By Craig Andresen – The National Patriot and Right Side Patriots on

A few days ago I wrote an article, “Cruz, Rubio, Vattel and the Ineligibility Lies” in nb 1which I put forth the reasons that both Cruz and Rubio are, indeed, eligible to run for and hold the office of president. That article garnered a whole bunch of notice…much of it positive and some negative.

Obviously, neither Trumpers nor birthers liked it and they let me know about it in no uncertain terms but none of them bothered to argue their opinions with facts regardless of how I encouraged them to state their facts. As I said in the article, “Now, if you want me to climb aboard the crazy train of so-called ‘birthers,’ there are only a few things you need to do. Just show me a law, or a definition from our Constitution that makes either Cruz or Rubio Constitutionally ineligible and not only will I ride the crazy train, I’ll sell tickets to it.”

Not a single one took me up on the offer. Not one and why? Because no law, no U.S. Code and not a single definition OF Natural Born Citizen from ANY of our founding documents exists to prove their opinions to be correct.

I even asked them to show me one Supreme Court case that was ON the topic of NBC and they couldn’t do that either because the Supreme Court has never HEARD a case on NBC.

But there was one person who, on the website ‘Patriot Action Network’ posed a very interesting question and one which I feel deserves an in-depth answer.

Here is that question, exactly as it appeared in the comments regarding my article…

nb 2

It’s a valid question and one that many people are asking so…here’s the answer.

Northerner…it is not that nobody has ever tried to get this before the Supreme Court…it has been attempted but, as per their protocol, it is up to the Supreme Court what cases they take on and they have never been inclined to hear a NBC case.

Why not?

Because, the Supreme Court, unless you are a liberal, is not there to make law…it is there to interpret the law and to interpret the law in accordance to a various law’s adherence to the Constitution.

The SCOTUS’ job is to determine whether or not any given law that has been challenged either meets Constitutional muster or fails to meet Constitutional muster and let me provide an example or two of what I mean.nb 3

Let’s say, as an example, congress passes a law that removes our Freedom of Expression and makes it criminal to speak out against our government whenever or wherever we so choose.

Surely, somebody would challenge such a law in court and eventually, somebody would chase it up the ladder all the way to the SCOTUS where the 9 would hear the case and, again…unless a majority of liberal advocate socialist judges presided there, would rule a law banning free speech to be unconstitutional because the Bill of Rights clearly states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Any law passed by congress or any Executive Order signed by any president that would negate any of that which is addressed specifically in our 1st Amendment would be unconstitutional and the law would be stricken from the books immediately.

Here’s another example…

nb 4Let’s say a president decides to take it upon himself or herself, to simply bypass congress and write his or her own laws and mandate them upon We the People as would a penny-ante dictator in some festering cesspool of a 3rd world country…not that such a thing would ever occur (wink, wink…nod, nod) such Executive Orders, which bypass both congress and the separation of powers as clearly stated in our Constitution should be found, if chased up the ladder of our judicial system, to be unconstitutional.

This brings us back to Northerner’s question.

Why doesn’t somebody chase this up the ladder all the way to the Supreme Court?

Well…in order to do so, there would first need to be a definition of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution and clearly, none exists but what does exist in the Constitution is this… Article II Section 1 Clause 5: “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.”

And, also found in the Constitution, is this…Article I, “ALL legislative powers…shall be vested in a Congress.”nb 5

As no definition of NBC was ever written in the Constitution, it was left to Congress to do so and, in 1790, Congress did just that in the Naturalization Act which stated, “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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

In 1795, that particular language was removed from the Naturalization act…by Congress however, future Congresses would again, address the subject and, as per each and every time they did so, up to and including the Act as it exists today, by Act, U.S. law and U.S. codes, those of the circumstance of either Cruz or Rubio are considered Natural Born Citizens.

The reason that SCOTUS has never agreed to hear an NBC case is simple…no law, no Act and no U.S. code ever written by Congress regarding NBC can possibly be found to be unconstitutional as no Constitutional definition OF NBC has ever existed for Congress to have usurped or run afoul against and because, according to Article I, section 8… “Congress shall have power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” thus nb 6leaving it to Congress to decide, as law, the status and definition of all citizens.

But the Trumpers and birthers are all screaming “INTENT,” and what they believe was the INTENT of the Founders and Framers with regard to NBC and in that line of screaming, they employ Vattel’s “Laws of Nations.” What they choose to ignore is that Vattel was writing of how to preserve and extend a monarchy…not a Constitutional Republic and what they seem to want is for the Supreme Court to hear and decide a case based on their interpretation of the Founders and Framers intent.

Also found in our Constitution are the powers vested in the Supreme Court as per Article III, sec. 2 which states, “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.”nb 7

There simply does not exist, within the Constitution, any power given to the Supreme Court to render a decision regarding “intent” of the Founders and Framers. While the high court CAN render decisions on the intent of laws passed by Congress, they cannot render decisions regarding the intent of those who either wrote the laws or the Constitution and I believe we all know what happened with regard to Obamacare when the SOTUS decided on the “intent” and then rewrote the law in accordance to it. It seems that nobody clamoring for the SCOTUS to do that very thing regarding NBC was in favor of them doing it regarding Obamacare as that was an overstep of their Constitutionally restricted power.

However…were the SCOTUS to take up a case of NBC based on the intent of the Founders and Framers several things would have to be taken into account. Did the Founders and Framers, who were in the process of declaring our independence FROM a monarchy, intend to adopt rules precisely meant to preserve and extend a monarchy as matters of U.S. law? That, at best, is highly doubtful. If the contemporaries OF the Founders and Framers believed, as do the Trumpers and birthers today believe, that Vattel’s definition nb 8was the intent of the Founders and Framers, why then did they write the specific language they wrote into the Naturalization Act of 1790? And why, if as today’s Trumpers and birthers claim, that said language was stricken FROM the Naturalization Act of 1790 because they knew it to be in error, did they not replace it WITH Vattel’s language FROM “The Laws of Nations,” when they had the opportunity to do so?

For that matter, if the contemporaries of the Founders and Framers, in 1795, when it would have been relatively easy to do so, considering that the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution had just been ratified in 1791, why did they not simply write an Amendment TO the Constitution employing Vattel’s definition of NBC?

While none of the Founders are currently available to ask, and as their writings aside from our founding documents hold no legal standing as per U.S. law, arguing “intent” could go on forever and yet yield no legally binding conclusions but, the SCOTUS would also have to take into account the better part of a century’s established laws, U.S. codes and legal precedents should they ever decide to tackle “intent” as a case regarding NBC and by all those laws, codes and legal precedents…both Cruz and Rubio would be eligible and the SCOTUS has historically been, and for good reason, loathe to overturn such mountains of existing evidence.nb 9

Sure, legal scholars can be found to take up both sides of the argument but legal precedence can only be found to support the side which embodies the laws and codes on the books. All others are simply matters of opinion and therefore, hold no legal water.

While Trumpers and birthers alike will always attempt to justify their opinion of NBC via cases like Minor v. Happersett or United States v. Wong Kim Ark and use the misguided notion that decisions have been rendered on such cases BY the SCOTUS regarding NBC…it simply isn’t true as such cases do include written OPINIONS by certain members of the Court that reference NBC but none OF those cases was ABOUT NBC and therefore, no DECISION from the SCOTUS ever has been made on NBC. And just to be clear…a written opinion from the SCOTUS does not U.S. law make.

So…what options are left for the Trumpers and the birthers?

They could simply ignore existing laws, U.S. codes and 100 years of legal precedents which would have no legally binding authority and be a step toward anarchy which seems to suite them just fine. They could somehow convince the SCOTUS to write a law defining NBC which in and of itself would be unconstitutional. They could try to convince congress to write and pass a new law and new U.S. codes regarding their opinion of NBC which nb 10would take an act of congress to pass or…they could convene a convention of the states to pen a new Amendment to the Constitution reflecting their opinion of NBC which would take several years to make it through the states to become ratified, the last two of which being the only options which would have legal bearing and neither of which would be accomplished before the primaries or the elections and in the case of the latter of the two…before at least one full term is served by whoever the next president will be.

One thing however, does seem clear, in that the Founders and Framers were acting to prevent anyone who held a political or emotional allegiance to any other country from serving in the highest offices of OUR country and did not intend NBC to be used as a political weapon by one candidate’s supporters against another based on personal choices regarding an election which is exactly what the Trumpers and birthers are doing today.

Just as I asked the Trumpers and birthers to show me a law, a U.S. code or a definition of NBC from any of our founding documents that supports their opinions, I will now ask that they provide any evidence of either political or emotional allegiance, held by either Cruz or Rubio, to any nation other than the United States because if such exists…a case could be made but just like the laws, codes and definition I implored them to produce a few days ago…none does exist.

One last, hard fact remains…as long as we still have a Constitutional Republic, we are a nation of laws and we…We the People…still have the means to change the laws we do not like via the outlines presented IN the Constitution but, if we lose the Republic, due to yetnb 11 another splitting of the vote this November and thus install yet another liberal/socialist at the helm, we run the risk of forever losing our ability to be a government of, by and for the people and that, unfortunately, seems to be the end game of the Trumpers and the birthers. As for myself, I will support my candidate of choice through the primaries but, when a Republican nominee is declared, I will support that nominee whoever it might be because, allowing another liberal/socialist to sit in the White House will end any chance we will ever have to take our country back.



TODAY, Saturday, January 16th, from 11am to 1pm EST, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss Obama’s SOTU address, the Republican debate, and continue their discussion on Ted Cruz’s and Marco Rubio’s eligibility to run for POTUS.

Hope you can tune it at:

And chat with us live at: or go directly to ‘chat’ on our website at: American Patriot Broadcasting network

One thought on “The SCOTUS and NBC

  1. What were the circumstances for these people, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?

Comments are closed.