The Asinine Errors of Maskell’s & Mario’s N-B-Citizen Bullsh*t

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

“Congressional Research Service Attorney, Jack Maskell, argues in his, “Qualifications for President and the “Natural Born” Citizenship Eligibility Requirement”, dated November 14, 2011, [accessed here] that any born citizen, regardless of where born, to whom born, and by which law so made, is a “natural born citizen”.  He arrives at his thesis by manipulating, distorting, omitting, and misstating historical and legal evidence. The absurdity of Maskell’s thesis can be readily seen by the following.

Maskell’s theory does not explain or provide any evidence on how the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers defined a born citizen. Rather, his is one that is based on what the definition of a natural born citizen ought to be today.”

Maskell wrote: “The weight of legal and historical authority indicates…”

He went wrong right from the start by appealing to “authority” for a factual matter and not an opinion matter.  “The weight” refers to exactly how much weight?  55%? 65%?  The Supreme Court itself, as often as not it seems, has its weight on the side of that which is totally unconstitutional, as we all saw with the court opinion on the unAffordable Care Act, (and Wichard v Filburn).

Throughout its history, the weight of opinion in the realm of science  has always been on the wrong side of reality and truth, as consensus opinion was eventually destroyed by newly discovered facts.  Atheists depend on that phenomenon since it gave them “The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, as well as a sun-centered solar system.

I’ve just read an amazing report about the 94 yr. old  Dr. James Lovelock, a guru of the Green Movement, and author of a powerful global warming scare book that polarized everyone into action. Billions will die!  Well, he recants it all now, relating that everyone was WRONG! That data and absence of change destroys what has become a religion.

Opinions can all be wrong, just like the view of two centuries that Black Americans who claimed that Thomas Jefferson was their ancestor were simply promoting not truth but foolishness and lying self-invented myth.  And yet opinions were all that Maskell consulted. He did not consult the meaning of the words themselves or else he would have recognized that any opinion that failed to recognize the meaning of the word “natural” was inherently wrong.

So what was his goal from the beginning and was it the correct goal?  It was not, because it was merely to ascertain what the historical consensus opinion had been, -and finding that there was none, he simply declared both competing views to be correct.

He continued:  “that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth‘” thus rendering the crucial word “natural” meaningless.  Even worse if possible, he bastardized the three word term by placing quotation marks around the two adjectives.  They have no business having quotation marks around them, (“natural born”).  Why would he do such a thing?  Those quotation marks appear in nothing ever written until he dishonestly added them in an attempt to alter the character of the meaning of the three words in combination; Citizen, Born, Natural.  Citizen-born means born of citizens.  It has a hyphen between the two words to indicate a unitary term.  “Natural born” never has a hyphen because it is not a unitary term nor an adjective phrase when used in conjunction with the word “citizen”.

That fact is evident in the letter that the president of the Continental Congress, John Jay, wrote to the president of the Constitutional convention, George Washington, exhorting him to not allow anyone to wield the power of the Command in Chief position except a natural born citizen.  [his underlining]

That shows that they were used as two unrelated adjectives, and not as a adjective phrase attached to “citizen”.  That means that “natural” attaches to “citizen” (natural citizen) and not to “born”.  The difference is seen in an example like “natural-born athlete.  It requires the use of the hyphen and precludes the underlining of either adjective.

He also lazily and deceptively employed a word that has no defined meaning; the word “entitled”, which raises the question; entitled by what? By Natural RIGHT? or by human tradition? or common law? or statutory law? or constitutional law? or what exactly?  What is the source of his claimed entitlement?

He did not address that issue because his entire exploration was a mile wide but only an inch deep.

It was superficial, -shallow, -involving zero principles that determine the boundaries of human life and membership within civilization.

Emmerich de Vattel, in his influential work “The Law of Nations” (1758) addressed the entitlement he referred to, and it was birth to a father who was a member of a nation. Mario’s listed on his blog on April 7th a whole slew of historical statements that all supported that entitlement of every American father; -membership via blood inheritance, -one  which does not stop at the water’s edge.

Maskell wrote: “…entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’”

So… by that logic, Frankenstein is “a human being” either “by birth” or “by creation”. Let’s see… “by creation”, (just like “at birth”) implies something is produced, effected, -something which (without intervention) would not naturally come to be.  “At” is a reference to the time of commencement of citizenship, a factor that could easily be delayed for a year or a decade depending on the will of lawmakers.  Whereas “by birth” refers to the origin of national membership, it being the blood of the citizen parents whose life produced the birth.

So in Maskell’s Bizarro World that which would be naturally produced, “by birth” is equated as being indistinguishable from that which is the result of human designation and action of law. So Frankenstein is just another human being.  His origin is of no consequence in characterizing his nature.  He’s basically no different from everyone else.

-So in “The Terminator” future, humans produced by humans and machines produced by machines are essentially identical in nature. What’s the difference? They exist “by birth” or by creation. They both have a discreet beginnings of “life”.  Hard to see a difference, right?  They are both sentient beings “at birth” or “at creation” so they can be logically equated as indistinguishable based on having something in common.  ~ASININE!

“either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; [or] by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents;”

So you have two completely unrelated circumstances; the alien-born in America given citizenship by the rule of law, and the American-born born anywhere in the world as Americans by nature, and, like dogs and cats, they are of the same species of citizenship???  ~ASININE!

Correlation does not equal Causation. His logic was so absent that he failed to notice that natural citizens are citizens by inheritance, -not native-birth, but he avoids that fact, lumping them in with those for whom native-birth is absolutely essential, -the alien born.  Without it they are not Americans, but the American-born are American citizens regardless of where they are born, -a whole different creature.

He failed to explain why and how the term; “born citizen” was not actually the correct label to describe the common link that he was referencing in connecting dissimilar citizens.
Everything he wrote applied simply to “born citizen”, so his implication is that the founders added the word “natural” for no discernible reason. After all, it was only The CONSTITUTION!!  -And only written for all the ages to come!
But hey, why avoid throwing in an occasional superfluous word here and there? After all, no one would ever come to a dispute about the difference between a “born citizen” and “a natural born citizen”, would they?
Hamilton’s suggestion that no one “but one born a citizen” must be considered to have been adopted, -only with a slight, inexplicable, unnecessary, irrelevant linguistic embellishment; -the word “natural”.  ~ASININE!

Mario wrote: “Here is Maskell’s argument which shows that I am correct in maintaining that he is arguing that all born citizens are natural born citizens“.

Maskell is implying that it is his opinion that several authoritative others held the opinion that the word “natural” adds no meaning to the words “born citizen”.

You can’t say that he is arguing that one is definitely the same as the other when he is essentially only saying that it appears by historical opinion, that people were of two opinions, and the truth need not be ascertained because we can all just have a hand-holding Kumbaya consensus by simply accepting and embracing both diametrically opposed opinions (!!!).  ~ASININE!

Why the heck bother to determine which opinion was correct? That takes too much time and thinking. The low road, the short cut, is far preferable when one can be doing something else requiring payment of prevailing Attorney’s fees.

“or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”

So his short-cut understanding of citizenship takes the position that natural citizenship is legal citizenship and legal citizenship is natural citizenship.  So… one’s legal children (adopted) are really no different from one’s natural children?  ~ASININE!

Get this straight; nothing that exists by Nature (like natural membership) is a legal thing, and nothing that is a legal thing is a natural thing. Two different universes!

Natural membership is from the same realm as the power of juries to nullify laws, -the power of judges to hold people in contempt and strip them of their freedom without trial. The power to throw out a jury verdict and render a verdict direct from the bench.  Where the heck is that found in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?  No where.  Why not?

It’s a matter of sovereignty. It rests with the People and with their judges. Neither of those two sovereign authorities can be questioned by anyone (other than a superior court administratively ruling on a lower court’s action, -something avoided if at all possible).

Such natural authority, like natural membership, is antecedent to government authority, like the right to natural resources appropriated by the first souls to populate a new land. Their rights precede the rule of later laws and are superior to them.
So is the RIGHT of all American parents to pass their national membership to their children. Government does not make their children Americans. Natural inheritance does. Government has no say in the matter of the membership of those who created it, nor their progeny.

Mario continued:  Apart from all his intellectually dishonest tactics, Maskell does not explain by what means or mechanism(s) the Founders, Framers, and ratifiers saw a person become a born citizen.

Mario does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in Maskell’s asinine logic, but unfortunately, he is guilty of his own asinine logic.

Exhibit #1. Aliens give birth to aliens or citizens-by-law. Natural born citizens give birth to natural born citizens. Aliens do not give birth to natural born citizens and natural born citizens do not give birth to aliens.

But in the church of Mario, natural born citizens DO give birth to aliens!
If the son of a President who was the son of a President who was the son of a President was born on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls he would be an alien in need of naturalization even though he was born with ancestors who were all natural born citizens going back ten generations and more.

In the Apuzzonian dogma such a son has no natural right to be recognized as being an American and is dependent on the benevolence of government in order to be allowed to be a naturalized U.S. citizen.

He is thus barred forever from his unalienable birthright to serve as leader of his country like his ancestors.

That is what Mario believes and teaches and he justifies it not by Natural Law but by the invented legal fiction he calls “American common law”.  ~ASININE!

In colonial and post-colonial America, the common law remained what it had always been; English. But by claiming that the common law of nations was what America switched to, he then redefines that non-existing world-wide rule of citizenship/subjectship to be something that no “authority” on earth had ever claimed or endorsed.

But regardless, citizenship that is natural is NOT defined by citizenship which is legal, -with his definition of “American common law” based not on a natural principle but on human criteria defined by him, namely; citizen parents and native birth.  By American law, children of foreigners can’t automatically be Americans without native-birth, but by Mario’s law the children of AMERICANS cannot be Americans either without native-birth.  SAYS WHO???  Says Mario.  ~ASININE!

So, do natural born citizens give birth to aliens by Natural Law? or by human dogma?  Mario does not have an answer.

How can a child be something innately different than the parents that produced the child?  Mario does not have an answer.

How can foreigners and their children visiting the U.S. (even born here) be naturally still subject to their own foreign nation and yet American babies born abroad are NOT naturally subject to the U.S. government and under its umbrella? Mario does not have an answer.  If they are naturally subject then they are by definition natural citizens of the U.S. and not aliens.

By what constitutional authority can the U.S. government block citizenship from American children if their parents are natural born citizens?  Mario does not have an answer.

How does the issue of naturalization apply to anything other than aliens and their children, and NOT Americans and theirs?  Mario does not have an answer.

By what mechanism does the political nature with which one is born get determined by an incidental, momentary, transient factor such as geographical location at birth and man-made borders?  Mario does not have an answer.

By what crystal-clear logic could John Jay underline the word “born” if together the three words constitute a “term of legal artifice” which must be taken as a unitary phrase with the individual words being inconsequential as individual words?   Mario does not have an answer.

Can the mechanism by which a human is human and a “Terminator” is non-human be combined into a new natural mechanism?

The English eventually pretended to do just that by calling the England-born children of aliens with the same label as applied to the natural subjects born of Englishmen, -calling them both “natural born subjects”.  What did the two groups have in common?  The same king and the same rights, so all differences were ignored, verbally and legally that is, but not when it came to offices crucial to national survival.  Then the hair was split and only true natural subjects, -the sons of Englishmen and not foreigners, were allowed to wield command and be trusted with national security secrets.

Where and when and why did the founders of our nation decide to hold ransom to geography the non-U.S. born children of American Ambassadors and all U.S. citizens and military personnel located or visiting abroad?   Mario does not have an answer.

If instead, the children of U.S. Ambassadors were deemed to be Americans but the children of their equal fellow citizens were deemed to be aliens, how could the founding fathers reconcile such an obvious unequal treatment with fundamental American principles of equality?
So…, by serving one’s country at the request of the President, one’s foreign-born child’s right to be an American and  also be President one day would be decapitated?  ~ASININE!
If not, then children of Ambassadors would have to be assigned to a special class, -a superior class, an aristocratic class, one which was totally banned in America.

What kind of morons would establish and validate such an insane system?  Our Founding Fathers?  Yes, according to the legend in his own mind; Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Well, you’re supposed to just take it on faith, unquestioning faith in the gospel of Nativist citizenship as preached by the august scholar so widely known and considered infallible; the honorable Sir-Dr.-Professor Esquire Don Mario Apuzzo himself, of course. [Sarcasm intended, -and earned.]

~“now, now little ones, don’t do all of your own thinking for yourselves… that would be silly. Here, let me do part of your thinking for you. That would be so much better. You can trust me to not mislead you, honest, I really really know what I’m talking about. At least I’m convinced that I do.

   ~ Only Nature’s jus sanguinis principle of natural inheritance and natural membership produces natural citizens who are bound together by natural bonds of common origin (the blood of citizen parents) and natural national membership, with government having no hand in their membership in their own country.

But the mindless souls that totally embrace the gospel of absolutely necessary native-birth will never, ever acknowledge any truth that invalidates their faith, -no matter how clear, -how factual, -how logical, -or how incontestable.  They are True Believers.  Faithful to the end.

And how does their devotion to native-birth help to de-legitimize the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama?  It does not help one damn bit.  In fact, it obstructs and obfuscates the spread of the truth by spreading a false “truth” in its place, just like a false doctrine of faith, -a heresy that deserves all of the condemnation that can be heaped upon it.

by Adrien Nash  April 2014,  obama–nation.com

 

Why most citizens of “The United States” can’t be President -pt.2

Which government’s nationality is sovereign over the native-born children of immigrants in America; -the one of their foreign father who is still subject to his own government, or the one of the nation of the State republic in which his children were born?

The new national government, facing a Europe with which it might find itself at war at any time being as it was still ruled by despots, chose to not recognize the children of foreigners as being American citizens nor American nationals. They were foreign nationals born of foreign nationals even though born in America. They were alien-born. A child could not have a nationality that was different from that of the father who produced him.

So the States had one citizenship recognition process while the central government had another, and it was in relationship to something beyond the purview of any State government; namely foreign relations, -along with the conduct of war.
Suppose that a European Prince & pregnant wife had a baby while visiting an American State which by law bestowed its citizenship to all born within its borders, (-without regard to whether or not they were immigrants or merely visitors). Suppose they all traveled back to their European kingdom where the young Prince would grow up. Suppose that he was murdered.

Would it be an issue involving the American government because it involved the murder of an American?
No, because he would not have been viewed as being an American by the American government even though he was a citizen of one of the States.
Suppose he was murdered by his American illegitimate half-brother? Would the nation of the deceased prince view the murder as merely one American killing another, or as an American killing one of their own subjects, -a royal one at that? The question hardly needs to be asked since the answer is so obvious.

His true nationality was determined by blood, not his birth place. They would not care if his half-brother killer was viewed in his home State or home nation as a fully recognized citizen or as a mere American national. “Citizenship” would not be even considered; only nationality. American? or not? It would not be couched as “U.S. CITIZEN, or not?”.
They would view the murderer as a national of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA, -without regard to which State republic he was born in and a member of.

Suppose the “American” half-brother had been born in Europe and not America; what would determine his nationality? Answer: Within marriage, the nationality of the head of the family; i.e., the boss and master of the house; the father.
Everyone in the family had one nationality and it was his. They were a single unit within the greater units of county, State and nation. His one vote was the vote of the family unit. A wife, per the wedding vow to obey her husband, yielded to the authority of her husband and his decisions, whether family decisions or political decisions, and she took his name and nationality.

But an out-of-wedlock half-American son might be seen as an American through his mother, -unless the foreign father acknowledged paternity.
The government of the Prince would not be required to recognize such a son as a citizen of the nation because he was illegitimate, perhaps might be a fraud, and perhaps might have been born anywhere, or at least not in his kingdom. Thus, in the founders’ era, the child would probably be stateless, -having no nationality whatsoever, -an international conundrum due to infidelity and illegitimacy.

There are four ways such a child could be deemed to be an American, but only one existed before the 1920’s. One would be if he had been born within one of the State republics that gave the gift of citizenship to those born within its borders, -with illegitimacy not addressed, pro nor con.
Another would be possible if the District of Columbia had a similar allowance thanks to the choice of Congress. But it did not recognize such a child as an American having dual citizenship because dual citizenship was not recognized.

It would have been different if born of a European Princess and an American man. Then he would be a freak because he would be a cross between an non-royal American father and a royal heir to a European throne. In such a case, the father might acknowledge paternity and thus provide U.S. citizenship to his bastard son.
But understand that the American laws for a long time did not acknowledge the situation of children without married parents, nor the situation of dual nationality within marriage.
A bride, though foreign, became an American by marrying an American, thus one single nationality for them and their children.

Now let’s move forward in time to when a foreign woman who married an American was viewed as retaining her foreign nationality. The nationality of the child was still determined by the American father from the viewpoint of the American government, regardless of how the government of the mother viewed their child.

The child, through a blood connection to the man who fathered it, was seen as an American by blood, and the law recognized such children as Americans. But what if the American parent was the mother?
That changed the situation significantly since by accepted policy, it inherited the nationality of the foreign father, and thus was not an American, -but in time, -with women’s rights and women’s suffrage being recognized by law and constitutional amendment, the nationality of the American mother was deemed to be passed to her child if born abroad via a foreign father. Her child was a statutory citizen by congressional statute.

What did such citizenship have to do with any of the States of the union? Nothing. It was purely federal, by federal statute. The laws of her State did not make her child an American via making it a citizen of her State because by then the State’s were out of that business following the federal government totally taking over the administration of immigration and naturalization.

That later switched to American volunteers who were forced to take on the chore after the federal government and the federal INS were stopped in their tracks when the Supreme Court ruled their take-over unconstitutional.
Then there was no entity left with any organization to take on the task other than volunteer organizations. But with massive immigration, they were overwhelmed and finally convinced Congress to act and make the job a federal chore by law, -not merely executive policy.

So a child of an American mother and foreign father could not be deemed to be American by a State statute since State governments were out of the naturalization business. Then such a child would not be a citizen of any State, but purely and solely a citizen of the nation as a whole via the federal government’s law; -a national citizen only (at least until the mother returned to live in one of the States).

Such a citizen would have to be labeled as a citizen of “The United States”, or “The UNITED STATES of AMERICA”. It could not be labeled a citizen of “the united States”, -or a citizen of a State republic because its “citizenship” was strictly federal until it became domiciled as an adult within an individual State.

Another way to become such a citizen would be via birth within the boundaries of federal land in the eras following that in which dual citizenship was not acknowledged. If born in D.C. or on federal land within a State, -or within no State, one also would not be a State citizen but a federal citizen only.

Men who work on such lands for Washington are not officers of “the united States”, because they do not work for any State, but are instead officers of “The United States”, -the entity and name of the national government.
As officers of the United States Government, they do not represent the authority nor interests of the States. They only represent the authority and laws of the national government, and it is quite separate and apart from those of the States.

Keeping the difference straight in one’s mind requires recognizing the difference between the use of the word “united” as an adjective and its use as a part of a title. A national title calls for the capitalization of the major words included in the title, while a word used as merely an adjective should not be capitalized even though it makes a label seem more weighty and authoritative.

Let’s look as the name of the nation that has the same initials as our own; the Union of South Africa. One must not fail to capitalize the word “union” because it is a part of the title of the nation, just as one must not fail to capitalize the word “united” when referring to the American nation.

“Union” is not an adjective but is a noun, whereas “united” is an adjective, and when used in reference to the union of the individual States, it need not be, and should not be capitalized, even though everyone does it out of a habit dating back to when most significant nouns were capitalized in formal writing, -as seen throughout the Constitution.

“The united States” is an unambiguous reference to a union of States, whereas if “united” is capitalized, one cannot tell what the reference is made to except by analyzing the context in which it is ambiguously used. In most cases it does not refer to “the general government” of the nation but the union of States.

[addendum: After posting this exposition, I was trying to find out if the Confederacy required an oath of allegiance for citizenship and came across a website seeking the revival of the Confederacy, and it contained this paragraph which shows that I was not the first to understand the difference that capitalization makes:

Remember, or learn if you didn't already know, our founding fathers created the Confederacy in 1778 when they created the Articles of Confederation under which they, with General George Washington, fought and won a war against the British Empire. The Constitution of 1789 was but a more complete contract of government between the various State republics which they began to call the States of America or the "united" States of America.]

So one can see that in the real and unambiguous world, there is a distinct difference between a citizen of “The United States of America” and a citizen of “the united States”, but that difference is so invisible, undetectable, unacknowledged, unimportant, and insignificant that it is completely meaningless, -except… in one very rare and unusual circumstance. That of seeking and obtaining the office of President of the United States.

The Constitution requires that only “a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;”.
So what sort of citizen is a natural born citizen? It is the sort that created each of the State republics and the union that they formed. It was the natural inhabitants or indigenous population of the American colonies and future sovereign States. It was the children of Americans, -people who had American-ness as their common background via their birth to Americans, -almost all of whom were also born in America.

They were all born as the natural citizens of their colonies and States. They were responsible for their common defense, administration of justice, and the operation of their government and civil societies.
They were citizens even while being subjects of the British Crown. They were born as citizens, and since their citizenship was not via a gift of the government that they created but via their blood connection to citizen parents, they were natural citizens. They were citizen-born natural Americans. Just what the Constitution required.

But those born of outsiders, -of foreign immigrants, were not the natural citizens of the colonies or States but were merely legal citizens, even though made legal from birth in some States.

That which is natural cannot, by definition, be made by government, and that which is made by government cannot, by definition, be natural.
It can only be man-made, including citizenship.

No man-made citizen of “The United States” is eligible to be President because they all acquired citizenship via American law which makes an allowance for those of foreign or mixed nationality & blood connection. Some U.S. government citizens are natural born citizens because they were born of citizens within federal territory.

But in the beginning, nearly all natural born citizens were only State citizens since they were born of State citizens and not born out in the western wilderness claimed by the Americans and ceded to the U.S. by the British after the Peace Treaty of Paris was signed.

In fact one could even assert that only federal “citizens” are truly “citizens” of “The United States” (-as apposed to being merely U.S. Nationals as State citizens could be considered) because all citizenship relationships are State relationships involving civic rights and duties, -with the lone exceptions of paying taxes and serving on federal juries. So in reality, State citizenship is/was the dog, and national “citizenship” is the tail. But guess which one wags which in everyone’s mind?

In another sense it would be accurate to state that we are all, in reality, simply Nationals of “The United States”, and not “citizens” since our rights and duties are still quintessentially State rights & duties, -with each individual being a citizen of one of the united States.

Even the duty of national defense can no longer be considered as a national “citizenship duty” because even non-citizens are obligated to serve when called, and sent to prison for refusing. That leaves only the century-old federal taxes on income, and federal jury service, and not many people ever even experience that. So in what sense are we truly “citizens” of the central government of the nation?  Because we are forced to pay federal taxes?

Historically, Americans never had to pay a “tax” on wages and salary because the meaning of the word “income” did not include compensation for time one surrendered in a mutual exchange of labor for money.  That was considered a barter and not an income.  Income was earnings that one’s money or property earned.  So as established, Americans never had any connection to the central government unless called to sit on a federal jury, -or working in interstate law, commerce, or the new central government.

Plenty has been illegitimately and unconstitutionally altered from the way our nation was founded, but the basic structure has not. We live our lives as local and State citizens, although convenient transportation makes changing one’s State very easy, yet the functions of government, for the most part, have not been ceded to the federal government, so we live and serve as citizens of our home towns, cities, counties, and States and do not serve as “citizens” of the national government, nor the aggregate nation as a whole. And, our governors have the authority to block our extradition to another state because we are not citizens of any State but one.

One can truly assert that we are still essentially nothing more than citizens of our State republic and merely nationals of our nation, yet our programmed thinking tells us just about the opposite.
To say that we are citizens of our nation is at least half as absurd as saying that we are nationals of our State since we have practically no national citizenship duty at all.

This truth is seen in the actual status of children, and, for over half of American history, women as well. No one considers babies and children (minors) to have any duties of citizenship. They are exactly what a National is, and definitely not what a citizen is. Citizens have CIVIC RIGHTS as well as duties. Children have neither, and neither did America women until they were given the right to vote, and the rights that accompanied it.

Foreign permanent-resident immigrants are treated as U.S. Nationals, -under the protection of the government, and bearing certain responsibilities toward the nation that they have joined. That is why they can be drafted into the U.S. military.  They must answer the call of duty or suffer the consequence even though their natural allegiance and subjection is still to their foreign homeland, and yet American women are not subject to the call of duty even though they are citizens.  They are not subject because they are not of the warrior class gender.  They are the main protected class that is defended.

 

The history of Congressional ignorance regarding American citizenship is appalling. Many of the major and long-standing edicts of Congress have been over-turned by the Supreme Court because they failed to adhere to fundamental American principles of equality.

They passed laws treating naturalized citizens differently than natural citizens, and American women differently than American men. [That was eventually brought to a silent stop, but not completely when it comes to foreign birth involving a foreign parent.]

The most egregious violation was the total implementation of male-dominated citizenship determination.
It was one thing to deem an American husband’s foreign bride to now be an American too, but it was quite another to deem an American bride who married a foreign groom to have forfeited her American citizenship by having done so, (in reciprocity with the foreign nation of the husband).

That was the law of the land, passed by Congress, and signed by the President as the Naturalization Act of 1907. Any child born to such a mother was denied American citizenship up until long past its repealed in 1922 by the Cable Act.

So you can see, citizenship has been quite paradoxical throughout periods in American history as the roles of men and women became ever more equal. But through it all, the meaning of what is a natural born citizen has never changed, -except perhaps at the margins where very odd circumstances might be involved.

The birth and nationality of Barack Obama was not such a circumstance. He was not even in the same ballpark as natural born citizens. He was born subject (solely) to the British Nationality Act of 1948, as his own 2008 election website explained, with that Act applying to both Obama Sr. and all of his children.

Obama openly acknowledged that he was born as a subject of the British Commonwealth and as a future citizen of Kenya once it became an independent nation a few years later, and he has never claimed to be a natural born American citizen, calling himself only a native-born citizen.  But he must have been ignorant of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

It preceded the writing of the 14th Amendment by a few months, and its wording declares that those born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens of the United States [“United” should not be capitalized because it essentially refers to State citizenship for freed slaves. They were not foreigners, nor born of foreigners since the importation of slaves had been banned a half century earlier.]

So even if assumed to have been born in America, he would still be ineligible to be President because he was born subject to a foreign power, and was not a natural citizen of any State since he was born of an outsider.
So an alien father prevented him from being a natural born citizen, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bars him from even being a citizen at all since his mother was too young for her citizenship to legally be transmitted to her son by a statute that didn’t exist for another 75 years or so.

Some falsely assume that the 14th Amendment,-by its presumed lower standard only requiring that one be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,  over-rode the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but in fact, the authors said just the opposite.

One, when asked, proclaimed emphatically that being subject to American jurisdiction meant being subject to no foreign power. So that meant that dual citizenship was not recognized, and one could not be subject to two separate nations, -just as freed slaves were not.
But to avoid that truth, they float the notion that children, (even babies!) are directly subject to national governments. In fact, people on both sides of the Obama eligibility issue assert that falsehood.

First, only adults are subject to governments. Second, in the Christian and patriarchal tradition, wives were always subject directly to their husbands, -not the government. And their children were directly subject to their mother and father, -not the government.

So their doctrine that any child born in America is automatically subject directly to the Federal government is insanely absurd. The family unit was a vertical hierarchy, -not a horizontal one having each element subject to Big Brother, -the hub. Only the head was subject. The relationship of the children to the government of the nation in which they lived was solely through their father. If he was subject, then one day they would also be. They inherited his subjection, (along with his citizenship) -and fully so if male.

If he was alien, then they were viewed as subject to the foreign power that he remained subject to since national borders do not terminate one’s national obligations.  If one’s nation is attacked, one must heed the call of duty even if living abroad.

So, we have a President who is not only not constitutionally qualified to serve since he is not a natural born citizen of Hawaii nor of the federal government, but is disqualified from even being an American citizen since his father was not an immigrant subject to Washington, but merely a temporary foreign guest still subject to the government of Kenya.  But might he be a naturalized American?

We have no way to know because all records related to him have either been “lost” removed & hidden, classified, closed to inspection, or destroyed. Nothing yet released by his or the Hawaiian government has been legitimate, but what has been released is an attempt to benefit from the ignorance of the American people who do not understand that it does not matter where he was born, -only to whom he was born; -an American father? Or an alien?

Regardless, he is an American National, but that does not make him an American CITIZEN.
He logically can be viewed as being an American, -just as can children brought illegally into the country at a young age, and then raised and schooled as Americans. But being the equivalent to an American National does not make one eligible to be the Commander-in-Chief of the United States Military.

So Barack Obama, being an alien-born child of a non-subject foreign student, is not a natural citizen of any State, -nor of any nation, and regardless of native-birth, all such persons are constitutionally barred from being the President of the United States.
So why is he President?

Because America has become a reflection of the O.J. Simpson jury.

Why most citizens of The United States can’t be President  1 & 2;  pdf -11 pages  revised

by Adrien Nash April 2014 obama–nation.com

Why most citizens of “The United States” can’t be President

Are you an American attorney? Maybe even an immigration attorney? If you are, -as well as if you are not, it is almost certain that you do not understand the origin, history, and nature of the thing you know as “citizenship”.
Why would you not understand something so basic? Because your teachers did not understand it, nor did theirs, nor the authors of their textbooks, -and on back for countless generations and centuries.

I’ve managed to illuminate the subject in large numbers of expositions, but a new and very surprising realization has come to my awareness, one that will be revealed following these few re-capping paragraphs:
Are you an American citizen? What actual proof do you have? Do you have a Citizenship Certificate? Probably not, but most likely you have a birth certificate that says you were born in such-&-such state, right? Well, by American law, that does not necessarily make you a citizen. Nor does it explain what a citizen actually is (nor explain what “The United States” actually is).
Federal law and Federal policy are two different things, as is seen in what Barack Obama has done with the Affordable Care Act. It has specific legal deadlines and commencement dates which he simply tossed out the window and replaced with his own self-chosen policy, one which his executive branch is ordered to follow in contradiction to the United States Constitution.
You probably recall learning in history class about the so-called “Gentleman’s Agreement” between the U.S. President and the Emperor of Japan which informally limited Japanese immigration.
Wikipedia has this to say about gentlemen’s agreements:
“This type of agreement may allow a nation to avoid the domestic legal requirements to enter into a formal treaty, or it may be useful when a government wants to enter into a secret agreement that is not binding upon the next administration. The essence of a gentlemen’s agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable.
According to another author, all international agreements are gentlemen’s agreements because, short of war, they are all unenforceable. Osmańczyk pointed out that there is a difference between open gentlemen’s agreements and secret diplomatic agreements.”

The Secretary of State’s agreement with the Japanese foreign minister was known as a gentleman’s agreement because it was not actual law nor treaty. Congress never voted on it. It was simply an adopted policy by the chief executive, and followed by the branch of government that he ruled.  Similarly, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service do not follow the actual law.

They adhere to a policy put in place in 1898, which goes decidedly beyond the law and thus is without legal foundation.
By that policy you are considered to be a citizen, but that policy is not based on a delineated principle but on a sort of “Cliff notes”, “rule of thumb” or symptom-indicator when it comes to citizenship, and it is the location of one’s birth as shown on a birth certificate.

Since it is essentially true that those born in the United States are almost without exception American citizens, everyone born here is therefore assumed to be a citizen, -but exceptions nevertheless do exist and maybe you are one of them.
Were you born in the U.S. of a foreign ambassador serving here? How about American Natives who refuse U.S. citizenship? How about illegal aliens? How about aliens who have over-stayed their Visas? How about aliens who are merely tourists or guests of the U.S. government?

None of those types of foreigners are subject to the fully sovereign authority of the American government, and therefore no child born to them is either. That disqualifies such a child from the citizenship bestowed by the 14th Amendment which only extends to children of immigrants because only they can be presumed to be fully subject to American authority.

Everyone who has followed what I’ve written already knows that, but what is new is my realization of the fact that such citizens are different from the type of citizen that you are. How so, you ask? Because not only is the origin of their citizenship not natural, (unlike you who were born of Americans) but the entity of which they are citizens is different also.

The entire subject of citizenship cannot be understood without understanding the dichotomy between their form of citizenship and yours. You inherited your citizenship from your parents who possessed the unalienable right to own you and have you belong to the same family, society, State, and nation to which they belonged.
Those born of immigrants had no such parents and their parents had no such American right. Their children were allowed to be Americans by the grace of the U.S. Supreme Court which reinterpreted the 14th Amendment, with its inherently ambiguous nationality clause.

Just as African-Americans were allowed to be accepted as Americans, so the children of immigrants joined their ranks three decades later thanks to a Supreme Court opinion. They were allowed to be American citizens from the day of their birth, but what sort of citizen were they? What was the distinction that differentiated them from those born of Americans?

As previously stated, they had foreign parents, but there is something else that is different also, and that can only be explored by asking the question: “ What, exactly, are they a citizen of? Are they a citizen of 1.) The United States, 2.)  the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, or 3.)  a State that is a member of the union of the States of America, iow; the united States?
Those are three distinctly different entities, and that difference explains everything once it is understood. And what it explains is something that has hardly ever entered the mind of anyone born in the last century or more.

The bottom line of the difference is that if you are a citizen of “The United States” then you are likely to not be a natural born citizen and thus not eligible to be President. And that is even more likely to be true if you were born as a citizen of “The United States” because most so born were born of immigrant foreigners.

One cannot be born as a citizen of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA because that name represents the entirety of the nation, -all 50 States, Federal territories, government offices and personnel, plus the military. One cannot be born in (nor of) more than one sovereign entity unless born in more than one body.
But one can be born as a citizen of “The United States” in one of two possible ways: by being born of American parents on Federal Government land, or by being born of immigrants anywhere in The UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

All immigrants’ alien-born children are included as U.S. citizens via the 14th Amendment’s nationality clause, -which reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Two government entities are referenced: The United States and the individual State. It is not worded with a small-case letter “U” in “United”, indicating it was referencing the nation and not “The united STATES of America. It was labeling such immigrant-born children as being Federal Government citizens first.  If “the united States” were assumed to be its intent, then the result would be an impossibility.  One cannot be a citizen of all of the States of the union unless sovereignty does not exist.

With the eventual Supreme Court ruling regarding what the words of the 14th Amendment meant for children of immigrants, it is clear that the amendment got the order of those two entities listed in the proper order, -with the nation or national government mentioned first, and the State of birth mentioned second.

For babies born of American parents, the opposite was true. They were first and foremost citizens of the State of their birth, and through its membership in the Union of the States, their State citizenship extrapolated by extension into national citizenship.
But those born of foreigners were first and foremost citizens of the American government, and secondarily were citizens of the State of their birth since they were citizens primarily by national law and not State law.

They may have also been citizens by original State law dating back to a State’s independence and first Constitution, -pre-dating the high court opinion by a century, but since there was a disharmony, a divergence between State law and national policy regarding limitations on citizenship, (the feds not recognizing dual-citizenship by native-birth) the high court’s opinion settled the matter in favor of federal constitutional (amendment) law, and native-birth citizenship was officially “in” at the Federal level, -no longer just limited to the State level.

That supposedly over-rode the authority of State law since it was based on an amendment to the Constitution. So if a State’s citizenship law said that its native-born children of foreigners were not recognized as citizens, the court opinion would have nevertheless recognized them as national citizens as well as State citizens.

Barack Obama is considered to be a citizen of “The United States”, but that status, -as connected to his birth circumstance, renders him unqualified to be President. Let’s explore the “why” behind that fact.

Before the Declaration of Independence, all of the colonies had one sovereign; King George III, but after the declaration they had no sovereign. They also had no American nation. They instead had a new alliance of the 13 independent, sovereign nation-states of America. Each of them was a unique separate country, having their own history, traditions, government Charter, municipal law, and within months or years, their own Constitutions and central governments.

Everyone in the greater aggregate country of “America” was acknowledged internally as a member of one thing and one thing only, and that was the country of their habitation, and probable birth. They were citizens of their colonial homeland turned newly independent nation-state, -joined in an alliance with the 12 others in order to fight for their liberty.

They were citizens of the self-labeled Commonwealths of Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, as well as nation-states such as New York, Maryland, Rhode Island, etc. There was no such thing as a United States Government because there was no American nation yet. All citizens were citizens of the individual sovereign nation-states of America.
So, since there was no United States government and thus no nation; there was no such entity as “The United States of America” signifying a nation, its constituent parts, and its government, existing as an entity on the world’s stage.

What existed was simply The united States (nations) of America, -an alliance of the several States of America, -and with far less central control than the European Union has today. It has economic union and cooperation and central control in other matters, but not political union.

Because of that lack of political unity, no one can say: “I’m a citizen of the United States of Europe”. They can only say; “I’m a citizen of France”, -or Germany, etc. But if one were very cosmopolitan, one might say; “I’m a citizen of the European Union.” just as the representatives of the fledgling nations of America could have said; “I’m a citizen of the American Union of States.
So just as Europe remains politically separated, the situation was exactly the same in post-July 4th 1776 America. One could not say: “I’m a citizen of The UNITED STATES of AMERICA since the nation those words (and capitalization) represent, simply did not exist yet.
But when it came to writing a national Constitution 11 years later, candidates for elective national office had to be described in order to prescribe qualifications for office, the first of which was citizenship, followed by age and years of citizenship.

They wrote that a candidate for Congress had to be a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, but with the “U” in “united” capitalized, the effect was an ambiguity. A constitutional nation did not yet exist since the Articles of Confederation were not a strong enough bond with a strong enough central government to constitute a unified sovereign entity. So the word “united” probably should have not been capitalized, -but doing so was the habit in that day, as seen throughout the entire Constitution. Nouns are capitalized everywhere. But undoubtedly, the meaning behind the words was that one had to be a citizen of the united STATES of America… (for X number of years).

Reading it as printed erroneously conveys the idea that one had to be a citizen of the nation for X number of years, but that thought did not exist in anyone’s mind. Everyone only recognized State citizenship as a primary reality, and nation membership as a secondary extrapolation or extension of citizenship connecting one to the individual State of his residence (and… probable birth).
An aspiring candidate, or an elected one, had a duty not first and foremost to serve an aggregate union of states but to serve the people of the nation-state that granted him its citizenship via it’s naturalization process. That meant the State that one emigrated into, and became a citizen of.
They would represent their State interests, -even if in opposition to the interests of other States. They were not one big happy family of States. [They were akin to a the early Greeks of the city-state era, drawn from large clans of competitive cities, but united for defense or sports competition.]
There was much they had in common, but also much that separated them, with the North vs the South, Free-states vs Slave-states being the biggest divide.

Another divide was that between the States and Federal territory. Federal territory was not an element of the Union of the States and their constitutional compact. It was property of the federal government alone, -just like the American colonies were the personal property of the King of England, and not the property of Great Britain.

What was the nationality status of a baby born on federal land, such as Louisiana, or Alaska? It was not a citizen of the father’s home State since he and his wife may have abandoned it for emigration westward. There was no State government in the westward lands, so by default, such a child had to be seen as a National of the United States Government, and by extension, the nation as a whole.
With States, it was sort of the opposite. State citizens were first and foremost just that, and only by extension, also citizens of the nation.
One could call such U.S. Territory-born children “natural born nationals” of the American Government by being born of Americans, -with the States having no factor in the relationship.
In a way, that situation is akin to the Calvin case in the early 1600’s Britain. The union of the united States would be equivalent to the nation of England, while federal lands would be equivalent to the kingdom of Scotland. What connected the two?
In Britain it was the fact that one King became the monarch of both Kingdoms and held both Crowns. In America, the federal government replaces the King by it being the connecting sovereign of the two separate and detached realms. Thus, by extension, each realm was connected and those born in “the West” were natural members of the joint realm known as “The United States of America ”.
Therefore, although they were not natural citizens of any State of the Union, they were natural members of the nation as an aggregate entity, born as Americans, -and as such could be viewed as eligible to be President of the aggregate entity.

Since the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” requirement doesn’t say what entity one must be a natural citizen of, by default it is in reference to a man’s citizenship in his sovereign home State, not the future aggregate nation.

It states: “No Person, except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President.”

So, since “THE UNITED STATES” did not yet exist at the time the Constitution was adopted, all citizens were citizens of the united (but separate) STATES.  State citizens, -either natural ones or naturalized ones.  Both could serve.  And later, one who was something new, -a citizen-born non-State American national, could also claim quite reasonably that they were a natural born citizen of the American nation.

U.S. Territories progressed from wilderness to civilization to statehood. The non-State Federal District of Columbia developed at the most rapid pace, but not toward statehood. With the development of civilization, the inhabitants became the CITIZENS of a Territory, -having responsibility to obey and support the rule of law & order.
They were not citizens of a State, but were nevertheless citizens of an American entity, and subject to the American government and its agents.

To progress beyond this point, it is necessary to come to an understanding of the difference between citizenship and nationality. Citizenship is a status related to the internal rights and obligations of natural national members, but nationality is strictly a perspective of governments; mostly toward members of other nations, but also toward some members within a government’s sovereignty.

As seen in the Constitution of Cuba, one can be a resident and national of Cuba, and yet not be a citizen because one has no natural right of citizenship due to foreign parentage.
If a couple with children emigrates to Cuba, and eventually seeks and obtains naturalization, it will make the parents Cuban citizens (but of a limited nature with restricted rights) while their children will not be acknowledged as Cuban citizens before a certain age because they were born as foreign citizens. But they will be viewed, via their parental connection, as Cuban Nationals.
They belong to the nation of Cuba, just as their parents then do also. That means they are not viewed as foreigners or aliens, but they are not elevated to the status of Citizen. They are Cubans but not Cuban citizens.

America has a similar situation when it comes to the native inhabitants of American Samoa and the American Virgin Islands, -with Puerto Rico and Guam previously being in the same status. They are United States Nationals, but are not U.S. citizens. Nationals do not have the rights nor the obligations of citizens.

It would have been within the sovereign authority of the Cuban government’s Constitution writers to allow immigrants only the status of Nationals but not Citizens because they were not indigenous Cubans nor born of Cubans. They would be a product of the national government via its nationality law.
It was the same in America in regard to the still sovereign governments of the nation-states of America. They could make foreigners into whatever they wanted to, -whether new citizens or merely new State nationals.

Wanting all members of society to be Americans and equal, they chose the high road of making them (via naturalization) co-citizens endowed with all of the civic and property rights of fellow citizens.
That covered both those who immigrated & naturalized as well as their children, -whether born within the State or not. What they were allowed to be was the result of a decision of the natural citizens of each State when writing their nationality clauses.

Anyone that a State considered as one of its citizens was to be recognized by the other States as being just that. That was a reciprocal arrangement. “You make citizens as you see fit, and we will recognize them as such, and you will do the same in regard to our citizens.”
That would be the arrangement with or without a new central government. But once one was formed, it had to have a policy regarding nationality for dealing with Americans traveling, living, or being born beyond U.S. borders. It had to act as a nation acts in regard to those it deemed to be its own.
So then the question was, who would be its own? Are those who are citizens of only the American States deemed to be Americans? What if they are also a citizen of another nation as well?

end of Part 1.

by a.r. nash  april 2014

400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas pt. 3

~or how the Calvin case dooms our future~

We’ve seen where the invented, amalgamated phrase “natural born subject”  must have come from, -a necessity to include together all subjects whether they were subjects by nature (via birth to subject fathers) or subjects by being born within the sovereign’s realm although not of his nation. But was that phrase the origin of the American phrase “natural born citizen”?

Those who defend the idea that by the devolution of the English term (as Europeans were included under it) the alien-born of foreigners in America can therefore be labeled as that which they are not; namely natural citizens of the United States.
But since the Constitution’s writers included the word “born” instead of just “natural citizen” they feel that that gives them a justifiable basis to argue that the American term was just an adaptation of the British term. But to jump that logic gap requires employing three springboards;

1. the idea that Americans had no difference in their thinking than the British; 2. the word “citizen” is from the same universe as the word “subject”, and; 3. that the whole phrase is not a literal idea based on the individual words but is a “legal term of artifice” which means something other than what the words literally, individually mean.

In their own minds, they springboard over their logic gap, albeit they fall flat on their faces in the light of several statements in U.S. laws, histories, and high court opinions. But they simply turn a blind eye to them and pretend they do not exist. And they do that in order to defend and protect their champion, Barack Obama and the legitimacy of his presidential eligibility.
But any reasonable man can easily understand that if the third springboard is so highly false that it has no spring, then Obama cannot be considered to be a legitimate President. So, is “a natural born citizen” some sort of legal fiction of language, -a term of legal artifice? The answer is provided in part by the other assumptions which are road-blocks to that view.

No one who is of an American mind-set, and not a subservient, loyalist, government enthroning, natural rights ignoring mind-set, knows that the thinking of the Americans in the 1770s was radically altered as it became clear to them that they were either to be slaves of the English king and his aristocratic tyrannical Parliament (which had no place in any of their colonial Charters with the King), or they would be free men living on their feet and not on their knees.

Since they no longer thought the way the British thought, it can’t rationally be asserted that when they used English language words they necessarily meant exactly the same thing as they did when contained within an old British term of art (“natural-born subject”) used to describe a people that had no elected President & Commander of the national Army.

That can be shown in various ways, including by simply pointing out that the word “subject” and the word “citizen” are not from the same universe. What each implies is radically different from what the other entails.
CITIZENS were responsible for their own governance, their own national survival, their own defense, justice, and the protection of their own natural liberties. With subjects…? -not so much.

That being true, it can’t reflexively be contented that any words attached to “Citizen” had to carry the very same connotation as they did under the royal system of human ownership with its designated “term of art” label. There is no logical basis on which to make such an assumption, and no one can offer one.
That leaves the very high likelihood that they carried a different connotation in a very different context, -that of a people who had to entrust the command of their new nation’s military power to one single elected or appointed individual.

It might have been decided that such a position might be filled with an appointment for life, -like federal judges who would be under no man’s influence. The Commander in Chief could have been viewed as one who needed to be separated from national and international politics which might seek to corrupt his loyalties, and not be someone potentially switched in and out with every election cycle. Such a view can be imagined as being present through these words:

“At the start of Washington’s administration, John Adams became deeply involved in a month-long Senate controversy over the official title of the President. Adams favored grandiose titles such as “His Majesty the President” or “His High Mightiness, the President of the United States and Protector of Their Liberties.””

So whoever he might be, it was vitally important that he be 100% reliably loyal solely to the United States, -having no direct attachments to any foreign power or nation.
Adams (who followed Washington as President, -and received a third of the votes when he ran against him in the first and second presidential races) was such a man, -with ancestors who were all Americans all the way back to the Puritans.

His loyalty to his country was unquestionable since he had roots nowhere else. Such a citizen could be trusted to never betray his country in favor of benefiting a foreign nation or king.

The filling of the position of Command in Chief was therefore potentially critical to the success of the new nation and its perpetual survival. What fool would pretend that such an American situation, -such a new and previously non-existent context, was ever faced by the loyal subjects of His Royal Majesty in Britain?

And yet they pretend that that reality didn’t exist and everything was just equivalent across the board.  -That the word “subject” was equivalent to CITIZEN.  That America was equivalent to a monarchical dictatorship.  That the U.S. Government would be equivalent to the power and authority of a hereditary god among men whose authority was supposedly bestowed by God himself.  Yes, it’s hard to see any difference.

So let’s look to an analogous phrase in order to understand the nature and meaning of the words “natural born CITIZEN”. Let’s employ another word and see how it relates and illuminates. Let’s employ the word “White”.
In the founder’s era, as always, men felt biased in favor of their own kind, including their own ethnic and racial group, and as a result,they would not accept being ruled over by someone of an different nature. That fact was not made an element of the Constitution, which does not discriminate, but was made an element of the naturalization act passed by the first Congress.

It stated that the qualification for naturalization was that one be a free white man of good character.
The excluded, by law, those who also were excluded socially and politically from any chance of being a candidate for the new office of President, namely; free black men who were either immigrants from Africa or free educated Black natives.

So potentially, the eligibility to be President could have been tied to race just as was eligibility for citizenship. After all, can you imagine the people of America, aside from the slaves, being under the leadership of a freed slave or son of an African? That was not even thinkable, but that fact didn’t result in an open prohibition in the Constitution. But let’s postulate our own.

“No person except a white born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.” Well, we know what citizen means, -and what a “born citizen” means (one born as a citizen by natural inheritance of the parents’ nationality, or one born having citizenship by the grace of law even though born of foreigners) but what does “white” specifically mean and connect to?
Does it connect to “born” or to “citizen”? Would “wise” as in “wise old man” connect to “man” or to “old”? “Wise man” or “wise old”?
Clearly, “white” does not connect to “born” although it would not be as illogical as it would be with “wise old”. It connects to “citizen” as in “white citizen”, -as apposed to “Negro citizen” (the only other race prevalent in America).
[Egalitarian individual States may have allowed naturalization for free black men, but after the first naturalization act in 1790, that allowance ended.]
But with “white” one might argue that mulattos could be labeled white since they are part white
and have that character in common with pure whites. That is directly comparable to saying that foreigner-born citizens have native-birth in common with natural citizens, so therefore in a sense they are also natural citizens.

That is a form of false sophistical linguistic distortion and conceptual perversion since that which makes one a natural citizen is citizen parents, -not birth location.
That perversion is possible and accepted because of the error of connecting the adjectives to each other instead of to the noun that they modify.

Just as “wise” and “old” do not modify each other as in “wise old” but modify the noun “man”, so also, but not as clearly, do the words “natural” and “white” modify the word “citizen”.
But in our minds we think we see a connection which, in fact, is not intended. We imagine that “natural born” and “white born” might be actual terms instead of just adjectives which describe “citizen”. But they are not actual terms because they would be stupidly redundant in nature.

No one would ever say that so-and-so is “a white born man” because it’s understood that race is something not determined by birth but by “blood”, -by genes. Likewise, all natural citizens are citizens via citizen parents and not the event of birth.

One could say “citizen born” and “a born citizen” and “natural citizen” without redundancy, but adding “natural” along with “born” does not give cause to assume that natural is modifying born instead of the noun they both share, as in “natural citizen” plus “born citizen”. A combination of two different focuses. One being citizenship by law (based on birth location), and the other being citizenship by nature (based on blood connection).

Some who are born as citizens are not citizens by nature but instead by the allowance of the laws of the natural citizens who deigned to allow outsiders to join their national family.

So we see then, in reality, those three springboards have no spring. 1. Americans did not think like the British. 2. The history of the distorted term attached to all subjects of his majesty did not apply in the liberated countries of America, -and 3; the words “natural born citizen” did not constitute a term of legal artifice as they did in Britain and the colonies before the revolution since the word “CITIZEN” was from an entirely different philosophical universe than the word “subject”.

Additionally, an individual word within a term of art cannot be singled out for emphasis since the term has a unitarian meaning which is taken as a whole and not as the sum of its parts.

But the first man in America to single out one word demonstrated for all time that the employment of the words “natural” and “born” in the American context did not constitute the fashioning of a new American term of art when combined with the newly appropriate word “citizen”.

That man underlined the word “born” when he wrote to General Washington (president of the constitutional convention) suggesting that the power of the Command in Chief should not be given to nor devolve on one who was not a “natural born citizen”.

He underlined that word, -and not “natural born” nor “natural” because of America’s legal fiction that all men who took the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation became immediately new natural citizens of the United States, -just like a Christian convert rises as in symbolic resurrection from the water of baptism (representing death & burial of the old sinful human nature) as a new creation in Christ.

A new citizen of America, of one’s State of residence and homestead, was not christened as “a new naturalized citizen” (there was no such citizen class) but as a new fellow natural citizen brother of the American people and their shared nation.
He was then co-responsible for its governance, and survival, and was no longer a foreigner beholden to and obedient to a foreign dictator. He was at last a free man in a free country. No monarchy over his head. No royal power shielding the political sun of freedom. He was a new natural American, -just like all of his fellow Americans in every single way, …almost.

There was just one tiny insignificant real-world difference between him and his new American brethren, -and that was that he could not be allowed to command all of the military might of the nation because America didn’t have any mind readers who could tell what was or was not hidden in the hearts of those born and raised foreign. And so total trust regarding total power could not be invested in him, -but could be invested in his American raised children.

About that fact no one disagrees. The disagreement is about a closely related fact, and that is regarding the children of the foreign man who chose to not become an American (or who had not given legal notice that he intended to become naturalized just as soon as the law permitted him to before fathering children in America).

Those foreigner-born children had foreign fathers who presumably retained allegiance to their foreign monarch. How in the world could they be presumed to be 100% American and possessed of undying devotion to America’s principles, -to her Constitution and laws, her people, her freedoms and her survival?

Well, they couldn’t, and that was why the word “born” was underlined by the man who wrote that letter; he being John Jay, compatriot of Thomas Jefferson, past president of the Continental Congress and future Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  His fellow patriot founder, Alexander Hamilton, wrote of the fear of corrupt foreign influence gaining ascendance in America via assuming the role of chief magestry of the nation, -which turned out to be the office of President & Commander in Chief.

He feared that a planted agent of a foreign power might rise to occupy such a position since there would be no greater prize for them on earth than that, at least one requiring no resort to war.

Alexander Hamilton’s writing in Federalist No. 68:
“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”

Since that would be an impossibility for a foreigner to achieve under the loosest of allowances of eligibility, it was necessary to also block the avenue of achieving it through one’s son who happened to be born within the United States.
And that was why he underlined a word that had never been underline in its extremely rare appearance as part of a phrase including the words “natural” and “citizen”.

The power of the nation had to not be given to any so-called “natural citizen” but only one born as a natural citizen, -and not merely made “a new natural citizen” by the American fiction of citizenship transformation known as natural-ization.

The Constitutional Convention accepted his suggestion and adopted it. But ever since, no one has been able to explain why he underlined the word born if they do not understand what has just here been explained. Do you now understand?

If so, you are a tiny minority of an even smaller minority because Americans live in an ocean of citizenship ignorance, and I don’t see any real way for that to change without some sort of charismatic, dynamic popular patriot who is knowledgeable, willing, and wanting to teach them, and they being eager to learn.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for him to appear and clear up the near universal ignorance and misconception that has been the American norm and status quo almost from the beginning.

The government is never going to correct its century old institutionalized error which declares every baby born on U.S. soil to automatically be deemed a United States CITIZEN because of the Calvin case and its far-reaching impact.

Just as buildings are built one block on top of another on top of foundation stones, so concepts, ideologies, philosophies and religions also are built on foundational assumptions and beliefs.
If they are not factual, then the entire structure built on them is grounded on the sand of error or falsehood, but the structure becomes so immense, accepted, customary and traditional that even questioning it can get you killed in some cases.

So knowing the truth does not translate into being able to replace the embraced error because it is rooted in the minds of the population and government institutions. Just try changing an institution in America.

Not only can’t our corrupt government abolish departments and agencies that are obsolete, but it cannot even repeal laws written for the depression of the 1930s and no longer applicable in today’s world in any legitimate or constitutional manner.
I’m just glad to no longer be as young as I’d like to be because the up side of it is that I don’t have a whole lot of emotional involvement in a distant future that won’t be one that folks of my generation and earlier would find acceptable. Plus, it makes a significant difference to not have any progeny that will be victimized by that future.

by Adrien Nash April 2014

300 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas  Parts 1-4, Pdf 14 pages, 2 column

(http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/300-years-of-bastardized-citizenship-ideas1.pdf)

 Thomas Paine on Kings & Presidents;  From The Rights of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 68 other followers