Fundamental Questions And Fundamental Truths

“Citizenship is a legal concept, not a matter of Natural Rights.”

This statement begs the question: “What is the concept and where does it come from?”  It certainly doesn’t come out of the ether or from another dimension.  It has to have a source, and that source is in the principle of natural membership.  By that principle animals and humans are, by birth, members of the group into which they are born.  They are natural members of the group.  They are natural members/citizens of the nation.  They aren’t outsiders because they were not born to outsiders but to members.  Their membership is therefore natural.

Wasn’t it Justice Waite that wrote “Citizenship is nothing more than membership in a nation”?  That is a fact one has to grasp and accept because the implications of that truth are enormous.  That means that the addition of extra adjectives (“natural”, and “born”) to modify the word citizen does not come from the laws of the federal government, but those adjectives are simply common language words with common meaning.  They can’t be twisted and contorted simply to fit someone’s preconceptions, even if that someone is a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The word “natural” actually means natural.  It does not have any reference to the location of one’s birth.
A born citizen is one with citizenship from birth.  A natural born citizen is one with citizenship by birth, -independent of the existence of any law, -not dependent on human legislation, -a citizen by being born as a citizen.

If one is a citizen by birth then one is not a citizen by law because law only relates to the citizenship of those who are foreigners and children born to them.  No other law regarding citizenship can legitimately exist because no authority is provided to Congress to legislate regarding the citizenship of natural members of the nation.  Their citizenship is beyond the authority of Congress to touch.

Thanks to the 14th Amendment the same is true in regard to children of immigrants.  But even though the amendment is a much higher law than what the Congress can pass, it nevertheless is law, and is necessary in order for U.S. born children of immigrants to obtain citizenship.  Without it, or without a domestic birth, they have no citizenship because they have no natural right to membership in a group to which they inherit no membership from their outsider parents.

Here’s some questions you need to ask yourself :
“If Obama is a natural citizen via birth on U.S. soil, then would he still be a natural citizen if born abroad?  And if so, by what principle? -by the same principle by which Senator Obama and the entire U.S. Senate declared John McCain to be a natural born citizen?”

“If Obama had been born in Panama like McCain, would he have also been qualified to be President?  If so, by what principle or law?”

“Are governments not grounded on fundamental laws, and are not fundamental laws founded on fundamental principles?”  “Can fundamental laws violate fundamental principles?”

“If the right of natural membership (the basis of citizenship) is not a natural right on the nation-state level, is the right to live and be free also not a natural right on the same level?”

“If the right of natural membership does not underlie the legal concept of citizenship, then what does?”

“Is no one born with a natural right to citizenship, including descendants of George Washington and settlers that came over on the Mayflower?”  “If they have a natural right to citizenship does it not follow that some people do not, and that their citizenship must be granted by law because they have no natural right to it?”

“If the jurisdiction that persons must be subject to in order to be a U.S. citizen by the 14th Amendment is the full and complete jurisdiction that U.S. citizens are subject to, then why would the amendment not have excluded American women and children of non-immigrant aliens since neither can be forced to serve in war?”
Answer: It did exclude them both.  Foreign women could not be naturalized by federal authorities as individuals apart from a naturalized husband.  As a rule, foreign single women could not become American citizens because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.

“Why did/does the Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation require the naturalizing foreigner to state that he/she will fight for the nation in time of war unless it was written solely to be taken by men?  If foreign women must swear to fight for the nation even though American women have never been subject to conscription, nor historically allowed to serve in the military, how can such an oath not have been written solely for men and reflected the full subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government?”

“How can a father who cannot be forced to fight for a country that is not his own be considered to be subject to the full jurisdiction of that country when he is immune to the most fundamental responsibility of citizenship?”

“How can a man who is a law-abiding lawful member of his national homeland produce a son who is a natural member of a foreign nation?”  How does merely being delivered from the womb within the borders of a foreign nation make one a natural member of that nation and society?”

“How can anyone be considered to be a native member of a nation to which neither of their parents belong?”  Why would any people trust a non-native or half-native member of their society to control the full power of their military and their nuclear weapons?”

“How does one who is a student and teacher of the Constitution, who was fathered by a foreigner, not know immediately upon reading the Constitution’s requirement for the presidency that he is excluded by it?”

“How does one who’s offered the chance to be President not accept the chance when everyone is willing to overlook the inconvenient truth about the little road-bump of the Constitution having something uncomfortable to say about his qualification?”  If no one else cares, why should he?  And why the heck should the Constitution matter anyhow?  Who made it the boss of us all?

by A.R. Nash  April 2012

About these ads

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers

%d bloggers like this: