Skip to content
Share This Post

In this discussion, Dr. SHIVA Ayyadurai, MIT PhD, the Inventor of Email, and in consideration for running for US President, provides a legal SYSTEMS analysis with a renowned legal scholar on why It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL to Prevent a Naturalized US Citizen to Be President.

The original research in this video is made possible by generous contributions from supporters of the Dr.SHIVA Truth Freedom Health® movement. Please contribute so we may continue to bring you such original research, valuable education, and innovative solutions.


Good evening, everyone is Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai. Today we have a really, really important topic that we’re going to talk about.

It’s going to be sort of a legal systems analysis. And I have a legal scholar with me, Paul Clark, Professor Paul Carr, Clark, and I’ll introduce him. But the title of the topic is why it’s unconstitutional to prevent a naturalized citizen.

US citizens become president that’s we’re going to talk about there’s been, this has been widely discussed for many years. But many of you know that I decided to put together an exploratory committee to explore my running for President. I’m a naturalized citizen.

And so the question comes up, why should I be prevented from running? And the reality is, it’s actually unconstitutional to prevent a naturalized citizen to be president. And you’re going to learn why today in the discussion that my friend Paul Clark and I are going to have. So Paul Paul, welcome.

How are you? Thanks. Thanks, you glad to be here? I’m doing well. Yeah.

So Paul, and I recently met online because Paul had done many, many years ago, a very thorough legal analysis of why it’s unconstitutional. So to frame this discussion, as people are joining, we’re going to do the following Agenda, I’m going to give a Paul’s gonna give a little bit of introduction of himself, his background. It’s a it’s a pretty deep and rich background.

And then I’m going to give a little bit of background on many of you know, my electoral RUN FOR US Senate and the other things and my decision to create an exploratory committee to run for US President. And then we’re going to dive deep into the paper Paul wrote, and his analysis, which really lays it out how absurd and frankly, silly it is, that there’s a two tier system between naturalized citizens and native born citizens. So that’s we’re going to talk about today.

So welcome, everyone, we’ll have this discussion with Paul has to end Paul, you got to end at 8pm. Right, I had another commitment at eight. Unfortunately, we may do a follow up, but we want to keep it very, very focused so we can get across these points.

So let’s begin by Paul, please introduce yourself and give a little bit of people on your background, your history and your you know, your sort of your rich history and a bunch of areas. Okay, well, so going back quite a ways back to the 80s. Now, when I was an undergraduate, I was in the reserves in the Marine Corps.

And then when I got out of when I graduated, I should say, I went into the Marine Corps active duty for a couple of years. I was in the Persian Gulf War, in 91. After I got out of the Marine Corps, I went to graduate school at the Catholic University of America got a PhD in philosophy.

And during the summers, I went up to Alaska and worked as a commercial fisherman traveled around Alaska, which I enjoy quite a bit. But anyway, so after I got my PhD, I worked for a few years for a nonprofit organization that actually dealt with some of the issues that we’ve been talking about some legal issues. But then I went to law school and went to University of Chicago Law School, got my law degree.

And after law school, I clerked for State Supreme Court and Federal Court of Appeals. And then I worked for the public defender in Alaska for several years. Then.

Since then, I’ve been in basically private practice, and worked for a couple of different law firms. And for the last 10 years or so, I’ve had my own firm and I’ve also been teaching, I’m an adjunct professor at Hudson County Community College. So I’ve been practicing law and teaching for about the last 10 years.

So that kind of bring you up to speed on my whole history. I think it’s but Paul, you’ve also clerked, you clerked at the Supreme Court of Alaska and also the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Right? Correct.

Yeah. And so those are not no small feats. But so So Paul, just briefly to let the audience know how I got involved in this in our discussion, very briefly, people know that I’ve had a rich history in science, engineering, inventing, but also politics as an activist.

I’ve been an activist since I was a 1617 year old kid. I broke from the left and right narrative many, many years ago. I never thought I’d participate in electoral politics as I come to the conclusion that the the system was essentially created to make sure that only the insiders get in.

But anyway, in 2016, I decided to run against someone called Elizabeth Warren and our campaign slogan was only the real Indian can defeat the fake Indian, which took off. It had it had a lot of play. We, you couldn’t leave Massachusetts without seeing a picture of me and Elizabeth Warren, with that sign and she was forced.

We’re the ones who forced her to take that DNA test. It wasn’t Trump. Trump took credit for it, but is it was We Who did that and they had to sprinklin I think some Peruvian genes even get her to one out of 1048.

But anyway, after that, we decided we’d run as Republicans and you would think the Republican Party would embrace someone like me, having come bottoms up. But in the Republican primary, they decided to run it. Someone, they recruited someone to run against me, primarily because we were a bottoms up movement, we had 3000 volunteers on the ground, we had 25,000 lawn signs.

And by all accounts on September 1 2020, the goal was ever even the Republicans admitted that I was going to win. And then people can read about it, we expose the election fraud of Massachusetts, leading us to understand that Twitter had a backdoor portal, which led to me being D platformed. And then I was recently put back on December 2020.

And nothing has frankly changed with Elon Musk. Okay. He’s just unfortunate, worst version of it hiding under the cover of free speech.

But regardless, I’ve had whenever I do my lies, people today Dr. Schubert, you should run for president, you know, the Senate is sort of it’s too small of a seat, you have a global reach. And over the last five years, we’ve created a movement called Truth, Freedom health, which really teaches people the science of systems to look beyond left and right, and take a systems approach and really look at things rationally.

And that’s what we have about 350,000 people all over the planet, over 200 300 million people know about our movement. So. So given all the feedback, I got Paul, I said, Well, why should I run for president? You know, and I always have felt that it never made sense.

You know, it’s like the stigma of being a second class citizen. And so I started doing research. And Michael Dorf, you know, people go read on Wikipedia.

He says, Oh, well, you know, this will ultimately have to be settled through a political process, because there are a lot of gray areas. And then I got referred to your paper. And I thought it was the most cogent legal analysis that was done, which really lays it out how this is really a violation of, you know, equal protection, and essentially due process.

So I thought we’d walk through your paper, Paul. And and I think, first of all, I thought it would be good for people to understand, as I know, you started what you said, in your thesis work looking at the 11th amendment that led to you through a process to look at the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment. But maybe we can start with Paul, we had an earlier discussion.

I think the key thing is if you can point out that the Constitution is constantly changing, right, right. And that’s something we all need to embrace and accept. So maybe you can talk about that, Paul, the Constitution, how it sort of came to be, you know, very briefly leading to the Fifth Amendment.

Right. So whether you like it or not, frankly, the Constitution is constantly being reinterpreted, right. I mean, that’s just how it’s been really from the beginning.

In fact, we, you know, when we talk about the 11th Amendment, so rather than just those people that aren’t familiar with love with the men basically says, an individual cannot sue a state in federal court. Right, Mr. cymbals, I mean, we could give you the exact quote, but that’s the bottom line now.

And again, we’re one of the patients the Constitution is changing. So when the Constitution was first adopted, the Federalists assured everyone that states were sovereign, they couldn’t be sued in federal court. This was a big concern, because anti Federalists in particular, those people were skeptical about the Constitution.

Were concerned that the Constitution gave the federal government too much power. And they were concerned about the federal courts. And the Federalist said, courts will never tell states what to do.

Don’t worry about it states are sovereign. Well, there was a case just a couple of years after the Constitution was adopted. It was it was called Chisholm versus Georgia, with this gentleman Chisholm, Sue Georgia, and basically got a judgment against Georgia.

And there was outrage across the country, and they passed the 11th Amendment, which was, of course, the first amendment after the call, he sued them in federal court, right. He sued. Yeah, he actually tried to sue them in different places, but he, he sued them in federal court, sue them in federal court, and supposedly won.

And now there was there was a famous dissent by one of the justices justice Rendell, but anyway, but there was a famous dissent. And but in any event, the long the short of it was just to show you how that how this works. Even though the Constitution appeared to say states were sovereign, you couldn’t sue states in federal court.

Almost immediately, there was such a thing such a thing happened. And there was an outrage. The country said, Wait a minute, how can you do this? And the 11th amendment was quickly adopted to say no, you can’t sue states in federal court.

Now, the funny thing is, again, about the 11th Amendment, it doesn’t say you can’t sue states and federal courts it says the constitution should not be interpreted to be to mean that you can sue states and federal courts. So it’s a little funny the way they did it because they didn’t want to concede that Chisholm versus Georgia was right. They thought it was wrong.

They wanted to sort of clarify this. So but again, it’s just one example of how these things go back and forth. We have one understanding and the court reinterprets it, then there’s an amendment passed.

And then the courts have chipped away at the 11th amendment. So again, you may and everyone probably thinks, Well, sure, you can sue states and federal court. No, what you do is you sue the governor in federal court.

So if you want to sue a state, you just don’t name, you know, the state of New Jersey, you name the governor of New Jersey, and you said, what’s not a suit against the state’s suit against the governor. And so that’s the way they’ve kind of played these games. But again, the point is, it’s constantly evolving, right.

So so that, you know, the court we interprets things. And then political process plays to a certain way and certain things happen. And one of the areas, of course, is this concept of due process.

Now, due process is very, very old. The main thing you’ve talked about the 11th Amendment, I just want to the reason you brought up that 11th amendment is to just say, look, the Constitution itself evolves, right, and what they have about an amendment at one point can actually change over time. But the key point is you’re making aware that that law is a living organism.

It’s not just fixed fossilized at some point in time. It’s constantly changing. That’s a constant.

Yeah. And constitutional law in particular. Now, some areas of law never change.

Laws been the same for the last 500 years. But constitutional law is constantly changing and evolving over time as again, new decisions come out. I mean, again, like, for instance, we’ve seen about abortion law, and again, what side you’re on doesn’t matter.

But the point is, you know, the Court has interpreted abortion one way than another than another way they go back and forth. So this is just the way it is whether you like it or not, you know, that’s the way our legal system has worked since the very beginning. And so that’s just the reality.

Right? So you know, there’s never any sort of settled issues, there’s always somebody can always come back and say, Well, wait a minute, we want to take another look at it. So you’re right, it is an evolved kind of an evolving organism, as you put it. So now, let’s go to the fifth Fifth Amendment in that context, Paul, go ahead.

Yeah, so So I say the Fifth Amendment says that no one shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process. This is called the due process clause. Now there’s other sections of the Fifth Amendment.

But in any event, we’re saying this idea of due process is itself a very fluid concept. In fact, the Supreme Court has said due process means the process that is due in certain circumstances, and given the type of interest that’s at stake. So if the interest is greater, you’re entitled to more process, if the interest is less, you should have a less serious.

And again, this is very fluid kind of a judgment call. nobody quite knows. But again, I was starting to say it’s it’s a very ancient idea, really, in fact, it goes back at least the Magna Carta, if it goes back even further, but it goes back to Roman law, right.

I mean, the Romans had this idea that there were certain processes or procedures that needed to be followed for any kind of system that called itself a legal system that purported to you know, follow rules. So one of the famous examples of this, the Romans believed that part of due process was people had to be informed about laws, you couldn’t have secret laws, you couldn’t pass a law and keep it a secret, and then prosecute somebody for doing something that they couldn’t have known, was illegal. And that’s actually a big issue today, because we have 1000s and 1000s of laws, and there’s so many of them, you can’t even know what’s legal, illegal, illegal anymore.

But anyway, so the Romans had this idea that we need to tell people what the law is. So that tradition in ancient Rome, was they would post the laws in the marketplace. Anybody who wanted to know could go to the marketplace, right? In Rome.

And you’d look at the laws and you can say, Okay, well, oh, gee, it’s illegal, and you know, blah, blah, blah. Now, back then the legal system was much more easy than it is today that we’re in, you know, 10 million laws in the backend. But anyway, but so, so you go to the marketplace, and you’d look and you could read the law.

Now, if you were citizen, everyone that lived in Rome, if you read Latin, you could go and you could read the back. So what are the things that started to be done? There’s stories told about Nero and calendula. Some of these Emperor’s even they figure they had to follow due process.

So what would they do is they would put the new law that they wanted to pass in little tiny type or you know, print and put it on a piece of parchment and they’d climb up on a ladder and post it so high on the wall that nobody could read it. And they’d say, we’ve given the citizens due process after all, we posted law on the floor. They post some some soldiers at the bottom of the wall and make sure nobody climbed up so they can actually read what was written on the laws.

And then of course, the you know, calendula. Again click Isla Nero are the ones that’s accused of this, that allegedly they did this. And then they go and they confiscate your property, they say you violated the law, because you know, we, I passed this new edict that says, you know, you can’t sell whatever, you can’t sell weed on Sundays or something.

Again, I’m just making up the example. But yeah, and then they’d confiscate the property. And so the key thing here, Paul’s due process is something that’s existed for time immemorial.

Now, this is a basic idea, it’s like, well, and that you as a citizen of some Rome, or United States, or whatever it is, have certain rights to be told how you’re going, how the law will, will treat you. They wouldn’t have called it a right back then. But anyway, but there were certain processes and procedures, that was basic to any legal system.

So that’s the basic idea of due process. And that’s a fifth amendment. And that’s really what the Fifth Amendment instantiates.

Right. Right. So so when the Fifth Amendment was first passed, this was really trying to make explicit this very ancient idea.

And And again, a little bit of a background to this. So of course, there was no originally there was no bill of rights in the Constitution. And the Federalists, the people that passed the originally passed the Constitution, so well, we don’t need this.

They said, Look, due process, of course, due process, everybody knows that. That’s been around for forever. We all know that people are entitled to due process.

Nobody denies that. But the anti Federalists said, No, we want an explicit we want something, an amendment that says that the government will not take away your property without due and Paul just educationally for the the Federalist by and large, we’re into like a big centralized government. The anti Federalists were into state rights.

And basically, you know, the concept of decentralization by and large. Well, a little bit again, it’s it’s a little bit anachronistic to speak of it that way, because, I mean, the central government we have today, I mean, you know, the the Federalist, you know, back then would have been nothing shocked by the government today. But by and large is that the prior to our Constitution, of course, we had the Articles of Confederation, the articles Confederation went into effect in 1781.

And the the, the anti Federalists, so one side thought the articles were great, they wanted to stick with the articles, basically, they thought that was fine, the Federalists wanted a stronger central government, they wanted a system that would allow more power, essentially. So under the Articles, people, they voted by states. And so Congress existed, Congress passed laws, but Congress voted by state, so and you had to get the vote of nine states to pass a law, it was hard to get nine states out, you know, out of out of 13, right, so you had to have more than a majority.

So it wasn’t easy to get nine states. The new constitution, of course, voted by individuals, and you had you know, and you didn’t vote by state anymore, you voted by individual, so it was easier, and you only need a simple majority for most things, right. So again, the basic the new constitution did provide for the Federalist Society would be it would be stronger, it’d be easier to respond to things.

And obviously, we also had a much stronger president, under the Articles. You know, the President of the Senate was much weaker than today. It wasn’t the kind of, you know, very powerful president, although, again, our presidency is much more powerful than then they would have thought back then.

But anyway, so yeah, so basically, the idea was, the anti Federalists just wanted to stick with the articles Confederation, the Federalists wanted a new constitution that would give essentially more power and control to the federal government. You know, but again, they were still basically wanted more or less decentralized. So this was this was the dispute back in the 1780s, in the late 1780s.

So again, this is how the Fifth Amendment comes about. The the anti Federalists say we think there’s too much power to the central government. And we want to at least have some assurances that the federal government is not going to take more power than then it can get they know that they should have.

And so one of these provisions was the Fifth Amendment. And the Fifth Amendment again, has a new a several different provisions. But the the one you were talking about is called the due process clause.

It says, the government shall not deprive any person of life, liberty property without due process. And again, that wasn’t really all that controversial was a question Do we need it or not? But nobody at the time thought that was a crazy idea. Well, of course, people have due process.

Now. So So again, the basic idea, though, again, of the argument of the the natural born citizens clause, and again, I’ll get into more specifics, but just to give you the quick overview, right. So Article Two of the Constitution involves the powers of the president.

So Article One is the Congress Article Two is the President Article Three is the courts right? So Article Two also sets the qualifications for President. So the qualifications for president says that the President, only a, a natural, natural born citizen, or someone who’s whose was at the time was a citizen of the United States is eligible to be president. Right.

So again, we call it the natural born citizens clause, it says that and that basically a naturalized citizen can’t be president. Now, the Fifth Amendment has been interpreted to prohibit discrimination based upon national origin and to and to prohibit discriminating or treating people differently based on whether there are natural born citizens or naturalized citizens. And again, we can get into more why they came to that.

But the bottom line is the Supreme Court has said, consistently now for 75 years, the Fifth Amendment does not allow either the States or the federal government to treat naturalized citizens and natural born citizens differently. You can’t do that that’s contrary to the Fifth Amendment. So again, the basic idea is, well, if Article Two says you treat naturalized citizens and natural born citizens differently, well, the Fifth Amendment, which amended the Constitution says, You can’t do that, well, then you can’t do that anymore.

So that’s the basic idea. If the Fifth Amendment prohibits that kind of discrimination, then it doesn’t allow the either the federal government or the states to do it, regardless of what Article Two says. So again, that’s the basic week, again, we get into more specifics of how they came to that.

But that’s the basic idea, just to just to sort of summarize some of the history prior to 17, ADEA. Before the Constitution really came to be, right. We had the Articles of Confederation, right? Yes.

Florida and around 17. Right. It was how these states started coming together.

And they laid out some framework for how they would work together. Right. Yeah, that was the the first constitution was the Articles of Confederation.

And we have to remember, just to give the milieu of that time, the country had gone through a Revolutionary War. You know, it’s a fledgling democracy, it’s an infant democracy, right? It’s not even you couldn’t even say was sort of a full set, you know, government, a nation, it was just start, it was sort of a something that’s coming out of its nest in some ways, right. And so obviously, there were concerns that you would have, you know, the British are whoever it was seizing power coming back into power in several ways, right? Yes.

But about 15 years later, some some time later, right. 1787, the Constitution comes to be right with its bill of rights and these amendments that you’re referring to the Bill of Rights, he comes in a couple of years later, but we are a couple of years later, but but the point is that we had this thing called the Articles of Confederation, which is very, very old, written at a time when this democracy is just emerging. It’s a infant democracy.

And they had this provision Article Two, which define the qualifications of a president it’s that it has to be a natural born person, and or people who are given citizenship through some citizenship citizenship, right, that you were already citizens at the time that the new constitution, right, fast that now you go to the Constitution comes into be you have the Fifth Amendment. And what you’re referring to is that because we go to the core of our discussion today that things are evolving, right interpretation takes place a law is a moving organism. By 1950s, as you I brought up the document that the scholarly document that you wrote, which is limiting the president to Natural Born citizens violates due process in that document, you articulate the fact that there were various important precedents, the bowling.

Yes. versus more bowling versus short, that was a very, very important milestone in constitutional law relative to this discussion, because it basically said that the interpretation was that you can, it was really the hallmark of saying you cannot discriminate people by their national origin. Correct.

Right. And maybe can and so that really and then there were several other Supreme Court rulings based on that, right, fundamentally, as you share in this document, that it basically connected the Fifth Amendment, which was due process with the 14th Amendment right, which is about equal protection at the state level, and it basically in some ways equated them right. Due Process implicitly implies equal protection in the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment equal protection also implies due process at the state level basically equated, right, great.

It was sort of a reversible equation in some ways. Yeah. Let me let me try now let me try to explain a little more how that how that came about.

So again, the Fifth Amendment does not say anything about equal protection. The Fifth Amendment says that the federal government may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process. Now, after the Civil War, in 1868, the 14th Amendment is passed.

Now, the 14th Amendment also says is identical to the Fifth Amendment. It says No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process, and then adds nor shall any state deny any person equal protection of the law. So we have so we have one section that’s identical to the Fifth Amendment a new new section that’s that goes beyond what’s at least explicit in the Fifth Amendment, which is this equal protection clause? Now, initially, in fact, for nearly the entire 19th century, Congress passed lots of statutes discriminating against people on the basis of national origin.

Again, not the no one’s defending it, or, you know, whatever. But that’s just reality. I mean, there were, I think, give it gives, give them some examples, Paul, like blacks could not be citizens, right.

So so under the Citizenship Act of 1790, the very same people who passed the Fifth Amendment while they were passing the Fifth Amendment, they were also passing the Citizenship Act. So the first Citizenship Act passed on a new constitution. And isn’t, you know, after the articles went out, the Citizenship Act of 1790 specifically said that only whites could become naturalized citizens, the you know, a non whites were not permitted to become US citizens under the citizens protective 79.

I mean, it’s just what it said, again, I’m not here to defend it, obviously, that we see today, how could they think that but that’s what they said, the very same Congress to pass the Fifth Amendment said this. And then we also had the Chinese exclusion laws, and again, under the Citizenship Act of 7090. Again, non whites cannot be citizens, Chinese and Japanese and Africans and you know, all these other couldn’t be citizens.

So at the time, they did not think that the Fifth Amendment did prohibit discrimination based upon, you know, race or national origin. Now, again, what changes with the 14th amendments, the 14th Amendment explicitly says that the states have to provide both due process and equal protection. So what happens is by 1954, in this very important case, one of the most important cases in history Boeing vs.

Sharpe, in fact, it was it was decided the same time as Brown versus Board of Education. We all know that as well. One of the most important cases, Brown versus Board of Education said that states cannot discriminate against people on the basis of race.

Right? Very, very famous case. So the Supreme Court says, Well, wait a minute, we how, again, this kind of the thinking, right? How can we say the states can’t discriminate, but allow the federal government to discriminate this? Well, that doesn’t we can’t do that. So what the Supreme Court says in 1954, in bowling vs.

Sharp is, well, in 1968, we had this thing called the 14th Amendment, it specifically equates equal protection with due process. So even though and this is essentially what almost exclusively with the court says even though the Fifth Amendment does not mention equal protection, we now understand the equal protection and due process are inextricably linked. So therefore, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, we the Supreme Court in 1954, now interpret, to include equal protection of everybody.

Now, again, we get into what is protection, but the long and the short of it was they said equal protection means that at very least, you can’t discriminate against people based upon race or national origin. And of course, that also included will later again, there was a case about 10 years later that we can talk about Schneider versus Rusk, that, that to citizen versus non citizen, essentially, they said discriminating against naturalized citizens treating them as second class citizens is is discriminating based upon national origin basically, and that’s illegal. We already said in a bowling vs.

Sharp, the federal government can’t do that. And so in Schneider case, they there was there was a statute that had tried to revoke citizenship for Natural Born citizens if they lived abroad. So in other words, you come United States, you become a naturalized citizen, you move someplace else, they were going to revoke the citizenship, but they said, Well, wait a minute.

Congress can’t revoke your citizenship. They so the implication was easy. There was the stigma, that natural lies, citizens were somehow less trustworthy, right.

They were really second class citizens under this statute. And the Supreme Court again, in the Schneider cases, that’s unconstitutional and violates the Fifth Amendment to discriminate against people because they are naturalized citizens. They said you have to treat Natural Born citizens naturalized citizens the same, you can’t discriminate them.

that just that Schneider ruling combined with bowling essentially sort of hits us out of the park, it pretty much nails it that you cannot have a two class citizenship. Right, exactly. That’s what they say.

I mean, it’s very. Yeah, that’s why I thought your analysis of that was right on. I mean, it just nails it.

Right. So, you know, if if, if that is the law, and that is the law now, again, Congress, you know, could could try and pass a constitutional amendment. There’s other you know, there’s other ways you could go about it.

But as the law currently exists, as the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment, it’s very clear. You can’t the federal government cannot discriminate on the basis of national origin or, you know, citizen naturalized versus citizen by birth. And if that’s true, and again, Fifth Amendment, a man’s earlier constitution, if there’s a dispute between the unamended constitution and The Amended Constitution, of course, the amendment takes precedence.

You have, again, you know, some of the examples that talked about like, you know, we for a while we had the Prohibition Amendment, but it was repealed, there was a later amendment that repealed the prohibition. Right. And so, you know, amendments, amended earlier constitution.

So it’s really not, you know, shocking, that we find that a later part of the constitution will change something that happened earlier. So really, that’s that’s the simple argument that Article Two says, Only naturalized our natural born citizens can be president. But the Fifth Amendment says that’s, that’s that’s illegal.

It says you can’t do that. And so again, it’s very straightforward. So, you know, this has obviously never gone to the Supreme Court.

This issue. I don’t think it’s ever been addressed by a court of appeals. As far as I know, I haven’t I haven’t looked recently unless something happened last few weeks.

I haven’t heard about it. I don’t think I think it would have heard about it. There’s been a couple of cases at the district court level that have kind of toyed with the idea, but they haven’t gotten very far.

But again, the the president at this point seems to be quite clear that the so called Natural Born citizens clause is unconstitutional, it violates the Fifth Amendment, and is unenforceable and should not be enforced. So if someone wanted to, you know, run for president who’s a naturalized citizens, or a naturalized citizen, he or she should not be treated as a second class citizen. In fact, I talked about in my article, the courts often say we have this idea law of standing.

So standing means that you’re able to stand up and say, Hey, I object I don’t like this, you know, what, you can challenge something, right. So generally, to have standing, a law has to affect you in some way. So they, the Supreme Court has said repeatedly in discriminatory type of laws, that discriminatory laws stigmatize an entire class of people.

And they’ve said repeatedly, people can stand up and say, Hey, wait a minute, this law stigmatizes me, this law should be thrown out. And that’s really all it takes in this context, to you know, to get have standing. But obviously, also, if someone was interested in running for, you know, running for President, that would even give them even more standing.

Because you can say, well, now, it really affects me because I want to, you know, run for office, and I’m not being allowed to do that, because of, you know, proud, presumably, you know, if someone were to try and get on the ballot, and that was, you know, and probably your viewers might not know, you know, to get on the ballot, you have to go state by state and have different qualifications. And I’ve no doubt that many states will just not allow a non citizen to get on the ballot, it seems sorry, you don’t meet the qualification, we’re not going to allow you to get on even if you have all the signatures. So a lot of states, you need a certain number of signatures, you know, maybe 3000 5000, whatever it is, but you can have all the signatures, and they the Secretary of State’s might well, second again, I can well imagine, just say no, we’re not gonna let you be on the ballot, because you’re not a citizen.

And clearly, that would give a person even greater standing. But as I said, I don’t know you even need to go that far. One needs to go that far.

I think a person could have standing just by being a second class citizen. Right. Entry, right.

I think what’s interesting is, I mean, this is sort of an aside. But, you know, if you go back to the origins 250, some odd years ago, when that Article Two was put in place, and you know, we can go discuss it, the details of the history, but by and large, the sort of the broad swath of this was to make sure, let’s say the British some noblemen or some Prince could not get back into power, you know, they had to be natural born. Right.

What’s sort of ironic is when we look at the two idiots Megan and who’s the other idiot, Prince Harry, we’re sitting here, and, you know, they they sort of play these two games, oh, they are against the monarchy, but yet a couple of weeks ago, they said that they want to make sure that their children who were born here I think one of them was born here will have the title of Prince and Princess. Yeah. So just think about what this means.

This means For that it’s likely a Prince of England, or princess could run for office and get the presidency. But I couldn’t run for office who’s actually, you know, a naturalized citizen. It sort of would be very ironic if that happened because it would be antithetical, identical to what the founders wanted.

They didn’t want noble people being in power, right. Are the elites. Yeah, it’s really silly.

In fact, I mean, frankly, I suspect, I mean, I predict I predict, I think prince or king Charles will be the last king of England. I really think it’d be the last one. Yeah, you’d be ironic because King Charles the First was, of course, beheaded and died.

Oh, that’s right. And so Charles, and Charles, the second was the guy that brought back was the guy that replaced Charles the First we had his head cut off. Right.

So it would be it would be a ironic footnote, the history of King Charles the third, I don’t think can be beheaded, but I think he may well be the last king. You may be the end. Yeah, but that’s an aside.

But yeah, so would you say is right, I mean, it’s remarkably silly to imagine that, you know, some Prince could run for president, but you know, an actual citizens lived here, you know, his whole life, or, you know, almost your whole life can’t run. But I will say just just say, again, to express why this was the case that we don’t exactly know. So, so.

So the the actual meeting where the Constitution is put together, James Madison, was the secretary of the Constitutional Convention. And this is, this isn’t 1778 8779 convention is in Philadelphia, 1787. And James Madison is the Secretary, he takes the notes.

Well, he doesn’t write everything now. Though, there, there are gaps. We don’t exactly know why this was put in, we don’t have we don’t have a clear record.

The story is that that many people were afraid that some nobleman from England would come over. And there was actually support for this, believe it or not, there actually were Americans that thought it would be a good idea to bring over some prints, you know, and make him king. And so the United States can have a king like everybody else.

So anyway, but there was actually some there was some support for this. And that’s just a minority view. Most people didn’t want this.

And it appears that, you know, the majority said, well, let’s just head that off at the pass. Let’s just make sure. First of all, we don’t want a king and we don’t want to have, you know, some nobleman, the House of Orange Juice.

I think this is one of the plants. The House of Orange was the royal line in the Netherlands. And of course, William of Orange had come over and become King Mary in England and come over become king.

Back in, I think seven well after after the revolution of 1688. Right. So they had brought a king over from the Netherlands, to become king of England to marry Queen Mary Halima.

Anyway, so they’re actually Americans thought that’d be great. They said, You know what, let’s go over to Europe and find somebody like that and bring them over. And other viewers that No, no, no, no, no.

And then other people thought, Well, wait a minute, what if one of these guys comes over here and runs for president? Now? Again, this is this is this is the, the standard line? Again, we don’t entirely know. But that seems to be what they were thinking. Now.

Now, again, obviously, you know, maybe that was a concern at the time, obviously, today, that’s just remarkably silly. I mean, nobody’s gonna, you know, let’s get the, you know, the King of Sweden to have, you know, his son, come over here and, and run for president. I mean, that’s, that’s just not anything, I think.

I mean, Paul, for me, from a practical standpoint, there’s 22 million naturalized citizens in the United States. And if you think about every one of us is an immigrant, ultimately, every one of us, right, you can even argue the Native Americans are immigrants. They came from Siberia, right? Go.

Right, right, right. But the point is everyone. And if you look at the values, I mean, this is sort of my position on this.

When people came in on the Mayflower where my parents came, it’s a pretty significant decision to leave your country of origin and go to another country, you don’t find Americans leaving the United States and going to Vietnam and becoming citizens or to India or to China, right. But you have this huge influx of people wanting to come to this country. And it’s a significant decision that you make, because you’re giving up your family, etc.

You come here, whether it was your father’s father’s father, right, everyone, all of us, ultimately are immigrants or children of immigrants. And I would argue that that value system is at the core of what makes America America, because you’re coming together, you want to build a nation, you’re leaving something behind. And you’re coming here in some ways to the unknown, and you want to create something, right.

And in some ways, not allowing a naturalized citizen to be president. In some ways. You’re losing this huge asset about a whole value system that exists.

You know, I think you’re right. In fact, I mean, I’ve been reading recently some of the, you know, the culture of new immigrants, they tend to be harder working, they tend to be much more patriotic. Then Natural Born citizens.

You know, again, some of some of the studies that I’ve been looking at just because I teach another class that I’ve been reading some of these, please send those to me. I’d like to see those. Yeah, yeah, we’ve been talking about, in fact, I’m gonna have to go since I said no.

But anyway, it’s interesting that people have done studies have indicated that again, the naturalized citizens are much harder working much more connected, much more patriotic, American citizens often think, well, they think they’re entitled, they’re just gonna go I’m here, I’m a citizen, I can do whatever I want, I can just lay around and do nothing and collect, you know, collect a welfare check. Immigrants typically don’t think that way. They don’t think oh, gee, I get to do nothing.

I get to know I need to work I came to this country don’t build this country. So I think that actually, in terms of the culture, the attitude that immigrants and children of immigrants tend to bring is actually much more positive than a lot of people who you know, can trace their, their citizenship back 10 generations, but they think they can lay around and do nothing. And they’re entitled, just because, you know, their their ancestors came over on the Mayflower.

So So I think there’s, there’s definitely something to that. I mean, there’s, you know, there’s, there’s, there’s studies, and there’s, you know, evidence to back you up on I mean, there’s Paul, just just, I know, you have to get going, I’ll make this last point, a personal note, you know, I came here in 1970, I was seven years old, it was snowing, I had shorts on landed at Kennedy, and he never saw snow. Five years later, I went back to India to visit my grandparents.

And that’s when I saw the stark difference, going back to that little village in India with my grandparents had no shoes, you know, their poor village farmers. And I realized in 24 hours, I would be in the United States back home. And that’s when I made a decision, wow, I better do something of some value, or I was going to be a parasite.

Because I we afford it so much a whole new world that my grandparents or their grandparents never afford this. I’ve worked my butt off, right. And it comes from knowing this difference.

So if you’re born here, some people don’t even know the value of the First Amendment anymore. Exactly. Or the second amendment or any of these amendments, and they’re willing to be bamboozled.

You know, I’ve been tweeting away since I got back on Twitter, on Elon Musk on the fact that he allows the government’s backdoor portal to be there and Twitter to point on people like oh, well, it’s a little bit better than it was before. Well, not really, because you think it’s better, it’s actually worse because the censorship is still taking place. To Elon Musk, world free speech does not equal free reach.

Right? So it’s a very sophisticated way of censorship. Twitter 2.0, Silicon Valley basically said, well, we better put a new face.

But it’s basically old wine new bottle, you know? Well, I’m sorry to hear that. I was hopeful that it would be better but no, no, because I can see it, I can see the shadow banning, because of the fact that I’m one of the few people’s actually bringing up the fact that government has a backdoor portal into Twitter, and Musk has not addressed that issue. And he was point blank asked that, Hey, Dr.

Shiva, Dre found this in his lawsuit, what are you going to do four months ago? He said, I’ll get back to you on that. He’s done nothing. But think about Elon Musk where government ends and Elon Musk begins.

Nobody knows. So he’s a wonderful front face to act like free speech. But the bottom line is, I think in the United States with social media, the First Amendment is essentially been obliterated.

It’s government controlled media and a much more consolidated way. Yeah, well, it’s definitely. Yeah, I mean, again, enough time to get into it.

But I’m very concerned that, yeah, but I’m saying as an immigrant, I think we have to fight for that. And I see people willing to sort of, sort of let go and massage it away. And you can’t, because that’s what made this country so significantly different than any other country on the planet.

Right. And so anyway, listen, Paul, thank you so much. We should do a follow up.

Yeah. Thank you left to do it again. Okay.

Thank you. Best of luck. Talk to you soon.

Thank you. So anyway, everyone. That was Paul Clark, who I met recently, Paul’s a legal scholar who wrote this wonderful piece that I’ll share right here.

And it’s a really deep analysis, as many of you know, and I’ve represented my self in federal courts, I was reading his piece, and it’s called limiting the presidency to Natural Born citizens violates due process. And the reason I wanted to do this, because, as you know, we have an exploratory committee really looking at my running for president. And a number of you have said that I run for that I seek that presidency.

See, many of you know, you know, we had so many victories and masters, I could argue that we actually, quote unquote, won the Senate seat because we expose the malfeasance in Massachusetts. We’re the ones who expose the election systems fraud. The fundamentals of that were the ones who started the fire Fauci campaign were the ones in 2020, who expose the fact that that the entire system of relationship between government and big tech is so unified and the fact that We really have lost freedom in this country.

So we expose that point blank during our Senate campaign, and we expose the entire election systems issue. So I would argue that we had many victories. And Massachusetts is in many ways the swamp the sewer that feeds the swamp.

So Mike, considering running for president is really to take this national, right and in many ways global, and it’s to give every citizen in the United States and for that matter, people all over the world to know that there there’s someone like me, who has a proven fighter, an engineer and inventor that ultimately isn’t this the kind of person we want running. You know, the, the quote, unquote, freest country in the world are heading that up, okay, at least in the executive branch. So that’s why I’m doing this deep legal analysis on this.

Because as many of you know, when I make a decision to do something, I go do it all the way. And then we have so many of you supporting us, we at least know a couple 100 million people over that all over the world watched what occurred in Massachusetts, and we taught people and we know right now that the scumbag known as Elon Musk is absolutely shadow banning me. I mean, look at this 135 Viewers, we have a couple 1000 Viewers, and all social media is Shadow banning me, because we’re our movement, the system that we created for truth, freedom and health is a real threat to those in power because we are not beholden to the left or the right.

We’re not beholden to the Republicans or Democrats. We’re an independent bottoms up movement. And that’s what they fear.

In response to an independent bottoms up movement. They create their top down facsimiles, right, so they found a bunch of brown people, and they give them airtime, but they will not give me airtime because they know if I got airtime on mainstream media, we would win over so many people because they would see the real thing. So they keep putting these fake brown people now or they delay the truth like with Tucker Carlson.

He didn’t speak anything about the backdoor portal in 2020. Robert Kennedy, another scumbag didn’t say anything about fire Fauci in 2020. He waited until his book came out, okay.

And that’s what these guys do. It is our movement that always speaks the truth. And that’s the kind of leadership I believe that the United States needs.

Because you have all these people who are, you know, Manchurian candidates, you know, we’ve seen what happened with Twitter, Twitter, 1.0 was blatantly sent. Since Oriole right so now they brought in scumbag musk.

He’s a complete coward. He hides from me. But he’s got his algorithm in place.

Look, I used to write software, I know how these algorithms work, you can literally see every day they remove little by little about 100 of my followers, and they shadow ban me. So 300,000 people per day who used to be able to see me can’t even see my tweets. That’s how afraid they are of our movement.

And I’m going to mark my words, a future is not going to be social media with these dweebs running it Mark Zuckerberg, douche bag, or Elon Musk, or any of these people, it’s going to be us building a movement bottoms up. So if I decide to run for president, I expect all of you to help build this bottoms up movement, which will be offline because you cannot do our movement online because they are so fearful of us. So be ready for that.

But the bottom line is when you look at the legal analysis, given the Constitution evolves, it is absolutely not only against the Constitution, but frankly, creating a caste system to saying a naturalized citizen cannot run for president but an native born citizen can the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment have as a Professor Clark, as shown here, completely demolishes that. And I have every right to run for president if I choose to do that. And anyone who prevents me is going to face you know, Fury from our movement.

So that’s what we should be ready for. So we’ll keep you abreast of what’s going to take place. But those of you who want to see us running for president, please put your kind comments here.

And it’ll be our movement because if I choose to run for president, it’ll be really about working people because it is working people who build everything, whether it’s in America in any other country, it is working people from other countries who came to America to build this country and it is the working people have built anything on planet Earth. It has not been the elites and not it has not been princes and kings and Kennedys and Trump’s and those kinds of people it’s been everyday bottoms that working people so if we choose to run our movement will be for working people for working people uniting. So keep an eye out for that.

Thank you everyone. Have a good night. I’ll be well and I’ll keep you posted on what we do and I look forward to all your guys comments, because it’ll be very important in making our decision.

Thank you everyone. Have a good night.

It’s time we move beyond the Left vs. Right, Republican vs. Democrat. It’s time YOU learn how to apply a systems approach to get the Truth Freedom Health® you need and deserve. Become a Truth Freedom Health® Warrior.

Join the VASHIVA community – an integrated EDUCATIONAL, COMMUNICATIONS – independent of Big Tech -, and LOCAL ACTIVISM platform to empower YOU to actualize Truth Freedom Health® in your local communities by employing a SYSTEMS APPROACH.

The platform we are building for Truth Freedom Health® provides the infrastructure to take on Big Tech, Big Pharma, and Big Academia. Many of you have asked how you can help. You can contribute whatever you can. Based on your level of commitment to get educated, I have also created some wonderful educational gifts to thank you for your contribution.

To get the education you need and deserve, join Dr.SHIVA on his Foundations of Systems™ course. This course will provide you three pillars of knowledge with the Foundation of Systems™ Thinking. The three pillars include: 1) The System Dynamics of Truth Freedom Health®, 2) The Power of a Bottom’s Up Movement, and 3) The Not So Obvious Establishment. In this course, you will also learn fundamental principles of all systems including your body.

Course registration includes access to his LIVE Monday training, access to the Your Body, Your System® tool, four (4) eBooks including the bestselling System and Revolution, access to the Systems Health® portal and communications tools – independent of Big Tech – including a forum and social media for you to build community with other Truth Freedom Health® Warriors.

This course is available online for you to study at your own pace.

It’s time to Get Educated, or Be Enslaved™.

Share This Post
Back To Top
Powered By MemberPress WooCommerce Plus Integration