Geo-political vs Biological: The Constitutional eligibility issue rises again

You might have a wonder why I might use a title to this post as “Geo-political vs Biological”. Well it has to do with the discussion around the eligibility of the President of these United States as listed in Art 2.1.5 of the Constitution, that one being a ‘natural-born citizen’.

Well, there continues to be alotĀ of confusion around who are not eligible but are thought to be; namely Bobbie Jindal, Marco Rubio, & Barack Obama. Okay then, let me try to break it down so you might understand if you think all 3 are eligible.

There are two terms people keep confusing one as equating to the other. One is ‘native born citizen’ and the other is ‘natural born citizen’, confusing the latter as the former. This will explain the title as well.

The term ‘native born citizen’ has to do with Geo-political, borders or countries created by man. As in “born within the boundaries of a country and acquiring citizenship, usually granted by the law of the country”.

Now the term ‘natural born citizen’ gets it own meaning if broken down with definitions. Starting off with the first part is ‘natural’ or ‘being of nature’. And to expand that into “becoming a citizen by the nature of biology, by which being born into citizenship”.

Many try to argue that it only takes 1 parent to be a citizen to have their offspring be a ‘natural born citizen’, but this can be dis proven with the long used term “it takes 2 to tango” if you happen to catch my drift & some thought. “Through the nature of biology to acquire citizenship through the parentage” might be a better way to say it. But also something to think about if you have a child with 2 different ways they can go in their citizenship (each parent is a citizen of a different country), it often divides their loyalty, but yes it may not always be the case.

Dr. Alan Keyes

Dr. Herbert Titus