What “Natural Born Citizen” Really Means & Why

~a history of confusing citizenship terms

Barack Obama’s right to serve as the President of the United States is predicated on his qualification for the office.  The qualification for the office is spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.  The President must be a “natural born citizen”. so Barack Obama must be a natural born citizen in order to be constitutionally qualified to be President.  But there’s a problem, -he is not a natural born citizen.

His sycophants have done their utmost to alter the perception of the meaning of the Constitution’s term and the two ways they have gone about doing that is to conflate “natural” with “native” and to compress the three words into one inseparable term.  By doing that they can put forward the falsehood that those words constitute one single concept, and one single explanation for their meaning.
But their false misconstuence is juvenile at best and wickedly deceitful at worst.  That’s because no one has the right to alter the meaning of words to suit their agenda.  And make no mistake, we are talking about words (plural), meaning two adjectives and one noun, -not one monolithic term to which they can attach their own warped Obama-defending meaning.

To understand the meaning of the term “natural born citizen” all we have to do is examine the meaning of the words that comprise it.  We will come to understand the relationship between those words by understanding the history behind them coming to be used in conjunction.

In every legal document, every term must be clearly explained in order to avoid the confusion that ambiguity introduces.  As they say, “the devil is in the details”.  So it is with federal law and the words that make up the Constitution.  If ever there was a legal document in which one would want to avoid ambiguity, it would be the Constitution of the United States and its amendments, -our fundamental law, -the foundation and boundary for most other laws.

But unfortunately, we don’t live in a perfect world, and in our present age, far removed from the days when it was written, the Constitution and its amendments are not completely free from words and phrases that, in our distant era, we have a right to be automatically certain that we fully understand.

With this being true, we have a problem, -the kind of which always requires the wizards of the Supreme Court to issue a ruling on, -to issue an “opinion of the court”.  Opinions are statements which sometimes are actually facts, but in general are only opinions about what the facts are.  But when the fat ladies of the high court sing, that spells the end of any argument about what they, by a majority vote, view to be or chose to be the law of the land.

There are many issues of contention in national law which they need to rule on because there is widespread ignorance in some quarters about the limits placed on the federal government, and about the meaning of certain words, phrases, or clauses.

There is one clause in particular which requires their attention because its true meaning, if proclaimed by the court, would unseat the current President of the United States.  That would be a momentously significant event unlike any other seen since the end of the Watergate matter.  The clause to which I refer is the presidential eligibility clause in Article II, Section I of the Constitution.

“No Person, except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”

In our far removed era, the meaning of “natural born citizen” is no longer clearly understood, and so we suffer from the confusion of ambiguity, -a confusion that allowed the cowards in Washington to seat and swear-in to the office of President a man who is constitutionally forbidden from serving in that particular office, -though allowed to serve in all others.  He is unqualified because he does not fit the definition of being the type of citizen that our founding fathers required.
Many don’t know what they required, -others know but don’t care, -while others know and care but are cowards.
The result is that there has been nothing but total silence from all of our so-called leaders, including opposition media voices such as the likes of the Constitution-defending Mark Levine, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.  That silence has been unbroken by the lapdog sycophants and dummies in the American press.

But those who detest the abrogation of our foundational legal charter carry on with the effort of explaining the true meaning of that phrase, because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on it, and will never rule on it in all likelihood, because it scares the hell out of them.

So here follows one more elucidation of the meaning of the type of citizenship mentioned by the authors of the Constitution, -a meaning that they all understood and hence felt no need to explain.
Understand that no document in history has received more scrutiny during its construction than the Constitution.  Every word and phrase had to pass numerous and repeated reviews because there were thirteen separate sovereign nations with widely different opinions and only a few of their government leaders had a clue that the charter of their continental federation was being totally rewritten in secret without their knowledge or permission.
The Constitution had to be as perfect as possible, and that included being devoid of ambiguities that could result in opposition to it causing it to fail being ratified.  So it would be foolish to assume that some of its authors thought one thing and others thought something else because such a universally important charter could allow no room for misunderstanding, at least not any that they were presently aware of.  So what did they all understand a natural born citizen to be?

The answer requires understanding three things; 1. the meaning of words, -and how they relate to: 2. English common law, 3. Natural Law.

In general there is little valid controversy concerning the mean of words, at least not until those
with a biased motive attempt to alter their meaning by misconstruing common law terms.  They do so by conflating dissimilar terms, (which is easy to do thanks to historical statements by some in government who did the same thing because they were unjustifiably certain about their views, -having swallowed an erroneous concept based on one of the two possible meanings of an ambiguity).

Truth is obscured when the terms of common law are bent and twisted and divorced from their relationship to natural law.  Since England has never had a Constitution, the law of the land is the sum total of the laws, edicts, and judicial rulings handed down over the long centuries of her history, rulings that were based on the judicial understanding of those laws, and edicts, as well as social practicality.
They comprise the English common law, -one single body of legal rulings.  But the colonies and states were thirteen bodies, not one, and they each had their own laws which they made as they saw fit.  So it should be understood that there was no United States common law, (since there was no United States) there was only colonial/state common law which was mostly derived from English common law.
In England, the members of its national society were label by the monarch as “subjects” because they were subject to the authority of their sovereign, the King.  Those who weren’t subjects were “aliens”, because they were not members of the King’s society, -his realm, -his dominion.  They were foreigners.  Some confusion of terms resulted from aliens emigrating from their homeland to the King’s land.  What should such new members of his realm be called since they were no longer members of a foreign land but had become members of his?
They were labeled “alien subjects”.  That was an unambiguous term.  It was in contrast to his other subjects, who then had to be labeled “natural subjects” in order to distinguish between the two.  All was clear and unambiguous at that point, but another problem came with alien immigrants; -they had children born within the King’s realm.
What the heck do you call them?  They were not natural subjects because they were of their foreign parents and not of Englishmen.  But they were not foreigners because they were not from a foreign country but from England.  How can one distinguish them from alien subjects and natural subjects?

Answer: they were labeled “native-born subjects” since they were born in England.  That label created a conceptually new class of subjects, and combined those who were born of Englishmen with those born of foreigners.  But if one was to speak of a born subject, how could one know if the discussed subject had English blood, -English parentage, -English background & ancestry, or foreign?  That is where ambiguity entered the picture, and it’s been in it ever since.

The term “natural subject” means one born of an English father, -English by political inheritance.  An “alien subject” was a foreigner, with a foreign political background and nationality.  A “born subject” was the off-spring of either group, -being distinguished not by parentage alone (born to an English subject) but also by birth location (born as a legal subject by being born in England).

They were born as subjects of the King because they were born on his property, -within his British realm.  What they both had in common was a relationship to birth; -inheriting one’s father’s status/nationality by being fathered by him, or obtaining right to be an English subject by birth within the King’s dominion.

That term, born citizen, shifted the focus away from the actual origin of national membership, parents who were members, and placed it on the birth location & national boundaries.  That was what they all had in common, almost.  But not entirely because some Englishmen lived in Europe or America, and their children were not born in England.  They were natural subjects but not born subjects in the sense that those born in England were.
What difference did it make in the nature of one’s national membership?  Essentially none because they both had the same rights and responsibilities.  Though there was one area where it did make a difference.  It didn’t involve rights nor responsibilities, -it involved a sacred trust.
Some persons had to hold positions of extremely important national significance, -positions of vital state security, including top secret information and command authority.  Could such a sensitive position be entrusted to a son of a foreigner, -a foreigner whose allegiance to the King was unknown and unknowable?  Well, they knew it could be, but the real question was, should it be?

Wise and cautious leaders chose to err on the side of caution and not allow such sons to hold such offices and positions of command, -positions on which the fate of the nation might rest.  So if they were to discuss such a position and the men who might be appointed to it, they are saddled with ambiguous language in describing who such an eligible candidate was.  He clearly could not be an alien subject because they were all foreigners by birth and upbringing.  So he had to be “a born subject”, -as in native-born in England, i.e., “a native son”.
But ambiguity still existed even with those terms.  What kind of native son?  There were two, and they both were “born subjects”.  If you wanted to distinguish between the two, how would you do it?  Simple, use the language that was already elemental to describing subjects.  Call the sons of Englishmen natural born subjects.  That would be in contrast to naturalized born subjects who were born to foreigners who had sworn allegiance to the King and become accepted not as mere foreign immigrants but as new Englishmen.

Similarly, if one’s foreign father had never sworn the oath and become an Englishman, one could be labeled an “alien born subject”.  Labeling such a son as merely a “born subject” could be considered to not be ambiguous if everyone understood that that label was only used to describe sons of alien subjects, and not natural subjects.
Natural subjects were not distinguished by national borders, -by where they exited their mother’s womb.  They were distinguished by the fact that they were children of Englishmen and not foreigners.
Ambiguity is only definitely avoided by using common language adjectives to distinguish between the various types of subjects inhabiting the King’s realm.  From simply “subjects” to natural vs alien subjects; to distinguishing between the children of the two groups and then further distinguishing between the children of the alien subjects.  With the use of the proper adjectives, the new labels were not ambiguous and the meaning of the terms was universally understood.  So it was also in the colonies.
“Natural” meant the same in the colonies as it did in England.  It did not become transmogrified into meaning “native”.  “Native” was an adjective  indicating place of birth, and defined the adjective “born”, hence the adjective phrase “native-born” was the result.  Its words defined the noun “subject”.  A native-born subject was one born within one of the colonies, as opposed to having been born in England or some other country or colony or state, i.e., -a native-born Virginian.

Natural subjects were those born to subjects of the colonies, and not born to foreigners.  The founding fathers, detesting the oppressive, morally illegitimate rule of monarchical tyrants, abhorred the concept and term of “subject”, and discarded it in favor of the term befitting members of a free republic, namely “citizen”, and so it came to be substituted for the term applicable in England.

In order to distinguish between natural citizens and the citizen sons of  immigrants naturalized in the states, (ex-foreigners whose dignity was preserved by not referring to them as “alien citizens”)  they would be referred to as “native-born citizens” or simply “born citizens”, (indicating that their citizenship was tied to their place of birth)  reflecting the dichotomy adopted in England.

Their citizenship, unlike that of natural citizens, was wholly dependent upon having been born within a state that granted citizenship to children born of its immigrants (“sons of the soil”).  If they were not born within such a state, then they were not citizens of the state of their birth nor citizens of the federal government.  They were foreigners.

But natural citizenship was entirely dependent upon having been born, -not within the state, but to citizens of the state.  It was about parentage, not location.
If  Hawaii had not been a state that recognized and recorded the birth of children born to Hawaiian residents while outside the state, then Barack Obama, like other children born abroad to Hawaiian citizens, would not have ever received a Hawaii birth certificate.

But Hawaii allowed its residents to have a child anywhere in the world and they would acknowledge it as one of their own and issue it a birth certificate.  They were dealing with the real world, not a philosophical one.

As a rule, probably 98% of natural citizens were also native-born , but with the uncommon exception of those born outside of the borders of the American states and federal territories.  They were children of Americans living abroad, such as ambassadors, consuls, diplomats, scholars and merchants.

Other than state security positions, there was no need to distinguish between children born to natural citizens [nor naturalized citizens] and children born to foreigners in those states that automatically granted such children citizenship.  But for the majority of states, as well as the federal government, citizenship was acquired only by paternal inheritance or by being naturalized.

When a foreigner became an American, his children were deemed to have automatically inherited his American citizenship. They were known as “derivative citizens” because their citizenship was derived automatically from that of another.  Foreign women who married American men also obtained such citizenship automatically, -via marriage.

As an essentially universal rule, the children of citizens, regardless of how their parents came to be citizens, were equal in all regards.  There was no conceivable reason to distinguish between them, -except one, National Security.  The founders of our nation were wise enough to carve out one tiny, statistically insignificant exception to that otherwise universal rule.
That exception was in regard to the issue confronted by the English leaders when it came to offices and positions of utmost criticality involving national security; i.e., national secrets, and national military might.  That lone exception was in regard to what type of citizen should be entrusted with the ultimate national power held by the commander-in-chief of the United States Army and Navy.

Since the founders had agreed that the military command should be headed by an elected civilian leader, consolidating the civil and military jurisdictions, they had to take extra precautions when it came to what type of citizen would be allowed to hold the power of that combined office.

Alexander Hamilton had suggested that no one who was not a born citizens should hold that office.  Choosing to err on the side of caution, our founding fathers adopted a suggestion offered to George Washington by John Jay, leader of the Continental Congress, -a suggestion that went one step further, agreeing, as in England before them, that such an office be held by no one who was not born as a natural member of the nation, -i.e., a natural born citizen.  So they wrote the mandate in plain English, stating that no person, except a natural born citizen be entrusted with the authority of the office of the President.
That was meant to exclude alien children born of foreign fathers.   So an undefined type of “born citizen” was not to be acceptable.  One must be a specific American-only type of born citizen.  One must be a natural born citizen.

In INS parlance, citizens are distinguished by the labels “naturalized”, “native-born” and “natural-born”.   Being merely a native-born citizen (via the law of individual states, -and later, the 14th Amendment) was not deemed sufficient since mere native-birth by itself was no guarantee of American loyalty, and implied that one was the son of a foreign father and not an American father.

It also meant that in most states, as well as in the view of the federal government, they were not
citizens at all.  They might be a citizen of the state in which they were born, depending on its laws, but not a citizen of the nation since one’s patrilineal parentage was everything.

In British parlance, they could have been labeled as “alien-born Americans” or “foreigner-born Americans” if the federal government were willing to recognized them as citizens, which it wasn’t.   The children of foreigners were foreigners also, just like their father, regardless of where they were born.

The root and origin of natural citizenship is in a principle reflected in nature, and recognized via our acknowledgement of Natural Law, i.e., -the laws of nature.  In nature, the location of a creature’s birth has absolutely no significance whatsoever on the nature of the born. Its nature is determined by its parents’ nature.  If a Norwegian woman gives birth in Africa, her child is not African, -not Negro.  If an African women gives birth in Norway…vice versa.

If an American child is born in China, that does not make it a natural Chinese citizen.  What it naturally is is determined by who its parents were, -not China, -not birth location, -not naturalization law.  Naturalization law only applies to foreigners and their children, not Americans and their children.

he children of Native Americans were born within the United States territory but that fact did not make them Americans because what they were was what they inherited from their parents and nothing more.  The federal government didn’t care where they were born.  It cared who their parents were.  They inherited nothing from American soil or American borders or American law, until the law of the United States finally declared that they also were Americans.  Until then, they were solely “natural born” “Indians”.
Being sons of “alien subjects” (which non-naturalized immigrants were, -similar to Native Americans who were described as “domestic subjects”)  as opposed to sons of natural or naturalized citizens, meant that one would not be qualified to serve as the American President.
But we have just such an unqualified citizen occupying the White House right now, -and reigning
over all the executive branch and the United States military, signing legislation into law, -even appointing judges to sit on the Supreme Court.

But compounding the magnitude of the travesty, his father was not only not an American, he was not even an immigrant to America.  He was a person with no connection to the United States whatsoever, aside from the permission it granted him by which he was allowed to attend college in the U.S.
He never swore any allegiance to the United States and owed it none.  He was never subject to its jurisdiction because he remained subject solely to that of Great Britain and Kenya, -protected by international treaty and the Law of Nations.

The U.S. government has a label for foreigners such as him, -it is “non-immigrant alien”.  Can you imagine the rightfully paranoid leaders of England entrusting their most sensitive and dangerous information, as well as their most powerful military positions, to the sons of “non-immigrant aliens”?  That would never have been allowed, and wasn’t.

Can you imagine the nobility and aristocracy of Great Britain allowing the son of a foreigner to assume the throne of England?  The entire royal line would have to have been dead or in captivity first.
Can you imagine the blissfully ignorant American electorate entrusting all the most sensitive and dangerous national security matters, as well as all of the power of the American war machine, including thousands of nuclear bombs, to one fathered by a foreign dictator, foreign tourist, or foreign student?  I know, you don’t have to imagine because the later actually happened.    The only question is; “Will anything ever be done about it, and if so, by whom, and when?”

by a.r. nash june 2012

http://obama–nation.com

Citizenship and Allegiance
Law Quarterly Review  Jan. 1902

In English law, subjects, whether natural or alien, are those who owe allegiance to the Crown.  By allegiance is meant the feudal obligation of fidelity and obedience due from a vassal to his lord–an obligation which has as its counterpart the duty of protection and guardianship which the lord owes to his vassal.  The King is the supreme feudal lord of all the people, as well as of all the land of England.  They are his men, his fideles, his faithful.  They owe him such fealty as any vassal owes his Lord, for he is their sovereign lord the King.  In the technical phrase of feudalism, they are ad fidem regis–in the faith of the King.  The oath of allegiance is simply a variant of that oath of fealty which binds together lord and vassal in any other case.

Allegiance is of two kinds.  That which natural subjects owe is permanent and personal, while that which is due from alien subjects is merely temporary and local.
A natural subject remains bound at all times and in all places; he is permanently entitled to the King’s protection, and permanently bound by the bond of fealty.

But an alien subject is such only by reason of his residence within the King’s dominions; so long as such residence continues he stands within the King’s protection, and owes him a correlative allegiance.
So long, but so long only, he is the King’s subject.  Like any other subject he may be guilty of treason.
Like any other subject he must obey the King’s laws, and submit himself to the royal government and jurisdiction, but he may withdraw himself at any time from all such obligation, and for what he does beyond the realm of England he will not answer to the King of England.
The natural subject, on the contrary, can in no way sever the bond of fealty.  He possesses an enduring status which he can by no means abandon.

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”.

14 Responses to What “Natural Born Citizen” Really Means & Why

  1. arnash says:

    what follows is perhaps the longest comment ever submitted on any blog in history, and that’s after I deleted some of it. It was written by SENTIENTSTORM, as his final farewell comment. I won’t miss him, nor typing all night in the attempt to point out the errors in his thinking.

    Arnash Wrote:

    [THE ONLY FALSENESS IS THE BELIEF THAT CONGRESS HAS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE REGARDING NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. IT HAS NONE. ONLY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH HAS A ROLE BUT ONLY WHEN ACTS CONSIDERED TO BE EXPATRIATING ARE COMMITTED. YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A LACK OF SUBSTANTIATION OF MY STATEMENTS AND YET WHERE IS YOUR CONFIRMING AUTHORITY? YOU DON'T QUOTE ONE BECAUSE ONE DOESN'T EXIST.]

    I surely didn’t indicate that Congress has any authority to legislate regarding natural born citizen, so why the hell bring it up? Pontificating.

    [Natural citizens are those born to citizens, anywhere in the world. But not realizing that, your dogma claims that Congress has the authority to legislate regarding American children born over the border, or over the ocean, as is they are foreigners and require naturalization to obtain U.S. citizenship. You fail to grasp that natural-ization is the means to make a foreigner an American. But one is an American if born to Americans. Where their birth transpired doesn't change who their parents were. Americans produce new Americans. Period.]

    You mentioned the Executive branch before, but it does not have “a role” at all regarding natural born. None. NOWHERE does the Executive branch address “expatriation” and then loss of natural born citizen status. In fact, NO AUTHORITY anywhere indicates that natural born citizen status might be lost with a later loss or forfeiture of citizenship! None!

    [You refer to the loss of natural born citizen status, blindly missing the fact that the nature of one's citizenship is irrelevant to loss of citizenship by committing expatriating acts.]

    This is one of the major errors Phil Berg made in his presumption of his suits, that Obama lost his natural born citizenship status by when he was adopted in Indonesia. For the Court to hear Berg’s case, they would have to consider if that Court itself has the authority to declare someone to have lost natural born status later in life, and they do not have the authority. Natural born is an at-birth status, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with law, not even the Executive! Its like saying the Executive has the authority to say you weren’t born in “Boston”, or wherever. The idea that the Executive has ever referenced Natural born in regard to expatriation, and having any authority over it, is not only profoundly wrong, but thoroughly asinine! Just empty pontification.

    [Exactly, now you get it. what the executive branch has authority over is the recognition of one's citizenship, or the lack of recognition. When one takes about a dozen different actions, they are interpreted as evidence of one's renounciation of their U.S. citizenship, and therefore the government has the right to recognize that choice of an Americna citizen. Expatriation is not by capricious authority of the government but by one's own acts that are clearly disloyal to a significant degree]

    “[THAT IS THE SIDE-EFFECT OF BEING BORN OF PARENTS WITH ONLY ONE NATIONALITY, WHICH RESULTS IN A NATURAL CITIZEN. A SINGLE NATIONALITY PARENTAGE IS WHAT RESULTS IN OFF-SPRING WITH NO TIES TO ANY OTHER NATION. HAVING NO FOREIGN ROOTS DOES NOT PRODUCE A NBC, HAVING PARENTS WHO ARE OF A SINGLE NATION DOES. CONCEPTS OF ALLEGIANCE ARE UNRELATED TO THE NATURAL REALM AND TO NATURAL CITIZENSHIP.]”

    No, its not a side-effect. THere is NO NATURAL “effect” whatsoever of being born of a single nationality parentage! None!
    [AGREED. I DIDN'T ARGUE OTHERWISE BECAUSE I DID NOT USE THE TERM "NATURAL EFFECT". I SAID "SIDE-EFFECT" WHICH REFERS TO NOT HAVING ANY CONNECTION TO ANY OTHER NATION. IF THERE WAS ONLY ONE NATION ON EARTH, NATURAL CITIZENSHIP WOULD STILL BE THE RESULT OF BIRTH TO CITIZENS OF THAT ONE NATION. ALIENS WOULD NOT BE CITIZENS DUE SIMPLY TO BEING BORN ON THAT PLANET. JUST AS NATIVE AMERICANS WERE NOT CITIZENS DUE TO NATIVE-BIRTH.]

    If one is born of a country’s parents overseas, that offspring is not even assured of MERE CITIZENSHIP. much less being a natural born citizen!

    [Please, get it through your head what the terms are that we are discussing. Your statement refers to not being "assured". What you are conceiving of is assurance by government, by the executive branch and whatever the heck its policy is at the moment. It can determine anything that it wills, but the policy is one thing and the law is another. And then there is the other fact beyond your recognition in that statement, which is that natural citizenship is not dependent on what the bone-heads in the executive branch might think is correct. It's not dependent on their opinion because it exists due to birth, whether domestic or non-domestic, even if they fail to recognize that fact. There is no 11th commandment that declares that whatever their opinion is is infallibly correct.]

    This country’s first NATURALIZATION ACT EVER in 1790 was to award citizenship to those born on American parents on foreign soil. There’s nothing “natural” about that citizenship, and your pet theory is profoundly and thoroughly wrong and ignorant as to the facts! Your theory of two citizen parents only being necessary for natural born citizen status of the offspring is nothing but … your own pontification having no foundation a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e.

    [Your obtuseness is due to your groundless assumption that what the 1790 act did was to "award" citizenship to Americans born abroad. It awarded nothing. It declared to the executive branch that it, and the courts, must recognize ALL American children as being U.S. citizens, irrespective of a foreign birth location. Why don't you read "EVERY TOM, DICK, & HARRY BUT NOT MY SON"? It is perhaps the first and only exposition that zeros in on the thinking behind its wording and inclusion. It nullifies the assumption that you've swallowed.]

    Foreign “roots” has nothing to do with anything – it is more blather. I myself have roots in Ireland and Germany. However having “no foreign allegiance” upon birth, DOES have to do with natural born citizenship, and this requires birth on American soil, and no other country’s soil.

    [TO SAY "Foreign “roots” has nothing to do with anything" IS ONE OF THE MOST EMPTY HEADED STATEMENTS EVER MADE. TRY TELLING THAT TO AL AWLAKI, OR ALEX HALLEY. PERHAPS YOU WERE INCAPABLE OF GRASPING THAT THE FOREIGN ROOTS I SPOKE OF WERE DESCRIBED AS "DIRECT" FOREIGN ROOT, THROUGH ONE'S FOREIGN FATHER, A LA BARACK OBAMA, -NOT DISTANT INDIRECT ROOTS THROUGH ONE'S ANCESTORS. BIG DIFFERENCE.

    AS FOR ALLEGIANCE, NO BABY EVER BORN HAS ANY CONNECTION TO ANY ADULT'S CONCEPTS ABOUT ALLEGIANCE BEING OWED AT BIRTH. CHILDREN BELONG TO THEIR PARENTS, NOT THE GOVERNMENT, UNTIL THEY ARE NO LONGER MINORS. BABIES CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AMERICAN SOIL AND FOREIGN SOIL SO THEY DON'T KNOW WHICH COUNTRY'S FLAG TO SALUTE WITH FULL HEART-FELT ALLEGIANCE AFTER THEIR DIAPER CHANGE.]

    The “reality” is that birth location is recognized by the Supreme Court throughout its entire history as being a fundamental consideration of natural born status.

    “As Vattel observed”, birth “on a country’s soil” is REQUISITE to Natural born citizen status, along with to parents “who were its citizens”. Vattel DOES NOT ANYWHERE consider where the child is raised in regard to naturla born status. Again, natural born is an AT-BIRTH status, and where the offspring are raised is entirely irrelevant.

    [THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER RECOGNIZED ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN OBSERVATION THAT PERTAINS TO THE INHABITANTS OF A LAND. Vattel's observation dealt with the natural members of a society, and the country that contains that society. His use of the word natural had no connection whatsoever to citizenship. It related only to membership in a natural group that comprises a people. It is a direct reference to the elemental nature of a tribe. If born into a group, one is a natural member of the group. Just because 99% of the group members inhabit their traditional land does not mean that the 1% born while their mother or parents were traveling or visiting outside of their homeland are therefore foreigners to their own people. They are not foreigners. They don't need permission to be members because they are natural members by birth. That's is what the word "natural" relates to, not soil.
    Natural group membership exists even in the absence of any government. Just consider every aboriginal tribe since the dawn of man. Do you declare that children of aboriginals are not natural members of their parents group because they don't have a government or because they weren't born within the borders of a nation that doesn't exist? Your thought processes has been hijacked by dogmatic technical thinking based on the infallible interpretation by legal wizards of a simple observation about the structure of natural groups.
    The translaters of Vattel's work had no business adding words to his, -words he did not choose nor intend, words related to the supposedly legal and official membership in a nation (CITIZENSHIP), which is separate and apart from natural membership in a domestic group. Citizenship is a formal and technical membership, not purely a natural membership, because natural membership exists even before natural members create a government.
    Vattel's description of children born in the land of their parents nativity is a description of members who undoubtably are members, (the 99%) but not the only members. Show me where he used the word "only" and I'll give you a million dollars.]

    “[THERE IS NO "THE society", CLEARLY, THERE ARE MANY SOCIETIES THANKS TO EXTENSIVE IMMIGRATION, AND THEY ARE NOT INTEGRATED INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY IN A REAL WAY. YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF THIS QUESTION: IF THE MOMENT OF BIRTH COULD BE MAGICALLY REMOVED FROM THE HISTORY OF ONE'S LIFE, WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE IN HOW THEY DEVELOP AND WHO THEY BECOME? OF COURSE THE ANSWER IS "NONE" BECAUSE WHO YOU BECOME ISN'T DETERMINED BY THE MOMENT OF BIRTH, NOR THE GROUND IT HAPPENS ON, NOR THE BORDERS IT HAPPENS WITHIN. THE MOMENT AND PLACE OF BIRTH ARE TOTALLY IMMATERIAL, LEAVING NO MEMORY IN THE CHILD BORN, AND THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO ANY AND ALL EXCEPT THOSE LOST IN A PHILOSOPHICAL FOG. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORLD IS NOT THE REAL WORLD. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE.]”

    No, who you become is not SOLELY determined by the moment of birth, but it is rather a factor and a major one. [THAT IS AN UNPROVEN AND UNPROVABLE CLAIM. BACKED BY NOTHING BUT DOGMATIC ASSERTION.]
    The fact that there are other requirements for the office of President than “natural born” demonstrates this. However natural born only considers AT-BIRTH status — where it all began.
    [IT? WHERE "IT" ALL BEGAN? BY "IT" YOU SHOULD MEAN "LIFE" which is something conveyed by the mother and father. BUT INSTEAD YOU MEAN NOTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE. Explain for everyone how natural citizenship at birth is achieved for a child born to an mother in a plane flying in circles over tiny European nations, one of which might be the homeland of the parents. Tell me about the significance that place-of-birth has -as opposed to the national membership of the mother and father.]

    And those conditions at birth are undeniably major factors in the outcome of the adult. [UNDENIABLY? LOGIC TOTALLY DENIES IT. A "MAJOR FACTOR? MORE LIKE NO FACTOR AT ALL, as I've pointed out to you via the hypothetical of the minutes during which birth occurs being magically erased from one's historical life record. It would make no difference except that one would not have the convenience of having a hospital birth record and would need their mother to sign an affidavit to the Dept of Health confirming one's birth. That sounds kind of familiar. Oh yeah, that describes the birth history of one who became an unconstitutional President.]

    The idea that one may never have seen American soil and American society, even for generations, and still be a natural born citizen of this country is the biggest pile of idiotic offal I’ve ever heard. [YOU'VE GOT THAT RIGHT. AND NATIONAL LAW MAKES IT NOT A POSSIBILITY. The children born to American citizens who have never lived in the United States are denied U.S. citizenship because they are not natural members of the American realm, having been born in a foreign land to native-born American members of that same land. Natural American citizenship no longer applies to them because they are natural citizens of their foreign homeland, having been born to citizens (as in dual-citizens) of that land.]

    ” [WHERE DOES ONE GO TO GET A DEGREE IN NATURAL LAW? IN THE CORRELATIVE PRINCIPLES OF NATURE? IS THERE A PROFESSORSHIP IN THAT? ARE THERE FEDERAL CASES REGULARLY TRIED BASED ON IT? WHERE WERE THE "REFERENCES" TO AUTHORITY WITHOUT WHICH THE LIFE OF CHRIST WOULD HAVE BEEN INVALID AND "UNATHORITATIVE"? WAS IT ONLY VIA THE RECOGNITION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST THAT HIS LIFE ASSUMED SIGNIFICANCE?]”

    The 14th Amendment did not proclaim “non-citizens” to be citizens, but rather stated that those who could only be citizens of this country, yet had previously been denied citizenship status, to be citizens.
    [THE 14TH AMENDMENT ONLY STATED WHAT ITS WORD SAY, NOT WHAT YOU'VE IMPUTED TO THEM. IT IS LIKE A BLANK CHALK BOARD THAT PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN WRITE ON TO SUIT THEMSELVES AND THEIR CITIZENSHIP CONCEPTS. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, ITS ELEGANT BUT OVERLY-SIMPLE WORDING RESULTED IN AMBIGUITY AS TO WHO IS AND ISN'T SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION, LEAVING IT WIDE OPEN TO TOTALLY DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. THE ONE THAT IS INSUFFICIENT IS THE ONE THAT IS INCAPABLE OF GRASPING THE FULL DEPTH OF THE JURISDICTION THAT ONE MUST BE SUBJECT TO, NAMELY THE AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON OVER ONE'S VERY LIFE, AND THE POWER TO PUT ONE IN DANGER OF LOSS OF LIFE OR LIMB.]

    The 14th Amendment did not “change anything”, it did not create new citizenships, but rather recognized “what was”, and should henceforth be recognized to be.
    [THE PROBLEM IS THAT WHAT WAS WITHIN SOME STATES WAS NOT SO IN OTHERS. CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS WERE UNDER NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION REGARDING NATURALIZATION. BEAR IN MIND, THAT NATURALIZATION WAS AT THAT TIME STILL UNDER STATE JURISDICTION, NOT SOLELY FEDERAL. THE UNSPOKEN, AND POSSIBLY UNINTENDED RESULT OF THE WORDS CHOSEN WAS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT IN THE WONG DECISION EITHER DIDN'T KNOW WHAT DEGREE OF SUBJECTION THE AMENDMENT'S AUTHORS INTENDED, AND ASSUMED THAT MERE CIVIL JURISDICTION WAS ADEQUATE TO PRODUCE CITIZENSHIP, OR THEY KNEW OR BELIEVED THAT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO FOSTER THE VIEW THAT FOREIGNERS WERE SUBJECT TO US JURISDICTION, AND THE COURT CHOSE TO DELIBERATELY ALTER THAT VIEW SO THAT THEIR CHILDREN COULD BE ACCEPTED AS AMERICANS AND NOT TREATED AS FOREIGNERS EVEN THOUGH BORN AND RAISED IN AMERICA. The situation, for perhaps a century, has been that the federal government can and will draft immigrants and treated them the same miserable way that they treated Americans, and because of their subjection to the total authority of Washington, their children therefore were deemed or declared to be Americans.
    The problem is that they now stupidly and ignorantly ascribe citizenship to anyone and everyone born within US borders even though the parents are not subject to US jurisdiction, -in violation of the second requirement of the 14th Amendment. As someone once said, "you can fix stupid"]

    As I’ve indicated with a large number of historic legislation and statements, there was (still) no “ambiguity” whatsoever about the meaning of “jurisdiction”. If there was ANY ambiguity at all, it would have come to light much sooner than the THIRTY years following the 14th’s ratification, which is more than a generation afterwards!
    [THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SLAVISHLY RECOGNIZE THE STATEMENTS REGARDING THINKING ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE AMENDMENT. THEY CAN DECIDED TO SIMPLY APPLY WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND ITS ACTUAL WORDS TO MEAN, NOT WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO MEAN. WHILE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN NO AMBIGUITY IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO WROTE IT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE OVER-SIMPLICITY OF THE WORDS THEMSELVES, AS I'VE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED. AND THAT IS DUE TO THERE BEING NO FIXED, STATED, AND LEGISLATED STANDARD MEANING AS TO THE WHAT JURISDICTION IS INTENDED, AND WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHICH OF THE TWO POSSIBLE CHOICES IS THE NATIONAL POSITION.]

    The meaning of “jurisdiction” had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with “prevent[ing] the Feds from implementing” the 14th Amendment! NOTHING! “Jurisdiction” was only manipulated in Won Kim Ark to give citizenship (NOT natural born citizen status) to an American-born Chinaman, but then only because it was rationalized by Justice Gray that his parents had been legal residents of the United States.
    [IF YOU READ THE "CITIZENSHIP & ALLEGIANCE" QUOTE FROM THE LAW REVIEW 1902, (JUST FOUR YEARS AFTER THE WONG RULING) THEN YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT THE JUSTICES WERE AWARE OF, NAMELY THAT THE HISTORICAL BRITISH GOVERNMENT POSITION HANDED DOWN FROM EARLIER ERAS, WAS THAT DOMICILED FOREIGNERS, WHILE NOT OWING PERMANENT ALLEGIANCE, DID OWE TEMPORARY AND LOCAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE CROWN. THEY WOULD HAVE TO SERVE HIM IF REQUIRED IN TIME OF EMERGENCY.
    THE SUPREME COURT EASILY COULD HAVE CHOSEN THAT AS THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES AND HAD HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE FOR DOING SO THOUGH NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY. VIA SUCH SUBJECTION, A FOREIGNER COULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED BY THE COURT TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AMENDMENT, THEREBY MAKING HIS CHILD A CITIZEN. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE FROM AN EARLIER AGE]

    “The first clause of the fourteenth amendment changes this whole subject, and removes it from the region of discussion and doubt. It recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry.” Id. at 95. Elk v Wilkins,

    [RECOGNIZE THAT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AMENDMENT HAS NO CONNECTION TO ANCESTRY IS NOT THE SAME AS NO CONNECTION TO PARENTAGE. YOUR PARENTS ARE NOT YOUR ANCESTORS. BUT EITHER WAY, THE ASSUMPTION IS JUST THAT, AN ASSUMPTION, BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT DOES NOT STATE WHAT HE WAS ASSUMING. ONE COULD AND SHOULD TAKE NOTE THAT HE FAILED TO EVEN MENTION THE SUBJECT OF JURISDICTION. DO YOU KNOW WHY HE FAILED TO DO SO? IT WAS BECAUSE HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANT.]

    You need to understand that U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark represents Progressive activism, and a violation of the separation of powers, by the bench. The Court was reacting to a series of Congressional legislation known as the “Chinese Exclusion Acts”, which prohibited the return (or entry) of Chinese into the country. The Gray Court obviously fundamentally disagreed with this legislation, but it was prohibited by the Separation of Powers from denying Congress its authority over legislation and immigration (naturalization), so the court did an end-around by screwing with the plain meaning of words.
    [IF YOUR PRESUMPTION REGARDING THEIR VIEW OF THE EXCLUSION ACT IS CORRECT THEN YOUR CONCLUSION IS LIKELY TO ALSO BE CORRECT. BUT YOU COULD ALSO SAY THAT CONGRESS WAS IN TOTAL VIOLATION OF THE LIMITATIONS ON ITS AUTHORITY AS WELL, SINCE THE CONSTITUTION GIVES IT ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE REGARDING IMMIGRATION. IT COULD ONLY PASS A UNIFORM RULE FOR NATURALIZATION SO ALL THE STATES HAD AT LEAST SOME MINIMUM STANDARD. BUT IMMIGRATION IS STRICTLY A STATE MATTER UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.]

    Despite the longstanding and thoroughly recognized meaning of “jurisdiction”, which I’ve previously established in this thread, Justice Horace Gray manipulated the meaning of “jurisdiction”, thoroughly contradicting Gray’s own stare decisis on the matter in Elk vs Wilkins, and deliberately distorted the intent of Congress through a series of dishonesties and misrepresentations — a calculated malfeasance.
    [A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY, BUT UNKNOWABLE FOR CERTAIN BECAUSE WE CAN'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THERE WAS NO EVOLUTION IN HIS MIND AS TO IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR SUBJECTION TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY. HE MAY HAVE BEEN INFLUENCED BY READING, STUDYING THE POSITION HELD BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TOWARDS ITS IMMIGRANTS AND DECIDED IT WAS A WISER PUBLIC POLICY TO CONSIDER THEM TO NOT BE FREE FROM FULL FEDERAL AUTHORITY, THEREBY ALLOWING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW "SONS OF THE SOIL" TO BE U.S. CITIZENS LIKE THEIR PEERS.]

    “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” Justice Gray, Elk vs Wilkins
    [CLEARLY HE MADE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN FOREIGN VISITORS AND FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS, NO DOUBT BECAUSE THERE WERE FEW TO NO FOREIGN TOURISTS DELIVERING BABIES IN THE U.S.]

    As thoroughly established by Leo Donofrio, Justice Horace Gray had a profound personal motivation to corrupt citizenship and natural born, so as to cleanse the unqualified presidency of Chester Arthur and thereby validate Gray’s own appointment to the bench, done by Chester Arthur.

    There was never any “inherent ambiguity about jurisdiction” whatsoever. The only ‘ambiguity’ involved here is the result of your own ignorance of history, and legislative intent. [YOU FAIL TO GRASP THAT THE AMBIGUITY IS NOT IN THE MINDS OF THE AUTHORS, NOR EVEN JUDGE GRAY IN THE WILKINS DECISION, BUT IN THE WORDS THEMSELVES WHICH ARE SO UNDEFINED WITHIN THE CLAUSE THAT AMBIGUITY OF INTERPRETATION IS THE INESCAPABLE RESULT. IT CAN BE VIEWED IN CONFLICTING LIGHT. THE ALTERNATE VIEW IS THE ONE THAT IS HELD BY THE US GOVERNMENT AND MAY BE AS OLD AS WWI. NAMELY THAT IMMIGRANTS ARE ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE AND MUST REGISTER WITH THE SELECTIVE SERVICE IF MALE BETWEEN 18 AND 25]

    Arnash wrote:

    ITS PURPOSE WAS NOT TO EFFECT SOMETHING NEW. THAT WAS ALREADY DONE BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND THE 13TH AMENDMENT, WHICH LEFT SLAVERY AND INDENTURE SERVITUDE LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES BUT GRANTED CITIZENSHIP TO LIBERATED SLAVES. THE 14TH’S CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE WAS TO PLACE THE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION ABOVE THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND THE COURTS TO NULLIFY OR REPEAL.

    True, its purpose was not to effect something new, but you had previously stated it was “new”. No, the Civil Rights Act, NOR the 13th Amendment left slavery “legal” in the United States! Such a claim is pure idiocy, particularly about the 13th Amendment! There’s a difference between “the law and constitution” and actual societal practice. As shown above, even as recognized by Horace Gray, the 14th Amendment, quote, “does not create, citizens”! It only recognized previous citizenship that did in fact exist, but had not been recognized. Neither Congress (nor the Constitution itself) had ever specifically legislated slavery.
    [THE CITIZENSHIP OF AFRICAN AMERICANS AND THEIR CHILDREN WAS INDISPUTABLY AN AMERICAN RIGHT BASED ON AMERICAN VALUES, BUT THE CITIZENSHIP OF CHILDREN OF INDIANS AND FOREIGNERS WAS NOT A RIGHT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE AMERICAN FATHERS FROM WHOM TO INHERIT THAT RIGHT. HENCE THEIR EXCLUSION VIA THE JURISDICTION REQUIREMENT, BUT IT WAS FLIPPED IN REVERSE BY THE WONG DECISION AND THE VIEW THAT THEY WERE NOT SUBJECT CHANGED 180 DEGREES TO THAT OF THEM BEING SUBJECT, THAT MADE THEIR CHILDREN SUBJECT AT BIRTH AND THEREFORE CITIZENS. SO WHAT HAD ORIGINALLY EXCLUDED ALIEN CHILDREN WAS USED INSTEAD EVENTUALLY TO NATURALIZED THEM VIA THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S SUBJECTION STATEMENT. IT WAS PERHAPS SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST "DOING THE RIGHT THING" IF THE COURT TOOK CHESTER ARTHUR'S SITUATION INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT NO ONE COULD READ THEIR MINDS AND EVEN KNOW IF THEY KNEW WHAT HE HAD KEEP QUITE SECRET.

    BUT THE FACT THAT MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO WOULD HAVE MADE A PRESIDENT (POSSIBLY KNOWN TO HAVE BEEN BORN TO A FOREIGN FATHER) INELIGIBLE AS PRESIDENT FOR NOT HAVING BEEN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN TO SUSPICION THAT GRAY, THOUGH NOT THE OTHER JUSTICES NECESSARILY, WOULD HAVE RULED IN FAVOR OF THE OPTION THAT WOULD HAVE PROTECTED THE PRESIDENT AND THEREBY HIS APPOINTMENT OF GRAY TO THE SUPREME COURT. BUT THE RULING, -NOT ISSUED BY GRAY ALONE, IS CERTAINLY THE POSSIBLE RESULT OF THE INFLUENCE OF MORE THAN ONE FACTOR.]

    My previous paragraph dishonestly removed by Arnash was:

    While there is indeed (quoting Arnash) “NATURAL CITIZENS BORN WITHIN US BORDERS”, there is NOT by implication “natural citizens born OUTSIDE US borders”. Those born outside U.S. borders are not natural born citizens, and need to be NATURAL-IZED, by law or amendment, to even BE U.S. citizens, as with the first 1790 naturalization law enacted by this country, to make those born overseas of U.S. citizen-parents also citizens (not natural born citizens). If one is not born within US borders, then they are not a natural born citizen.

    Even your dishonest deletions from this blog cannot change historical FACT. Your “intolerance” is nothing but your intellectual dishonesty, and the utter lack of support for your theory, resulting from your inability to address and recognize FACTS.

    This deletion on your part takes your behavior from merely reprehensible abuse of your blog ownership in editing my posts with your commentary, to deletion of fact to remove it from discussion — a clear scar upon your personal character.

    Arnash wrote:

    [the authors of the 14th amendmend either agreed with the -”no-citizenship for children of immigrants” attitude of the executive branch, or they had no thought on the matter, or they disagreed with it. No one so far has presented anything in writing that illuminates the consensus view as to who was and who was not fully subject to the jurisdiction of Washington, nor who should be.[YOUR QUOTES INVALIDATE THAT STATEMENT, -THEY DEMONSTRATE A CONSENSUS VIEW OF WHO WAS NOT VIEWED AS FULLY SUBJECT TO FEDERAL AUTHORITY, AND IMMIGRANTS WERE NOT INCLUDED] the amendment itself gives absolutely no clue whatsoever. Hence three decades went by before the federal policy was found to be not in compliance. At some unidentified point, the opinion of the supreme court changed in regard to who they considered to be subject to the will and needs of the national government, though there had been no change in the lower courts nor the executive branch. It’s a dicey slicing to proclaim which view the author’s held unless they wrote something very specific about the subjection of immigrants. Anything less that direct quotes is engaging in fantasy mind-reading.] [DIRECT QUOTES WERE WHAT WAS PROVIDED AND PROVE THEIR POINT]

    The “Executive branch” has [I MADE NO REFERENCE TO "HAS" (PRESENT TENSE)]NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the 14th Amendment, nor naturalization law, both of which were drafted by Congress, and recognized as “no ciitizenship for immigrants”(aliens, illegal and legally-resident)by several Supreme Court cases … so please stop referencing the “executive branch” as it if were somehow relevant. It is not.

    [ ONE WOULD SURMISE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THE GOVERNMENT EVEN WORKS. IN THE VIEW YOU JUST PROCLAIMED, THERE IS ONLY A JUDICIAL BRANCH AND CONGRESS. END OF STORY. WHICH OF THE TWO ADMINISTERED NATURALIZATION LAW? THE CONGRESS OR THE COURTS? WHAT? NEITHER? IT'S THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT I SAID?
    GET THIS, ASIDE FROM A RARE SUPREME COURT RULING ON A CITIZENSHIP CASE, ALL CITIZENSHIP MATTERS ARE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, THEY EXECUTE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE LAW. I CAN'T COMPREHEND WHAT YOU WERE THINKING WHEN YOU WROTE SUCH A FOOLISH STATEMENT. IT WAS THE ENTIRE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAT DENIED WONG US CITIZENSHIP AND IT WAS THE ALMOST ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON THE MATTER. BUT GOT OVERRULED BY THE TRUE FINAL AUTHORITY.]

    I have a full post in this thread, about the “illumination” of the consensus view (and intent), both before and after the 14th Amendment was ratified. Yet here is the statement from Justice Horace Gray himself in Elk vs Wilkins (note the bolded portion):

    Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States…although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government…”

    That is from Justice Gray himself, the same guy who tried to corrupt “jurisdiction” in Wong Kim Ark, and severely contradicted his own ruling!

    And from the Slaughterhouse Cases:

    ‘All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.’ … The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

    Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases (1873)

    Note that the underlined above excludes as citizens the offspring of alien citizens, whether they are legally resident, or illegal residents! No doubts whatsoever! Thus, the only “birthright citizenship” ever intended in this country were “natural born citizens”, those born of American citizen-parents, on American soil.
    [YOU'VE UNNECESSARILY REPEATED YOURSELF. ASSUMING HE HAD NO ULTERIOR MOTIVE IN CHANGING HIS MIND, HE SHOULD HAVE GIVEN AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT CHANGED IT, BUT IN THE ENDLESS MORASS OF HIS LEGAL REASONING, WHICH TAKES ABOUT 50 DAYS TO READ, i.e., 5 HOURS, I DIDN'T FIND ANY SUCH EXPLANATION. IT WAS ALMOST AS IF HE WAS DELIBERATELY MAKING IT SO LONG, IRRELEVANTLY SATURATED WITH MINUTIA AND RAMBLINGS THAT ONE MIGHT SUSPECT THAT HIS AIM WAS TO OBFUSCATE THE REAL REASON FOR HIS CHANGE OF MIND BY OVERLOADING THE PATIENCE AND TOLERANCE OF ANYONE WHO DARED TO WASTE THEIR TIME TRYING TO WADE THROUGH THE SWAMP THAT IT IS.]

    Arnash wrote:

    YOUR WARPED QUOTE: “immigrant members of American society to be “NATURALLY” citizens…”
    MY ACTUAL QUOTE: “IMMIGRANT MEMBERS OF AMERICAN SOCIETY TO “NATURALLY” BE SUBJECT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.” LEARN HOW TO READ! CLEARLY YOU DIDN’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT I WROTE IN THE PARAGRAPH BECAUSE YOU LEAPED TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS AND THEN TOOK OFF RUNNING WITH YOUR FALSE IDEA.]

    I’ve not had to “warp” anything here. Quite obviously everyone on U.S. soil is “subject to” the federal government. This is nothing but declaration of obvious fact. However what you’re doing is nothing but parroting Justice Gray’s dishonest corruption of “jurisdiction” to be jurisdiction of law, rather than jurisdiction of allegiance, as it was intended. Your ignorance is not my warping anything.
    [YOU MISSED THE POINT COMPLETELY ALONG WITH HAVING MISQUOTED ME. THE POINT WAS THE SOME PEOPLE COULD HAVE VIEWED IMMIGRANTS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY LIVED THEIR ENTIRE CHILDHOOD AND YOUTH IN AMERICA, TO BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME OBLIGATION OF NATIONAL DEFENSE AS THOSE BORN HERE OF AMERICAN PARENTS. NO ONE HAS A MORAL RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THAT VIEW. IT IS COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE EVEN THOUGH NOT HELD BY THE GOVERNMENT PRE-WONG.
    Arnash wrote:

    [THE SUPREME COURT FELT THEIR JOB WAS NOT TO READ THE MINDS THAT AUTHORED THE AMENDMENT THIRTY YEARS PRIOR, BUT TO CHOOSE WHAT ITS LITERAL WORDS MEANT AT THE TIME THEY WERE RULING, AND THEY MAY HAVE UNDERSTOOD FAR MORE THAN THE CONGRESSMEN ABOUT THE HISTORY OF ALLEGIANCE AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. IF YOU ACTUALLY READ WHAT I REFERRED YOU TO AT THE END OF MY RECENT EXPOSITION, -TAKEN FROM THE QUARTERLY LAW REVIEW ESSAY ON CITIZENSHIP AND ALLEGIANCE, ("WHAT NATURAL BORN CITIZEN MEANS & WHY")THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THEY HAD HISTORY AND TRADITION AND COMMON LAW ON THEIR SIDE, BUT THEN IT WASN'T AMERICAN IN ITS NATURE, IT WAS BRITISH.]

    The supreme court’s “JOB” is to judge cases before it based upon the LAW and Constitution’s intent. These are both clearly established in this regard, and recognized by EVERY Supreme Court decision, except ONE, U.S. vs Wong Kim Ark.
    [SUPREME COURT JUDGES DO WHATEVER THEY DAMN WELL PLEASE, IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE CONSTITUTION. THE ISSUE THEY DECIDED IN WONG WAS NOT COVERED BY ANY LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE 14TH AMENDMENT. THAT WAS THE POINT. YOU HOLD THEM TO HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE INTENT OF THE AUTHORS. THAT IS WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE CONSTITUTIONALLY SPEAKING. BUT NOT WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE PRACTICALLY SPEAKING. THE PROBLEM ISN'T THEIR DECISION, BUT THE BASTARDIZATION OF IT BY THE REMOVAL OF ANY REQUIREMENT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE FULL AUTHORITY OF WASHINGTON. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AREN'T SUBJECT NOW, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WEREN'T VIEWED TO BE SUBJECT BACK THEN, NOR WERE WOMEN.]

    Furthermore, the history and tradition of “common law”, as represented from Britain, was never represented in this country on the federal level, and certain has NO EFFECT on “natural born”, which is by definition, outside of “common” man-made Positive Law, in the realm of natural law. [HEY! YOU DON'T NEED TO PREACH TO THE PREACHER]

    As evidence and testament as to the above:

    “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.”
    George Mason, “Father of the Bill of Rights”, Debate in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 19 1788.

    “The common law is gone. The federal courts never applied the common law and even in the state courts it’s codified now.”
    Justice Antonin Scalia, Speech Nov. 22, 2008

    Even the British Jurist William Blackstone recognized in 1765 that the Crown had mandated the progressively changing meaning of “natural born subject”. [I DIDN'T KNOW HE HAD DONE THAT, BUT I'VE BEEN ASSERTING IT FOR A FAIRLY LONG TIME NOW BASED ON THE BASTARDIZATION OF ITS USE THAT I'D READ ABOUT] This is clearly not any sort of “common law” definition, which is supposedly the result of accumulated court decisions (precedent) over time:

    To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves,
    to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.

    Blackstone 1764 Commentaries

    Only 30 years prior to Blackstone’s writings, in 1736, British Jurist and scholar Matthew Bacon recognized the fundamental, unadulterated meaning of “natural born subject”: [NO, THAT IS NOT FUNDAMENTAL, IT WAS THE CURRENT CONSENSUS EVOLVED VIEWED IN ITS EVOLVED BASTARDIZED STATE.]

    “All those are natural-born Subjects whose Parents, at the Time of their
    Birth, were under the actual Obedience of our King, and whose Place of
    Birth was within his dominions.”

    Matthew Bacon, “A New Abridgement of Law”, 1736, Vol 1, pg 77
    [THAT REFLECTS THE CURRENT VIEW OF THE US GOVERNMENT BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE TERM natural-born Subjects MEANT AT THAT TIME ANYONE BORN WITHIN THE KING’S REALM WHO WAS SUBJECT TO HIM. IT HAD TOTALLY LOST ITS ORIGINAL MEANING. see “What Natural Born Citizen Means & Why”. IT INCLUDED CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS, LIKE THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

    Take note that fundamental to this original definition is your contested “birth within its dominion”, or “born on a country’s soil”. Also the “actual Obedience” is the equivalent of (full) jurisdiction, where that Obedience is not just presumed (under law), but acknowledged allegiance (having citizen parents). In other words, this is the *same* definition of natural born citizen that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized over its entire history.
    [THE SUPREME COURT HAS NEVER RECOGNIZED ANY "DEFINITION". YOU WOULD NOT MAKE SUCH A CLAIM IF YOU HAD A MODICUM OF COMMON SENSE AND KNEW WHAT A DEFINITION ACTUALLY IS. AND BESIDES, WE ARE NOT BRITAIN AND DON'T FOLLOW ALL OF THEIR OLD BASTARDIZED LANGUAGE, AND IDEAS.]

    To be blunt, your source recognizing British “common law”, is nothing but continuing the corruption of law and history promoted by Horace Gray, a Progressive engaging improper legislation from the bench, which represented Crown edict and statute as if valid “natural law”.

    YOU FAIL TO GRASP THE NATURE OF NATURAL LAW AND USE THE TERM WITHOUT KNOWING HOW IT ACTUALLY RELATES. THE TRUTH IS THAT IT DOESN’T RELATE AT ALL BECAUSE THE SITUATION OF MEMBERS OF ONE SOCIETY LEAVING THEIR HOMELAND, UPROOTING THEMSELVES AND TRAVELING TO A FAR DISTANT COUNTRY WHERE THEY SEEK TO BECOME MEMBERS, WHILE HAVING NO NATURAL RIGHT TO BE MEMBERS, IS NOT A NATURAL SITUATION AND IS NOT ANALOGOUS TO ANYTHING IN NATURE.

    THE PRACTICAL NEED OF THE NATION IS THAT THE AMERICAN BORN AND RAISED CHILDREN OF WELCOMED LEGAL IMMIGRANTS BE DEEMED CITIZENS JUST LIKE ALL OF THEIR PEERS. THAT FACT IS EXPRESSED BY THE AMERICAN VALUES INHERENT IN DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP. WHY WERE THE FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF NATURALIZED IMMIGRANTS GRANTED US CITIZENSHIP UPON NATURALIZATION? BECAUSE IT’S GOOD FOR THE NATION SINCE IT’S GOOD FOR THE FAMILY AS WELL AS THE INDIVIDUAL CHILD. IT IS GOOD FOR HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING TO BELONG TO THE SOCIETY IN WHICH HE IS BEING RAISED. FOLLOWING NATURAL LAW STRICTLY WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN SUCH CHILDREN HAVING TO WAIT UNTIL ADULTHOOD AND BECOME NATURALIZED THEMSELVES. THAT WAS IMPRACTICAL. THE LAW-MAKERS MUST CHOOSE THE PRACTICAL OVER THE PHILOSOPHICAL.
    SIMILARLY, IT IS ALSO GOOD FOR THE CHILD AND THE NATION FOR CHILDREN OF IMMIGRANTS TO BE US CITIZENS. NATURAL LAW DOES NOT NATURALLY APPLY IN UNNATURAL SITUATION.]

    We fought two wars, Revolutionary and 1812, to declare that we are neither subjects, nor are we subject to British Common Law. Your source and argument could not possibly be more irrelevant. [IRRELEVANT TO UNDERSTANDING HISTORY? TO EXPLAINING THE EVOLUTION OF TERMS? YOUR COMMENT IS EVIDENCE THAT YOU EITHER DIDN'T READ THE EXPOSITION YOU REFERENCED, OR YOU READ IT WITH YOUR MIND UTTERLY SHUT BECAUSE YOU CLEARLY ABSORBED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THAT'S WHY YOU ARE NOT DISPUTING ITS HISTORY. INSTEAD YOU TAKE THE POSITION THAT HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING IS IRRELEVANT?]

    Arnash wrote:

    [AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO GRASP REALITY. NO AFRICAN WAS A NATURAL MEMBER OF WHITE SOCIETY, ANYMORE THAN AN ASIAN, OR AN INDIAN (EITHER TYPE) OR AN ESKIMO. YOUR PIPE-DREAM PHILOSOPHICAL IDEAS ABOUT ALLEGIANCE HAVE NO PLACE IN THE REAL WORLD WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY LIVE AND STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE. THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE ARGUED, BASED ON REALITY, THAT AFRICANS AND THEIR CHILDREN WERE ALIEN TO WHITE SOCIETY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MAKING AN UNREASONABLE OBSERVATION, ESPECIALLY SINCE HALF THE NATION WAS PREVIOUSLY SLAVE-OWNING. OBSERVATIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROMOTION OF A SOCIO-POLITICAL DIVISION.

    You’re mistaken. This is not about “reality” but fact. You’re also confusing “law and practice” with natural allegiance, which is outside of any law. Citizenship is a matter of law. Natural born citizenship is a function of “natural law”, which has nothing whatsoever to do with applied man-made legislative statute. [THANKS FOR LECTURING THE LECTURER. YOU ARE MERELY REPEATING AN OBSERVATION FIRST MADE BY YOURS TRULY. I'LL TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT. BUT I WON'T ACCEPT YOUR FANTASY CONCEPT THAT IS INIMICAL TO AMERICAN VALUES, NAMELY "NATURAL ALLEGIANCE". THERE IS ONLY NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP OBLIGATIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT'S NATIONAL DEFENSE RESPONSIBILITY. EVERYTHING ELSE IS PHILOSOPHICAL FLUFF CREATED TO JUSTIFY THE RULE OF ROYAL DICTATORS.]

    The applied recognition, prior to the civil war, was that Blacks (slaves) were not citizens, not even when freed.

    However the TRUTH, despite application, is that that after the first generation of slaves, which were naturally and in reality, citizens of a foreign society, their offspring were NATURALLY citizens of American society, having no other possible allegiance. Only in practice (non-naturally) were those blacks NOT recognized to be citizens. It is not “natural” at all to presume that a person having no other possible allegiance, is not a member of the society in which they have resided all their lives. Such a belief (as you argue) is nothing but a corruption born of ignorance of the facts under consideration.

    To put this in perspective of Obama, whose father had a previous and existing marriage, Obama would not be recognized as a British citizen, even under the British Nationality Act, because Britain by existing law did not recognize polygamy making the 2nd Marriage illegitimate.
    [ERROR. BRITISH LAW DID NOT RECOGNIZE BRITISH POLYGAMY, BUT DID RECOGNIZED POLYGAMY IN ITS COLONIES IN WHICH IT WAS AN INDIGENOUS PRACTICE. THE US, BY TREATY, WAS OBLIGATED TO RECOGNIZE WHATEVER BRITAIN RECOGNIZED BUT WOULD NOT GRANT CITIZENSHIP TO SUCH FOREIGNERS. BUT THE JURISDICTION OBAMA JR. WAS UNDER WAS IRRESPECTIVE OF LEGALLY RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE. ITS ROOT WAS IN THE OFFICIAL RECOGNIZED FATHER AS ATTESTED TO BY OBAMA'S MOTHER. THE RIGHT OF PATERNITY RESULTS NOT FROM LEGAL MARRIAGE BUT FROM THE WORD OF THE MOTHER AS TO WHO THE FATHER IS. THE GOVERNMENT ASSUMES BY DEFAULT THAT SHE IS TELLING THE TRUTH.]

    Yet this has no bearing whatsoever on Obama not being a natural born citizen, because Obama NATURALLY acquired the allegiance to his father’s country, regardless of what British law might dictate regarding citizenship. It would be ridiculous to assume that a young Obama would have no allegiance to his father’s country… unless British Law said it was okay.

    [PLEASE, REJOIN THE REAL WORLD. NO CHILD ACQUIRES ANYTHING RESEMBLING WHAT YOU CALL ALLEGIANCE. IT IS NON-EXISTENT EXCEPT IN THE MINDS OF PHILOSOPHERS SMOKING THE OPIUM OF HUMAN IDEAS. BABIES CANNOT BE TIED TO ANY SUCH IDEAS. STOP MOUTHING THE MONARCH-DEFENDING IDEAS OF NATURAL ALLEGIANCE, -WHICH ONE IS BORN WITH FOR LIFE AND CANNOT ABROGATE. THE CHINESE EMPEROR HAD A SOLUTION FOR ANY SUBJECT THAT DARED TO CAST-OFF HIS SUBJECTSHIP AND BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN (PRIOR TO THE EXCLUSION ACT) IT WAS TO REMOVE HIS HEAD. WHY ARE YOU PROMOTING SUCH A PHILOSOPHY?
    OBAMA, EVEN WITHOUT ANY ALLEGIANCE TO KENYA, WAS NOT A NATURAL AMERICAN CITIZEN BECAUSE HE HAD A FOREIGN FATHER AND NOT AN AMERICAN FATHER. THAT IS THE WHOLE STORY. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON COMPLICATING IT WITH PHILOSOPHICAL ABSTRACTS? WHY DO YOU CLING TO THE CONCEPT THAT NATURAL MEMBERSHIP HAS AN INNATE LINK TO GEOGRAPHY? IT IS IRRELEVANT TO NATURAL LAW, AND TO OBAMA’S STATUTORY CITIZENSHIP.

    Arnash wrote about the French Treaty and Vattel:

    [AGAIN, YOU FAIL TO GRASP REALITY. THE TREATY CONTAINED NO MENTION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. LOOK IT UP. YOUR IMAGINATION HAS MISLEAD YOU AGAIN. YOUR BASELESS CLAIM THAT VATTEL MEANT “CITIZEN”, -AS IN “NATURELS”=NBC WHEN HE CHOOSE TO NOT USE THE WORD CITIZEN, WHILE USING IT WHENEVER HE SO CHOSE ELSEWHERE IN THAT SECTION, IS CLEAR EVIDENCE AS TO YOUR PATHETIC DEFICIENCY OF COMPREHENSION ABILITY.

    You’re wrong. The treaty, as represented in English, the language of those United Colonies, was in fact written to include the term “natural born citizen”, as recorded by the contentinal Congress. (Look it up) [YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T, OR YOU WOULDN'T BE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF. THE TERM USED WAS ACTUALLY "natural born SUBJECT"!]

    There was no “improper redefinition of the term”, in Vattel’s later translation, but rather only a recognition of the words he used as known by the Founders, and recognized in that time period.
    [FALSE. ADDING “BORN CITIZEN” TO “les naturels” meaning “the naturals” (natural inhabitants, or natural members of society) redefined les naturels to include the concept of citizenship when it only manifested a meaning regarding membership in a natural group, not in a nation. THE ONLY LINK IS THAT A NATION IS COMPRISED OF ITS SOCIETY OR SOCIETIES.

    I don’t comment on the “WND forum” [I guess not since it hasn't existed since the end of the year] and I would never learn anything from you, except how not to think, and how not to argue. What I know in these matters came from persons far above your level.

    You need to understand something – I live in Valley Forge PA, only 30 minutes from Carpenters Hall, later known as Independence Hall, where the Constitution was drafted. Vattel is recognized by the Secretary of the Constitutional Convention, as the most referenced resource during the drafting of the Constitution. Also Vattel’s Laws of Nations was present there in Carpenter’s Hall, as a result of a gift of 3 copies of that volume given to Benjamin Franklin, one being gifted to Carpenter’s Hall by Franklin. Also Vattel was commonly used text book in American schools before the Constitution was ratified. Your exclusion of Vattel is nothing but a thoroughly ignorant and even asinine demand so that you might more easily ignore THE FACTS.

    [YOU MISS THE FACTS BY MISSING THE TRUTH, WHICH IS THAT THE MEANING OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON VATTEL HAVING EVEN LIVED. ITS MEANING IS FULLY EXPLAINABLE WITHOUT ANY PERSON HAVING EVER WRITTEN A WORD ABOUT IT. THAT IS A FACT YOU HAVE NOT EVOLVED ENOUGH YET TO RECOGNIZE. YOU LOVE THE WORKS OF MAN. AND THE WORDS THAT THEY’VE PENNED. BUT YOU CAN’T SEE BEYOND THEM TO THE NATURAL REALM FROM WHENCE THE MEANING IS DISCOVERED.
    AS FOR RESPECTING VATTEL, I SUPPORT IT, BUT NOT TO THE POINT OF WORSHIP. I CAN’T BE ASKED TO WORSHIP AT HIS SHRINE WHEN I’VE WRITTEN MORE ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF CITIZENSHIP IN ONE YEAR THAN HE WROTE IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE.

    Arnash wrote:

    AS FOR MY “RAMBLINGS”, I’VE BEEN CHALLENGING YOU FOR OVER A YEAR TO REFUTE THEM WITH LOGIC, BUT YOU CAN’T. ALL YOU HAVE IS OPINIONS BASED ON OPINIONS BASED ON MISCONSTRUED OBSERVATIONS. NO LOGIC, NO PRINCIPLES, NO REAL WORLD FACTS. EVERYTHING IS GROUNDED IN PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT AMBIGUOUS CONCEPTS AND DISTORTIONS OF FACT, LOGIC, AND THE MEANING OF WORDS.

    This is pure fantasy on your part. You’ve not been “challenging” me at all, much less “for over a year”. My first post on this blog was June 4 2012, not even a month ago. I’d never even read your schlock before then.
    [I DIDN’T SAY OUR HISTORY WAS ON THIS BLOG. OUR HISTORY WAS I ASSUMED IN THE HUNDREDS OF POSTS OF PHOXARRED AT WND, AS I BELIEVE I MADE CLEAR. WHY WOULD OR SHOULD I ASSUME THAT YOU ARE NOT HE WHEN YOUR THINK, WRITE, AND QUOTE IN AN IDENTICAL MANNER? I’M NOT CONVINCED THAT MY ASSUMPTION IS INFALLIBLE, IT’S JUST LOGICAL. BUT IT COULD BE THAT THERE ARE TWO OF YOU OUT THERE AND I JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE UNENDING FOCUS OF BOTH OF YOU BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I WOULD NOT DRINK YOUR KOOL-AID, MEANING YOUR UNPRINCIPLED IDEA OF IMAGINARY BOUNDARIES BEING CONNECTED TO ANYTHING NATURAL, AND YOUR PHOXARRED-LIKE DECEITFUL DEFENSE OF THE FRAUDULENT BIRTH CERTIFICATE IMAGES.

    OBAMA WILL BE UNDONE BY THE COUNTERFEITS BEFORE HE WILL BE JUDGED ILLEGITIMATE FOR HIS STATUTORY CITIZENSHIP BUT YOU WANT EVERYONE TO ACCEPT THEM AS LEGITIMATE. THAT IS EVIDENCE OF YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT EVEN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CULPABILITY BY OBAMA NOR THE FACTS THAT ARE NOW WELL KNOWN.

    And incidentally, my few posts here are more laden with true facts, and an accurate appraisal of the evidence, than all your blather accumulated over year(s).

    At this point I am done with you. Your total lack of character, integrity and honesty, combined with your hopeless ignorance, indicate that my further participation here is a waste of time – casting pearls before swine.

    Crescit Sub Pondere Virtus

  2. arnash says:

    May, 2011 PhoxarRed wrote: “Consequently, the naturalization acts use of the expression ‘under the jurisdiction of the United States’ proves again that, just as with the 14th Amendment’s use of the almost identically phrased expression, ‘in the UnitedStates and under-the-jurisdiction-thereof’, the meaning that is needed and not self-contradicting refers to the diplomatic/military exceptions to the rule.”

    Have you been living on MARS??? As I’ve written many times, ANY alien that is a visitor is NOT ***SUBJECT*** to US jurisdiction even though “under” it. And I can’t believe you misquoted the 14th amendment!
    The clear delineation day when an alien visitor becomes an alien legal resident is the day he moves from being “under” but not “subject” to the jurisdiction, -to being BOTH under AND subject. Then his native born off-spring are citizens per the 14 Amendment, but not natural born citizens until after the parents are naturalized. Clear?
    Any interpretation other than this is erroneous, be it expressed by men or gods. The truth of this fact is found in the actual meaning of words. Erroneous thinking springs from not grasping the meaning of words, -a problem you seem to suffer from.

  3. sentientstorm says:

    Have you found any external, credible evidence at all to support your own personal theory that two parents of the same nationality, giving birth *anywhere*, give birth to a natural born citizen of that nationality?

    [NATURAL PRINCIPLES HAVE BEEN COVERED FROM DOZENS OF DIFFERENT ANGLES IN THE EXPOSITIONS I’VE WRITTEN ON NATURAL LAW. WHERE ARE YOURS? I’D LIKE TO READ YOUr NATURAL LAW EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP AND THE LOGIC BEHIND IT. YOU DON’T HAVE ANY SUCH WRITING BECAUSE NATURAL LAW DOES NOT SUPPORT YOU UNPRINCIPLED THEORY THAT CITIZENSHIP HAS NO NATURAL PRINCIPLE (i.e., a principle of nature) UNDERLYING IT.

    IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, I HAVE ONE FOR YOU. “Have you found any external, credible evidence at all to support A BELIEF THAT TWO FELINE PARENTS OF THE SAME BIG CAT FAMILY, GIVING BIRTH ANYWHERE, DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO A NATURAL CUB OF THE SAME SPECIES?”

    THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD ASK SUCH A CLUELESS QUESTION REVEALS HOW BASELESS YOUR IDEA OF THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP IS. IF YOU, OR ANYONE, IS A NATURAL CITIZEN, THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE. CITIZENSHIP IS NOT SOMETHING YOU OBTAINED.

    ONLY THOSE WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS BY THEIR POLITICAL NATURE ARE IN NEED OF OBTAINING THAT WHICH THEY DO NOT NATURALLY NOR RIGHTFULLY POSSESS. BUT THOSE BORN TO CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS JUST AS INESCAPABLY AS THEY ARE MALE OR FEMALE. IT’S WHAT THEY ARE, -NOT JUST SOMETHING THEY POSSESS LEGALLY. NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS CAN SAY “I OBTAINED CITIZENSHIP ON THE DAY I WAS BORN.” BUT NATURAL CITIZENS CAN’T SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP, (VIA LAW) BUT INSTEAD WERE BORN CITIZENS BY NATURAL PRINCIPLE. ~THE LAW OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. THE LAW OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. GET USED TO IT. IT’S NOT GOING AWAY. IT’S BEEN AROUND FOR HALF A BILLION YEARS.

    OFF-SPRING ARE WHATEVER THEIR PARENTS ARE. IT IS A NATURAL LAW, NOT A HUMAN LAW. NO ONE WHO IS A CITIZEN BY HUMAN LAW IS ELIGIBLE TO BE THE PRESIDENT. THEY ARE NOT NATURAL CITIZENS.

    Strange, how you believe one could be a “natural member of a society” (natural born), yet never having set foot in that society, AS IF blood alone magically transports society to wherever those two parents might be!.
    That’s not only not natural, but pure idiocy, and it is why no one recognizes your theory but you.

    [NO ONE RECOGNIZES WHAT THEORY? WHY DON’T YOU NAME IT? ~THE “THEORY” OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. PLACE OF BIRTH IS NOT RELATED TO ONE’S BORN NATURE. ONE IS WHAT THEIR PARENT’S ARE. THAT’S THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP AND NO INCONVENIENT SITUATION ALTERS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE WHICH UNDERLIES CITIZENSHIP. UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE AND YOU WILL FINALLY UNDERSTAND THE LAW, AND THE LACK OF LAW REGARDING NATURAL CITIZENS.

    Somehow you’ve taken “natural” to be some representation of nature, as you see nature. So “blood” is nature, but blood does not naturally convey membership in a society, much less alonE preclude other means of being a natural member of society.

    [BLOOD IS USED TO CONVEY TRANSMISSION OF PARENTAL NATURE TO THEIR OFF-SPRING. IF YOU HAD ANY CHILDREN YOU WOULD NATURALLY FEEL THAT THEY ARE BY NATURE A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY TO WHICH YOU BELONG, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN INTO YOUR ENVIRONMENT, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN TO YOU, A MEMBER, AND NOT A FOREIGNER.

    “Natural” is not conveyed “by nature”, but rather under natural law, is a “self evident” status, in this case, membership in a society.

    [WHAT IS THE NAME OF THAT THEORY OR PRINCIPLE AND WHAT IS ITS NATURAL BASIS? NO ONE IS A NATURAL MEMBER OF A GROUP UNLESS THEY ARE BORN TO GROUP MEMBERS, WHETHER THEY BE ANIMAL OR HUMAN. OUTSIDERS AND THEIR CHILDREN ARE NOT NATURAL MEMBERS OF A GROUP TO WHICH THEY DO NOT NATURALLY BELONG AND HAVE NO RIGHT TO JOIN EXCEPT AS GIVEN BY GROUP MEMBERS.]

    Allegiance does not necessarily involve citizenship, but it does involve a personal tie to that society. Blood does not of itself convey a personal, self-evident tie to that society and no other.

    [THOSE ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTS, NOT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW. THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP IS FAR OLDER, AND MORE ORGANIC, MORE IMMUTABLE THAN TRUTHS ABOUT HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY]

    And, no, the Executive branch still has nothing whatsoever to do with natural born, nor the removal of one’s citizenship, which is done by law, and the process of law.

    [THE PROCESS OF LAW IS CARRIED OUT BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, EVEN IF THE FINAL DECISION IS MADE BY A JUDGE, WHICH I DON’T KNOW TO BE THE CASE SINCE THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE PRIMARY, AND ONLY CONTESTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FULL OF LAWYERS TO EXECUTE SUCH EXECUTIVE DECISIONS. JUST AS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ASSUMES THE AUTHORITY TO KILL HOSTILE AMERICAN ENEMY COMBATANTS, SO THEY ALSO ASSUME THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE CITIZENSHIP, BUT ARE GENERALLY TOO TIMID TO USE IT IN THIS DAY AND AGE OR ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO WITH AL AWLAKI WHO WAS BORN TO A NON-IMMIGRANT TEMPORARY WORKER FROM SAUDI ARABIA.

  4. arnash says:

    BTW, the post of yours that you thought I deleted was moved to this post exposition page. I don’t believe I’ve deleted an entire post, just slimey sections unworthy of publication. That disturbs you because you’re under the false impression that my personal blog exists in order to supply you a pedastal from which to fling feces and falsehoods. That is a delusional perspective.

  5. sentientstorm says:

    [NATURAL LAW DOES NOT SUPPORT YOU UNPRINCIPLED THEORY THAT CITIZENSHIP HAS NO NATURAL PRINCIPLE (i.e., a principle of nature) UNDERLYING IT.

    This does not have to do with your opinion, nor mine. This has to do with long established historical fact, and the recognition of the Supreme Court over its entire history.
    [WHAT YOU ARE REALLY REFERRING TO IS HISTORICAL OPINION, -THE OPINIONS OF OLD SAGES FROM BY-GONE ERAS WHOM YOU LIONIZE AS INFALLIBLE, REALITY ISN'T A PART OF YOUR EQUATION, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED N-O P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E WHATSOEVER. ALL THEY RECOGNIZED WAS THE FACT THAT CHILDREN OF CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS, -REGARDLESS OF THE BIRTH EVENT AND WHERE IT HAPPENED.]

    Your theory of “blood”, as applied, is inapplicable, and haing nothing whatsoever to do with natural law as it involves a natural membership in a society.
    What I argue does involve the foundation of natural law, but in accplication to “membership in a society”. ANd it has nothing to dowht with being “unprincipled”, which is what your insipid accusation amounts to.

    [YOUR CLUELESS THINKING FAILS TO GRASP WHAT THE MEANING OF NATURAL IS. IT DOES NOT MEAN SOCIALLY NATURAL. IT MEANS NATURAL AS IN NATURE. EVERY SPECIES AND GENUS AND BREED REPRODUCES AFTER ITS OWN KIND, MAKING THE OFF-SPRING NATURAL MEMBERS OF THEIR NATURAL GROUP. THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL LAW, ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT NATURAL LAW, -IT IS HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF SOCIAL GROUPS, -NOT THE LAW OF NATURAL GROUPS, i.e., THE LAW OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP.
    REMEMBER THAT TERM? IT’S THE ONE YOU WANT TO PRETEND DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE IT DESTROYS THE THEORY THAT YOU HOLD SO DEAR]

    “IT’S BEEN AROUND FOR HALF A BILLION YEARS”? Seriously, you need to quit the hyperbole, as it only makes you look like an idiot (to others).
    [SERIOUSLY, YOU NEED TO LEARN A LITTLE SOMETHING ABOUT THE AGE OF LIFE ON EARTH. I USED A FIGURE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT REFLECT THE AGE IN WHICH NATURAL GROUPS FIRST APPEARED ON EARTH.]

    IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, I HAVE ONE FOR YOU. “Have you found any external, credible evidence at all to support A BELIEF THAT TWO FELINE PARENTS OF THE SAME BIG CAT FAMILY, GIVING BIRTH ANYWHERE, DO NOT GIVE BIRTH TO A NATURAL CUB OF THE SAME SPECIES?”

    THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD ASK SUCH A CLUELESS QUESTION REVEALS HOW BASELESS YOUR IDEA OF THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP IS. IF YOU, OR ANYONE, IS A NATURAL CITIZEN, THEN THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE. CITIZENSHIP IS NOT SOMETHING YOU OBTAINED.

    This is nothing short of dopey. THis isn’t about genetics and making a “natural cub”, nor creating a species, but rather membership in a society, and that membership in a society is not exclusively conveyed by blood. Blood determines one’s race, or eye color, or hair color, but is not involved in establishing memberhsip in ao society.
    [ YOU HAVE THE MEMORY OF A GRASSHOPPER. I'VE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY, BUT IT STILL DOESN'T SINK INTO YOUR CONCRETE HEAD, THAT IT ISN'T ABOUT GENETICS, IT'S ABOUT PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE!
    THE LAW OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP IS THE PRINCIPLE DERIVED FROM NATURE, DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO NATURAL GROUPS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. IT IS THE BASIS OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. IT IS THE REASON THERE IS NO LAW GRANTING NATURAL CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP. ONE CAN'T BE GRANTED, OR BESTOWED THAT WHICH THEY ARE BY NATURE.

    CHILDREN INHERIT THEIR FATHER'S POLITICAL NATURE. THAT IS THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. SOIL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT UNLESS YOUR FATHER IS A FOREIGNER.]

    Your superficial thought on the matter is mired in a failed understanding of what “natural law” is, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with genetics. As a result, you’ve abandoned the relative area of concern, where that society itself actually is located in relation to the offspring.

    OFF-SPRING ARE WHATEVER THEIR PARENTS ARE. IT IS A NATURAL LAW, NOT A HUMAN LAW. NO ONE WHO IS A CITIZEN BY HUMAN LAW IS ELIGIBLE TO BE THE PRESIDENT. THEY ARE NOT NATURAL CITIZENS.

    In this consideration of natural born citizen, No, offspring are not *SOLELY* whatever their parents are, as ignoring where the society is, ignores the relevant consideration, natural membership in that society.

    [THE DECEITFUL FALLACY OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY WOULD BE REVEALED IF YOU WERE TO STATE OPENLY THAT THE "natural membership in society" THAT YOU REFER TO IS DETERMINED NOT BY NATURE BUT BY THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE WOMB OF ONE'S MOTHER WHEN ONE EXITED IT. THAT'S YOUR WARPED IDEA OF NATURAL.

    BIRTH LOCATION IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN NATURE IN DETERMINING WHICH GROUP ONE BELONGS TO. THAT IS A F-A-C-T THAT YOU CAN'T HANDLE BECAUSE IT MAKES YOUR WHOLE IDEA OF THE BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP TRANSPARENTLY FALSE. AND LORD KNOWS, ALL OF THOSE EXPERTS THAT YOU BOW DOWN TO COULDN'T ALL BE WRONG, COULD THEY? WHEN ARE EXPERTS EVER WRONG? YOU WORSHIP AT THE ALTER OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF "AUTHORITIES" WHILE I BEND MY KNEE ONLY AT THE ALTER OF REASON AND FACT.]

    For your future consideration, “natural law” involves a recognition of a “self evident truth”. When a person is not born into a society, then that person is not by self-evident means, a member of that society. The same is true that when a person is born of parents who are not members of a society,that the offspring is not a “self evident” member of that society. The two go together hand-in-hand.

    [THAT SOUNDS SO IRREFUTABLY RATIONAL, AND YET IT IS HALF TRUTH AND HALF FALSEHOOD, WHICH IS A TECHNIQUE YOUR MIND SEEMS TO RELY ON EXCLUSIVELY.

    “PERSONS” ARE NOT BORN INTO A SOCIETY. BABIES ARE BORN, NOT “PERSONS”, MEANING BEINGS WITH A SOCIOLOGICAL CONSCIOUSNESS.
    PLACE OF BIRTH IS AS BIG A FOLLY AS TIME OF BIRTH. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE ONE IS NOT LOGICALLY INTERCHANGEABLE WITH THE OTHER IN YOUR UNIVERSE DEVOID OF CONNECTION TO ANY IDENTIFIABLE PRINCIPLE. IT’S LIKE BELIEVING THAT IF ONE IS BORN IN THE DAYTIME THEN ONE IS A CITIZEN, BUT IF BORN AT NIGHT THEN ONE IS NOT.
    NEITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL NATURE THAT ONE INHERITS FROM THEIR FATHER.
    THAT INHERITANCE IS PURELY CONCEPTUAL, BUT THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING IT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT HAS GOVERNED HUMAN MEMBERSHIP IN GROUPS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEAR. IT IS THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN NATION.

    BY YOUR WARPED INSISTENCE ON JUS SOLI CITIZENSHIP, IF ONE OF GEORGE W BUSH’S TWIN DAUGHTERS WAS BORN IN TRAFFIC WHILE TRYING TO RETURN ACROSS THE US-CANADIAN BORDER, AND THE OTHER WAS BORN LATER ON THE AMERICAN SIDE, THEN ONE DAUGHTER WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO BE THE PRESIDENT AND HER TWIN WOULDN’T, EVEN THOUGH SHE IS THE DAUGHTER & GRAND-DAUGHTER OF UNITED STATES PRESIDENTS.
    ARE YOU REALLY INCAPABLE OF GRASPING JUST HOW ASININE SUCH A SYSTEM OF CITIZENSHIP AND PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY WOULD BE, AND HOW STUPID OUR FOUNDING FATHERS WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN TO HAVE ENSHRINED IT FOREVER IN THE CONSTITUTION?
    YOU NEED TO DO A LOT OF RETHINKING. INCLUDING ANSWERING THE HYPOTHETICAL ABOUT GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER JR. -BORN IN SIOUX TERRITORY. WOULD HE BE A NATURAL MEMBER OF THE SIOUX NATION? WOULD HE BE ELIGIBLE TO BE THE CHIEF? WHAT NATURAL SIGNIFICANCE CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE LOCATION OF HIS BIRTH?

    YOUR NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP IS EITHER NATURAL OR IT IS LEGAL, IT IS NEVER BOTH. NO LEGAL CITIZEN IS ELIGIBLE TO BE THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE THEIR CITIZENSHIP IS DEPENDENT ON THE EXISTENCE OF POSITIVE LAW GRANTING THEM CITIZENSHIP, WHILE NATURAL CITIZENS ARE DEPENDENT UPON NO LAW WHATSOEVER. AND NONE EXISTS.

    i’ve repeated that statement many, many times since it dawned on me, and so far no one, including you, has dared to dispute it. where are your authorities to refute my claim? the absence of positive law granting natural citizenship is like a giant black hole in the universe of your citizenship concepts. you don’t want to be sucked into it, you are afraid to swim in that ocean because it deflates the preeminence of human law, which is where your reverence lies.

    Your idea that “off-spring [SIC] are whatever their parents are”, is not based on natural law, but biological principle, which has nothing whatsoever to do with natural law membership in a society!
    [BIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE IS THE PRINCIPLE EMULATED BY HUMAN SOCIETY IN DETERMINING WHO IS AND ISN’T A NATURAL MEMBER OF A NATURAL GROUP. THAT PRINCIPLE IN TURN IS EMULATED BY NATIONS IN DETERMINING WHO IS AND ISN’T A NATURAL MEMBER OF THE NATION. THAT IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. IT’S SIMPLY THE WAY OF NATURE.

    Natural law is not about genetics, any more so than “natural born” is about Cesarean section.

    [PLACE OF BIRTH IS NOT RELATED TO ONE’S BORN NATURE. ONE IS WHAT THEIR PARENT’S ARE. THAT’S THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP AND NO INCONVENIENT SITUATION ALTERS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE WHICH UNDERLIES CITIZENSHIP. UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE AND YOU WILL FINALLY UNDERSTAND THE LAW, AND THE LACK OF LAW REGARDING NATURAL CITIZENS.

    Place of Birth is tremendously relevant to “natural membership in a society”, because that society involves a place, a geographical location. The idea that one carries a natural membership in a society, by their parent’s blood, is asinine. “One is what their parents are” only when it comes to genetic inheritance, which has nothing whatsoever to do with natural membership in a society. Furthermore, your reference to “natural citizenship” is wrong as well, because citizenship is a matter of law. “Natural Law” has nothing to do with man-made law (“the law” or “lack” thereof), but rather is a self-evident status because those offspring cannot possibly be members of any other society.

    [I ASSUME YOU DON’T MEAN WHAT YOU’VE APPARENTLY STATED. IF YOU STATE THAT CHILDREN OF FOREIGNERS CAN’T POSSIBLE BE MEMBERS OF ANY OTHER SOCIETY THEN YOU ARE INVENTING A RULE THAT IS DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALL THROUGHOUT UNITED STATES HISTORY UNTIL THE WONG RULING. IF GRAY HAd NOT OVERTURNED THAT POLICY IT WOULD PROBABLY STILL BE THE POLICY TODAY, MEANING NO CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN OF FATHERS WHO ARE NOT AMERICANS.

    YOU CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, FIRST DECLARING GRAY’S RULING TO BE A BASTARDIZATION OF US TRADITION BECAUSE IT GRANTED CITIZENSHIP BASED ON PLACE OF BIRTH, AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND DECLARING THAT CITIZENSHIP BASED ON PLACE OF BIRTH IS PERFECTLY NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. WHICH IS IT MR. SCHIZOPHRENIC?

    I asked you for ANY EXTERNAL REFERENCES to support your theory. THat means historical fact, Supreme Court Representation, recogintion [SIC] by such natural law authors as Emerich de Vattel, and others.

    [IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, I AM AN AUTHOR ON NATURAL LAW AND HAVE WRITTEN MORE ON THE SUBJECT IN ONE YEAR THAN ANYONE ELSE IN HISTORY HAS WRITTEN IN A LIFE TIME, (BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REASON TO FOCUS ON IT UNTIL THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPER WAS SWORN INTO THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT]

    THe problem is that YOUR theory has no support anywhere, and the reason for this is that it is not rationally founded in “natural law” nor any thinking regarding the subject, and does not reflect “natural born citizen” at all, anywhere!
    [THE SUPPORT THAT IS BEHIND THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP IS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OF THE LIFE OF SOCIAL GROUPS BEING GOVERNED BY IT. WHAT IS IT ABOUT NATURAL MEMBERSHIP THAT YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND? AREN’T YOU A NATURAL MEMBER OF YOUR OWN FAMILY. PERHAPS YOU DON’T HAVE ONE. THAT WOULD EXPLAIN A LOT.

    I ask AGAIN, dO YOU HAVE *any* EXTERNAL reference AT ALL TO support your personal theory?
    [I ASK AGAIN, WHAT DO OPINIONS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT THE TRUTH IS? THE HISTORY OF OPINIONS IS A HISTORY OF ERROR, WHETHER IN SCIENCE, ASTRONOMY, BIOLOGY, GEOLOGY, ETC. AND ALSO THE HISTORY OF US LAW. YOU STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE RULING IN WONG, YET IT WAS MADE BY A MAJORITY OF “AUTHORITIES” SITTING AS FINAL DECISION- MAKERS ON THE SUPREME COURT. WHERE IS YOUR “RESPECT” FOR THEIR “OPINION OF THE COURT”? THE CONTRADICTIONS IN YOUR THINKING ARE STARK.

    OBSEQUIOUS SUBSERVIENCE TO THE OPINIONS OF “EXPERTS” IS NEVER A HALLMARK OF ORIGINAL THINKERS. WHAT “AUTHORITY” DID CHARLES DARWIN RELY ON? OR EINSTEIN? OR PASTEUR? OR NEWTON? OR THE SCORNED ORIGINATOR OF THE THEORY OF TECTONIC PLATE MOVEMENT?

    [BLOOD IS USED TO CONVEY TRANSMISSION OF PARENTAL NATURE TO THEIR OFF-SPRING. IF YOU HAD ANY CHILDREN YOU WOULD NATURALLY FEEL THAT THEY ARE BY NATURE A MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY TO WHICH YOU BELONG, NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN INTO YOUR ENVIRONMENT, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN TO YOU, A MEMBER, AND NOT A FOREIGNER.

    Blood is ONLY used to convey parent nature when it comes to biological characteristics, by genetics. One is not a member of a society by “biological characteristics”.

    [MISCONSTRUENCE. BLOOD, IF YOUR COMPREHENSION WAS AVERAGE, WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERSTOOD TO BE “BLOOD”, AS IN THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL TRANSMISSION, -NOT LITERAL BLOOD.
    The first NATURALIZATION law this country ever enact, the 1790 Naturalization Act, was to convey citizenship to the offspring of American parents. There would be no need for this law recognizing mere citizenship, if those born overseas were “naturally” members of this society. Even by that 1790 Naturalization Act, those offspring were not recognized to be natural born citizens.
    [I SHOULD DELETE SUCH AN ABSURD AND BRAIN-DEAD STATEMENT, LACKING IN ANY UNDERSTANDING OF THE REAL WORLD. YOU APPARENTLY HAVE AVOIDED READING “EVERY TOM, DICK, AND HARRY, BUT NOT MY SON?” AS WELL AS SEVERAL EXPOSITIONS BEFORE IT EXPLAINING THE FACTS TO BE THE VERY OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU HAVE IGNORANTLY CLAIMED.

    [THOSE ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTS, NOT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL LAW. THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP IS FAR OLDER, AND MORE ORGANIC, MORE IMMUTABLE THAN TRUTHS ABOUT HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY]

    Allegiance, natural allegiance, is a function of natural law, not just psychology. We naturally follow the condition of our parents, but we also naturally are influenced by the society which we are born into, and have an allegiance thereto as well.

    [“Allegiance…is a function of natural law”
    YOU CLEARLY FEEL IT’S JUST FINE TO SPOUT UNFOUNDED SEMI-FACTS AS THOUGH THEY ARE STRAIGHT FORWARD TRUTHS WHEN THEY ARE NOT. ALLEGIANCE IS UNRELATED TO NATURE OTHER THAN NATURAL LOYALTY TO ONE’S NATURAL GROUP.
    YOU ARGUE THAT WE DON’T FOLLOW THE STATUS OF OUR PARENTS WHEN IT COMES TO INHERITANCE OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THEN TURN AROUND AND ARGUE THAT WE DO FOLLOW THE STATUS OF OUR PARENTS WHEN IT COMES TO “ALLEGIANCE”, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST MEANS TO EXPLAIN THE HYPOCRISY.
    THEN YOU CLAIM THAT “Allegiance…is a function of natural law” WITH NO POSSIBLE MEANS TO EXPLAIN NOR VALIDATE SUCH A STATEMENT, NOR THE ONE THAT PSYCHOLOGY IS NOT THE ENTIRE DETERMINANT OF ONE’S LOYALTY. DOES ONE ORGANICALLY GROW A SENSE OF LOYALTY, UNRELATED TO PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPRESSIONS AND ATTACHMENTS?

    IT IS FICTIONAL THINKING TO BELIEVE ONE HAS A NATURAL ALLEGIANCE TO A FOREIGN GROUP IN WHICH ONE IS LIVING AND GROWING UP. ONE ROOTS AND CHEERS FOR THEIR OWN TEAM, NOT SOMEONE ELSE’S. THEY ARE LOYAL TO THE TEAM THEY ARE ON, NOT ONE THEY ARE NOT ON. AMERICANS BORN AND RAISED ABROAD KNOW FULL WELL THAT FIRST AND FOREMOST THEY ARE AMERICANS. THEY ARE NOT CHINESE, NOR EGYPTIANS, NOR SAUDIS, NOR RUSSIANS. THEIR LANGUAGE AND CULTURE AND HISTORY ARE AMERICAN. AND THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE STEEPED IN -IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS.

    THERE IS ONLY ONE COUNTRY WHERE PEOPLE ARE MADE TO FEEL THAT THEY ARE NATURAL MEMBERS OF THE TEAM EVEN IF THEY AREN’T. THAT IS A POINT MADE UNMISTAKEABLY IN MARCO RUBIO’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY. BUT AMERICA IS NOT LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD. JUST BECAUSE A CHILD GROWS UP HERE FEELING LIKE AN AMERICAN DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF FOREIGNER-BORN CHILDREN IN OTHER COUNTRIES MIRRORS THE EXPERIENCE OF CHILDREN IN AMERICA. SO YOUR IDEA OF NATIONALISM GROWING IN A FOREIGN-RAISED CHILD’S HEART IS AN IDEA THAT IS ONLY TRUE IN AMERICA, AND NOWHERE ELSE, -UNLESS THE PARENTS ARE TRULY IMMIGRANTS FOR LIFE, AS THEY ARE GENERALLY IN AMERICA, AND NOT JUST RESIDENTS FOR A DECADE OR TWO.

    [THE PROCESS OF LAW IS CARRIED OUT BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, EVEN IF THE FINAL DECISION IS MADE BY A JUDGE, WHICH I DON’T KNOW TO BE THE CASE SINCE THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE PRIMARY, AND ONLY CONTESTABLE IN A COURT OF LAW. THE STATE DEPARTMENT HAS A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FULL OF LAWYERS TO EXECUTE SUCH EXECUTIVE DECISIONS. JUST AS THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ASSUMES THE AUTHORITY TO KILL HOSTILE AMERICAN ENEMY COMBATANTS, SO THEY ALSO ASSUME THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE CITIZENSHIP, BUT ARE GENERALLY TOO TIMID TO USE IT IN THIS DAY AND AGE OR ELSE THEY WOULD HAVE DONE SO WITH AL AWLAKI WHO WAS BORN TO A NON-IMMIGRANT TEMPORARY WORKER FROM SAUDI ARABIA.

    This is just scary-ignorant. Imagine if the Executive branch had the authority to remove an individuals citiznship by decree, and also to target Americans on their kill lists.
    [IT IS NOT A MATTER OF IMAGINING. IT IS A MATTER OF US LAW, WHICH YOU STILL HAVE FAILED TO RESEARCH (LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP, EXPATRIATING ACTS) LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP IS EFFECTED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF A CITIZEN COMMITTING ACTS DEEMED TO BE EXPATRIATING, NOT VIA EXECUTIVE FIAT.

    AMERICANS CAN BE TARGETED ON KILL LISTS IF THEY ARE A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND AMERICAN LIVES AND ARE UNCAPTURABLE. NATIONS, LIKE INDIVIDUALS, HAVE A RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE AND PROCUREMENT OF JUSTICE. IF AN AMERICAN CAN’T BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE, THEN THE NATION HAS A NATURAL RIGHT TO BRING JUSTICE TO THAT INDIVIDUAL, WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.

    IT’S THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF SURVIVAL. IF A CITIZEN TRAITOR IS FIRING ARROWS AT YOU FROM AFAR, AND YOU HAVE NO WAY TO REACH HIM (AS WITH ISRAEL AND THE ROCKETS) THEN YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO USE WHATEVER MEANS YOU HAVE TO END HIS BARRAGE OF ARROWS, INCLUDING USING YOUR CANNON. ISN’T A CANNON’S POWER OUT OF PROPORTION TO ARROWS? IT DOESN’T MATTER BECAUSE THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE TRUMPS AN ENEMIES RIGHT TO LIVE. THE GOOD OF THE MANY OUTWEIGHS THE RIGHT OF THE FEW WHEN IT COMES TO SURVIVAL.

    No, the process of law is not carried out by the Executive branch, which is ideally constrained by law itself.
    [??? EVERY 5TH GRADER KNOWS THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXECUTES AND ENFORCES THE LAW. WHAT GRADE ARE YOU IN? 3RD? DO COURTS OR CONGRESS ARREST PEOPLE? EXECUTE FINES AGAINST THEM? COLLECT TAXES AND FINES? EVICT PEOPLE FROM THEIR HOMES? DOES CONGRESS DO THAT? HOW ABOUT CAPTURE AND DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS? ARE THEY CARRIED OUT BY THE COURTS? YOU SHOULD BE MORE CAREFUL IN YOUR FRIVOLOUS USE OF LANGUAGE.

    However recent events has the current Oval Occupant disregarding laws of Congress, choosing who to kill on an individual basis, and engaging in unlawful actiosn with weapons across state boundaries.
    [THE PRESIDENT HAS THE SWORN OBLIGATION TO NOT RECOGNIZE NOR ENFORCE LAWS THAT HE DEEMS TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HE IS NOT THE SLAVE OF CONGRESS. HE CAN SHOOT-DOWN THEIR LAWS LEFT AND RIGHT VIA THE VETO. THE FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE HIM SUCH POWER BECAUSE THEY TRUSTED THE CONGRESS EVEN LESS.
    OF COURSE USING THAT AS AN EXCUSE EVEN THOUGH HE KNOWS A LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION.

  6. sentientstorm says:

    [WHAT YOU ARE REALLY REFERRING TO IS HISTORICAL OPINION, -THE OPINIONS OF OLD SAGES FROM BY-GONE ERAS WHOM YOU LIONIZE AS INFALLIBLE, REALITY ISN'T A PART OF YOUR EQUATION, AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS RECOGNIZED N-O P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E WHATSOEVER. ALL THEY RECOGNIZED WAS THE FACT THAT CHILDREN OF CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS, -REGARDLESS OF THE BIRTH EVENT AND WHERE IT HAPPENED.]

    No, everyone’s explanation of what natural born is, is not just “opinion.” The Supreme Court over its entire history, is not offering just opinion, but historically based argument.
    [YOU ARE BLATANTLY GUILTY OF MAKING AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PRINCIPLE TO STAND ON. I AM WELL AWARE OF THE “historically based argument” TO WHICH YOU REFER, HAVING READ THE ENTIRE WONG KIM ARK DECISION, WHICH I’M SURE YOU HAVEN’T DONE SINCE IT TAKES THE BETTER PART OF A DAY. THE SO-CALLED HISTORY IS THE HISTORY OF THE KING’S ENFORCEMENT OF HIS IMMORAL AUTHORITY OVER OTHERS, MAKING THEM HIS SUBJECTS AGAINST THEIR WILL AND AGAINST SPIRITUAL AND NATURAL LAW. SO DON’T DARE BRING UP HISTORY TO ME. IT IS A STRONG ARGUMENT AGAINST THE BASTARDIZED FEUDAL PLANTATION TRADITION OF JUS SOLI CITIZENSHIP.

    This isn’t about my “lionizing” anyone, and it sure as **** isn’t about you having any skill of insight into others, much less reasoning.
    [LET THE READER BE THE JUDGE]

    No, THE sUPREWME cOURT HAS NOT RECOGNIZED THAT THE CHILDREN OF CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS, REGARDLESS OF THE BIRTH LOCATION! TO EVEN CLAIM THIS, one must either be entirely ignorant of the facts, or entirely dishonest. [OR SOMETHING ELSE, TOO DISINTERESTED TO PUT THE LATTER PART OF THE STATEMENT IN BRACKETS, THEREBY INDICATING IT WAS AN OPINION ADDED BY ME. BUT THE FIRST PART IS ACCURATE. THEY RECOGNIZED THAT CITIZENS ARE BORN OF CITIZENS, BUT THEY DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHERE THEY ARE BORN. INCLUDING THE RECOGNITION OF BIRTH WITHIN ONE’S OWN COUNTRY IS NOT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE.

    NEVER in this country’s entire history, has it given citizenship to the offspring of American Parents, no matter where they are born, and certainly not as a matter of natural process. As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, this country’s first NATURALIZATION LAW in 1790 was to give citizenship to those born to Americans overseas. THere’s nothing “natural” about that citizenship!
    [SERIOUSLY, YOU NEED TO STOP ASSERTING SOMETHING WITH NO BASIS. YOUR MIND IS INFECTED WITH A CONCEPT THAT IS ALIEN TO ACTUAL FACT AND THAT CONCEPT IS THAT THE WORDS OF THE ACT IMPLY THE EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE NATURE OF THE CITIZENSHIP OF CHILDREN BORN ABROAD. READ IT AGAIN ABOUT A 100 TIMES AND MAYBE YOU’LL REALIZE THAT IT IS NOT ABOUT THE CITIZENSHIP ITSELF, IT IS ABOUT HOW THEY ARE PERCEIVED BY THOSE TO WHOM THE STATEMENT WAS AIMED. IT WASN’T AIMED AT GOD, NOR FOREIGN POTENTATES, NOR FOREIGN IMMIGRATION OFFICERS, NOR AVERAGE JOE BLOW CITIZEN, IT WAS AIMED AT THE UNITED STATE GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND ITS IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES. IT WAS A DIRECT ORDER TO THEM THAT THEY WERE TO RECOGNIZED ALL AMERICAN CHILDREN AS BEING NOT JUST CITIZENS, BUT NATURAL CITIZENS. WHY SHOULD THEY CARE WHETHER ONE WAS A NATURAL CITIZEN OR NOT? THERE WAS NO REASON TO CARE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FUTURE CONGRESSES WHO MIGHT THINK THAT SUCH CITIZENS WERE NOT ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT. SO THE NEXT CONGRESS DELETED THE “NATURAL BORN” LANGUAGE AS UNRELATED TO BEING RECOGNIZED A US CITIZENS.
    YOU NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT RECOGNIZING SOMETHING TO BE A FACT WHEN IT IS A FACT IS NOT THE SAME AS MAKING IT A FACT. THE ACT DID NOT MAKE THEM NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, NOR DID THE DELETION OF THE DELETED WORDS ALTER ANYTHING EITHER. THEIR CITIZENSHIP WAS INNATELY ACQUIRED VIA NATURAL PRINCIPLE. IT WAS BEHOLDEN ON OFFICIALS TO RECOGNIZE THAT FACT. BUT THEY, LIKE YOU, SOMETIMES SUFFERED FROM A MISCONCEPTION THAT NATURAL CITIZENSHIP HAS SOME JUS SOLI CONNECTION TO MAN-MADE NATIONAL BOUNDARIES.
    YOUR MIND NEEDS TO SEE THE LIGHT, AND HAVE THE VEILS LIFTED, AND THE DEMON EXORCISED SO YOU CAN FINALLY GRASP THE TRUTH, JUST AS IT FINALLY DAWN ON ME BECAUSE I NEVER RELIED ON AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MY FINAL
    POSITION ON THE MATTER.

    [SERIOUSLY, YOU NEED TO LEARN A LITTLE SOMETHING ABOUT THE AGE OF LIFE ON EARTH. I USED A FIGURE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT REFLECT THE AGE IN WHICH NATURAL GROUPS FIRST APPEARED ON EARTH.]

    I do? you’re talking to a geologist and geophysicist about the age of life on earth, and telling me I need to learn a “little something” about it? YOu’re pushing for some sort of Schmuck Trophy, aren’t you?
    [ACCORDING TO YOU, I ALREADY OWN IT]
    You used a figure which cannot possibly reflect human natural groups, not even by the most optimistic estimate. Homo Erectus only occupied a period from 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago. Prior to that mankind was not walking upright, ergo not living on the ground, ergo not having any sort of a society as we recognize it. If your demonstrated Bilical persuasion leads you to believe that Evolution is a falsehood (which is nowhere precluded by the Bible itslef), then you’re wasting such references entirely.

    [YOU ERRONEOUSLY REFER TO HUMAN SOCIETY WHEN I DID NOT DO SO. I REFERRED TO NATURAL MEMBERSHIP IN NATURAL GROUPS, -WHICH HAVE EXISTED FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. MEMBERSHIP IN HUMAN GROUPS FOLLOWED THE SAME PRINCIPLE. MEMBERS WERE BORN INTO THE GROUP BY GROUP PARENTS. THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. ONLY A FOOL WOULD THINK IT NECESSARY TO CODIFY IT BECAUSE IT’S SELF-EVIDENT.

    [ YOU HAVE THE MEMORY OF A GRASSHOPPER. I’VE TOLD YOU REPEATEDLY, BUT IT STILL DOESN’T SINK INTO YOUR CONCRETE HEAD, THAT IT ISN’T ABOUT GENETICS, IT’S ABOUT PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE, PRINCIPLE!

    THE LAW OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP IS THE PRINCIPLE DERIVED FROM NATURE, DIRECTLY ANALOGOUS TO NATURAL GROUPS IN THE ANIMAL KINGDOM. IT IS THE BASIS OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP. IT IS THE REASON THERE IS NO LAW GRANTING NATURAL CITIZENS CITIZENSHIP. ONE CAN’T BE GRANTED, OR BESTOWED THAT WHICH THEY ARE BY NATURE.

    There is no such “Law of Natural Membership”. There is no specific “PRINCIPLE” to which you refer.

    There is a Natural Law PHILOSOPHY, which deals with “self evident truths” (“We hold these truths to be self evident”, ring a bell?).
    [PHILOSOPHY EXISTS, AND GUESS WHAT, NATURE EXISTS ALSO! AND PHILOSOPHY IS BASED IN PART ON LAWS OF NATURE.
    The laws of inheritance you’re referring to as coming from “blood”, are biological in nature, and having nothing whatsoever to do with natural membership in a SOCIETY.
    [WAS THE FEUD BETWEEN THE HATFIELDS AND THE MCCOYS, KNOWN AS A BLOOD FEUD, ALSO BIOLOGICAL? OR ARE YOU SIMPLY DISINGENUOUSLY REFERRING TO BIOLOGY BECAUSE YOU WISH TO DEFLECT AWAY FROM THE ANCIENT HUMAN TRADITION OF INHERITANCE OF THE STATUS OF ONE’S FATHER?

    The reason there is no law granting NATURAL BORN citizens their citizenship, is those natural born citizens cannot possibly be citizens of anywhere else, as they are born entirely from, and into that given society. [SO….THERE IS NO IDENTIFIABLE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING NATURAL CITIZENSHIP? NO CONNECTION TO NATURAL MEMBERSHIP OF NATURAL GROUPS? THEN PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THEY ARE CALLED NATURAL CITIZENS? WHY HAS EVERY PARENT IN EVERY TRIBE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD BEEN MISTAKEN IN THINKING THAT THEIR CHILDREN WERE OF THE SAME TRIBE AS THEMSELVES, NO MATTER WHERE THE MOTHER WAS WHEN SHE DELIVERED THEM? IF A SIOUX CHILD WAS BORN OFF THE RESERVATION, DID IT THEREFORE HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE PEOPLE OF ITS PARENTS? IT WAS NOT A MEMBER OF THE SIOUX INDIAN NATION? REALLY, HOW OBVIOUS DOES A THING HAVE TO BE BEFORE YOU ARE ABLE TO SEE IT?

    [THE DECEITFUL FALLACY OF YOUR PHILOSOPHY WOULD BE REVEALED IF YOU WERE TO STATE OPENLY THAT THE “natural membership in society” THAT YOU REFER TO IS DETERMINED NOT BY NATURE BUT BY THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE WOMB OF ONE’S MOTHER WHEN ONE EXITED IT. THAT’S YOUR WARPED IDEA OF NATURAL.

    Yet again you display your ignornace [SIC] of hte issue at hand.

    The mother’s “womb” has nothing whatsoever to do with what’s going on. That womb (and blood it conveys) does not convey a society to other shores, despite your unfounded belief that it somehow magically does so.

    We’re discussing membership in a SOCIETY, and that society is naturally defined by geographical limits, and populated by persons who are its members, not merely by those who occupy the soil.

    [THE BASIS ON WHICH THE NATURE OF CITIZENSHIP IS ROOTED AND GROUNDED IS NOT TRADITION, NOT HISTORY, NOT SOCIOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY ABOUT SOCIETY. IT IS ROOTED IN AN IMMUTABLE PRINCIPLE OF NATURE AND EXISTS EVEN IF A SOCIETY IS EXTREMELY FRACTURED BY A THOUSAND DIFFERENT GROUPS WHICH KEEP TO THEMSELVES. SOCIETY IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE A NATURAL SOCIETY, AS IS THE CASE IN PLACES WITH EXTENSIVE IMMIGRATION.
    AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN CHILD BORN IN JAPAN IS NOT VIEWED AS A NATURAL CITIZEN OF JAPAN, NOR A NATURAL MEMBER OF JAPANESE SOCIETY BECAUSE IT IS COMPOSED OF A NATURAL GROUP. NATURAL GROUPS ARE THE TEMPLATE FOR THE PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS FOUNDED.

    By extension of your screwball theory, if a society were to send birthing pairs to any other society, they might take over that society with another society, by a sufficient number of offspring giving birth on that other society’s soil. This is not the truth of societies, history, nor how “natural born” works.
    [THAT IS WHAT THE NAZIS AND THE RUSSIANS DID. SUCH TRANSPLANTATION HAS NO ANALOGY TO NATURAL PRINCIPLE, NOR TO MEMBERSHIP IN NATURAL GROUPS, SO YOUR CLAIM THAT IT IS AN EXTENSION OF NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS ABSURD.

    History shows that those people born in another society, are not members of that society and are not afforded the full rights of members within that society.
    [AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH US LAW AND A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION OF THE INESCAPABLE WORDS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT? THE UNITED STATES IS NOT HISTORY AND DID NOT EMBRACE THE EXCLUSIONARY PRINCIPLES OF OTHER FOREIGN NATURAL GROUPS IN ITS FOUNDATIONAL DOCUMENT, THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT FOLLOW THOSE PRINCIPLES AND INSTEAD FOLLOWED THE HISTORICAL TRADITION YOU POINTED OUT.

    BIRTH LOCATION IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT IN NATURE IN DETERMINING WHICH GROUP ONE BELONGS TO.]
    NEITHER HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE POLITICAL NATURE THAT ONE INHERITS FROM THEIR FATHER.
    THAT INHERITANCE IS PURELY CONCEPTUAL, BUT THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING IT IS THE PRINCIPLE THAT HAS GOVERNED HUMAN MEMBERSHIP IN GROUPS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEAR. IT IS THE PRINCIPLE UNDERLYING MEMBERSHIP IN THE AMERICAN NATION.

    On does not just inherit their social natural from jsut their “Father”, but also their mother.
    [FOR MOST OF AMERICAN HISTORY, THE FATHER WAS EVERYTHING SINCE HE WAS THE DEFENDER OF AND HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD. WOMEN WERE LIKE CHILDREN BY COMPARISON. WHATEVER THE FATHER WAS, SO WAS THE MOTHER. THEIR CHILDREN INHERITED THEIR ONE UNIFORM NATIONAL IDENTITY.

    THe only reason some references indicate only the father, is that originally it was presumed that the mother/wife followed by default the naturalization of the father/husband, never having to go through even any naturalization process themselves.

    “Place of birth” is one of the two relevant concerns in natural born status, because a SOCIETY is determined by PLACE, with each society having a distinct geographical location.
    [UTTERLY FALSE. A SOCIETY IS DETERMINED BY NATURE, WHICH MAY BE RACE, OR RELIGION, OR SOME OTHER UNIFYING ELEMENT. PLACE IS IRRELEVANT, AS THE NATION OF KUWAIT DISCOVERED WHEN THEY HAD TO ALL FLEE THEIR COUNTRY. THE NATION OF KUWAIT, LIKE ANY REFUGEE NATION, WAS NOT DEFINED BY PLACE, BUT BY MEMBERSHIP AND MEMBERSHIP ONLY.

  7. sentientstorm says:

    Apparently you’re still suffering from the belief that your scribble is any sort of authoritative reference. Have you yet noticed the difference between your writings and my own? My own ritings are laden with footnotes, and references to other sources, both legal and historical. Your own writings are entirely devoid of any reference whatsoever. What you are employing is a flaw of argumentation called “appeal to false authority”, in this case yourself.

    [THAT IS TRULY FUNNY. THE FLAW OF ARGUMENTATION IS CALLED “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY” BECAUSE THE AUDIENCE THAT’S DIRECTED TO AN AUTHORITY DOES NOT KNOW WHICH IS A TRUE AUTHORITY AND WHICH IS A FALSE AUTHORITY. WHETHER AN AUTHORITY IS FALSE OR TRUE IS DETERMINED BY WHETHER THEY HOLD CLAIMS THAT ARE FALSE OR TRUE. NO ONE APPEALS TO FALSE AUTHORITY BECAUSE NO ONE GOES BY THE PUBLIC RECOGNITION OF BEING A FALSE AUTHORITY, AT LEAST NOT UNTIL THEY ARE PROVEN TO BE MISTAKEN, A LIAR, OR SELF-DECEIVED.
    SELF-DECEIVED AND MISTAKEN IS THE CATEGORY I’D PUT YOU IN. YOU DO NOTHING BUT APPEAL TO AUTHORITY WHILE I DO NOTHING BUT APPEAL TO REASON. PEOPLE ARE FULLY CAPABLE OF DOING THEIR OWN THINKING, EXCEPT YOU, AND DON’T NEED AN “AUTHORITY” TO DO IT FOR THEM.

    No, this nation’s founders were NOT concerned about “Loyalty” but rather “allegiance”. Loyalty resides in one man’s heart, and cannot be discerned by others, but allegiance can.
    [WAIT, DON’T END THERE! I’M LEFT HANGING BY YOUR AUTHORITATIVE WORDS BECAUSE THEY WENT NOWHERE! WHERE ARE YOUR VAUNTED AUTHORITIES TO BACKUP YOU BASELESS AND ILLOGICAL STATEMENT?

    Those founders did not “forget about” those being representatives to foreign nations. From the start of this country, those representative’s children are provided citizenship, but are not natural born citizens, because they are not born into American society.
    [BY THAT THINKING, A LION CUB IS NOT A LION CUB UNLESS BORN INTO THE WILDS OF AFRICA. THAT IS THE KIND OF LOGIC YOU HAVE DEVOLVED TO. NATURAL CITIZENS ARE THOSE WHO ARE CITIZENS BY NATURE, BY INHERITED POLITICAL IDENTITY, JUST AS IN ALL THE CIVILIZATIONS OF HUMAN HISTORY UNTIL THE COLONIAL ERA AND THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS.

    I am quite certain you would be startled to learn that the 1790 Naturalization Act DID NOT convey natural born status to those born overseas, despite its utlization of the phrae “natural born citizen”. The 1790 Act’s reference to “considered as” natural born citizens, is employing SIMILE, comparing two fundamentally unlike things, so as to argue for only the CITIZENSHIP of those born overseas to American citizens. This use of simile was far more commonplace in the expression of the time period, and was not in any way changing what constitutes a natural born citizen. It is of no suprise that Vattel also uses simile in his Law of Nations. It is entirely unreasonable to believe that this nations first Congress would intend to alter the terms of natural born (something outside of man-made law) before the ink on the Constituiton was even dry. The terms of “natural born citizen” are not within the authority of naturalization law.

    [I’M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE SIMPLY DENSE OR ARE ENGAGING IN SOPHISTICATED SOPHISTRY, BUT I SUSPECT THE LATTER. BUT YOU DID GET A FEW THING RIGHTS. “the 1790 Naturalization Act DID NOT convey natural born status to those born overseas,” YES, THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN EMPHASIZING. THE CONGRESS HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING BEYOND ASSERTING THE TRUTH AND REQUIRING THAT IT BE FOLLOWED BY THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES. AND THE TRUTH WAS THAT THOSE BORN ABROAD WERE IN FACT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, BIRTH LOCATION WAS IRRELEVANT.

    BUT NOT ALL WORKING FOR IMMIGRATION KNEW THAT AND SO THAT STATEMENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED SO THEY WOULD NOT END UP LIKE WONG KIM ARK, OR THE AMERICAN CHILD MENTIONED IN AN ACCOMPANYING COMMENT, BORN IN LONDON AND FORCED BY IGNORAMUSES IN INS TO UNDERGO NATURALIZATION, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO US LAW AND TRADITION.

    Furthermore,the 1795 Naturalization Act did not “include more situations than were covered by the first”, and did specifically repeal in its entirety the 1790 Naturalization Act, but other than excluding reference to natural born, virtually repeated that act. [VIRTUALLY IMPLIES VARIATIONS, BUT IF YOU WISH TO EFFECTIVELY CORRECT MY "ERROR" WHERE IS YOUR NECESSARY QUOTATION? MIA]

    YOU ARGUE THAT WE DON’T FOLLOW THE STATUS OF OUR PARENTS WHEN IT COMES TO INHERITANCE OF CITIZENSHIP, AND THEN TURN AROUND AND ARGUE THAT WE DO FOLLOW THE STATUS OF OUR PARENTS WHEN IT COMES TO “ALLEGIANCE”, WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST MEANS TO EXPLAIN THE HYPOCRISY.

    There’s no sort of “hypocrisy”; there’s only your failure to distinguish between citizenship and allegiance. Citizenship is a matter of man-made law, and legal recognition. Allegiance, particularly natural allegiance, is not a matter of any law.

    [ALLEGIANCE IS A MAN-MADE CONCEPT, UNRELATED TO NATURAL LAW, IT'S DERIVED FROM THE BANKRUPT PHILOSOPHY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, JUSTIFYING WHY HIS ROYAL MAJESTY HAS THE RIGHT TO BE GOD OVER HIS FELLOW MAN. IT CLAIMED THAT A MAN OWED HIS DICTATOR ALLEGIANCE FOR LIFE, WHICH WAS THE POLICY THAT FORCED THE YOUNG AND VULNERABLE UNITED STATES TO DECLARE WAR ON THE MOST POWER EMPIRE ON EARTH IN 1812]

    To apply this to Obama, there is a chance that British Law might not recognize Obama Jr’s citizenship, since his father had a pre-existing marriage, and Obama was therefore illegitimate. However the recognition of Obama’s citizenship by the British government is irrelevant to Obama’s natural born status.
    [BRITISH LAW RECOGNIZED POLYGAMY IF IT WAS LEGAL IN THE COUNTRY WHERE IT WAS PRACTICES. WHICH INCLUDED MOST OR ALL ISLAMIC SOCIETIES.

    Obama was born with the natural allegiance of his father, despite what Positive man-made law might say about the issue. It would be irrational to believe that Obama would have no innate allegiance to his father’s country, unless the British government said it was okay.

    WOW! WOW! WOW! THAT LAST STATEMENT IS THE SINGLE MOST STUPID THING I’VE EVER READ. I DON’T EVEN NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY, IT’S SELF-EVIDENT.

    THe one point of Marco Rubio’s book, exemplified by its title, is that he is trying to convey falsehood that he is a natural born citizen, when he is not. [THAT’S NOT A VERY ACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION. HE IS TRYING TO CONVEY THAT HE IS JUST AS AMERICAN AS THOSE BORN TO CITIZENS, WHICH IS TRUE. ONE CAN BE AN AMERICAN WITHOUT BEING A CITIZEN AT ALL BECAUSE IT ISN’T DEFINED IN TERMS OF CITIZENSHIP. IT IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL IDENTITY, ALTHOUGH IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP WHEN ASSERTED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, BUT NOT HERE.

    I’ve never mentioned “nationalism” growing in a foreign raised child. I have referenced the fact that a child is naturally a member of a society they are born into and then particpate in. This is not to say that birth on foreign soil makes that offspring a “natural born citizen” of that society; it does not. It’s irrelevant about the philosphy of that society, which the offspring is subject to subsequent to birth. The fact that American society is fundamentally egalitarian, does not change the fact that the Founders did not want those born into other societies, or born from other societies, to be able to hold the office of President.
    [THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE WHEN DISCUSSING NAIVE-BORN FOREIGNERS BUT HAS NO APPLICATION TO FOREIGN-BORN NATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES. NATIVES OF AMERICA GIVE BIRTH TO AMERICANS, ANYWHERE ON EARTH. AMERICA IS THEIR SOCIETY, JUST AS OBSERVED BY VATTEL IN REGARD TO BIRTH TO ONE WHO IS NOT A MEMBER OF A SOCIETY. YOU FALSELY USE THE CHARACTERIZATION OF BEING BORN INTO A SOCIETY WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH THING. ONE IS BORN. PERIOD. ONE IS RAISED AND ACCULTURATED. HOW ONE IS ACCULTURATED DETERMINES ONE’S IDENTITY, NOT WHERE THEY WERE BORN. DOES A NORWEGIAN BORN IN AFRICA FEEL LIKE A NATURAL BORN NEGRO? THAT SHOWS THAT THERE IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT FACTORS AT PLAY THAN THE MOMENT AND LOCATION OF EXIT FROM THE WOMB.

    BUT YOU ERR IN EQUATING THE SOCIOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE OF ATTACHMENT TO A SOCIETY WITH THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE UPON WHICH A NATION GROUNDS ITS BASIS FOR CITIZENSHIP. THAT PRINCIPLE IS IMMUTABLE, PERENNIAL AND ABSOLUTE JUST AS THE NATURAL PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP IN NATURAL GROUPS.
    The purpose of the natural born requirement is to limit as best as possible, if not outright prohibit, foreign influence in that office. This would exclude from the office, by the same reasoning, those born into foreign societies, and foreigners born into this society. Both offspring are “aliens” or “foreigners” to *this* society, regardless of their parent’s American citizenship status.
    [NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD HAS CONTRACTED THE DISEASE OF ALLEGIANCE FROM SOIL OR ONE'S GREATER ENVIRONMENT. IT COMES SOLELY FROM IDEAS, NATIONAL PRIDE AND PATRIOTIC SONGS. ONE DOES NOT RELATE TO THOSE THINGS THAT DO NOT PERTAIN TO THEIR COUNTRY. CHILDREN ARE NOT A.I. ROBOTS WHO LEARN APART FROM HUMAN TEACHING. THEIR IDENTITY IS THAT WHICH IS INSTILLED BY THEIR FATHER AND LIVING ABROAD DOES NOT CHANGE THAT UNLESS ONE IS A FOREIGN CHILD LIVING IN AMERICA. SUCH CHILDREN ARE HIGHLY LIKELY, IF SCHOOLED IN A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND NOT A TYPICAL PROGRESSIVE AGENDA DOMINATED UNION PUBLIC SCHOOL, TO DEVELOP A SENSE OF AMERICAN IDENTITY.]

    [THE PRESIDENT HAS THE SWORN OBLIGATION TO NOT RECOGNIZE NOR ENFORCE LAWS THAT HE DEEMS TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. HE IS NOT THE SLAVE OF CONGRESS. HE CAN SHOOT-DOWN THEIR LAWS LEFT AND RIGHT VIA THE VETO. THE FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE HIM SUCH POWER BECAUSE THEY TRUSTED THE CONGRESS EVEN LESS.

    This nation’s founders specifically distrusted the unilateral exercise of authority by any singular individual, despising despotism, monarchy, and oligarchy. For this reason the President is purely administrative, and the Congress is legislative, and the courts are judicial – Separation of POwers. [TELL ME WHAT I DON'T KNOW]

    When the President violates his authority, and creates a “kill list”, serving as judge, jury, and executioner, that President is inherently violating the separation of powers, and is utilizing a wrongful, illegitimate authority that can easily be abused against those who are legitimately expressing their constitutional right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It should be as disturbing that Tea Party members are on terrorist watch lists, as it is that Paulites, and returning military are listed there as well, particularly given this administration’s belief it can single handedly dictate who is an enemy of the state, and without trial.
    [I DECLARE YOUR PROCLAMATION THAT TEA PARTY MEMBERS AND OTHERS ARE ONE A “TERRORIST WATCH LIST” IS RIDICULOUS ON ITS FACE. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE MOST ANTI-TERRORIST. ONLY INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PLACED ON A LIST, NOT CATEGORIES.
    YOU FUNDAMENTALLY FAIL TO GRASP THE FACT THAT NOTHING IS MORE CLEAR TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH THAN THE FACT THE WHAT IS DOMESTIC IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS FOREIGN, AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY TO DEFEND THE NATION FROM ALL ENEMIES, PARTICULARLY FOREIGN IN CLOSED FOREIGN LANDS, HIS AUTHORITY IS ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM ATTACK. IF THAT REQUIRES LETHAL FORCE, THEN IT MUST BE USED WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE.
    THE RIGHTS OF THE MANY TO LIVE OUTWEIGHS THE RIGHT OF THE ONE TO LIVE. THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY. THAT IS THE UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE. INDIVIDUALS ARE BORN WITH THAT RIGHT, AND NATIONS POSSESS IT AS WELL. IT’S A SIMPLE MATTER OF NATURAL LAW, NAMELY THE LAWS OF NATURAL RIGHTS.

  8. sentientstorm says:

    “the 1790 Naturalization Act DID NOT convey natural born status to those born overseas,” YES, THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN EMPHASIZING. THE CONGRESS HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING BEYOND ASSERTING THE TRUTH AND REQUIRING THAT IT BE FOLLOWED BY THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES. AND THE TRUTH WAS THAT THOSE BORN ABROAD WERE IN FACT NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, BIRTH LOCATION WAS IRRELEVANT.

    BUT NOT ALL WORKING FOR IMMIGRATION KNEW THAT AND SO THAT STATEMENT WAS DELIBERATELY INSERTED SO THEY WOULD NOT END UP LIKE WONG KIM ARK,…

    Until the 1790 Naturalization Act, those born overseas of American Parents did not even have CITIZENSHIP! Given this FACT, they obviously were not “NATURALLY BORN” American citizens!
    [BY WHAT LAW DID THEY NOT POSSESS CITIZENSHIP? OH, YOU FORGOT, NONE! NO LAW HAD YET BEEN WRITTEN SO TO SAY THAT THEY WERE NOT NATURAL CITIZENS IS NOT A STATEMENT OF NATURAL FACT BUT OF UNCERTAINTY AND CONFUSION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY GUIDELINES FOR THOSE OFFICIALS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMISSION OF FOREIGNERS INTO THE COUNTRY. AND WHO WERE THOSE OFFICIALS? THEY WERE STATE OFFICIALS SINCE IMMIGRATION WAS PURELY A STATE MATTER, AS WELL AS NATURALIZATION. CONGRESS HAD NO AUTHORITY OTHER THAN TO WRITE A UNIFORM RULE APPLICABLE TO ALL THE STATES, -WHICH WAS THAT FOREIGNERS BE FREE WHITE PERSONS OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.]

    That 1790 NATURALIZATION Act was naturalizaiton, which is commonly recognized by those who have a clue as to what they’re talking about, as conveying citizenship when there is no naturally derived citizenship. Naturalization is by statute, man-made Posiitive Law, and is BY DEFINITION entirely OUTSIDE of Natural law.
    [YOU ARE DISPLAYING YOUR SUPPOSED KNOWLEDGE WHEN IN FACT YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THAT OF WHICH YOU SPEAK.

    THE 1790 ACT WAS NOT A NATURALIZATION ACT AS THAT TERM IS USED TODAY. IT WAS NO MORE THAN WHAT THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWED, NAMELY A UNIFORM RULE FOR THE STATE NATURALIZATION AUTHORITIES. IT DIDN’T LAY OUT TERMS OF WHO WOULD BE GRANTED OR DENIED CITIZENSHIP BEYOND THE GENERAL DESCRIPTION GIVEN. AND AFTER IT PROVIDED THOSE RULES, THEN IT ADDED SOMETHING, -SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF FOREIGNERS BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF AMERICAN CHILDREN WHO MIGHT NOT BE RECOGNIZED AS BEING THAT WHICH THEY NATURALLY WERE, i.e., CITIZENS BORN OF CITIZENS.
    THE ACT CONVEYED NOTHING TO THEM AND YOU WOULD DIE TRYING TO PROVE THAT IT DID. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO READ THINGS INTO IT WHICH ARE NOT THERE!
    “And 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…

    THE ACT DID NOT LIMIT ITSELF TO CALLING THEM SIMPLY CITIZENS, BUT ORDERED THAT THEY BE VIEWED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. THERE IS ONLY ONE EXPLANATION ON EARTH FOR WHY THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, AND IT IS ONLY FOUND IN MY EXPOSITION “EVERY TOM, DICK, AND HARRY BUT NOT MY SON?”
    I WON’T ASK YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY DELIBERATELY PLACED THAT WORDING INTO THE ACT AT THE END, (AFTER GIVING ALL OF ITS NATURALIZATION TERMS) BECAUSE I KNOW THAT NEITHER YOU NOR ANYONE ELSE CAN EXPLAIN IT.
    YOU HAVE NOT MENTIONED THAT REASON AND HAVE THUS AVOIDED ATTEMPTING TO REFUTE IT, WHICH IS WISH BECAUSE IT CAN’T BE REFUTED.

    And in 1790 “All those people working for IMMIGRATION” were probably nil, zip, zilch, NADA. The States generally handled the recognition of citizenship, and there was no Ellis Island handling immigration. There was no “INS”. THis has to be the stupidest thing I’ve yet heard come out of your mouth.

    [YOUR UNBOUNDED PRESUMPTION IS WHAT IS TRULY STUPID SINCE I DIDN’T CHARACTERIZE THE IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS AS BEING FEDERAL. IMMIGRATION WAS A STATE MATTER, AND NATURALIZATION ALONG WITH IT.

    Those people born of American citizens overseas WERE NOT Natural Born Citizens of the United States, and were only just made CITIZENS! The 1790 Act’s reference to “natural born citizen”, using the phrase “Considered as”, is the use of SIMILE to argue for for the citizenship, and NOT to indicate those persons were natural born citizens. FURTHMORE [SIC], the 1795 Naturalization Act (Still no Ellis Island), specifically repealed the 1790 Act, and then reiterated everything without reference to Natural born, because some people even then were apparently too ignorant to understand that act was not conferring, nor recognizing any natural born citizen status that could not POSSIBLY meet the terms of natural born!

    [OR….THE IGNORANT ONES WERE THOSE OF THE SECOND CONGRESS WHO WERE UNAWARE OF THE REASON THAT NATURAL BORN WAS ADDED TO THE 1790 ACT. I GAVE THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON FOR DOING THAT IN MY EXPOSITION ON THE SUBJECT, AND IT REFLECTED THE FACT THAT SOMETHING LIKE 20 OF OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION WERE IN THE FIRST CONGRESS, AND THEY MEANT AND UNDERSTOOD EVERY WORD THAT THEY WISELY INSERTED INTO THE ACT. THE ONLY IGNORANCE TO SPEAK OF IS YOUR OWN.

    [ALLEGIANCE IS A MAN-MADE CONCEPT, UNRELATED TO NATURAL LAW, IT'S DERIVED FROM THE BANKRUPT PHILOSOPHY OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, JUSTIFYING WHY HIS ROYAL MAJESTY HAS THE RIGHT TO BE GOD OVER HIS FELLOW MAN. IT CLAIMED THAT A MAN OWED HIS DICTATOR ALLEGIANCE FOR LIFE, WHICH WAS THE POLICY THAT FORCED THE YOUNG AND VULNERABLE UNITED STATES TO DECLARE WAR ON THE MOST POWER EMPIRE ON EARTH IN 1812]

    Allegiance is NOT a man-made concept any more so than “society” itself is. The allegiance that exists is a natural allegiance, just as the attraction is of a child to its parent’s country, and to the country in which it is born.
    There is natural allegiance, and then there is contrived allegiance, as is resulting form Kings, who declared themselves the voice of God, unto man.
    [I INVITE EVERY THINKING PERSON TO JUDGE THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR IMAGINARY “natural allegiance”, A CONCEPT PULLED OUT OF THE MAD HATTERS HAT. IT’S AS PHONEY AS THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT YOU SO FIERCELY DEFEND.
    PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG BY WRITING AN ENLIGHTENING ESSAY ON THE ORIGIN OF NATURAL ALLEGIANCE, -FROM WHENCE IT SPRINGS, WHY IT IS IRREFUTABLE, AND BACKED BY A PLETHORA OF AUTHORITIES. THAT SHOULD BE RIGHT UP YOUR ALLEY SINCE YOU SEEM TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT WHICH YOU SO BOLDLY PONTIFICATE.

    Once again you need to read far beyond your superficial knowledge, rather than fabricate your own theory of natural born citizen, a theory which, it should be pointed out, no one anywhere in history corroborates.
    [NO ONE IN HISTORY CORROBORATED THE NEWLY PUBLISHED WRITINGS OF NEWTON, OR EINSTEIN, OR DARWIN, AND A LONG LIST OF OTHER ORIGINAL THINKERS. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY WERE ALL WRONG. AS FOR FABRICATION, I SEE A LOT OF IT AND IT’S ALL COMING FROM YOU WITH YOUR UNPR0VABLE CLAIMS. AND YOU FALSELY CHARACTERIZE THE FACTS THAT I’VE POINTED OUT AS BEING MY THEORY. THEY ARE NO MORE MY THEORY THAN THEY ARE MY FACTS. THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT IS THAT CITIZENSHIP IS BASED ON A NATURAL PRINCIPLE, NOT A NATURAL NOTION OF YOURS. IF THERE IS NO PRINCIPLE BEHIND IT THEN IT IS PURELY CAPRICIOUS AND DEPENDENT OF THE CURRENT PHILOSOPHY OF THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE. THAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS GROWN UP IGNORANT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. JUST BECAUSE I RECOGNIZED IT DOES NOT MAKE IT MINE, NOR DOES IT MAKE IT A THEORY, ANYMORE THAN IT IS SIMPLY THAT IN THE NATURAL REALM.

    [THAT’S NOT A VERY ACCURATE CHARACTERIZATION. HE IS TRYING TO CONVEY THAT HE IS JUST AS AMERICAN AS THOSE BORN TO CITIZENS, WHICH IS TRUE. ONE CAN BE AN AMERICAN WITHOUT BEING A CITIZEN AT ALL BECAUSE IT ISN’T DEFINED IN TERMS OF CITIZENSHIP. IT IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL IDENTITY, ALTHOUGH IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO CITIZENSHIP WHEN ASSERTED IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY, BUT NOT HERE.

    He is trying to convey something that is untrue, and violation of the U.S. Constitution. Marco Rubio is NOT “as American” as those born to citizens, and is by definition recognized long before the founding of this country, an “alien” or “foreigner”. Rubios obtaining citizenship via a naturalization statue,[SIC] the effect of distorting Congress’ deliberate legislative intent in the 14th Amendment, did not convey to RUbio natural born status. [PLEASE, STOP PREACHING TO THE CHOIR]

    [OH OH! YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL HYPOCRISY IS SHOWING! YOU’VE MOCKED THAT IDEA THAT NATURAL CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS BY NATURE, YET HERE YOU TURN AROUND AND DECLARE RUBIO TO BE AN ALIEN BY NATURE AND HISTORY.

    BUT SOMEHOW YOU FLEW OFF THE CLIFF WITH THE STATEMENT OF HIS OBTAINING CITIZENSHIP VIA A NATURALIZATION STATUTE. HE OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP VIA THE WONG RULING ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT, NOT A STATUTE. CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP IS BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS, SO TO PROCLAIM THAT HE IS LESS AMERICAN THAN OTHER AMERICANS MAY BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY TRUE IN THE MINDS OF SOME, BUT IT IS NOT IN THE MINDS OF OTHERS, NOR IN THE MIND OF THE LAW.

    Not only are you the most ignorant bastard I’ve ever met on this issue, I am here to proclaim from the Forge of Freedom, Valley Forge, that you are thoroughly un-American yourself, and I am done with you, your trash blog, and your thorough dishonest and Machiavellian self-obsession. You, and those like you, are a hazard to our freedoms, and this country’s very longevity.

    [STRONG SELF-DELUSIONAL THINKING IS A CONDITION AKIN TO RELIGIOUS FANATICISM. IT IS HARD TO DE-PROGRAM SUCH A MIND FROM CLINGING WITH ALL OF ITS MIGHT TO THE IDEAS THAT IT HAS ABSORBED INTO ITS VERY CORE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE STRENGTH OF THE INFLUENCE THAT HAS WARPED HIS THINKING, IT’S PERFECTLY NORMAL TO FALL UNDER THE SPELL OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH HE FINDS HIMSELF. IT IS IN A WAY THE OPPOSITE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH I RESIDE. I LIVE A FEW BLOCKS FROM WHAT A LEADING WORLD EXPLORER, WHO TREKKED ACROSS AFRICA AND UP THE CALIFORNIA REDWOOD COAST AND WROTE FOR NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE SAID ABOUT MY BACKYARD. “IT’S THE MOST AWESOME, AMAZING, GIGANTIC FOREST ON EARTH!” IT HAS AN IMPACT THAT IS UNFORGETTABLE. UNTIL YOU’VE STOOD BESIDE A TREE NEXT TO WHICH YOU ARE AN ANT, A TREE 30 STORIES HIGH AND 75 FEET IN CIRCUMFERENCE, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT GRASP THE PRIMACY OF NATURAL LAW.
    HIS ADMIRATION AND AWE IS DIRECTED AT THE WONDERFUL WORKS OF GREAT MEN, AND THE SYSTEM OF LAW THAT THEY CREATED, BUT HIS ADMIRATION MAKES HIM INCAPABLE OF SEEING THINGS THROUGH THEIR EYES, SINCE HE CAN ONLY SEE THINGS THROUGH THE EYES OF A FAN LIVING IN A FAR DIFFERENT AND DISTANT AGE.

  9. sentientstorm says:

    [I DECLARE YOUR PROCLAMATION THAT TEA PARTY MEMBERS AND OTHERS ARE ON A “TERRORIST WATCH LIST” IS RIDICULOUS ON ITS FACE. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE THE MOST ANTI-TERRORIST. ONLY INDIVIDUALS CAN BE PLACED ON A LIST, NOT CATEGORIES.

    You really are disturbingly unaware of what has been going on in this country the past four years, and longer.
    The inclusion of those against big government, and others, on terrorist watch lists would be “ridiculous in its face”, if not for the fact that it is occurring.

    [YOUR PRESUMPTION IS ERRONEOUS, EQUATING THE CATEGORIZATION OF CERTAIN "SUSPICIOUS" GROUPS TO PLACING INDIVIDUAL NAMES ON A LIST OF TERRORIST SUSPECTS IS ABSURD ON ITS FACE.]
    Furthermore, even in your cloistered existence, I assume you have heard of “profiling” groups for terrorist activities. That profiling has now come ot include those against big governemnt, Constituitonalists, Ron Paul Libertarians, those flying the Gadsden flag, returning vets, and many more. THey aren’t just targeting individuals, but ideologies.
    [“TARGETING” IS FAR TOO STRONG OF A WORD, YOU MEAN IDENTIFYING.

    2001 FEMA symposium given to firefighters and other emergency personnel in Kansas City in which it was stated that the founding fathers, Christians and homeschoolers were terrorists and should be treated with the utmost suspicion in time of national emergency.

    [2001???? HOW ABOUT YOU LIVE IN THE PRESENT?]

    April 2009 DHS intelligence assessment listing Afghanist and Iraq veterans as a major terrorist threat. The report also identifies those who are against illegal immigration, support 2nd Amendment rights to arms, and many other issues. (DHS “Right Wing Extremism” PDF)

    [AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT CRACK-POT ASSESSMENT ENDED UP? IN THE BLACK HOLE OF SOME FORGOTTEN FILE CABINET. BUREAUCRATS ARE ALWAYS OCCUPYING THEMSELVES WITH WRITING THINGS TO JUSTIFY THEIR EMPLOYMENT, BUT NOBODY IN THE REAL WORLD GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THEIR IMAGININGS.

    March 2009, End the Fed protests targeted by United States Army Reserve Command and the FBI as terrorist threat.

    February 2009, MIAC Report, Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) entitled “The Modern Militia Movement”, falsely associates groups supporting constitutonal governance with radical militia movements, and targets the supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced domestic terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout. It also targets things such at the Gadsden flag, and ROn Paul bumper stickers on vehicles.

    2011, Department of Homeland Security’s public Service annoucement program ““See Something Say Something”, portrays white middle class Americans as terrorists in all of its avertisements. [video 2]

    Vice-President Biden publicly labeled Tea Parties as akin to terrorists.

    There are many more evidences. You really need to wake up regarding what is actually going on in this country.
    [ HAVING THE MEANS AND METHODS TO RING MUTED ALARM BELLS IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THOUSANDS OF CHICKEN LITTLE DEVOTEES IN LAW ENFORCEMENT JUMPING TO ATTENTION AND TAKING ANY ACTION WHATSOEVER. ACTION REQUIRES KNOWLEDGE OF OR REASONABLE SUSPICION OF THE COMMISSION OR PLANNING OF A TERRORIST ATTACK. SINCE THERE IS NONE OF THAT, THERE IS NO ACTION BY ANYONE IN RESPONSE TO CIVILIAN CHICKEN LITTLES CRYING WOLF IN PARANOID PANIC.

    THE RIGHTS OF THE MANY TO LIVE OUTWEIGHS THE RIGHT OF THE ONE TO LIVE. THAT IS THE BASIS OF THE PRESIDENT’S AUTHORITY.

    The above is not just profoundly disturbing and ignorant, but it is entirely an ANATHEMA to the principles of Individual unalienable freedoms on which the Constitution based, and this country is founded. That is nowhere the basis of the President’s authority, in no way coincides with what powers are vested in the Office of President, and is on par with the darkest ideology exhibited by such totalitarian regimes as Germany’s Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, Castro’s Cuba, and every darkness that has enveloped the word. What you describe is a democratic tyranny of the majority, taken to its darkest extent, and this sort of government was deliberately rejected by this nations founders!

    You are officially a lost cause and a waste of my time.
    [“the principles of Individual unalienable freedoms” THERE IS NO SUCH TERM AS UNALIENABLE FREEDOMS, -IT RIGHTS. IT IS NOT “THE FREEDOM OF LIBERTY” IT’S THE RIGHT OF LIBERTY, THE RIGHT TO LIFE. THE RIGHT OF TWO PEOPLE TO LIVE OUTWEIGHS THE RIGHT OF ONE PERSON TO LIVE IF THAT PERSON IS A DIRECT THREAT TO THEIR LIFE.
    IF YOU KNEW FOR A FACT THAT A HIRED KILLER WAS COMING TO KILL YOU AND YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY (THAT REMINDS ME OF “THE PUNISHER”) WOULD YOU WEIGH HIS RIGHT TO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM ABOVE THE RIGHT OF YOUR FAMILY TO LIVE? WHAT IF THERE WAS NO WAY TO CAPTURE OR STOP HIM FROM CARRYING OUT HIS MISSION? THEN WHAT IS THE RIGHT CHOICE TO MAKE IN REGARD TO WHETHER TO KILL HIM TO STOP HIM OR NOT? IS HIS RIGHT TO LIVE EQUAL TO YOUR FAMILIES RIGHT TO LIVE? DO YOU HAVE TO LET HIM KILL THEM BEFORE YOU CAN EXERCISE YOUR UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO JUSTICE?
    WHEN I STOOD WATCH AT NIGHT IN VIETNAM, AND I PICTURED A VIET CONG SAPPER CRAWLING UP THE SLOPE IN FRONT OF ME, I HAD NO DESIRE TO KILL SUCH A FOOLISH MISGUIDED PERSON, ALL I WAS MOTIVATED TO DO WAS TO STOP HIM. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO SHOT HIM UNTIL HE STOPPED ADVANCING. WITH M16 BULLETS BEING WHAT THEY ARE, NO ONE SURVIVES BEING SHOT BY ONE SO THE ONLY WAY TO STOP HIM WOULD BE TO KILL HIM. SAME WITH TERRORIST BEYOND OUR AUTHORITY TO CAPTURE. THE RIGHT OF YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS TO LIVE OUTWEIGHS HIS RIGHT TO LIVE. A NATION, LIKE AN INDIVIDUAL HAS AN UNALIENABLE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE, AND THAT INCLUDES KILLING THE WOULD-BE MASS MURDERER THREATENING THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE SO FAR GONE THAT THEY CAN’T GRASP THAT?

  10. sentientstorm says:

    By what law(s) they did not possess citizenship, are the laws of each and every state. Yes, laws regarding citizenship had been written in each state, and those were recognized by the federal government.

    Natural law, however, did not need to be written, as it is a self evident status and the understanding of that natural membership in a society goes back to 1st Century A.D. Rome, and before! Yes, even the Romans relied on a natural membership in that soceity, being born of its citizens, and born into Roman society, in order to hold a position in the Senate, and public office!

    Contrary to what your ignorance enables, Natural born is in fact a actually a statement of natural FACT, and is not subject to uncertainty and confusion at all, except for to those with a failed understanding of the issue of full “membership in a society”, which has beeon contributed to by this nation actually giving citizenship for birth on American soil, regardless of the status of the parents.

    [ARE YOU DRUNK? YOUR SENTENCE CONSTRUCTION SURE SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT YOU ARE. YOU'RE OFF IN THE WEEDS AGAIN KNOCKING DOWN STRAW-MEN CREATED BY YOUR HAYWIRE IMAGINATION.]

    Even the Articles of Confederation, express the colonial resentment that the Crown was trying to prevent the population of states. Aricle IV of the Articles of Confederation references citizenship as opposed to subjecthood, and left that up to the individual states. The individual states had a wide variety of recognitions of citizenship, but these states were all unform in every state recognizing the citizenship of those born on the soil to parents who were citizens. These of course, are natural born citizens, because they COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE citizens of anywhere else!
    [STATE GOVERNMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY NOT HAVING ANY LAW WHICH PROCLAIMED CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR NATURAL CITIZENS. BUT THEY ALL HAD TO HAVE LAWS FOR DEALING WITH FOREIGNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN, I.E. IMMIGRATION LAWS.
    NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS NOT INNATE “because they COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE citizens of anywhere else!” AN UNIDENTIFIED STATELESS CHILD FOUND IN THE U.S. WOULD NOT BE A CITIZEN OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY EITHER, BUT THAT WOULD NOT MAKE IT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE KNOWN TO HAVE AMERICAN PARENTS.

    Natural born citizen, birth to two citizens on American Soil, is the ONLY “birthright citizenship” that this country ever had!
    [THE ONLY MEANING ATTACHED TO BIRTHRIGHT IS THE MEANING OF INHERITANCE, NOTHING ELSE. CHECK A DICTIONARY SOMETIME. IT IS DIRECTLY TIED TO PRIMOGENITURE, -THE BIRTHRIGHT OF THE FIRST BORN TO INHERIT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING TITLES SUCH AS KING. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS THAT WHICH CHILDREN INHERIT FROM THEIR FATHER AND MOTHER, NOT WHAT THEY INHERIT FROM THE DIRT.

    There is no “right to citizenship” for those giving birht on foreign soil, less so then because the members of this society, the colonists, had no idea of the status of those overseas who were not living here!!!
    [AGAIN, YOU’VE SHOT-OFF YOUR BIG MOUTH IN IGNORANCE. READ THE 1790 NATURALIZATION ACT FOR ONCE. IT STATES. “THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP SHALL NOT DESCEND (DESCEND MEANS VIA INHERITANCE) TO…” CHILDREN OF PARENTS WHO HAVE NEVER LIVED IN THE U.S. THAT MEANS THAT AMERICAN CHILDREN BORN ABROAD HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP IF THEIR AMERICAN PARENTS WERE NOT BORN AND RAISED ABROAD WITHOUT EVER LIVING IN AMERICA. THAT WOULD ALMOST INCLUDE ALL OF FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN. LEARN SOMETHING NEW FOR A CHANGE.

    [OH OH! YOUR PHILOSOPHICAL HYPOCRISY IS SHOWING! YOU’VE MOCKED THAT IDEA THAT NATURAL CITIZENS ARE CITIZENS BY NATURE, YET HERE YOU TURN AROUND AND DECLARE RUBIO TO BE AN ALIEN BY NATURE AND HISTORY.

    RUBIO is *NOT* a natural born citizen. I have NEVER “MOCKED” that natural born citizens are citizens by nature, NOT EVER!
    [WHAT? DID I SUDDENLY ENTER AN ALTERNATE REALITY? YOU DO NOTHING BUT CLAIM THAT NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS INTRINSICALLY TIED TO AMERICAN LAND AND MOCK THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS TIED ONLY TO PARENTAGE. LAND IS NOT NATURE, CONCEPTION, GESTATION, AND BIRTH ARE NATURE, NOT IMAGINARY BORDERS.

    Marco Rubio is a FOREIGNER and ALIEN by nature, because his parents were citizens of CUBA, and neither blood nor soil have any magical ability to change that nature of themselves! TO be a natural member of a society, one must be born with NO OTHER ALLEGIANCE! There is not rationally nor reasonably any cause to assert hypocricy on my part.

    [“Marco Rubio is a FOREIGNER and ALIEN by nature” [EXACTLY! IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN. HE IS BY THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP A NATURAL CITIZEN OF CUBA, JUST AS FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS ARE NATURAL CITIZENS OF AMERICA. GET IT? IT’S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE! SO CLOSE BUT SO FAR AWAY FROM LETTING REASON IN.

    YOU, however, have asserted that a natural citizen of a society is the result of the parents, no matter where they are born! Thus, Marco Rubio, by your own ignorance, would be a NATURAL CITIZEN OF CUBA, and therefore THE HYPOCRISY IS YOUR OWN! Somehow you’ve managed to change that rule for Rubio. You seem to think that no other country than the United States has natural citizens! YOUR BELIEF IS UDENIABLY HYPOCRISY.

    Under the terms I argue (not my own creation), Rubio is not a natural citizen of Cuba, but is not a natural citizen of the united States either. Rubio was born a citizen of Cuba owing Cuba allegiance through his parents.
    [WHAT??? ONLY NATURAL CITIZENS “OWE ALLEGIANCE” TO THE COUNTRY OF THEIR PARENTS (WHEN THEY FINALLY REACH ADULTHOOD). AREN’T YOU GOING TO SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU THINK RUBIO SHOULD BE CALLED WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF CONCEPTUAL CITIZENSHIP THAT YOU PROMOTE? WHAT? THERE’S NO NAME FOR IT? GEE, I’M SHOCKED. TIME TO MAKE ONE UP, LIKE YOU MADE UP THE WHOLE IDEA OF A BASTARDIZED UNHOLY MINGLING OF JUS SANGUINIS AND JUS SOLI.

    BUT SOMEHOW YOU FLEW OFF THE CLIFF WITH THE STATEMENT OF HIS OBTAINING CITIZENSHIP VIA A NATURALIZATION STATUTE. HE OBTAIN CITIZENSHIP VIA THE WONG RULING ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT, NOT A STATUTE. CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP IS BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS, SO TO PROCLAIM THAT HE IS LESS AMERICAN THAN OTHER AMERICANS MAY BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY TRUE IN THE MINDS OF SOME, BUT IT IS NOT IN THE MINDS OF OTHERS, NOR IN THE MIND OF THE LAW.

    This is a little known fact, but “naturalization” is NOT just the forswearing of allegiance to one country and swearing of an allegiance to another, done later in life. IN fact ANY Law, statute, or Amendment, that gives citizenship, is NATURALIZATION.
    [ARE YOU DRUNK AGAIN??? THE SUBJECT WASN’T NATURALIZATION BUT THE MEANING OF STATUTE. YOU SAID WONG WAS DEEMED TO BE A CITIZEN BY STATUTE, BUT I CORRECTED YOU BY SAYING HE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZEN, AND HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS THEREFORE UNALTERABLE BY CONGRESS OR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THEIR STATUTES.

    You should thoroughly read the Wong Kim Ark decision. In that decision Justice Gray actually makes several references to naturalization including even Amendments. Yes the Gray Court corrupted the intent of “jurisdiction”, and from that fabricated “anchor baby birthright” but even then it was only CITIZENSHIP. And that interpretation of CIITZENSHIP, despite being in conflict with the clear and undeniable intent of Congress, was still naturalization.
    [THE GRAY COURT ALTERED THE PARAMETERS OF SUBJECTION, NOT JURISDICTION. THE CONSEQUENCE WAS THAT THEN FOREIGN IMMIGRANT MEN COULD BE DRAFTER INTO THE US MILITARY, -WHICH WAS THE FULL JURISDICTION THAT PREVIOUSLY ONLY AMERICAN MEN WERE SUBJECT TO. AFTER WONG, IMMIGRANTS WERE SUBJECT ALSO.
    THE BASTARDIZATION OF THE GRAY COURT OPINION CAN’T BE LAID AT THEIR FEET BECAUSE IT WAS COMMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEN IN POWER WHEN HE ISSUED A YET UNKNOWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE COURT’S OPINION MEANT. HE GOT IT ALL WRONG, AS I POINTED OUT IN “THE UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICA”, UNLESS IT WAS IN “THE UNMASKING OF A COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT”

    You’re WRONG even by your own WONG reference!
    Even under Wong Kim Ark, and particularly by the argument presented in that decision, the 14th Amendment’s “born or naturalized” would still only have as “born” those who are natural born citizens, born to two American parents on American soil. You need to pause a long while and actually soak that fact in.
    [REALLY? YOU FORGET THAT IT WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR NOR IN REGARD TO NATURAL CITIZENS BUT IN REGARD TO FREED SLAVES. WOULD YOU DECLARE THAT THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE MINDS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS BEING NATURAL BORN CITIZENS? EVEN THOUGH BY THE NATURALIZATION LAWS THEY WROTE, NON-WHITES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN BE CITIZENS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT NATURAL MEMBERS OF THE NATURAL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT FOUNDED AND INHABITED THE NATION.
    NATURAL CITIZENS WERE NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE AMENDMENT, BUT IT WAS NOT ADDRESSED AT THEM BEING AS CONGRESS HAD NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS THEIR CITIZENSHIP. ANYTHING CONGRESS MIGHT PASS IN THAT REGARD WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT WAS TO NOT ONLY MAKE EX-SLAVES CITIZENS BUT TO MAKE THEM NATURAL BORN CITIZENS AS WELL, OR AT LEAST ANY CHILDREN BORN TO THEM AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, BECAUSE THEN THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP APPLIED.

    Marco Rubio was made a naturalized (made as if natural) citizen of the United States upon birth. He is not natural born. PLEASE, THE CHOIR DOESN’T NEED PREACHING TO, -THAT’S MY JOB.

    You sure do love to hear yourself talk. You are neither a psychologist, nor a historian, nor a promoter of any sort of coherent rational thought. You have no understanding of this country, its freedoms, or its history, and are an American in name only.

    [A PSYCHOLOGIST OR HISTORIAN? SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF I WAS, THEN I WOULD BE RESPECTABLE, A PROMOTER OF RATIONAL THOUGHT, KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE COUNTRY, ITS FREEDOMS AND HISTORY, ETC.? GEE, ALL OF THAT AND ALL I WOULD NEED TO GET IT WOULD BE TO HAVE A DIVINELY, ETERNALLY, IMMEASURABLY VALUABLE COLLEGE DEGREE?

    YOUR WORSHIP OF ACADEMIA AND THE CERTIFICATES IT BESTOWS IS PATHETIC. REAL MEN DON’T WORSHIP SUCH ELEMENTARY ACHIEVEMENTS. NOR DO REAL INTELLECTUALS. WAS EINSTEIN THE MAN HE WAS BECAUSE HE STUCK IT OUT UNTIL GRADUATING FROM COLLEGE? WERE BILL GATES AND STEVE JOBS JUST SLOBS BECAUSE THEY DUMPED YOUR HALLOWED HALLS OF IVY AND JOINED THE REAL WORLD?
    YOUR APPEAL TO AUTHORITY AND ELITIST SNOBBERY ARE JUVENILE ATTEMPTS AT VALIDATION OF YOUR OWN ACHIEVEMENT. YOU NEED A PSYCHOLOGIST TO ENLIGHTEN YOU AS TO THE EGO MONSTER THAT SLEEPS IN YOUR MIND AND HEART.

  11. sentientstorm says:

    These of course, are natural born citizens, because they COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE citizens of anywhere else!
    [STATE GOVERNMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN LIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY NOT HAVING ANY LAW WHICH PROCLAIMED CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR NATURAL CITIZENS. BUT THEY ALL HAD TO HAVE LAWS FOR DEALING WITH FOREIGNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN, I.E. IMMIGRATION LAWS.

    You don’t get it. WHY would the states have to have laws for dealing with foreigners and their children? They are foreigners and their foreign children! They are not citizens, and they are not subject to the jurisdiction. They would have laws for dealing with them if they chose to be citizens, called naturalization, which occurrs later in life. [SO FIRST YOU DISAGREE AND THEN YOU TURN AROUND AND DO AGREE, BRILLIANT! HOW COULD ANYONE WHO HAD EVER LOOKED AT USC TITLE 8 IMAGINE THAT GOVERNMENT HAS NO NEED TO DEAL WITH FOREIGNERS? UNBELIEVABLE!
    Even the children born here in this country could not naturalize until they reached the age of concent.
    GET A CLUE! YOU’VE NEVER HEARD OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP? IF NOT THEN YOU ARE MORE IGNORANT THAN YOU REALIZE.

    NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS NOT INNATE “because they COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE citizens of anywhere else!” AN UNIDENTIFIED STATELESS CHILD FOUND IN THE U.S. WOULD NOT BE A CITIZEN OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY EITHER, BUT THAT WOULD NOT MAKE IT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE KNOWN TO HAVE AMERICAN PARENTS.

    Oh you’re a bright one, you are.

    The point of “natural born” is to establish that offspring has no other allegiance upon birth, than to this country.
    [IT IS PHILOSOPHICALLY AND INTELLECTUALLY BANKRUPT TO USE THE TERMS “THE POINT OF.., AND “ESTABLISH” IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS NATURAL BORN. NATURAL MEMBERSHIP HAS NO CONNECTION TO ANYONE’S PURPOSE TO ESTABLISH ANYTHING. IT HAS NO POINT ANYMORE THAN BIRTH HAS A POINT. IT IS NOT A TERM ESTABLISHED NOR DEFINED BY POLITICIANS. ITS MEANING IS FOUND SOLELY IN THE MEANING OF THE WORDS THEMSELVES, NOT WHAT SOME ARMCHAIR PHILOSOPHY WISHES TO ATTACH TO THEM.

    It does not just involve the parents’ allegiances because, in point of fact, WHERE we are born (the society and locale) convey an allegiance to that location. The point of 1) BOTH the parents being citizens *AND* 2) the birth being on American soil, [THERE YOU GO AGAIN! THERE IS NO POINT EXCEPT IN YOUR FERTILE IMAGINATION, WHICH HAPPENS TO NOT BE THE REAL WORLD] is that there is no other allegiances other than to this country.

    [THAT IS THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. ALLEGIANCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NATURAL MEMBERSHIP, NOR DOES THE U.S. PRESIDENCY. WITH NO PRESIDENT AND NO OTHER NATIONS ON EARTH, MEMBERS STILL PRODUCE NEW NATURAL MEMBERS IN THE FORM OF THEIR CHILDREN, NATURALLY, -NOT BY PHILOSOPHICALLY CONCEIVED RULES, LAWS OR CONCEPTS. YOUR WHOLE BLIND ZEITGEIST IS ROOTED IN THINKING ABOUT LEGALISMS AND HOW TO APPLY THEM TO WORDS THAT HAVE NO CONNECTION TO LAW.

    Your hypothetical situation involves a child born knowing no parents and found on this country’s soil. The child had no known effects of alliance otherr than to this country. In your hypothetical situation, a challenge would likely have to go to the Supreme court, and I would suspect they would rule the child to be natural born given no known allegiances other than to this country. Your hypothetical situation, as you see it, would result in that child having no alleigance and no citizenship at all, a child without a society, unable to be a member of society until it naturalized at the age of consent, and the Court would likely recognize that to be unreasonable.

    [BY UNREASONABLE YOU REALLY MEAN UNFAIR. REASON DOESN'T CARE WHAT IS FAIR, IT JUST FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPLE, JUST AS YOU THINK YOU'RE JUST FOLLOWING PRECEDENCE. IF THE PRINCIPLE IS VIOLATED THEN THE RESULT IS A STATUS OUTSIDE OF THAT WHICH RESULTS FROM THE PRINCIPLE. IF ONE IS NOT BORN OF AMERICAN PARENTS THEN THEY ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF BEING BORN TO INSIDERS OF THE NATIONAL GROUP, i.e. U.S. CITIZENS.]

    [THE ONLY MEANING ATTACHED TO BIRTHRIGHT IS THE MEANING OF INHERITANCE, NOTHING ELSE. CHECK A DICTIONARY SOMETIME. IT IS DIRECTLY TIED TO PRIMOGENITURE, -THE BIRTHRIGHT OF THE FIRST BORN TO INHERIT EVERYTHING, INCLUDING TITLES SUCH AS KING. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IS THAT WHICH CHILDREN INHERIT FROM THEIR FATHER AND MOTHER, NOT WHAT THEY INHERIT FROM THE DIRT.

    Birthright, literally a “right of birth”, does have a meaning regarding primogeniture, the right of the first born to inherit an estatate. HOWEVER As with “natural”, the term “birthright” has a particularl application to the relevant area of discussion (a “term of art”), which is not inherentance of an estate. The applicable area of discussion is “membership in a society”, not estate inheritance. You’ve crossed areas of consideration to create an irrelevant conclusion.
    [WHAT YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT THE MEMBERSHIP MENTIONED IS MEMBERSHIP THAT IS *INHERITED*. NO ONE INHERITS ANYTHING FROM THE SOIL. THEY INHERIT THEIR BIRTHRIGHT MEMBERSHIP FROM THEIR PARENTS. GET A CLUE ALREADY. MEMBERSHIP TIED TO BIRTH ON PROPERTY IS THE PRINCIPLE OF SERFDOM IN A FEUDAL SOCIETY WITH A SQUIRE AND HIS INDENTURED PEASANT SERVANTS.

    In application to this area of discussion, “citizenship from birth by natural means”, we’ve already established that there is NO “birthright” citizenship as a result of birth on FOREIGN soil to American citizens. IF there were any sort of birthright citizenship from such a birth, then there would not need to be laws like the 1790 and 1795 Natualization Acts to make those offspring citizens, not natural born citizens.

    [THAT IS THE LAST TIME THAT THAT LIE WILL SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN ANY COMMENT. THE TRUTH IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU STATED BUT LIKE A BULL-HEADED OBSTINATE CHILD YOU REFUSE TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH THAT WAS LAID RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU. I CAN’T TELL IF YOU MAKE SUCH FALSE STATEMENTS IN ORDER TO WASTE MY TIME REPLYING TO THEM, OR WHETHER YOU SUFFERED FROM FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME FROM BIRTH. EITHER WAY, YOUR BLINDLY STUPID OR DELIBERATELY DECEITFUL PONTIFICATIONS END HERE. I WON’T REEXPLAIN FOR THE 10TH TIME WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE PERFECTLY CLEAR.

  12. sentientstorm says:

    [AGAIN, YOU’VE SHOT-OFF YOUR BIG MOUTH IN IGNORANCE. READ THE 1790 NATURALIZATION ACT FOR ONCE. IT STATES. “THE RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP SHALL NOT DESCEND (DESCEND MEANS VIA INHERITANCE) TO…” CHILDREN OF PARENTS WHO HAVE NEVER LIVED IN THE U.S. THAT MEANS THAT AMERICAN CHILDREN BORN ABROAD HAVE AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP IF THEIR AMERICAN PARENTS WERE NOT BORN AND RAISED ABROAD WITHOUT EVER LIVING IN AMERICA. THAT WOULD ALMOST INCLUDE ALL OF FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN. LEARN SOMETHING NEW FOR A CHANGE.

    That passage is referencing CITIZENSHIP, and not natural born citizen status. The fact that the parents have seen this country’s soil, has no bearing on the fact that the child itself was not born on American soil. It seems you’re the one who has shot off your moutn in ignorance. Context is everything.
    [ARE YOU DRUNK AGAIN??? WHERE EXACTLY DID I MENTION "natural born citizenship?" The subject, which again flew right past you addled brain, was as I claimed, that those children born abroad to American parents from America have, according to the statute, have the R-I-G-H-T of citizenship! It is not, as you erroneously claim, bestowed by the authority of the government. It is their right by birth. It's not granted. They are not foreigners. They are Americans by birth. All the government can do is take notice of that fact and get out of their way.
    And it should also be recognized that only natural citizens have a RIGHT of citizenship, children of foreigners do not, and are dependent on the government for their citizenship. No one who is a citizen by any authority of the government is eligible to be President because they are not natural citizens. Natural citizens are not result of government rules or action. Instead, government is the result of nation citizens' action.]

    Furthermore, the statute does not establish any sort of “ABSOLUTE RIGHT” at all, and would not need any statute if there were any sort of absolute and undeniable right.

    [that mistakenly presumes that people like yourself don't work for the government and make the kinds of dumbass choices that the TSA makes everyday.]
    The government does not give us rights, to anything, inclusive of citizenship, when that right exists on its own. [AMEN BROTHER!]

    There is only one true “birthright citizenship” and that is birth on American soil to two parents who were American citizens.
    [MORE FANTASY BACKED BY NOTHING]

    [EXACTLY! IT DOESN’T MATTER WHERE HE WAS BORN. HE IS BY THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP A NATURAL CITIZEN OF CUBA, JUST AS FOREIGN-BORN AMERICANS ARE NATURAL CITIZENS OF AMERICA. GET IT? IT’S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE! SO CLOSE BUT SO FAR AWAY FROM LETTING REASON IN.

    IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE TRUTH ABOUT VATTEL WITHOUT READING AND COMPREHENDING THIS: THE TRUTH ABOUT VATTEL’S DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETIES

    ANY MIND THAT DOESN’T DOGMATICALLY HOLD TO A ITS OWN DOCTRINAL ORTHODOXY WILL BE CONVINCED BEFORE FINISHING IT OF THE ERROR OF YOUR PRESUMPTUOUS CONCEPT.

  13. sentientstorm says:

    [WHAT??? ONLY NATURAL CITIZENS “OWE ALLEGIANCE” TO THE COUNTRY OF THEIR PARENTS (WHEN THEY FINALLY REACH ADULTHOOD). AREN’T YOU GOING TO SHARE WITH US WHAT YOU THINK RUBIO SHOULD BE CALLED WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF CONCEPTUAL CITIZENSHIP THAT YOU PROMOTE? WHAT? THERE’S NO NAME FOR IT? GEE, I’M SHOCKED. TIME TO MAKE ONE UP, LIKE YOU MADE UP THE WHOLE IDEA OF A BASTARDIZED UNHOLY MINGLING OF JUS SANGUINIS AND JUS SOLI.

    I already shared that in the first post I had addressing Rubio’s dishonest biography “An American Son”. Rubio is accurately referenced as an “Alien Citizens”, only being made a citizen by statute, and then by a corruption of the clear and undeniable intent of Cogress, corrupting “jurisidiction”. (No, it was not from “subject”, which is not a reference to subjecthood).

    [The meaning of jurisdiction did not change. what changed was who was subject to it. Before WKA immigrants were not subject, as was the original intent since they remained theoretically subject to their own government, but the change wrought by the court's opinion revamped that view. It was tossed out and replaced by the view that they were subject to the jurisdictional authority to conscript them right out of their free civilian life and send them to their death in battle. The jurisdiction didn't change, only those who were subject to it, that class was expanded to include immigrant males.]

    Natural allegiance has nothing to do with reaching adulthood; you’re once again confusing natural allegiance, which has no regard as to law, with man-made statute.

    [AND YOU ARE CONFUSING REALITY WITH YOUR IMAGINATION. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NATURAL ALLEGIANCE EXCEPT IN YOUR IVORY TOWER MIND. ALLEGIANCE, MEANING LOYALTY AND PATRIOTISM ARE REAL BUT THEY ARE NOT NATURAL!!!
    YOUR DECEITFUL AND NEFARIOUS ATTEMPT TO ARGUE OTHERWISE HAS ONLY ONE PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO LEGITIMIZE YOUR FANTASY THAT BABIES ARE BORN, NOT WITH A NATURAL BOND TO THEIR MOTHER’S BREAST, BUT WITH A NATURAL BOND TO THE SOIL.
    THEREBY JUSTIFYING YOUR BASTARDIZED LOGIC FOR CLAIMING THAT SUCH A BOND IS THE BASIS FOR “NATURAL” JUS SOLI CITIZENSHIP WHICH IS THEN MARRIED AND MINGLED IN YOUR CRACKED MIND WITH TRULY NATURAL JUS SANGUINIS MEMBERSHIP IN ONE’S PARENTS’ NATION.
    THEREBY YOU CAN CLAIM A FALSE LOGICAL BASIS FOR NATURAL CITIZENSHIP REQUIRING BIRTH ON SOIL THAT IS WITHIN NATIONAL MAN-MADE BOUNDARIES. THAT EMPTY THEORY HAS BEEN DESTROYED REPEATEDLY BY THE FACTS AND LOGIC THAT I’VE POINTED OUT A HUNDRED TIMES.

    [ARE YOU DRUNK AGAIN??? THE SUBJECT WASN’T NATURALIZATION BUT THE MEANING OF STATUTE. YOU SAID WONG WAS DEEMED TO BE A CITIZEN BY STATUTE, BUT I CORRECTED YOU BY SAYING HE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZEN, AND HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS THEREFORE UNALTERABLE BY CONGRESS OR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THEIR STATUTES.

    You have not corrected me when you continue to be wrong. Despite references to such, the 14th Amendmendment did not create any new form of citizenship, but rather only recognized what was. Even Justice Horace Gray, who authored the Wong Kim Ark decision, recognizes that the 14th Amendment did NOT create any new form of “constituional” citizen:

    [PLEASE, YOU’RE ALMOST HOPELESS. LEARN HOW TO COMPREHEND WHAT YOU’RE READING. I REPEAT: ARE YOU DRUNK AGAIN??? THE SUBJECT WASN’T NATURALIZATION BUT THE MEANING OF STATUTE. YOU SAID WONG WAS DEEMED TO BE A CITIZEN BY STATUTE, BUT I CORRECTED YOU BY SAYING HE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZEN, AND HIS CITIZENSHIP WAS THEREFORE UNALTERABLE BY CONGRESS OR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THEIR STATUTES.
    IN WHAT WEIRD UNIVERSE ARE THE MANDATES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS AMENDMENTS CALLED “STATUTES”? IS THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH GRANTED BY A STATUTE? THE PURPOSE OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS TO PLACE THE IMPACT OF ITS WORDS ABOVE THE LEVEL OF A MERE STATUTE AND MAKE THEM UNALTERABLE, WHICH EVEN A 5TH GRADER CAN GRASP, BUT APPARENTLY IT WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR STUCK-IN-THE-SAND HEAD.

    The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.

    As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford,

    There is no sort of “Constitutional citizen” except a natural born citizen, which Wong Kim Ark was not. The Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT create any sort of new citizenship, and only ensured the recognition of existing citizenships that had previously been denied on the basis of race.

    [IF YOU HAD HALF A BRAIN YOU WOULD GRASP THE FACT THAT I NEVER CLAIMED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZENSHIP WAS SOMETHING NEW. WHAT WAS NEW WAS THE FACT THAT IT WAS ELEVATED ABOVE THE AUTHORITY OF CONGRESS TO ALTER. A STATUTORY CITIZEN POSSESSES A FORM OF CITIZENSHIP THAT CONGRESS CAN ALTER OR ABOLISH, BUT THEY CAN’T DO THAT TO THE CITIZENSHIP OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CITIZEN. IT IS THE HIGHEST, MOST SECURE FORM OF LEGAL CITIZENSHIP. BUT AMENDMENTS CAN BE RESCINDED.

    YET NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS BEYOND ALL LAWS, EXISTING BEFORE NATURALIZATION LAWS WERE EVER WRITTEN. IT IS IMMUTABLE AND UNALTERABLE JUST AS GOVERNMENT CAN’T CHANGES A LEOPARD’S SPOT, SO IT CAN’T CHANGE WHAT A NATURAL CITIZEN IS.
    I CHALLENGE YOU TO STATE ALL THE FORMS OF CITIZENSHIP THAT YOU KNOW OF; WHAT ARE THEY CALLED?

    [THE GRAY COURT ALTERED THE PARAMETERS OF SUBJECTION, NOT JURISDICTION. THE CONSEQUENCE WAS THAT THEN FOREIGN IMMIGRANT MEN COULD BE DRAFTER INTO THE US MILITARY, -WHICH WAS THE FULL JURISDICTION THAT PREVIOUSLY ONLY AMERICAN MEN WERE SUBJECT TO. AFTER WONG, IMMIGRANTS WERE SUBJECT ALSO.

    No, the gray quote altered the meaning of “jurisdiction” from being one of allegiance, to merely being under the jurisdiction of its laws. Yet “jurisdiction” being subject to laws is ridiculous, because anyone on this soil is subject to the laws, be they Indians, or Ambassadors, or aliens here legally.

    [“jurisdiction” (MEANING) being subject to laws is ridiculous” YOU ARE FAILING TO GRASP JUST HOW RIDICULOUS IT IS, IT IS TOO RIDICULOUS TO BE BELIEVABLE OR TRUE. THE COURT WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE BEEN POPULATED WITH DROOLING IDIOTS TO HAVE MADE THE RULING YOU THINK THEY DID. BUT THE DIDN’T. THEY DIDN’T CHANGE THE POLICY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CHANGED ITS POLICY TO CONFORM WITH THE COURT’S OPINION. AND WHAT WAS THAT CHANGE?

    APPARENTLY IT WAS BOTH THE EXPANSION OF SUBJECTION TO INCLUDE IMMIGRANTS, AS WELL AS THE SIMULTANEOUS ABANDONMENT OF THE MEANING OF JURISDICTION THAT IT HAD NEWLY IMPOSED ON IMMIGRANTS. IT HAD IT BOTH WAYS. YOU CAN BE BORN ON US SOIL AND BE A CITIZEN EVEN THOUGH YOU WEREN’T BORN SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION THROUGH A SUBJECT FATHER, AND YET AT 18 YR. OF AGE YOU WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THAT THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, IN THEIR IGNORANCE, HAD TOSSED OUT! MAN, TALK ABOUT A CONFUSED POLICY!
    WHAT WAS THE CHIEF EFFECT? IT WAS TO INSTITUTE THE POLICY THAT FEMALES WERE ALSO SUBJECT TO FEDERAL JURISDICTION, WHICH I’VE SHOWN IN SEVERAL WRITINGS, WAS NEVER THE CASE BEFORE. THEY WERE IMMUNE FROM IT BECAUSE THEY WERE THE PROTECTED CLASS THAT THE MALE POPULATION WAS RESPONSIBLE TO PROTECT.

    FOREIGN FEMALES COULD NOT BECOME AMERICANS EXCEPT BY MARRYING ONE. THEY COULD NOT TAKE THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND RENUNCIATION BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR MEN, AS I’VE ILLUSTRATED IN MY YET UNPUBLISHED WORK: “BEARING ARMS, TRUE FAITH, AND ALLEGIANCE.” NEITHER THEY, NOR AMERICAN WOMEN, COULD TAKE AN OATH REQUIRING THEM TO SERVE IN COMBAT. THAT WAS THE FULL JURISDICTION THAT THE CONGRESS THAT WAGED THE BLOODIEST WAR IN PREVIOUS HISTORY INTENDED.

    “Subject” is irrelevant. Sure the root of the word has its origins in “subjecthood”, but that is irrelevant to its application, which is modified by “jurisdiction.” That “jurisdiction” was employed previously by Congress to signify “wholly subject in allegiance to this country, and no other.” I’ve previously shown how this “jurisdiction” was employed in legislation. Gray deliberately and through malfeasant misrepresentation altered “jurisdiction”, not “subject”.

    “THE BASTARDIZATION OF THE GRAY COURT OPINION CAN’T BE LAID AT THEIR FEET BECAUSE IT WAS COMMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THEN IN POWER WHEN HE ISSUED A YET UNKNOWN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE COURT’S OPINION MEANT. HE GOT IT ALL WRONG, AS I POINTED OUT IN “THE UNITED NATIONS OF AMERICA”, UNLESS IT WAS IN “THE UNMASKING OF A COUNTERFEIT PRESIDENT”

    Nowhere in the Justice Gray’s decision in Wong Kim Ark is any “Attorney General” even referenced! The opinion of an Attorney General is irrelvant to the Court’s interpretation of the law, and also irelevant to the stated intent of Congress.

    The Corruption of the Gray opinion and “jurisdiction” is entirely lain at the feet of the Gray court, and was done THIRTY YEARS after the 14th Amendment, because no “Attorney General” ever implemented the laws, as misrepresented by the Gray Court!

    [THAT DOES IT. YOUR INABILITY TO READ AND COMPREHEND WON’T BE INDULGED ANY FURTHER. FUTURE INSTANCES OF SUCH MISCOMPREHENSION WILL SIMPLY BE DELETED.
    READ WHAT I WROTE AGAIN, AND AGAIN, UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/what-natural-born-citizen-means-2/#comment-1050

  14. sentientstorm says:

    [REALLY? YOU FORGET THAT IT WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR NOR IN REGARD TO NATURAL CITIZENS BUT IN REGARD TO FREED SLAVES. WOULD YOU DECLARE THAT THEY WERE INCLUDED IN THE MINDS OF THE AUTHORS OF THE CONSTITUTION AS BEING NATURAL BORN CITIZENS? EVEN THOUGH BY THE NATURALIZATION LAWS THEY WROTE, NON-WHITES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN BE CITIZENS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT NATURAL MEMBERS OF THE NATURAL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT FOUNDED AND INHABITED THE NATION.

    Yes, blacks were included in the Constitution, and were natural members of this society even before the 14th Amendment. The denial of citizenship was done by state statute, and not by the Constitution itself, which nowhere references skin color. nor denied by federal “naturalization laws”. Blacks were intended to be included by the Constitution, as written.

    Ex-slave Frederick Douglass originally criticized the Constitution as promoting slavery. However at the invitation of President Lincoln, Douglass actually read that Constitution, and then later changed his view:

    “So far from this purpose was the mind and heart of your fathers,
    that they desired and expected the abolition of slavery.
    They framed the Constitution plainly with a view to the
    speedy downfall of slavery. They carefully excluded
    from the Constitution any and every word which could
    lead to the belief that they meant it for persons of
    only one complexion.

    The Constitution, in its language and in its spirit, welcomes
    the black man to all the rights which it was intended to
    guarantee to any class of the American people. Its preamble
    tells us for whom and for what it was made.”

    Frederick Douglass, 1863

    It is a shame that a self-educated ex-slave knows the COnstitution better than you, the unfortunate byproduct of the failed American public school system.
    [AS YOU ARE THE UNFORTUNATE BYPRODUCT OF ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE? I TOLD YOU ALREADY THAT I WAS A STRAIGHT A STUDENT. HOW UNFORTUNATE CAN I BE? BEING AS I’M NOT AS BLINDLY FOOLISH AS TO MAKE YOUR STATEMENT: “…nor denied by federal “naturalization laws”. AS YOU DON’T RECALL, THE QUALIFICATION GIVEN IN THE FIRST UNIFORM NATURALIZATION ACT (1790) REQUIRED THAT APPLICANTS BE FREE WHITE MEN OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER.

    PERHAPS YOU KNOW OF BLACK MEN WHO WERE WHITE BACK THEN? I DIDN’T THINK SO. PUTZ.

    YOUR WORSHIP OF ACADEMIA AND THE CERTIFICATES IT BESTOWS IS PATHETIC. REAL MEN DON’T WORSHIP SUCH ELEMENTARY ACHIEVEMENTS….

    I don’t worship academia of its own right, but rather the facts and knowledge it conveys.

    You would do well to further your own knowledge and supplement your lacking education, rather than trumpet your own ignorance, holding yourself forth as any sort of an authority, on issues regarding which you don’t even grasp the most basic fundamentals. Your empty, unsupported blather is not impressing anyone but yourself.

    “The fool doth think himself wise”, Shakespeare.

    THERE’S THE FOOL, AND THEN THERE’S THE EDUCATED WISE FOOL. FOOLS LIKE YOU USED TO PUT LEACHES ON PATIENTS TO SUCK OUT THEIR “TOXIC BLOOD” AS THEY DID TO GEORGE WASHINGTON, THEREBY HASTENING HIS DEATH.

    YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO LEARN ANYTHING NEW, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT PEER-REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED IS EVIDENCE OF JUST HOW NARROW-MINED AND INFLEXIBLE YOUR MIND IS. YOU CAN FLING THE FECES TIL THE COWS COME HOME BUT YOU CAN’T ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS, NOR ADDRESS A MYRIAD OF STATEMENTS THAT I’VE MADE IN THE 10S OF THOUSANDS OF WORDS I’VE PENNED. YOU CAN’T OFFER COUNTER LOGIC OR COUNTER INFORMATION, ALL YOU DO IS OFFER COUNTER DOGMA WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL BASIS FOR IT.

    WHY DON’T YOU DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF PRESENTING A LOGICAL COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THE 100+ STATEMENTS MADE IN TODAY’S POSTING OF “THE TRUTH ABOUT VATTEL’S DESCRIPTION OF SOCIETIES

    DON’T RETURN JUST TO SPOUT MORE VITUPERATE VERBAL DIARRHEA BECAUSE IT WILL BE ERASED. THIS ISN’T A FORUM FOR YOU TO TAKE A DUMP IN PUBLIC.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 73 other followers

%d bloggers like this: