Constitution's "Natural Born" riddle solved! Read the shocking truth here!

[HerbieHeadley]

"(The adoption of the Constitution) will demonstrate as visibly the finger of Providence as any possible event in the course of human affairs can ever designate it." - George Washington.

"I regard it as the work of the purest patriots and wisest statesmen that ever existed, aided by the smiles of a benignant Providence...it almost appears a Divine interposition in our behalf...." - Daniel Webster.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Here is a letter I wrote to my local newspaper:

May 23, 2011

To the Editor:

The Natural Born Clause in the US Constitution has been much discussed lately, with our President recently releasing his birth certificate. Last August, I wrote a letter to the ******* arguing that the 14th Amendment gives citizenship but does not extend natural born citizen status to those born within the USA. Since then, I have been debating what exactly "natural born" means on internet discussion boards. Through dialectical debate I believe we may have found the answer, and I would like to share it with your readers.

First of all, we must understand that the word "natural" is not a true legal term. It is impossible for human beings to define what is natural legally, because human law is man-made.

If you read the Declaration of Independence, it is obvious the founders of our country believed in a natural law that could be used to supercede human law. When they rebelled against the British Crown, they were breaking the Laws of Man. In order to justify their actions to themselves and to the rest of the world, they invoked the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". This proves their belief in a natural law and a supreme deity who presided over it.

I believe the Framers of the Constitution were citing this law when they used the word "natural" in conjunction with the words "born" and "citizen". They wanted the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God to provide the American people with a President who would be a natural brother to them. They decided not to define definitively for us what they wanted, and instead deferred to God's natural law, probably because as humans they were not qualified to define what was natural.

What was natural for this situation, however, was already written. Being Judeo-Christian men, the Framers believed in God and in his natural law. For them, his law was written into the Holy Bible. I believe the word "natural" is, in a sense, a coded message. It means: "Reference God's Natural Law in this matter. Look in your Bible for the meaning."

So, what does the Holy Bible tell us in this matter? I've searched through the Bible looking for relevent verses. There may be others, but so far I've been able to find two passages that can help us. The first is pretty straightforward and requires no explanation: "Be sure to appoint over you the King the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your own brothers. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not a brother Isrealite." (Deuteronomy 17:15).

The second requires some roundabout thinking, but please bear with me. It describes a father's relationship with his children: "Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate" (Psalm 127:3-5).

This Psalm reveals to us God's Law concerning men, sons, and children: Children are a reward from God to men, sons in particular belong to their fathers, and men should consider them a blessing. A father should teach his son to defend his country.

This is relevant because if children belong to their father, it would logically follow that they would also belong to their father's nation at birth.

All of this enables us to create a Bible-conscious definition of what a Natural Born Citizen is in respect to the Presidency. There are three basic requirements:

1) He must have an American father.
2) His father must teach him to defend America.
3) He must be someone the American People can call a brother.

This definition, I think, is much more natural than our current "born within the borders of the USA" interpretation. It makes no sense to require that a President be born in America, because a person's birthplace has no bearing whatsoever on their ability to be President. A lot of America haters are born in America.

When we view the natural born requirement within the context of God's Natural Law, however, it suddenly begins to make a whole lot of sense. We all know that sons look up to their fathers. If a boy is taught by his father to defend his country, what is that young man going to do when he grows up to become President?

I know the biblical definition would be distasteful to many. But if we want to elect a President who is a natural born leader, someone we can trust to love and fight for us, we shold abide by God's Natural Laws rather than our own. The laws of God are more natural than the laws of men. When it comes to defining what is natural, God knows better than us. He is "Nature's God" after all.

And this, my friends, I believe, is the answer to our riddle.

Mark Penn

Postscript: I think I may have started a new movement here. We'll call ourselves the "Bible Birthers".

What do you think?

I’m a “Bible Birther” with no apologetics!

AMEN!

 

[FaithLikeARock]

There's no such thing as a "Bible Birther" - you're just trying to boost your ridiculous cause by tying it to a religion.

 

[tulc]

I’m a “Bible Birther” with no apologetics!

AMEN!

Ahhh! So you have no Biblical support for being a "Bible Birther"?
tulc(suspected not)

 

[USincognito]

The only people who care about the Constitution and all it's explicit references to the Creator are those who are like-minded with the framers of the USA and it's Constitution - BELIEVING/PRACTICING CHRISTIANS.

I think some of us are still waiting for a list of those "explicit references to the Creator" found in the Constitution.

If the US was founded on anything, it was founded on rebellion. Rebellion against established authority. Opposing--or at the very least questioning--the authority of religion and churches was part of that.

Whaling, cotton, slavery and Manifest Destiny. It's revisionist history to think that your average citizen thought about lofty ideals more frequently than on secular hoilidays. They were too busy trying stuggling to survive economically and eke out an existance.

 

[Lookingupnow]

I think some of us are still waiting for a list of those "explicit references to the Creator" found in the Constitution.



Whaling, cotton, slavery and Manifest Destiny. It's revisionist history to think that your average citizen thought about lofty ideals more frequently than on secular hoilidays. They were too busy trying stuggling to survive economically and eke out an existance.

I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the framework of American life and laws.

It's funny, the American people could write that letter, the Declaration of Independence, to Obama.

 

[new_wine]

This eliminates the first 15 presidents of The Republic.

ALL of these men had fathers born before the Unites States declared its independence.

And if we really want to get sticky the union was formed in 1789. That eliminates Lincoln and Johnson as well. A total of the first 17 presidents not fit to be president.

Good job!

"

1) He must have an American father.

 

[mzungu]

Don't Americans have better things to do like fixing the economy, healthcare, unemployment, etc
​

​

 

[RedDead1981]

I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the framework of American life and laws.

It's funny, the American people could write that letter, the Declaration of Independence, to Obama.

Obama is quartering troops in our houses? He's hiring foreign mercenaries? e's confiscating our ships at sea?

Don't be such a drama llama. There's no comparison.

 

[USincognito]

I was thinking of the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution is the framework of American life and laws.

Actually no. It's merely the basic law of the land.

It's funny, the American people could write that letter, the Declaration of Independence, to Obama.

Really? I'm no big fan of the President's policies, but I don't think you will find many of the listed complaints being an issue today.

 

[mzungu]

Obama is quartering troops in our houses? He's hiring foreign mercenaries? e's confiscating our ships at sea?

Don't be such a drama llama. There's no comparison.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I’m a “Bible Birther” with no apologetics!

AMEN!

And no excuse.

Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin served with time off for good behavior!

 

[tulc]

This eliminates the first 15 presidents of The Republic.

ALL of these men had fathers born before the Unites States declared its independence.

And if we really want to get sticky the union was formed in 1789. That eliminates Lincoln and Johnson as well. A total of the first 17 presidents not fit to be president.

Good job!

Well more then that! been here?
The Seventh U.S. President with a Foreign-Born Parent - United States, myVOA Blog post

Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) is the only president born of two immigrants, both Irish.
Presidents with one immigrant parent are
Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809), whose mother was born in England, James Buchanan (1857-1861) and Chester Arthur (1881-1885), both of whom had Irish fathers, and Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) and Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), whose mothers were born respectively in England and Canada.

tulc(just sayn')

 

[mzungu]

And no excuse.

Lt. Colonel Terry Lakin served with time off for good behavior!

Still this does not change the fact that he committed treason! Terry Lakin acted immaturely and stupidly and should never have been allowed to wear the uniform of an US Officer. The President is (was) his commander in chief. In other countries he would have faced life or the firing squad.

 

[pennmark]

If the US was founded on anything, it was founded on rebellion. Rebellion against established authority. Opposing--or at the very least questioning--the authority of religion and churches was part of that.

The justification for the Founders rebellion rested on God's Natural Law.

 

[pennmark]

"Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."

The "Year of our Lord" was the year of Jesus Christ.

 

[pennmark]

As far as "Natural Born Citizen", that was a political concept that was well known at the time of the writing of the Constitution. There are two main theories of "natural born" that we know were operative at the time of the writing of the Constitution. One was the English Common law definition, which basically is the same as the current US interpretation where any child born in the country is "natural born" -- as opposed to naturalized. And I must point out, to create the original US laws, the Founders basically "borrowed" English Common law -- so there is a strong reason to care about the English common law definition of "natural born citizen". The other theory was that of Vattel, who more or less agreed with Pennmark, that the father must be a citizen.

The Brits had "Natural Born Subjects", not citizens.

 

[pennmark]

Because there is no "mandate" on this issue, the Supreme Court and US law have been the driving factors on what determines a "Natural Born Citizen". And current US law, as well as current Supreme Court precedent, set up "natural born citizenship" by birth in the US or birth to a single parent that is a US citizen.

I understand many of you don't like this but this is current US law. If you don't like it, feel free to petition Congress to change US law and/or to pass a Constitutional Amendment to define "Natural Born Citizen" more to your liking. Beyond that, your opinion of how "natural born citizen" should be defined doesn't matter since it is currently defined by law.

It is not possible for humans to define what is natural. We would be arrogantly overstepping our bounds if we ever chose to do so. I think this is why the writers of the 14th Amendment chose not to use the word "natural". It is also why the Framers of the Constitution chose to defer to God's natural law.

 

[pennmark]

Not much.

I am an American female who was raped and impregnated by a foreign tourist. I chose to not have an abortion and give this child the best I can give. Now you are telling me that my American born child can never be President. I do not care for your Bible birtherism one bit.

A child's natural father is not necessarily the same as the bio-dad. The man who loves and raises a child is the child's natural father.

 

[pennmark]

We all know that, Tulc.

I just wonder where in the USA Penmark lives that he thinks a letter so irrelevant to any locality could get published.

I live in the absolute nicest part of the country. Yes, my letter was published!

 

[pennmark]

Why just an American father?Why must this teaching come from his father?This is wholely subjective and cannot be applied objectively or realistically to anyone. I can't call any president my brother because I don't know them. Neither do you. You can feel brotherly with the figure that gets up and makes speeches, but if that's the case then anyone who can speak and seem easy to get along can be someone you can call 'a brother.'What exactly do you mean 'call a brother'?I also noticed your letter left out the possibility of a woman president.

Human Beings have a natural, deep seated desire to please our fathers. We go through life trying to live up to our Daddy's expectations. Why this is so, God only knows, he made us this way. This is true for women, too. That's why we have the old expression "Daddy's little girl".

I think a brother would be someone raised to be an American.