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 No Visa-card Alien’s Child Can Be President

or How Foreign Women Prove Obama Is Not An American Citizen

Do you believe that you understand what citizenship is? You probably do. But do you understand what the nature of American citizenship is? You definitely do not.
It is knowledge that has been entirely lost, and can’t be found in anything written in the last century. Even worse, it can hardly be found in anything written in the century before. But it is easily regained and understood simply by connecting dissimilar facts which together create a puzzle picture which reveals the truth. Let’s exam the picture that emerges when those pieces are assembled together.

For two centuries, American women, like indentured servants, were not citizens of the colonies nor the states nor the nation.
Whenever the subject of citizenship might have been raised in mixed American company, no man would have said so but they all would have thought that their womenfolk were not really citizens. They would not have said so because they felt the need to be polite, diplomatic, and avoid the ire of womenfolk whose good graces they desired to be in.

What man who desired his his mother’s approval, or his wife’s good cooking, obedience, and good sex would have uttered the truth in front of her; “women aren’t really citizens at all; they’re merely American subjects.”?
That’s the reality of the situation that couldn’t be spoken. It reminds me of something Greg Guttfeld said about marriage. He said that no one has ever written an honest book about what marriage actually turns out to be and is like by comparison to the notions in single people’s head before they’ve ever been married, -and… that no one ever will have the audacity to write one.

So there it is; the citizenship of American women, as well as children, was strictly a pretense of politeness maintained so as to not ruffle their feathers by making them seem unequal to men.
American principles rejected the existence of more than one class of citizens because they rejected one class being superior over others, and the rest being inferior -as was not the case in Europe with its despicable noble and aristocrat classes.
That fundamental American fact tells you that the women of America were not a lesser class of CITIZEN but were not actually citizens at all.
They were not inferior nor second-class because they were not in the class described by the title “CITIZEN”.
They were in a protected and subservient class apart from citizens, -leaving only the label “American National” to accurately and respectfully describe them.
The inhabitants of Puerto Rico and Guam, -as well as Native Americans, were once American Nationals. That status did not give them the rights of citizenship but gave them membership in the nation.
Now they, like women, are citizens also, but American Samoans and Virgin Islanders are not, -as is stated on their passports. They are American Nationals only.
That historical reality sheds strong indirect light on the very nature of citizenship itself. The direct light is that shed on citizenship via naturalization.
Only when you understand the reality of the mind-set of the past will you understand the truth about naturalization. It is this; since in reality, American women were not real American citizens, foreign women could not be American citizens either, -meaning they could not volunteer for the process of naturalization because it was restricted solely to those who could become CITIZENS, -not merely American nationals, -and only men could become citizens. Consequently only European men could submit to naturalization.

What did and does naturalization still require? Besides the renunciation of all foreign allegiance, it requires that one solemnly swear to BEAR ARMS, to BEAR TRUE FAITH & ALLEGIANCE to America and her Constitution.
How does one “bear true faith” towards a country? Only one way; by being true to the orders that one is given, -showing that true faith to one’s allegiance by showing full obedience in battle as the bullets are ripping into one’s companions and fellow CITIZENS (all of whom are male only). That is the obedience that is requisite to citizenship.

That oath is a living reminder of what naturalization actually entailed. In today’s bastardized devolved version of the system of the past, foreign women ridiculously swear to the very same thing by the very same words, with the words now meaning absolutely nothing.
If they actually meant something in any way, then one would have to assert that the United States government asserts the right to conscript women into the combat forces and to send them into battle.

Is there any man alive who is willing to make that assertion on behalf of Congress? Could anyone elected to Congress ever even think about making such subjection of women national law?
That will never happen because it is unthinkable even if the nation “allows” strong, aggressive and ambitious women to serve as combat or medic soldiers and Marines. They will never be made subject to that authority involuntarily because the men of the nation are the guardians of the women and children of the nation. Women are the protected class, not members of the protector class.

So foreign men were the only Europeans who underwent the naturalization process, and through them, as heads of their family unit, their wives and children became Americans automatically; -not by authorization of law, but by operation of American principles, one of which was that nationality was attached and flowed through the family head, the father, unless he were dead.

If the head became something new, then those under him became the same thing because they were of him and by him and possessed the same family blood as one living cohesive unit. Law was not needed to make that so because that was basic American Natural Law philosophy and attitude. But lawmakers felt obligated for the sake of openly protecting those who were not directly naturalized to state on the record that natural fact, -that those attached to him, his children, were also Americans, -although they did fail to include mention of the foreigner’s wife.

Divorce was allowed in America under Biblical law although it was rarely allowed in Britain under the National Anglican Church. Perhaps if a naturalized foreigner’s wife committed adultery, she could not only lose her husband and children, but also her right to be considered an American.

It no doubt was so because her only proof of being an American was through her husband, -by showing her marriage certificate and his naturalization certificate, connecting herself to him and his new citizenship procured her her membership in the American nation. Without those documents, she became a foreigner once again.

But how would that have actually changed anything about her life being lived in America? It would have changed nothing because her fellow American women had no citizenship rights either. They all were subject to the status quo of the patriarchal male-dominated society, -like subjects and not CITIZENS.  In fact you could label them as American subjects, like the Native Americans were a sort of subject, in a way, but not the real common law way because they were not subject to the full sovereign authority of the American government since they retained their own sovereignty.

Their relationship was described as “unknown to the common law”. But the relationship of women was known to the common law since it was one of subjection to the authority of the head of the family, -her father or her husband.
But like American women, like American Indians, like migrant Canadians & Frenchmen, and like American Negroes, foreign women were not subject to the requirement and natural duty of CITIZENSHIP which included the obligation to bear arms for the nation with true faith, and allegiance in battle if ordered.

There was, and is, two other classes of people who also are exempt from that obligation, and they are all foreign ambassadors & representatives, and all foreign guests of the U.S. government.  They cannot be drafted into the American military because they are not subject to American authority over its own. Since 1898 and a Supreme Court opinion in the case of Wong Kim Ark, “its own” includes not only its citizens but also its domiciled immigrants who’ve joined themselves to American society and are under American laws and protection.

Such foreign men, even though not naturalized into citizenship, are subject to the full requirement of the male duty to defend one’s own country even though it is not the nation of one’s subjectship or citizenship. But being as it is in reality one’s actual home, one has an actual duty to defend it.

That was not the view before that court opinion, -the one that declared that by the 14th Amendment, children of immigrants are born with American citizenship. Before that opinion, there was no settled national rule that anyone could point to that determined whether or not alien-born children were citizens of the nation, even though they were accepted as citizens within and by some of the individual states.

So today, foreign men and their foreign-born sons can be drafted, and thus are required to register with the Selective Service System between 18 and 25 even though they are not Americans.
That is because they are Americans in the sense that they are members of American society, even though not citizens, just as American women were also members of their own society but were not citizens in any real sense.

Another group are also not Americans in any real sense and they are foreign guests. They are those visiting America or serving their government in America on a temporary basis. Such foreign guests bear a Visa Card or diplomatic credentials while foreign immigrants bear a Green Card and are permanent-resident members of the country without being citizens.

A Visa-bearing foreign man might produce a child while within American borders but through the child’s head, its father, it is not subject to the duty that he is not subject to either, which is American military service. His child is exempt because it is subject to its father’s nation, -the one where he lives and has his home. He belongs for his father’s society and may be raised there as soon as his visit to America ends.

Such a foreign father was one Barack Obama from Kenya; foreign student. He fathered a son who was subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948 but who was not subject to American sovereign authority over American citizens and immigrants.
Neither the father nor the son at birth were under any obligation to serve a nation that was not theirs and was not their home. In time the son became obligated because Kenya did not become his home, -Hawaii did and it was an American state when he was born.

Did he register with Selective Service at 18 years of age? No, he did not. He did not feel obligated to do so since he was only partly American, -but also Kenyan, and Indonesian by adoption.

But when he was born, by the 14th Amendment and its true meaning of what being subject to the United States was when the amendment was written, -or even by what it meant under the illegitimate expansion of its meaning to include immigrants by the Supreme Court in 1898, Barack Jr. was not born possessing 14th Amendment citizenship because his father was not an American nor an immigrant but merely a foreign guest.

And as far as anyone knows, his status has never changed, although he may have gone through the naturalization process, -unbeknown to everyone since it would remove all ignorant doubt that he was not born as an American citizen, and as such could not possibly be considered to be a “natural born citizen” as the Constitution requires of all Presidents and Vice-Presidents.

Why No Visa-card Alien’s Child Can Be President  pdf 3 page

by Adrien Nash March 2014 obama–nation.com

Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

Obama’s Constitutional Fraud

& The 20th Amendment

Article II, Section I U.S. Constitution:  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.

Another source of fundamental error in understanding the eligibility clause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the word “person”, -what it doesn’t mean and what it does mean.  It does not refer to the class of beings known as humans. Instead it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners.  “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”.  Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning.   They were universally automatically excluded as understood by all.  It was a given.
So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left was citizens.  Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

So what type of citizen was excluded by the presidential eligibility clause in favor of only natural born citizens?  Was it strictly naturalized citizens?  If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”  Bingo.
That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.
The provisional inclusion of the second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted (who were 35 years of age and 14 years in residence) speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President.  So, since that is already stated in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except..” language of the first segment.  The Constitution avoids redundancy and interpreting it requires avoiding it.

So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen.  What other types were there?  Only two:
Native-born sons of foreigners who were granted citizenship from birth by some states; or sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization.  They, -being foreigners because they were born abroad, or being foreigners because they were born to a non-citizen, (-even though native-born) inherited by parentage, -by patrilineal descent via the natural law of inherited nature & and position, the new American citizenship of their father. Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him.
Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons, perhaps less than two percent.  But if elected President, they could pose a potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion.  And so they were excluded.  But they were accepted during the founders’ generation because no monarch-loving wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press.  Plus, Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, or even after.  Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., -too young, not enough years of residency, or not an American citizen.
So a more clearly worded version would read something like this: “No citizen except a natural citizen, or a legal citizen of the United States living when this Constitution was adopted, shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”
Bear in mind that every citizen that was born of a foreign father was a legal citizen because their citizenship was obtain solely by the authority of law, and not by natural conveyance.

No natural citizen obtained legal citizenship at or after their birth.  Instead, they were born being a “citizen by nature”.  The native-born sons of foreigners could only obtain state and national citizenship via law.  If a state, like the national government, had no such law, which was most, then the children of a foreigner were not citizens of that state nor of the union.  They were viewed as foreigners also, like their father, until he naturalized, -then they acquired derivative citizenship by law and nature, become the same as what he had become.

~       ~       ~       ~       ~

The Twentieth Amendment versus  Obama’s Election

There’s one other area of Constitutional law that has never been enforced regarding Obama’s assumption of the presidency, and that is the authority and presumed requirement of the Twentieth Amendment.

That amendment deals with the qualification and terms of the President and Vice-President.  It states in Section 3: “, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice-President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice-President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is  to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.”
Its words “failed to qualify” are unmistakably not figurative but literal.  The President must qualify, and therefore to fail to qualify must mean that he failed a review of qualification.  That implies that there must be a review which one may fail because if there is no review then there is no possibility of failing to qualify.  That means that someone or some group had to be charged with ascertaining whether or not the President elect met the requirements of eligibility for the office.
And who would the congressional authors of the amendment have entrusted to ascertain the facts?  Only the representatives of the people, i.e., Congress.  Therefore it was up to Congress to inquiry as to the constitutional qualifications of the men who sought to hold the highest offices in the land.

If they were to find that they did not met the requirements, then they would have been obligated to bring the facts to the full body of one or both houses and take a vote as to whether or not it was agreed that the President elect and/or the Vice President elect had failed to qualify according to the Constitution for the offices they were elected to assume.  So Congress was expected and obligated to be the gate-keeper for the command of the presidency and the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
That is clearly what the 20th Amendment is worded to mean and yet do we any recollection of Congress actually carrying-out its duty to protect the presidency and the nation from unqualified persons who had the audacity to run for the office, the good fortune, moxie, chutzpa and persuasive power and/or backing to bamboozle their way onto the election ballots of every state, and then win the election?
Well we don’t because they never have, nor ever encountered (until Obama) an elected candidate that was manifestly unqualified, although Congress did hired a high-profile pair of attorneys [Tribe & Olsen] to research whether or not one born outside the United States, but under U.S. jurisdiction, could qualify as a natural born citizen which is the first and foremost requirement of qualification for the presidency.    They concluded that having been born of American parents made John McCain an American citizen regardless of where he was born and that such citizens are the natural members of the American nation and are therefore qualified for the office of the President as natural American citizens.

They had that opinion in hand before Obama was even elected, and it would seem that in order to secure a unanimous consent vote of the entire Senate (in absentia) that declared the opinion of the Senate was that McCain was qualified, the republicans made the choice to violate their oath to preserve and protect the Constitution by remaining silent about the ineligibility of McCain’s fellow Senate presidential candidate Barack Obama, who in fact was not a natural born citizen, and thus was not qualified to be President.

John McCain and his ilk knew full well that Obama was not a natural born citizen but they traded a chunk of their honor, along with their fidelity to the nation’s foundational charter, for the benefit of great opportunity.   They, and the entire United State government committed treason against the Constitution (for “the greater good”) afraid to appear out of step with the momentum to have a serious black candidate for the presidency.  And so they all remained silent, -both before and after the election.  Then even worse, the chief justice-traitor of the supine court acquiesced to the expectation that he swear-in the usurper and thus make the constitutional treason a perfect trifecta of governmental criminality by misfeasance non-feasance, thereby facilitating Obama’s perjury by his false-swearing as he vowed to uphold the same Constitution that he was violating by assuming the office that it declares him ineligible to hold.

And what made it worse was the fact that not even one voice in the media, including the conservative media (other than the internet) would even acknowledge that there was anything suspect about Obama’s eligibility.  And worst of all, all 50 state governments allowed him on the ballot for a second time (!), -and the government repeated its constitutional treason twice!

Like Humpty-Dumpty, this broken government can’t be fixed because its aggressive entrenched attitude of being superior to and unchained by the limitations of the Constitution is not the exception but is the norm.  That’s business as usual.  The attitude in Washington is that institutional power based on institutionalized error and independence from the Constitution in any and every way which they can get away with is the perfectly natural way of running the country, and anyone who wants to hold them to the limits of the Constitution is insane and living in La-La Land because they will never agree to such limitations.  But what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

We shall eventually see the dynamic conservative Edward (Ted) Cruz seek the office of the President with the goal of turning the country back to the Constitution and its limitation on federal power, and when he does we will all be engaging in a huge national discussion about who actually is and isn’t eligible to serve as President because he was not born in America but in Canada, and his father was not an American but a Cuban refugee who fled the growing communist oppression.  Such a person with such a perspective is just what America needs to shine a bright light on what statist totalitarian federal power devolves to when the chickens let the fox guard the hen house.

Will you support his unconstitutional bid for the presidency?  What should your criteria be for deciding?  Simple; the lesser of two evils is best, and a minor violation of the Constitution is far less onerous and destructive of the future than another term or two of socialistic-Marxism-leaning progressive policies being forced on everyone in the country in stark violation of the nation’s most basic tenets, those being independence and liberty, self-reliance, individual  and governmental responsibility, and unalienable rights that belong to the People or to the States.

I would support his candidacy fully, especially after being plagued by the milquetoast Republican candidates of the last couple decades, -men who had no idea of what they stood for, and didn’t quite grasp or embody “the vision thing”.  I’d hold my nose so to speak and mark his name choice instead of the democrat candidate’s name.  A glass half full is much better that a glass that’s empty, and a man working toward the right goals is much better than a man or woman not only not working toward them but actively working against them.

What wouldn’t I give to hear a newly elected Ted Cruz, upon the occasion of his inauguration as he prepares to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and fidelity to the office, then instead decline the office because he has become aware that he is not eligible to hold it.  That would be a moment like when the thick curtain that separated the common outer area from the Holiest of Holies in Solomon’s Temple was ripped by God in absolute disgust from the top down to the bottom.  That would mark the end of one era and the beginning of another.

That would explode the issue of presidential eligibility like nothing else will ever be able to, and put Obama right in its cross hairs where he belongs.  Short of that the truth might never have a chance of breaking through the thick wall of indifference and resistance put up by the opposition in Congress, the Attorney General’s office, and the courts, along with the sycophantic lame-stream media.  They’re all like Obama’s flying monkeys, and act like the three monkeys that see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.

That is perhaps the wisest attitude when your emperor is parading around  without a shred of constitutional clothing to cover his naked ineligibility (nor his counterfeit birth certificate fraud).  No one dares question the emperor, not O’Reilly, or Limbaugh, or Levin, or Hannity, or anyone else.  They don’t want anything to do with that third rail which they fear may fry them good if Obama’s henchmen in SEIU decide to start doing more than making threatening comments anonymously.

They might be aware that he is from Chicago, home of Al Capone and institutionalized corruption by gangsters and unions and politicians.    They might be aware that he has brought that same kind of corruption to Washington and put it into power which is exercised not so much by breaking the law but by ignoring it outright and doing whatever they can get away with that is outside of the law and the authority with which they have been entrusted.

Short of such an action by such a person as Ted Cruz, it would seem that a badly needed revolution in constitutional awareness will never sweep nor creep across this country to a degree that would make a real difference.  Americans will sleep on, focused on their favorite sports or gambling or drugs or music or video games or watering hole and their consciousness will never be raised nor awakened.  “Asleep at the wheel”, we will surely suddenly one day find ourselves sleeping comfortably in our own bed when the floor falls away from under us and we disappear into a giant sinkhole of debt and collapse of confidence in the entire American monetary system.

Have a nice day!

by a.r.nash  march 2013  http://obama–nation.com

Natives, Tribes, & Forgotten Citizenship Truths

Rvised & corrected March 22

In case some missed the added comments and addendum from “Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Depends On”,  here they are as a revised separate post.

Understanding Presidential Eligibility

Understanding the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause requires nothing more than being aware of natural roles that exist by blood connection, by inheritance, by parentage, by nature.
Nature has only three patterns defining the relationship between members of a species, including humans.  One pattern is that of individuals being loners who do not live in a social group.  The next pattern includes those that do.
The third is a pattern similar to but different from the second because the second produces groups comprised of creatures having equal size and strength regardless of gender, while the third is comprised of members having different  sizes and strengths, with the weaker being the females and the stronger being the males.

The first pattern is rare in the human world, -exceptions being the homeless and hermits, while the second and third are the norm, and express the difference between the modern world and the world in which women are a form of property, -the world of dominant male-chauvinism and machismo.
The second pattern includes an anomaly in both the animal and human realms.  Among elephant herds there are no males because they are driven away as teenagers since testosterone makes their behavior unacceptable, and so the pattern developed of excluding them.
In a welfare society, unwed mothers are excluded from welfare if a father is present to care for his own child.  But without a job or career, fathers can’t support their children so they never assume responsibility for them, leaving them to be raised by welfare-receiving mothers.  That whole category of society is devoid of adult male father-figures.

But the third pattern of nature is the one most common among primates and many higher-level  mammals, including lions, tigers, elk, deer, goats,  cattle, walruses, etc.  The male is the dominant sex, the protector of the females and off-spring.  He is master of the domain.  That has been the common pattern in human society throughout the ages, including in the group that is a pre-cursor to nations; namely families, clans and tribes.
The male head of the family group is the ultimate authority because he is the one on whom falls the responsibility to sacrifice life and limb to defend his charges, his family, his people.  With that assigned role and with his strength, his position is preeminent.  When a female accepts him as her mate, he becomes her protector and she becomes subservient to his leadership role.  She takes his name and abandons her father’s name and authority.  She becomes a part of him and his world and takes a vow of obedience.

If she is an outsider from another tribe, it doesn’t matter in regard to their children because they are not what she was, instead they are what he is.   She is subsumed by the blood connections of his family sphere.  She takes pride in what he is and accomplishes, as do their children who also draw identity and pride in the ancestral heritage inherited from him, of which they are a part.  His wife is woven into that fabric as a naturalized member of the family and tribe.

But if a female native marries an outsider who co-habitates with a tribe not his own, their children will not be in the same circumstance because their father is an alien.  Their mother takes on a connection to him, and he is connected to another people, and thus also are their children; dual and conflicted identity and loyalty.  He could take his brood and move out of the tribe and go back to his own people, while the children of the male native father have no other people since the former tribe of their mother is foreign to them and they to it.  She is no longer an attached part of them, having been naturalized by marriage and motherhood into her husband’s clan or tribe.

Her sons can one day be the Chief, but the sons of the outsider father can never be Chief because they are not pure-blood natives of the tribe.  They do not belong to it exclusively.  They are not natural members but are members by permission of the tribe because its membership is passed from father to child, -not from mother to child.
That’s the natural pattern, and that’s the way it was in 1787 when the Constitution was written.  It has never been constitutionally altered except that now daughters can also be Chief.
Native-born citizens are to natural born citizens what fraternal twins are to identical twins.  The common perception of twins is that they look alike, and yet there are exceptions, as in when they are not the result of one egg but of two.  The result can not only be that they don’t look alike, but they can even be different races and genders.

Years back there was even a case of a mother who gave birth to a white baby and a black baby at the same time.   And recently in the news was a case of a mother birthing two sets of twins at once, -one in 300 million odds.  Those children exist against the same odds as Barack Obama’s presidency.
Suppose that one set of those twins were identical, and let’s say beautiful girls, while the other set were fraternal twin boys, -with one being albino and the other being black.  No one would look at them and think that they were all the same, -that they were indistinguishable.  Yet in the minds of the ignorant, the children of the descendents of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are identical to the U.S. born children of Osama bin Laden because natural citizenship does not exist.     They only recognize legal citizenship and think that being born in America makes one a legal citizen and therefore equal and indistinguishable in any way from those whose roots go back to the Mayflower.

But children of foreigners and children of Americans are as distinguishable as those two very different hypothetical sets of twins.  They were both born having membership in their family, just as natural and native-born citizens have citizenship from birth, but fraternal twins are not, and can never be, identical twins.  They are different,  (by nature),  just as natural citizens are citizens by nature, but native-born children of foreigners are like a child adopted from a mother in the next hospital bed who didn’t survive childbirth.  It can never be a natural child of the adoptive mother and her family since an adopted child is not hers by nature but by law -even if it became hers from the day of its birth.

Clearly, there is a distinction between reality and perception about twins, just as there is in regard to the nature of the citizenship of the native-born.       The children of Americans are not the same as the children of foreigners, -regardless of the common geographical location of their births or the equality of the character of their devotion to their country.  Children of foreigners may well have a greater appreciation for being an American because their parents have made them aware of how pathetic life was in their homeland.

But the issue isn’t a quantification of loyalty to America but of the reality of a real and natural difference in the nature of their citizenship.  One is natural national membership, -the other is man-made, artificial, legal membership which does not come by Right but by permission.  It’s not transmitted by Life but by Law.  Citizenship connected to land & law is not natural.  Citizenship connected to borders, and not blood, is not natural.

It is indisputable that legal citizenship is not natural citizenship because natural citizenship exists in the total absence of any law, while legal citizenship is 100% dependent on law and without it, it would not exist.

For Obama, it’s even worse since his citizenship is not the result of any law, but the result solely of an erroneous policy based on an erroneous understanding of a bastardized Supreme Court majority opinion that threw out over 100 years of national policy and Supreme Court precedence, and rewrote, in effect, the 14th Amendment and its meaning.  That Supreme Court opinion became  the law of the land, but the policy that misconstrues it by going beyond it is not “The Law”, and could be changed overnight.
Obama’s citizenship is not a result of American law but of an American policy based on ignorance and the power of entrenched, institutionalized error.  His citizenship is as rare and unnatural as is the albino white buffalo.  He could not be farther from being a natural citizen unless he was not even born in America.

The legal nature & origin of his presumed citizenship is as cloaked in mist and mystery as is the nature of the white buffalo, and just as rare, but there is nothing normal and natural about anything that is rare.
The rare is abnormal, aberrant, deviant from the norm, strange and unique, -just like Obama’s pdf computer-crafted counterfeit birth certificate which was produced from real parts, but like Frankenstein’s monster, had no origin in a natural source.  The monster walks and talks but that doesn’t make it a natural human being, nor does the superficial appearance of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth make it a true, unaltered, replica of a real hospital record, nor does his albino, white buffalo, presumed citizenship make him a natural or law-based American citizen.

There are three distinctly different positions regarding what a natural born citizen is; the one on the extreme left ignorantly declares that it means “a native-born citizen”. The one on the extreme right erroneously declares that it means “a native-born natural citizen”. While the one in the literal-language middle argues that it means only what it says and exactly what it says and nothing more and nothing less. In fact, it says more than it actually needs to say because the word “born” is implied by the word natural. One cannot be a natural citizen without having been born one, and so in that sense it is redundant to include the word “born” when using the word “natural”.
But in the absence of the word “natural”, the word “born” usefully modifies the word “citizen”, since without it there’s no differentiation between those who are citizens naturally and those who are naturalized since both are Citizens.
But even with the word “born”, ambiguity still exists because it does not differentiate between those who are born as citizens naturally and those who are born as citizens by law.

One is a natural citizen while the other is a naturalized-at-birth citizen. What difference does it make what type of born citizen one is? Well, essentially none, and positively none as regarding one’s rights and protections and obligations. In those regards they are identical, but there is one other category established by the Constitution and it is occupied by only two people out of over 300 million, and in it there is an exclusion made, -an exclusion found no where in American society or life except in regard to who is eligible to wield the power of the Commander-in-Chief.

Constitutionally speaking, that is the truth  regarding the President and Vice-President alone, but not true practically speaking since others are also assigned to that category by the government, and they are those who guard the President, Vice-President and their families, and those who guard, maintain, control and launch American nuclear bombs.  Only natural citizens are allowed to occupy those positions because, like the presidency, it’s a matter of national security.  [those with the highest security clearances probably must also be natural Americans, -including those who work at the Groom Lake facilities of Area 51]

For the one unique position of the presidency, along with its back-up officer, the category of privilege contains a mandatory differentiation between those who are assigned the status of citizen by human mandate, and those who are born with the natural political nature of Citizen in the absence of any human mandate or judicial opinion.   Only they are the true natives or natural members of the nation, while their brethren by law are not natural members because they inherited a foreign political nature from a foreign father, and are only permitted the status of Citizen by the permission of the laws passed by the representatives of the natural members of the nation.
That permission could be withdrawn by a constitutional amendment and thereafter no person born in America with a foreign father would be considered a United States citizen unless granted citizenship by State law, as it was for over 100 years from the founding of the nation.
But such an amendment could not be adopted in regard to natural citizens because they would have to be the ones adopting it. It would be a Bizarro World situation when the members of a group or a game adopt a rule that says they (or their children) are no longer members of their own group.
The framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to describe the citizen nature of a President in different words and yet they choose the words that they settled on. But they could have stated instead that “No person except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”; or “No person except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible…”, or “No naturalized citizen shall be eligible…”; and yet they did not accept those clearly understood descriptions because none of them says what they wanted to be said, -which was that all sons of Americans are eligible at 35 years of age to be President as long as they’ve lived in America for 14 years, provided that  those born of a foreign father became Americans before the Constitution was adopted.
By requiring the citizenship of the President and Vice-President to be natural, they effectively barred the U.S. born sons of foreigners from holding the highest and most powerful position in the nation since sons of foreigners are not natural citizens but are citizens by law, (if citizens at all)  that “law” didn’t even exist until four generations later when the 14th Amendment was ratified, and which meant something that was assumed to be the age-old policy of the United States, but, being ambiguously worded, was altered by the Supreme Court’s majority opinion regarding it meaning, (their Wong Kim Ark opinion of 1898) -an amendment which was written for those denied U.S. citizenship in the South because they were not born to citizens even though they were born in America, -they being freed slaves.

Clearly, those who are citizens by nature and those who are citizens by law are distinguishable, and that distinction was drawn by the founding fathers in regard to one and only one office, the presidency. And by that distinction, Barack H. Obama Jr. is an invalid, illegitimate, unconstitutional President.

A distillation of the presidential eligibility clause and the 14th Amendment is as follows:
“Every person born subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States government is a citizen of the United States irrespective of birth location. American children not begotten by foreign fathers subject to a foreign power, nor to American naturalization statutes, are natural born citizens irrespective of birth location. They alone are eligible to the office of the President.  All other citizens are prohibited, including foreign-born naturalized citizens, foreign-born natural citizens who have not lived in the United States for 14 years, statutory & derivative citizens [foreign-born (including Guam, Puerto Rico, and Vietnam) who obtained U.S. citizenship as adults via congressional statute, or as children of those granted citizenship], and native-born 14th Amendment citizens.”

If the 14th Amendment meant what the Supreme Court majority in 1898 agreed that it meant, then there had been no need to mention a requirement for birth in the United States because children of foreign fathers are only born subject to the jurisdiction of Washington if they are born within the United States. That is a fact that goes without saying and didn’t need to be stated as a determining factor.  Therefore the wording of the Amendment is inherently redundant.
By first listing the factor of birth within the United States and then listing the factor of subjection to the authority of the United States government, the amendment’s language is requiring something that is impossible for those not born within the United States unless they are natural born citizens, (for whom the amendment was not written, and does not apply since their national membership pre-dates the Constitution).  No child born outside of the United States is latently subject to U.S. federal authority unless their parents are Americans.
Placing an emphasis on native-birth distracts focus from where it rightly belongs, which is on subjection to the political authority of the federal government.  The Supreme Court felt that birth within the United States makes one subject, even though that view was in violation of the policy of the government since it was created.  The Justices in the majority decided that subjection alone is the basis for granting citizenship, not native-birth. But that subjection only exists if one born to foreigners (or a foreign father) is born within U.S. sovereign jurisdiction.  But native-birth, in and of itself, does not make one subject. For that, one must be legally, permanently or semi-permanently domiciled, meaning one must be a member of American society and subject to the responsibility to defend it.

“All…and…are…”.   “All persons…and subject …are citizens.” What’s redundant is the first half. It could be dropped completely and rewritten as “All persons born subject to the United States’ sovereign authority are citizens of the United States”  That would have covered every person born in every state as well as federal territories.
Constitutional amendments can only revise the Constitution by mandating something that expressly nullifies, supersedes, alters or adds to the meaning of something in the Constitution or something that was universally accepted as the norm and status quo of the nation when it was ratified. The 14th Amendment makes no alteration in the meaning of what a natural born citizen is, nor did the Supreme Court in its Wong Kim Ark opinion since it did not address its meaning in its decision.
No one who is a citizen via the Supreme Court’s Wong opinion is eligible to be President because such citizens are legal citizens and not natural citizens, even though they are native-born Americans.
Citizenship dependent on birth within the United States, or Supreme Court opinion, or Congressional legislation, or executive branch policy is the definition of not being a natural born American citizen. If native-birth is needed in order to obtain legal citizenship then it is solely because one was born with the alienage of a foreign father.  Those without any foreign parentage can be born anywhere on the planet and are automatically American citizens because they are what their parents are.  They come into this world with an American political nature, American national membership, via natural political inheritance.

Aside from the common forms of legal citizenship, which include naturalized citizenship, statutory & derivative citizenship, and constitutional citizenship (via the 14th Amendment), there is also a form of citizenship which operates outside of the law although it has the force of the authority of the government.  That form is citizenship by policy rather than law.
That is the form of citizenship which Barack Obama actually possesses.  His citizenship is not citizenship by national law but by national policy alone since the “law” that is presumed to cover him (the Wong opinion regarding the 14th Amendment) does not in fact do so through his foreign-student father nor through his mother since neither foreign transients nor females are subjects of the full authority of any free nation (with the possible exception of Israel).

Statutory citizenship is that mandated by Congress and doesn’t involve naturalization.  It involves non-citizens being granted citizenship outright without undergoing the naturalization process.  It includes citizenship via the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (superseded by the 14th Amendment) and grants of citizenship to Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Guamians, as well as around a hundred thousand Vietnamese boat people who fled to America to escape communist persecution.
None of them were natural Americans but were made to be Americans by the exercise of legislative power, becoming legal citizens.  On the individual level, statutory citizenship involves the off-spring of an American and a foreigner being born outside of the United States jurisdiction, as well as the citizenship status of American women who marry foreign men (a century ago the Naturalization Act of 1907 stripped them of their American citizenship).

But no “legal citizen” is eligible to serve as President. Only those who are NOT legal citizens (the 97%) are eligible, because only they are natural citizens of the United States. Their citizenship is passed to them by American parents apart from and in the absence of American law. They are the true natives of the nation, -not by native-birth but by birth to natives.
If the 14th Amendment was exclusionary, then it would not have used the opening words; “All persons” but would have instead employed language used in the presidential eligibility clause; “No person except…”.  Or used its own wording but in negative terms: “All persons not born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens of the United States.”.
The inclusive language of the amendment has this as its skeleton: “All person born in…and subject to the United State”, -meaning: born within American jurisdiction and subject (latently, -through American parents) to American authority at birth.

If couched in exclusionary terms that results in: “Any person born in the United States but not subject to its political authority is not a citizen of the United States.”
What it doesn’t say is: “No person born in the United States and subject to its central government is not a citizen thereof.”
What it absolutely does not say nor mean is: “Every person not born in the United State is not subject to its political authority, and therefore is not a citizen.” Or worse:  “No person born outside the United States, even though subject to its jurisdiction, is not a citizen of the United States.”

Or worst of all: “No person not born in the United States is a natural citizen of the United States, nor a citizen of any sort whatsoever.”
Its opposite is: “All persons born subject to the authority of the United States are citizens of the United State regardless of where they are born” (with the exceptions American Samoa & Swain’s Island, -and indigenous Americans who opt out). That’s the widest true blanket statement possible.

But the amendment was not focused on including natural citizens born outside the United States, nor on persons born within the United States that were not subject to its authority nor members of its society, (Native Americans, Gypsies, Martians, and foreign visitors and representatives) but was focused solely on those people who were both born in and subject to the United States. The Supreme Court felt that the 14th Amendment meant that sons of immigrants are subject and therefore are citizens even though their parents are not.
But Attorney General John Griggs distorted their words by surmising that the Supreme Court had opined that every child of every foreigner born in the U.S. is subject (except children of foreign ambassadors), which is false and which the Supreme Court did not say. He turned “All persons…and subject…are citizens,” into “All persons…are citizen” by overlooking both visiting and illegally-present foreign women, and babies that might be born to them.  That wasn’t a significant oversight until the southern border became the gateway for an invasion of foreigners not subject to the American government.

We’ve been stuck with Griggs’ error ever since, which allows “citizenship tourists” giving birth in the U.S. and claiming American citizenship for children who, like them, are not subject to American political authority, and a President who isn’t even a genuine American citizen  -not by Nature nor by Law.  That error may doom our future as a demographic shift produces a voter majority that is unwilling to rein-in unsustainable spending.

by adrien nash  march 2013,





Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers