General Provisions, Section 5(b): Public Officers and Constitution of the State of Florida Article 6 Suffrage and Elections, Section 3: Oath, and pursuant to your oath, and requires your written response to me specific to the subject matter. Your failure to respond, within 30 days, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity, everything in this letter with which you disagree is your lawful, legal and binding agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true, correct, legal, lawful and binding upon you, in any court, anywhere in America, without your protest or objection or that of those who represent you. Your silence is your acquiescence. See: Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391. Notification of legal responsibility is “the first essential of due process of law.” Also, see: U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.”


Are you an enemy of the 1787 Constitution? Please reply. We would like to know if you are an elected official who follows the 1787 Constitution.


Basis of Law and Facts in this Presumptive Affidavit of Complaint:


1. The Constitution for the United States of America is the Supreme Law of the land and supersedes all other lesser law, statutes, codes, regulations, ordinances and the State Constitution.


2. What is written in the referenced national Constitution is valid, authorized and enforceable. What is not written in the national Constitution is prohibited by that Constitution.


3. Article I, Section 1 of the national Constitution vests all legislative power in Congress. The Constitution does not authorize legislative power in any form to the Executive and Judicial Branches.


4. Article I, Section 10 of the national Constitution declares No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.


5. Article III, Section 2 of the national Constitution and Article IV, Section 4 guarantees to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and also, Article VI, Clause 2-3 of the national Constitution declares All Americans are guaranteed a Constitutional Republic.


6. When the State Legislature creates law for the people, that law must be constitutionally compliant specific to the Bill of Rights or it is not valid law binding upon the people.


7. A law must be valid to exist and must exist to be lawfully enforced.


8. All elected and appointed public officials who serve the people, including you, Kamala Devi Harris, Vice President of the United States, are required to take an Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution before assuming office.


9. Any act passed by any legislature and any action committed by any public officer either supports and upholds the Constitutions, national and state, or opposes and violates them. No public officer has the constitutional authority—or any other form of valid, lawful authority—to oppose and violate the very documents to which s/he swore or affirmed his or her oath.


10. Any unconstitutional actions committed by any public officers, including you, Kamala Devi Harris, Vice President of the United States, invoke the self-executing Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the 14th Amendment, by which the errant public officers immediately vacate their offices, upon commission of their crimes, can no longer hold public office and forfeit all benefits thereof, including salary and pension.


11. Executive orders are not authorized in the national Constitution, therefore are prohibited by the national Constitution.


12. The national Constitution and the Supreme Court recognize and protect the right to interstate travel. The travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgement.


13. From Title 7-Government Organization and employees, Part III-Employees, Subpart B-Empooyment and Retention, Chapter 33-Examination, Selection and Placement, Subchapter II-Oath of Office: An individual, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit, shall take the following oath, 5 USC §3331. Oath of office. Please provide your Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® Number for the court.


If you disagree with anything in this letter, then rebut, in kind, that

with which you disagree, in writing, with particularity, to me, within 30

days of this letter’s date, and support your disagreement with evidence,

fact and law. Your failure to respond, as stipulated, is your agreement

with and admission to the fact that everything in this letter is true,

correct, legal, lawful, and is your irrevocable agreement attesting to this,

fully binding upon you, in any court in America, without your protest or

objection and that of those who represent you.




All Rights Reserved,




Dr. Frederick David Graves

Full Printed Name, Affiant




Notary Statement

In the State of ________________

County of _________________

I swear that on this ____ day of __________________, the above named Affiant/Declarant,




_____________________, appeared before me, and, of his own free will, signed this Affidavit of Complaint.





__________________________________

Notary Public Seal:










My Commission Expires:______________ Date:




References


Oath of Office

files.floridados.gov/media/702653/dsde56-oath-acceptance-sept-2023.pdf


Constitution

files.floridados.gov/media/693801/florida-constitution.pdf


END OF COPY




New Affidavit

AFFIDAVIT/DECLARATION OF TRUTH 


To: Kamala Devi Harris 

Acting as Vice President of the United States 

Office of the Vice President  

c/o The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20500


To: Kamala Devi Harris

Residence of the Vice President

Number One Observatory Circle NW, 

Washington, DC 20008


I, Dr. Frederick David Graves, domiciled at American Justice Foundation® 19420 Heritage Harbor Parkway Lutz, Florida 33558. Questions? Call 866-LAW-EASY, 

a living, breathing, flesh and blood man on the land, one of We the People, not a “UNITED STATES citizen”, not a “municipal citizen”, not a “person”, not a “corporation”, not a “vessel”, an American Citizen, with and claiming all of my inherent, unalienable Constitutionally-secured rights, with my name properly spelled only in upper and lower case letters, the undersigned, make this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth of my own free will, and I hereby affirm, declare and swear, under my oath and under the pains and penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and of this state, that I am of legal age and of sound mind and hereby attest that the statements, averments and information contained in this Affidavit/Declaration are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 


This Affidavit/Declaration of Truth is lawful notification to you, and is hereby made and sent to you pursuant to the 1787 national Constitution, specifically as amended with the Bill of Rights, in particular, Amendments I, IV, V, VI, VII, IX, and X, and The Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution, in particular, Sections I,IV, V,VI,VII,VIII,IX, X, XI, XVIII,XIX, and requires your written rebuttal to me, in kind, specific to each and every point of the subject matter stated herein, within 30 calendar days, via your own sworn and notarized affidavit, using true fact, valid law and evidence to support your rebuttal of the specific subject matter stated in this Affidavit/Declaration. You are hereby noticed that your failure to respond, as stipulated, and rebut, with particularity and specificity, anything with which you disagree in this Affidavit/Declaration, is your lawful, legal, and binding tacit agreement with and admission to the fact that everything in this Affidavit/Declaration is true, correct, legal, lawful, and fully binding upon you in any court in America, without your protest or objection and that of those who represent you. UNITED STATES v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d. 297. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading.” 


This original organic Constitution for the United States of America, circa 1787, as amended with The Bill of Rights in 1791, established the United States of America as a Constitutional Republic and this Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land. Your unconstitutional actions, as herein described, clearly demonstrate that you do not act within this Constitution or the Constitutional Republic the Constitution created, but instead flagrantly act outside the Constitution, the supreme Law of this Land, and outside our Constitutional Republic. Article VI, Clauses 2 & 3, of the Constitution bind you, as an oath taker, to this Constitution, and thus you are constitutionally mandated to uphold the Constitution as the supreme Law of this Land, which supersedes any other lesser law, including federal and state statutes, codes, regulations, rules, and policies. 


You have blatantly evaded your sworn Constitutional duties and have unlawfully upheld lesser "laws" as superior to the Constitution. As described above, you are acting outside the Constitutional Republic, outside the Constitution, and beyond your limited delegated authority, which constitutes a war against the Constitution and the people. Thus, you are a domestic enemy to this nation and its Citizens. According to the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment, you have vacated your office upon committing these crimes. You cannot conduct any official business, and all your actions are null and void, without any legal effect. Additionally, you have forfeited all benefits associated with your former office, including salary and pension. You are constitutionally prohibited from receiving public funds and cannot hold any public office in this nation.


This Affidavit/Declaration states the truth of this matter, under oath. If you disagree with this truth, then, as stated above, rebut in kind, by means of your own sworn, notarized Affidavit/Declaration of Truth, anything with which you disagree, supported by truth, fact, valid law, and evidence. If you fail to rebut by Affidavit, then you admit to and agree with all of the truths, facts, valid laws, and evidence set forth in this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth, and since you so admit, there is no controversy for any court or any public body to adjudicate. I, the Affiant, make the following statements and claims: 


1. All political power in our republican form of government resides originally in the people and is derived from them, and we are endowed by our Creator with certain natural, essential, inherent, indefeasible, and unalienable rights. (The authorities cited below are Maxims of law, universally recognized and accepted by all, requiring no proof, argument, or discourse. Id. 67a) 


Maxim of Law 51o All Political Power is inherent in the people by decree of God, thus none can exist except it be derived from them. American Maxim 


Maxim of Law 59o. Law is a rule of right, and whatever is contrary to the rule of right is an injury. 3 Bulst. 313. 


2. We have instituted government to secure our rights as its sole and only legitimate function and every act of usurpation in the government, and consequently treason against the sovereignty of the people, occurs when public officials in a limited government go beyond the bounds that the constitution sets for their powers. (The following authorities are cited below:) 


Objective of government. That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions, it is usurpation and oppression. Alabama Constitution, Article I, § 35 


To secure these rights government is instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. -Declaration of Independence 


Maxim of Law 51p. The main object of government is the protection and preservation of personal rights, private property, and public liberties, and upholding the law of God. American Maxim. Tucker Blackstone Vol. 1 Appendix Note B [Section 3] 1803 If in a limited government, the public functionaries exceed the limits which the constitution prescribes to their powers, every act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people. 


Maxim of Law 51r. As usurpation is the exercise of power, which another has a right to; so, tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to. Locke, Treat. 2, 18, 199. 


3. You have taken an oath to support and uphold the national and state Constitutions and are constitutionally mandated to abide by that oath in the performance of your official duties and it is immaterial whether such an oath is given by words or by acts and deeds (10 Coke, 52). 


4. Any act committed by you, Kamala D. Harris acting as Vice President of the United States either supports and upholds the Constitutions, national and state, or opposes and violates them. 


5. You have no constitutional authority, or any other form of valid, lawful authority, to oppose and violate the very documents to which you swore or affirmed your oath and under which you were delegated by the people the limited authority to conduct the duties of your office. 


6. The above five positions are true, factual, lawful and constitutionally ordained. 


7. In a letter from one of the framers of our Constitution, John Jay, to George Washington on July 25, 1787, Jay discussed the importance of restricting the position of Commander in Chief to a “natural born citizen”. He suggested that it would be wise and timely to implement a strong safeguard against allowing foreigners to participate in the administration of our national government and explicitly stated that the role of Commander in Chief of the American army should only be held by a “natural-born citizen.” 


8. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states that, “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” 


9. According to Fundamental Law, such as that expressed by Emer de Vattel in The Law of Nations § 212 (T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1852), which the people entrusted Congress to enforce for offenses against it in Article I, Section 8, "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."


10. You, Kamala Devi Harris were born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California. At that time, your parents, Donald J. Harris, a Jamaican immigrant, and Shyamala Gopalan, an Indian immigrant, were not UNITED STATES citizens. Therefore, while you are a citizen under the 14th Amendment, you cannot lawfully be considered a "natural born citizen." This distinction is significant concerning eligibility for the office of President of the United States. 


11. As stated in the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” This expressly states that you, Kamala Devi Harris is not only ineligible to be President of the United States, you are not legally qualified to serve as Vice President. 


12. Article IV, Section 4 mandates that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” 


However, despite the above-stated factual, lawful positions, your un-Constitutional actions, as described throughout this Affidavit/Declaration of Truth, clearly demonstrate how you have violated all of the above lawful positions, the Constitutions, your oath of office, acted against the public good by violating the public trust and committing sedition and insurrection. Pursuant to your unlawful and unconstitutional actions, you have invoked the self-executing Sections 3 & 4 of the 14th Amendment to the national Constitution, thereby have lawfully vacated your office and forfeited all benefits thereof, including salary and pension. Please note that, as stated above and below, if you fail to specifically rebut, in kind, any of the charges, claims and positions set forth in this Affidavit/Declaration, then, you tacitly admit to them, and these admissions will be lawfully used against you. The following paragraphs and others throughout this Affidavit/Declaration describe some of your unlawful, unconstitutional actions, which have harmed me and others: 


13. Article II, Section 1 of the original organic Constitution of 1787 requires the President to be a “natural born citizen.” The 12th Amendment of the Constitution extends this requirement to the Vice President, “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.” Given your parents' citizenship status at the time of your birth, you are not a "natural-born citizen" as defined by constitutional standards and recognized legal principles, such as those articulated by Emer de Vattel in "The Law of Nations." Your occupancy of the Vice Presidency, therefore, is ultra vires and violates these constitutional provisions. 


14. Article I, Section 3, Clause 4 of the original Constitution of 1787 provides that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate." Since you are ineligible to hold the office of Vice President as you are not a natural-born citizen, any tie-breaking votes cast by you are void ab initio, as they would have been conducted without lawful authority. 


15. As established in the Massachusetts Constitution, Part the First, Article XVIII, I have the right to demand strict adherence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution. According to Article V, "All power resides originally in the people and is derived from them. The various magistrates and government officers, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are merely their substitutes and agents, accountable to the people at all times." Therefore, you are obligated to be accountable to the people at all times. 


16. On March 24, 2021, House Resolution 253 designated you the "Border Czar," responsible for leading efforts to manage migration across the United States of America-Mexico border. Since then, the unauthorized entry of millions of migrants through the southern border has posed a threat to national security and sovereignty. Prioritizing the needs of migrants over those of citizens has strained natural resources, weakened the economy, overcrowded urban areas, overburdened the legal and educational systems, and placed excessive demands on emergency shelter and healthcare systems. This situation has resulted in the misuse of public funds and resources, affecting the nation's overall well-being. These points are supported by reports from government agencies, policy institutes, and academic research that examine the economic, social, and infrastructural impacts of immigration. By allowing thousands of undocumented and unvetted migrants to infiltrate our communities, you have unequivocally failed to secure the rights and safety of the people, protect us from invasion and to uphold your oath to the public trust.


17. As an American Citizen and a member of the public, I have been directly harmed by your unlawful occupancy of the Vice Presidency. By your actions, you have vacated your office which you have unlawfully held, therefore, you must immediately remove yourself from this office, pursuant to the referenced Sections 3 & 4 of the 14th Amendment. Your actions undermine the rule of law, erode trust in public institutions, and violate my right to a government that operates within the bounds of the Constitution. This harm includes, but is not limited to, misallocation of the public resources, the dilution of the legitimate exercise of political power, the breach of the social contract between the government and the people and your un-Constitutional actions by which, pursuant to your oath, you committed dereliction of duties, malfeasance in office, insurrection against the Constitution and treason against the de jure government, We, the people. 


If you disagree with any of these points, then as stated above, you must provide a sworn, notarized rebuttal Affidavit, substantiated by true facts and valid law. Your failure to do so will constitute your admission to all claims made herein. 


FURTHER AFFIANT SAITH NOT. 




By: 


_____________________________________________

Full Printed Name, the Affiant/Demandant 


All Rights Reserved and Retained 




_____________________________________________

Autograph 




Autograph Date 


On this _____ day of _______________, 2024, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared [Full Name], proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the man/woman whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her authorized capacity, and that by his/her autograph on the instrument, he/she executed the instrument. 




WITNESS my hand and official seal. 




_____________________________ 

[Notary's Full Name] 

Notary Public in and for the State of ________________________, residing at _________________________. 

My commission expires on ______________________. 


END OF COPY


Legal Notice

Lawful Notification of Constitutional Ineligibility and Maladministration Regarding Kamala Devi Harris's Presidential Candidacy


Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal and Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent


To: Kamala Devi Harris in your personal and professional capacity as Acting, Vice President of the United States, Number One Observatory Circle NW, Washington, DC 20008


To: Jamie Harrison in your personal and professional capacity as Acting, Chair of the Democratic National Committee, 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, D.C., U.S.


To James Comer in your personal and professional capacity as Acting Chair of the House Oversight Committee, 2157 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515


To: Neil Gorsuch in your personal and professional capacity as Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20543

References

To further support the argument that the term “natural born citizen” has consistently been understood within the framework set forth by Vattel, it’s essential to highlight that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this interpretation in key rulings. Specifically, the Court has applied the term “natural born citizen” exclusively to individuals born in the country to parents who are citizens thereof, aligning directly with Vattel’s definition as stated in The Law of Nations.

The following Supreme Court cases illustrate this consistent interpretation:

  1. Minor v. Happersett (1875): The Court explicitly stated that “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are its citizens,” directly echoing Vattel’s definition. This ruling confirmed that the understanding of “natural born citizen” was well-established and had not been expanded to include other categories.

  2. The Venus (1814): Justice John Marshall cited Vattel directly, emphasizing that those who are born in the country to parents who are citizens are the true “natural born citizens.” This case reinforced the strict interpretation of the term as it relates to eligibility for the presidency.

  3. Shanks v. Dupont (1830): The Court again referred to Vattel’s definition of citizenship to resolve issues of allegiance and natural-born status, affirming that a “natural born citizen” must be born within the jurisdiction of the United States to citizen parents.

  4. Wong Kim Ark (1898): While this case focused on the status of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, the Court made a clear distinction between “citizens at birth” under the 14th Amendment and “natural born citizens” eligible for the presidency, reserving the latter term for those born to citizen parents.









Additional Notes

The Unchanging Meaning of ‘Natural Born Citizen’: A Constitutional Perspective


The words and phrases enshrined in the U.S. Constitution hold a timeless quality, their meanings meticulously chosen by the Founding Fathers. These definitions were not arbitrary but rooted in well-established principles of law and governance, designed to endure through the ages. One such term, “Natural Born Citizen,” as mentioned in Article 2, has been the subject of much debate in modern times. However, a closer examination of historical context and legal foundations reveals a steadfast definition that remains unaltered since the Constitution’s creation.The Founding Fathers drew significant inspiration from The Law of Nations when crafting the Constitution and defining the powers of the new nation. The Law of Nations, a comprehensive legal treatise by Emer de Vattel published in 1758, was a cornerstone in the Founders’ understanding of international law, sovereignty, and citizenship. Vattel’s work was not merely influential; it was one of the primary sources that shaped the legal terminology and principles embedded in the Constitution.The term “Natural Born Citizen” finds its definitive clarity in The Law of Nations. Vattel explicitly defined a “natural-born citizen” as one born in the country to citizen parents, a definition that was well understood and accepted during the drafting of the Constitution. This understanding is not just inferred but directly referenced in the Constitution itself. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, implicitly acknowledging its principles as foundational to the new American legal system.Vattel’s precise wording in The Law of Nations (§ 212) leaves no room for ambiguity:


Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 212 (T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1852). "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."


This definition was not only well-known but was the only source available at the time that offered such a detailed explanation of what it meant to be a “natural-born citizen.” The Founding Fathers, including figures like George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, frequently referenced Vattel’s work when framing the Constitution. This is further evidenced by John Jay’s correspondence with George Washington, where he stressed the necessity of ensuring that only a “Natural Born Citizen” could hold the office of President to prevent foreign influence.Moreover, Vattel’s influence extended beyond the drafting of the Constitution and into the judicial interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the years, the Supreme Court has referenced Vattel’s work in dozens of rulings to define key constitutional principles and terms. For example:Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): The Supreme Court referenced Vattel to articulate principles of state sovereignty and the law of nations, which were foundational in determining the relationship between states and the federal government.The Paquete Habana (1900): This case relied on The Law of Nations to affirm that international law is part of U.S. law, emphasizing the relevance of Vattel’s principles in the American legal system.Ware v. Hylton (1796): Vattel’s views on treaties and international obligations were cited, underscoring his influence on how the Supreme Court interpreted treaty obligations under the Constitution.Talbot v. Janson (1795): The Court used Vattel’s definitions of citizenship and allegiance to resolve questions of dual nationality and expatriation.These cases demonstrate that the principles set forth in The Law of Nations were not merely theoretical but were actively applied by the highest court in the land to interpret the Constitution and guide legal decisions.To further support the argument that the term “natural born citizen” has consistently been understood within the framework set forth by Vattel, it’s essential to highlight that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed this interpretation in key rulings. Specifically, the Court has applied the term “natural born citizen” exclusively to individuals born in the country to parents who are citizens thereof, aligning directly with Vattel’s definition as stated in The Law of Nations.


The following Supreme Court cases illustrate this consistent interpretation:Minor v. Happersett (1875): The Court explicitly stated that “natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are its citizens,” directly echoing Vattel’s definition. This ruling confirmed that the understanding of “natural born citizen” was well-established and had not been expanded to include other categories.The Venus (1814): Justice John Marshall cited Vattel directly, emphasizing that those who are born in the country to parents who are citizens are the true “natural born citizens.” This case reinforced the strict interpretation of the term as it relates to eligibility for the presidency.Shanks v. Dupont (1830): The Court again referred to Vattel’s definition of citizenship to resolve issues of allegiance and natural-born status, affirming that a “natural born citizen” must be born within the jurisdiction of the United States to citizen parents.Wong Kim Ark (1898): While this case focused on the status of children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, the Court made a clear distinction between “citizens at birth” under the 14th Amendment and “natural born citizens” eligible for the presidency, reserving the latter term for those born to citizen parents.These cases collectively demonstrate that the definition of “natural born citizen” as articulated by Vattel has been not only recognized but also consistently upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Founding Fathers’ reliance on Vattel’s work, combined with the judiciary’s adherence to this interpretation, underscores the original intent behind the constitutional requirement for presidential eligibility and the exclusion of any broader definition that might introduce foreign influence.Fast forward to the present day, and we encounter a shift in interpretation. Modern discourse often suggests that being born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship, suffices to be considered a “Natural Born Citizen.” This reinterpretation diverges from the original intent and understanding of the Founding Fathers. It overlooks the significance placed on lineage and the transmission of citizenship through parentage.


It’s important to note that while William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769) defined “natural-born subjects” based on the principle of jus soli (right of the soil), the American Founders were consciously distancing themselves from the English monarchical system. They sought to establish a republic grounded in the consent of the governed, free from the hereditary and territorial notions of allegiance inherent in a monarchy. Therefore, they favored Vattel’s jus sanguinis (right of blood) approach, which emphasized citizenship through parentage, aligning more closely with the ideals of a self-determining republic.For example, some contemporary sources, such as the Cornell Law School’s page on “Natural Born Citizen,” misinterpret the term and even misquote the Supreme Court, pushing a narrative that distorts the historical definition. This modern reinterpretation suggests that mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient for natural-born status, contradicting the stringent requirements originally set by the Founding Fathers.


The consistency in the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is not just a matter of historical fidelity; it is a safeguard for the principles upon which the nation was founded. The requirement that the President be a “Natural Born Citizen” ensures a deeper connection to the country, one that is inherited through citizen parents. This provision aims to prevent divided loyalties and ensure that the nation’s highest office is held by someone with an unambiguous and inherent bond to the United States.Moreover, the broader implications of redefining such terms extend beyond just the presidency. It raises questions about our commitment to constitutional principles and the stability of legal interpretations. When we allow contemporary pressures to alter foundational definitions, we risk undermining the very framework that has sustained our republic for over two centuries. The stability of our legal system relies on consistent and faithful adherence to the meanings ascribed by the Founding Fathers.


The Law of Nations also provides guidance on maintaining the integrity of foundational laws. Chapter 3, Section 30 emphasizes that fundamental laws are not changeable by the legislature. It states that these fundamental laws are entrenched, forming the core principles upon which the government is built. This means that any attempt to alter the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” through legislative means would be contrary to the established legal doctrine upheld by the Founding Fathers.Additionally, the Law of Nations outlines the duty of citizens to protect their Constitution. It advocates for vigilance and active participation in governance to ensure that the fundamental laws are preserved. This includes resisting any attempts to undermine or alter these core principles, thereby safeguarding the nation’s legal and political integrity.


A prominent example of the importance of this definition is the current debate surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris. According to the strict interpretation of the term “Natural Born Citizen” as outlined by the Founding Fathers and the Law of Nations, Harris does not meet the criteria. She was born in the United States to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth. Therefore, under the original meaning of “Natural Born Citizen,” Harris would not be eligible to hold the office of President of the United States.This debate spans across political parties. For instance, Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother. Despite his mother’s citizenship, Cruz’s Canadian birthplace disqualifies him from being considered a “Natural Born Citizen” under the original interpretation, thus barring him from the presidency. Similarly, Marco Rubio, another Republican, was born to Cuban immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time, rendering him ineligible as well. Vivek Ramaswamy faces the same issue, as his parents were Indian citizens when he was born.


On the Democratic side, former President Barack Obama faced considerable scrutiny concerning his citizenship status. Although Obama asserted that he was born in Hawaii, there was controversy surrounding this claim. Nonetheless, irrespective of his birthplace, his father’s status as a non-U.S. citizen meant that Obama did not meet the criterion of being born to two citizen parents, as originally understood by the Founding Fathers. This foundational requirement calls into question the legitimacy of his presidency from the outset. Governor Jennifer Granholm, born in Canada to Canadian parents, would also not meet the “Natural Born Citizen” requirement despite her naturalized U.S. citizenship.These examples demonstrate that the issue goes beyond party affiliations and highlight the importance of upholding the Constitution’s original definitions. Despite arguments to the contrary, the original meaning remains evident and unchanged. The Founding Fathers chose their words carefully, drawing on the legal principles of their era. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly states, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens,” clearly reflecting the understanding of the term at the nation’s founding. As guardians of the Constitution, it is our responsibility to preserve and honor these definitions, ensuring the document’s integrity for future generations.In conclusion, the term “Natural Born Citizen” as defined in the Constitution has not changed since its inception. Attempts to reinterpret this term to fit contemporary views must be met with careful scrutiny and a respect for the historical and legal context that shaped its original meaning. By doing so, we honor the vision of the Founding Fathers and maintain the constitutional fidelity that is the cornerstone of our republic.


About the Author: Ron Bouchard is a Strategic Interventionist, Freedom Strategist, Expert in Constitutional and Fundamental Law, speaker, trainer, and author. As a co-founder of WeThePeople2.us, he contributes to advancing education on history, common law, and freedom advocacy. With a deep-rooted passion for these subjects, Ron offers thoughtful analysis and guidance on lawful and moral issues, including the sanctity of life. His insights are informed by his extensive study of history and his role as a dedicated advocate for constitutional principles.


Call to Action: As a concerned citizen, it’s your duty to safeguard the principles that define our nation. This Lawful Notification of Constitutional Ineligibility and Maladministration regarding Kamala Devi Harris’s presidential candidacy is a call to action for all Americans to unite in defense of our Consitutional Republic. By signing this notice, you join a nationwide movement to hold our government officials accountable to the supreme law of the land—the Constitution. Our government derives its power from the people, and it is our right to ensure that no one, including those in the highest offices, acts outside the bounds of their constitutional authority. Kamala Harris, by her actions and ineligibility as defined by the 14th Amendment, has vacated her office and forfeited all associated benefits. We, the people, demand adherence to the Constitution and the removal of those who violate its principles. Join us in this peaceful, lawful assertion of our rights and responsibilities. Sign today and help restore the rule of law and the integrity of our government.


Other Articles on the Subject Principles & Purpose of the Natural Born Citizen Limitation by Kris Anne Hall The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”:What Our Framers Knew By Publius Huldah. Natural Born Citizen by Thomas H. Lee, American University Law Review














Was this article helpful?

0 out of 0 liked this article

Still need help? Message Us