The Abandoned Truth About Nationality & Presidential Eligibility

From Calvin to the Supreme Court; the Conflicting Origins of Nationality

~Most situations that are never contemplated are ever considered when writing general legislation, and thus are overlooked in the law, absent, non-existent and unaddressed.  The qualifications for the Vice-President was an example lacking in the Constitution.  It had to be addressed in the 12th Amendment.  Another such situation similarly not mentioned was that of the citizens of the American States who happened to be born beyond American borders.

Just as almost all natural citizens are born in the country of their parents, so also, birds of the air are almost always safe and free thanks to their ability to fly.  But that which is almost universally true cannot accurately be called or described as universally true even though it essentially is.

One can say that birds are fearless except for their fear of man and cats, -both of which are confined to the ground by gravity.  And yet outside of that which people are normally conscious of, there is another thing that they fear, something out of the ordinary, -something that gets almost no attention at all, and yet it is very real and very deadly.  That something is hawks that not only eat things like mice but also, perhaps exclusively, eat other birds, -cannibals of the bird species.

When they are around, you will not see any other birds, as I’ve witnessed when on occasions I’ve seen a hawk perching on my bird feeder structure.  When that threatening reality is present, that which is almost universally true is seen for what it is; something that is not without exception.

Similarly, some American children are the rare exceptions because they were not born in America and yet they are American by their inherited political nature.  Congress first mentioned them in the Naturalization Act of 1790.  It’s not that there was a risk that they would be viewed as aliens since they would automatically inherit their father’s nationality.  Rather, it was that they might be considered to be ineligible to be the President.

That wouldn’t matter if they were all low-lifes, but they happened to be the best of the best in a sense, -the prime class of educated, and successful American families, -the segment of society from which future leaders would come, including the sons of American Ambassadors, -some of whom would be born while their parents were serving overseas.

The collateral damage of over-looking foreign-born Americans was the exclusion of such sons from eligibility for the top leadership position.

Imagine John Quincy Adams,(6th President of the United States) the son of the future second President John Adams, (-a direct descendant of the Puritans five generations earlier, having no direct foreign lineage back to the founding of the colonies) who accompanied his father to Europe as a child.

Imagine if he were to have been born abroad while his father was serving as an American Ambassador for nearly a decade in Europe and England, -a son who might have served heroically as an officer in the War of 1812, and helped turn the tide toward victory.

Imagine someone asserting that he was not qualified to be President (even though he was the son of the second President), because he failed to enter the world within U.S. borders.  THAT was the unacceptable collateral damage of a common law view of nationality that in a lesser case could have been inflicted against any worthy foreign-born American patriot who was ready to lead his nation.

Why would someone hold such a view?  For a very strong reason.  It was “the law”, or so it appeared.  It was the common law of England which applied still in all of the colonies that became sovereign American nations.  Everyone schooled in the law was schooled first and foremost in English law and the English common law that grew out of English court decisions.

Each of the colonies / State republics had their own body of legislated law as well since common law did not cover everything under the sun in America, but the only element of common law relevant to nationality was that which was central to the issue of presidential eligibility.

The Constitution required that the President be a natural born citizen, but there were two schools of thought as to what that meant, and they were not talking to each other about its actual meaning.  So an unspoken schism existed in the minds of the authorities of the founders’ generation, -and beyond.  It all boiled down to very, very fundamental things, -things of nature and the organizing principles of life.

In order to grasp the big picture, we need to rise above the entire realm of human society to see starkly different influences in human affairs, and see how they competed and clashed.  Then we can apply that understanding to the situation in America and thereby understand the truth as well as the confusion.

The big picture begins long before human governments were established, and progressed as man progressed from a primitive state to a civilized state.  The several elements of the puzzle are: Unity, Superiority, Individuality, and Equality.  Each is from a different realm entirely but together they form the matrix of life, overlapping and bumping into each other and even going to war against each other.

But before all of those factors came along, a primal, “a prior” factor first existed, without which nothing would exist because life would not exist.  That factor is Uniformity.  It makes life as we know it possible.  Life as we do not know it would be life without uniformity.

In such a world lions could breed with zebras, hyenas with gazelles, sharks with whales, etc.  The off-spring would be unrecognizable to the mother.  But with uniformity, the off-spring are identical to the parents; same genus, species, and usually the same breed.  The mother recognizes her young as something of herself and develops a bond with her young.  [That bond is part maternal and part species related.  Animal mothers or wanna-be mothers will adopt young of other species but will prefer members of their own species.]

That bond, and the bond between adults who form a mating, monogamous relationship, are the foundations of human society as well.  They result in the first factor of living beings, which is Unity.  Without those bonds there would be no families.  Mothers would abandon their young and males would abandon the females they impregnate.  Life would be unable to continue.

Unity results in the evolution of societies as families grow, and form new families, and new clans of related families.  A number of clans living together would constitute a tribe, as is seen in the stories of the children of Israel as told in the Bible.  Israel (aka Jacob, grandson of Abraham) had twelve sons, and each of them was the source of the twelve tribes of the nation of Israel.

An outsider might join himself to one of the tribes but he would not be a natural member of the tribe because he was not of its uniform source, -the blood of its ancestors that all descendents shared.  The outsider’s membership in the group was not by blood and thus was not by natural right but would be granted as a conditional gift.  That is directly analogous to admission to membership in a nation via nationality law making an allowance for outsiders and their children.

Just as Uniformity and Unity represent both the animal and human realms, so also does the other facet of the natural world, and that is Superiority.  It gave rise to the justification for the rule of kings over their fellow humans.  It is based on the natural world in which the stronger dominate the less strong, males dominate females, adults dominate the young.

First in the pecking order is the alpha male.  He is the strongest of them all and it is by right of his might that he is the head of the group.  He is likely to be older than the younger and weaker members, just as older brothers dominate younger brothers.

The Natural Law that the warring human world derived from the natural pattern of the preeminence of superior strength is the law of rightful leadership, -with, in effect, might making right, -as in the right to be leader and dominate others.

The Natural Law of Superiority by strength comes with an awful Siamese twin capable of great injustice.  It is the firm belief not just in one’s own individual superiority, but in the inferiority of all who are not of one’s own uniform group, -the group that is derived from Unity of origin.

That extends not just to weaker and inferior individuals but to entire outsider groups, -groups identified by language, ethnicity, religion, and race.  If they all are inferior, then it is the right of the superior to be their master because that is the law of the natural order of nature and man is a part of that order.

But in a world highly influenced by religious concepts, that is a direct affront to the values of religious or spiritual beliefs based on the other aspect of Natural Law, which is Equality,

You see, there are two kinds of nature; there is physical nature and there is spiritual or philosophical nature.  The higher consciousness of humans rises far above the animal level and it is that spiritual nature of man that finds itself in conflict with the physical nature patterned on the animal kingdom.

That made for an innate conflict for nations with a Judeo-Christian society and Church influence.  On one hand, the strongest of warlords was the person that the people should be subservient to, he being the man who was king by superior power and the conquest victories that such power achieved.

On the other hand you had a higher natural law of the spirit, -one in which all men are created by their creator as equal individuals, -with none having a natural right to make slaves or serfs or servants out of one’s fellow humans because they have natural rights that are equal to the rights of the strong man.

You can see, these two worlds are inherently at war, -with each view striving for preeminence.  If the strong man wins, everyone not close to him may lose to different degrees because of his tyrannical actions.  If Equality wins, then everyone but the strong man and his supporters wins and everyone is free, -unless many believe to some degree in the rule of Superiority, -then some aren’t so free, -as was the case in the Southern slave States.

It wasn’t that Southerns viewed themselves as superior to their fellow white folks.  Rather, they viewed beings of the African race as inherently inferior, and possible cursed by God according to a baseless presumption about Noah cursing one of his sons and that son becoming the father of the cursed African race.

So within the individual psyche of people, they might embrace both contrary rules of Natural Law; the spiritual Law of Equality for themselves and their own kind, as well as the animal Law of Superiority.  You know which one monarchs highly favored.

They favored it too much, and were raised strongly indoctrinated in it, -being taught by loyal royal sycophants that the population of their kingdom existed in God’s scheme of things solely for their benefit since they were so inherently superior to all.  That was the world’s ultimate brain-washing, and it produced poisonous results since it infected also, to a lesser extent, the entire nobility and aristocracy.

Anyone who rejected that aspect of Natural Law and embraced the higher, spiritual aspect of Natural Law known as Natural Rights (based on Equality) was a serious threat to the legitimacy of the status quo.  The tyrannical actions of the aristocratic British Parliament pushed the Americans totally into the opposing camp and they grew to reject the law of Superiority and embrace the law of Equality instead.  But that left the law of Unity unaddressed and unsettled.

Superiority and Equality had nothing to do with the issue of natural belonging, -of nationality, of the origin and basis of citizenship.  Common law addressed the issue of national belonging and thus citizenship but it did so in a legal manner and not a natural manner.

What would be the position of the new nation if natural law were followed instead of British common law?  The answer was located in the issue of the natural law of Individuality, -in conjunction with the law of Unity.

If the designer of mankind had fashioned humans with a spirit of Individuality, as a facsimile of the creator’s autonomous nature and not as drones and lemmings, then each individual had certain rights, and thus all individuals, -made from the same mold of the creator’s nature, had equal rights since there weren’t multiple molds with one being superior to the others.  One of those human rights fit perfectly with the natural law of Unity.

In nature, no other mother has a right to a mother’s young.  They belong solely to her and her monogamous mate.  They all together form a unit, -a unity, a union that is inseparable until the young become young adults.

To also enjoy the same unity of family and family group, humans have a natural unalienable right to reject anything that violates that right.  All civilized governments recognize and respect that natural right, and do not pretend that such a right is something that is given by any authority of men but is a primal right of all equal sentient beings, -beyond the authority of government to nullify or regulate.

So, not only as human animals but also as human individuals, people have an inherent unalienable right for their young to belong to them, and to also belong to their greater family, and the groups of which the parents are members.  Those groups include the village, town, city, county, state, and nation of which the parents are members, -and probably also natives.  That is their right of belonging.  That fact is where a conflict arises with the common law rule of nationality.

The common law of nationality was invented for the benefit of foreigners who needed to be viewed as (or equal to) Englishmen in order to not be blocked from certain important rights, including the right to inherit land in England, -which was limited to Englishmen only.  The English high court in the Calvin case got around the law by simply changing the focus from one being an English native to being a subject of the English King.

Any immigrant foreigner could be subject to the king and yet not be English.  But though he could not become an Englishman, his children could, -simply by being born in and under the dominion of the king, -thus making them, like sons of Englishmen, fellow born subjects of the king as well.

By that court opinion, the focus of nationality shifted away from the natural Unity of the native people of the nation and to instead the over-arching authority of the king over all souls within his dominion.  Thus the alien-born and those born of natives were unnaturally lumped together under one single principle-less legal concoction defined by the arbitrary factor of where one was born (within the boundaries) as well as to whom one was born (one subject to the national authority -meaning not a foreign ambassador or invader).

That is an amalgamation of two things that are unrelated except by the fact that they cover two different types of persons who are both subject to the same sovereign.

Under the natural law of Unity, -of natural belonging and natural membership, -along with individual rights, it doesn’t matter where in the universe one’s child is born.  One’s child belongs to him and her who gave it life and are its parents, -and to the groups of which they are members, beginning with the immediate family.

That principle of nature cannot possibly make one a member of a group in which one is an outsider.  But by the power of government or judicial authority, it can be decreed that the children of outsiders, if born within the insider’s borders, will be accepted as members also, -even from birth.

That is a man-made form of belonging, a legal form, and though it was not allowed by Parliament in the case of Calvin, it was forced into being by the decision of the judges that heard his case.  From then on the rule became that it was not the children of Englishmen alone who were English, -if was anyone born subject to the king, -whether English-born or alien born.

That was the common law of Britain and the colonies.  An amalgamation of outward circumstances brought together by judge-made law.  Since the subject of being born subject to the king was made moot by the fact that very few sons were born of foreign Ambassadors in England or America, nor of invading foreign armies, the only element that received any attention was the other one, -the location of one’s birth.

Born within the sovereign territory of the nation?  Then that makes you a subject.  Or a citizen.  But cracks in that seeming simplicity could be spotted by anyone who looked closely.  Native Americans were the prime example of how artificial the seemingly natural simplicity of the common law rule of nationality was.  They were totally unknown to the common law.  Their situation did not exist in Britain.  It had never been adjudicated by any judge ever.

They were born within the borders of the American States, and yet they were not deemed to be citizens.  So birth place alone was a fraud and was not the sole criterion of nationality.  It was something else.  That something else was the same thing that had come to be ignored, namely; the requirement of subjection which in special circumstances was juxtaposed against opposing sovereignty.

Just as Ambassadors are not deemed to be subject to the sovereign authority of the government in which they serve, so also Native Americans were not subject either since they retained their own sovereignty as autonomous nations.  The federal government could not give them orders that it could give to citizens, and neither could it do likewise to visitors from abroad.  The most fundamental order that a government can give is the order that it can only give to its men; -the order to bear arms in national defense.


XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man ["every" includes immigrants as well] who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.

And that a proper magazine of warlike stores, proportionate to the number of inhabitants, be, forever hereafter, at the expense of this State, and by acts of the legislature, established, maintained, and continued in every county in this State.  ~  ~  ~

The U.S. government could not order Native Americans to bear arms for it and to fight their own people.  They were exempt from such sovereign federal authority, -as were also all foreign guests and visitors, -not just foreign Ambassadors and their children.  So being actually subject to “the king”, aka;  big daddy federal government, actually did after all mean something beyond merely obeying civil laws.

Required subjection wasn’t just unimportant words that could be overlooked with the rationalization that “well everyone is subject to the law and to government authority”.  The fallacy of that view is not that everyone is subject to the civil law, which is true, but that everyone is subject to all government executive authority and political law, which is not true.  Some are not subject!  But almost everyone is, -like some 98% or so if you include females.

The danger to the nation comes not from the 98% but from the very, very long shot of someone from the 1-2% being mistakenly assumed to be among the 98% and then being elected President of the United States.

What such a person’s motives might be would be unknown except through the words that he publicly speaks and writes.  But if he is among the 1-2% and yet is elected President anyway, then he is a dishonest person since he would have no honest right to be President.  Then his words would also be dishonest and thus believing them would result in being deceived.

When the colonies severed their ties to Britain’s government, they did not abandon the British system of law which was the legal foundation of all of them.  It was not the problem.  The problem had been men of government ignoring the law and the principles on which English liberty was grounded.


XXXV. “And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the statute law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1775, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same.”

All colonists agreed on the necessity of abolishing the authority of British rule (not British law), but not all of them understood that in replacing it, a new system of human rights had to be put in place, -one that would never permit the civilian rule of man over men, superior over inferior (except with the inherent contradiction of slavery being accepted by entire regions of the nation).

That required instituting principles of Natural Rights in place of doctrines of royal and divine Rights of Kings.  One of those rights was in direct conflict with the well established, institutionalized tradition of the common law in America, and that right was regarding the basis of nationality.

By nature, one gradually comes to fit in and be a part of the group into which one is born and in which one is raised, -within one’s own family and one’s society.  But that is not a natural principle of belonging, -it is simply the common phenomenon of acculturation.  It does not take into account the nature of the parents to whom one was born, nor the values with which they raise their children, -values with may be in direct conflict with the values of the society into which one was born.

Children born of strict, medieval-minded, male-dominated Muslims who reject fundamental American values are a prime example.  The traditions that they embrace are abominable to all Americans, including such things as the honor killing of one’s own children, -child marriages, and so forth.  They are among us but are not of us, so simply being born into a society does not make one a member of it.

Something more elemental is needed, and that something is being born of members, -members who are of the same culture, the same values, and the same blood connection.  The society’s values and culture are transmitted to the young by parents who possess them.  Outsiders may or may not possess them.  Some do, and even far more so than natives that take everything for granted and have no concept of how fortunate they are.

Such outsiders produce children like Marco Rubio and Tex Cruz, Rich Santorum and Nikki Haley.  In totally embracing American values, they are more American than most natives of America.  But what about their citizenship?  What is its nature?  By what is it defined?  By common law or natural law?

Which one determines the definition of what a “natural born citizen” is?  That is the question that has gone unanswered since the Constitution was first written.  “Authorities” have embraced both views with neither view gaining clear ascendance.  That is because the authority of common law nationality has never been settled when it comes to the presidency.  It has been illegitimately settled when it comes to nationality alone.

That was done by the Supreme Court in 1898 when it ruled that the nationality clause of the 14th Amendment means the opposite of what it meant when it was written thirty years prior.  That travesty of overthrowing the actual understood meaning of its words and ruling just the opposite to be correct, was a good thing for the children born in America of foreigners because it officially made them into Americans even if their father was too unmotivated or unable to learn English to ever become an American citizen.

Previously, they would have had to personally be naturalized as adults in order to be American citizens because it didn’t matter where one was born since the policy of the federal government was to either ignore the common law State citizenship, accepting only inherited citizenship or naturalized or statutory citizenship, or to not question the origin of the State citizenship of those applying for passport papers. To have attempted such an examination would have been a bureaucratic nightmare for everyone.

But where it drew the line was in regard to children born within U.S. borders to foreign visitors, then brought back to Europe and raised as foreigners, but who one day (as adults) requested an American passport under the assumption that they were probably American citizens since their mother gave birth to them while in America (presumed common law citizenship).

There was no law at all covering such arcane situations and so they had to be dealt with as matters of executive branch policy, -and that policy was to deny such a request on the basis that such a person was not an American citizen since they were born subject to a foreign power and not American authority.  That not only violated natural law but also common law when viewed realistically.

As guests in America, the parents of such a person were not subject to American authority, and subjection was a requirement of the common law (although it was never adjudicated what that actually meant and what it did not mean.)

After the U.S. v  Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898, common law citizenship officially transcended the State level and was adopted at the national level, -making both State and national policy and law the same for the first time.  Thus the native-born children of immigrants were all deemed to be Americans because by the common law, they were born within American territory and were supposedly subject to the authority of the American government, -just as had been the tradition in Britain following the Calvin case.

Immigrant-born children were thereby acknowledged as being citizens, -but what about the issue of presidential eligibility?  That opinion of the court settled nothing when it came to that issue because the true meaning of what a natural born citizen is had never been defined by any lawfully constituted authority, nor was it in that case.

So the question is: “Is it defined purely by the common law or purely by Natural Law?’

It occurs to me that the answer is knowable but it has been mostly an answer determined by the perspective of each beholder.  Any lawyer / authority in the young and evolving nation who was schooled in the highly respected British law and common law, would have held a respectful deference to the rule of the common law and its manner of determining nationality, oblivious to its innate conflict with Natural Rights, -not to mention international relations.

What was that conflict?  It was and is a sword of contention that goes straight to the heart of human existence.  It splits those who stand for fundamental American values from those who unconsciously side with the powerful over the powerless, Superiority over Equality, Multiplicity over Unity, human mandate over Natural Rights, the Government over The People.  It goes to the two questions that are at the heart of human life:

“Who owns you?” and “Do humans have unalienable natural rights?”

If you actually own yourself, then that means that you at least possess a natural property right, with that property being yourself.  But it would not stop at yourself because your natural right of self-ownership would include your children as well, and your spouse because they would be an extension of who and what you are.  And it would be inseparable from a right to belong to each other, as well as to your greater family, and the greater groups of which you are a part, including the group known as your country.

It would mean that you have an innate right to be a member of your society and nation, -the land of which you are a native.  And it would mean that that right is inviolable and untouchable by government because it supersedes the authority given to the government by those who created it.

So if you possess the right of all individuals to own themselves and their progeny, and to belong to each other, then the common law crumbles, -the common law sky under which all have lived wouldl fall because it declares that you belong to government, and also that government policy, tradition, court opinion, or legislation, determines whether or not you will be accepted as a member of your own people, your own society. Your nationality is either governed by the rules that the government makes or it is determined by primal natural rights that supersede government.

But the right to belong to the land of your birth and maturation is different from the right to belong to your own people.  That was demonstrated by the 1898 case that prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to make common law nationality the policy of the American government.  It involved the conflict between nature and acculturation.

A young Chinese man (Wong Kim Ark) was denied re-entry into the U.S. at the San Francisco port upon returning from his second visit to his grandparents in China.  The federal agent in charge deemed him to not be an American citizen (despite having been born and raised in San Francisco) since he was born of foreigners, but even worse, of parents who were of a race which was barred from U.S. naturalization.

In the government’s eyes, he needed a Visa from an American Embassy in China in order to enter his own country. (!)  He was an alien to American society, as were all Chinese, so why would he be considered to be an American?  Nature argued against it.  Naturally belonging to one’s own people argued against it.  His own people were from across the globe.  Why should he not be considered to be born of them and not born of us?  Something had to give.  Reason and natural law or justice and equality.  A super classical conflict of different elements of existence.

The 14th Amendment, whose interpretation would decide the issue, was intended to make citizens of all the freed slaves, -not make citizens of all the children of immigrants who failed to become Americans, but its wording was so open to various interpretations that it could easily be extended beyond its public purpose to include them.

Those in Congress who passed it were aware of its innate ambiguity and understood that once it became a part of the Constitution, then the Supreme Court could change it in ways that Congress was politically unable to do.  And that is just what the court did.

By a split vote it sided in favor of the common law rule of nationality being accepted at the national level, but neither its opinion nor the 14th Amendment addressed the issue of the fundamental basis by which citizenship is acquired.

Was Natural Law supreme or was Common Law supreme, or were they both just kind of taken together but with neither openly acknowledged.  Like natural children and adopted children in one family.  No answer was ever given to the question: “Why am I an American?  Is it because I was born in America or because I was born of Americans?  Is one sufficient or are both necessary?”

That conflict will be invisible to almost everyone because almost everyone is among the 98% who are both and thus fit the description of one who is a citizen by the prescription of the common law.  But what of the tens of thousands of American children born abroad?

No one cares about their plight because they don’t have a plight since the law declares them to be citizens of the United States and has done so since 1790.  See the short-coming in that?  I didn’t think so.

It is what the law does not declare them to be that is the problem.  It does not declare them to be natural born citizens.  So are they or are they not natural born citizens and why should anyone care?

They would only have a concern if their favored candidate for President was born abroad.  In that case, either something very right will prevail or something very wrong will prevail.  Justice or injustice?  That is what this all boils down to.  Who does not get to be President? Since the President can save or ruin our future, the question could not be of greater importance.

Is the term “a natural born citizen” a term of the common law and therefore covers all children of aliens?  Or is it a term of Natural Law and only covers children of citizens?  Can the commander of all of the American military and nuclear power be someone born to and raised by aliens, even in a hostile foreign land?  Is that what the founding fathers intended to allow the nation to be subjected to?

But there’s a more precise question that should be asked first, and it goes beyond using the word “alien” to describe the parents of one born of foreigners.  It must use a more descriptive label because reality is more complicated than the simple noun alone might indicate.  It is the question: “Can the American President be someone born in the U.S. to non-immigrant aliens?”

The federal government clearly delineates between immigrant aliens and non-immigrant aliens because the latter do not have Green Cards allowing permanent U.S. residency, and may even be here illegally.

We must answer that question before attempting to answer whether or not the President can, by the common law upheld in the Wong decision, be born of immigrant alien parents.

If we cannot find and identify the principles and precedents that determine the answer to the most extreme scenario, then we surely will be blind to them in the more moderate scenarios.  And that has been the case throughout American history.

No one addressed the most extreme scenario in order to determine what the principles are that  needed to be identified to answer the question about nationality and the presidency.  The ignorance of endless generations, and the brain-washing resulting from the power of British law on the minds of American jurists has never lead anyone to trace the source of nationality back to its origin.  They all simply stopped at the common law and the Calvin case, and went no further, and so they remained in ignorance regarding the true nature of nationality, -gazing instead at the mirage of the common law compound that joins the disparate elements of natural and human determinants.

I suspect that the founders and framers of the state and national Constitutions saw the world through the lens of philosophical Natural Law and Natural Rights, while those who came after them, those who did not have to ever pledge their lives, liberty, fortunes and sacred honor to a treasonous rebellion for the sake of Freedom, only saw the world through the lens of the old, the traditional, the established  strong hand of government, and the common law that pertained to a monarchy and its subjects, and not to a democratic union of free sovereign republics and free people.

I suspect that the evidence of such a split between the founders and the neo-loyalists of the British system was left in the earliest legislation passed by the first Congress and later changed by the third Congress.  I suspect that the split was along party lines, and there was a change of power in Congress what resulted in a shift that left a lasting impression in the legal record that no one has ever adequately explained, but for which I have a new theory.  It is seen in the first and second naturalization acts; 1790 and 1795.  A change was made and its purpose is still misunderstood today.

If a child of Americans is born abroad, that fact changes nothing because all such children are born (latently) subject to their parents’ government and will be actively subject at adulthood.  But if such a child never lives in the U.S. but marries and produces a child in the foreign land of his birth (or any other) his child will not be a natural citizen of the United States, and will not even be an American because he will be a native-born child of the native-born parents of another country.  By American law he will not inherit his American parent’s citizenship.

That law is as old as the nation and was an element of the first naturalization act in 1790.  It was added as a means of drawing a limit on inherited American citizenship for persons who had no connection to America and who were born subject to the foreign power of their land of native-birth.

Americans did not originate that aspect of nationality law.  It was borrowed almost verbatim from the British nationality act of 1775 (if I recall correctly).  Our version stated: “-the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States”.

Those words reveal two immensely important facts.  First; the citizenship of the children of citizens descends (from father to child).  It is not acquired from, nor granted by government.  It is not tied to the location of the mother at birth.  Instead it is the result of inherited national membership which is the “right” of every child of every American everywhere in the world, -except the second-generation of the foreign-born.

That limitation was preceded by this declaration of fact: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens

But the sentence that precedes it states: “And the children of such person (foreign father) so naturalized,…shall also be considered as citizens of the United States” (like their father).

Why did the authors change the language when one sentence follows right after the other?  That had to be quite deliberate.  Why change the terminology from that used to describe the children of naturalized foreigners to that describing only those who are eligible to be President?

The words “natural born citizen” appear nowhere in the Constitution or American life except in regard to the type of citizen who is eligible to be President.  They have no other use.

All other offices (House & Senate, as well as appointments) require only that one be a citizen of the United States. [Other nations do not allow naturalized citizens to serve in their national legislative bodies, with our neighbor Mexico being one of them.  But the young nation was an undeveloped land being enlarged in part by the arrival of valued immigrants, and they were welcome to be Americans and to be active and involved citizens, -citizens who were equal to those whom they joined in citizenship.  But no naturalized citizen was allowed to be President after the first generation.]

So there in that text, Congress identified foreign-born Americans as being not only Americans by natural right of inheritance but also as citizens eligible to be President.  That meant that their citizenship had nothing whatsoever to do with the rule of the common law.  That identification of them as being the natural born citizens that nature made them, was to protect their right to serve as their country’s leader if destiny opened that door one day.

But it came at a cost since the issue of who was eligible to be President was a zero-sum game.  Identifying them as natural born citizens meant something profound for others, for others who absolutely had to be born within the United States or they weren’t even citizens, much less eligible to be President, and they were the sons of immigrants who were not Americans when their sons was born.

If Americans born of Americans were natural born citizens, (regardless of birthplace) then common law Americans born of foreigners were not, even if their father became an American the very day after their birth.  To a significant percentage of the voting population, that did not seem fair since they themselves were such sons or related to them.  See any parallels to today?

So, if that language was allowed to stand, all such American sons would be disenfranchised from the American right to serve as the President of the United States one day.  A resolution was provided by the third Congress in 1795 when it revised and expanded the naturalization act, but the solution was merely to change that which was clear to that which was not clear and was thus unsettled.

It relabeled the foreign-born American children by combining their declaration of citizenship with that of the children of naturalized fathers in one sentence, calling both groups of children “Citizens of the United States”.  That protected them from what happened to young Mr. Wong Kim Ark, -barred from re-entering his own country, and also guaranteed their civic citizenship rights and eligibility to elected office.

SEC.1 ~ “He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation… that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.”

“SEC. 3.  And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been a resident of the United States”.

Only it didn’t clarify nor protect their eligibility to serve as President.  Thus one could assert that since foreign-born Americans are no longer openly identified as natural born citizens, then maybe they aren’t.  And… maybe native-born children of foreigners are.

It opened the door wide for speculation and that was adequate for those who wanted to share in the right to dream of the possibility of being President one day.  Of course if the parents were wealthy and influential foreigners who had emigrated to America, it would have been seen as something more than the right to dream, but as the right to succeed.

So with the dropping of the wording identifying foreign-born Americans as natural born citizens, an ambiguous opening was created which might one day be successfully exploited by claiming the supremacy of the common law nationality rule in America.

And that is exactly what happened in 2008 from the perspective of those who supported the eligibility of Barack Obama, -which didn’t include the leadership of his own party.  They knew that he was not eligible but they also knew that most Americans did not know that and they could get away with offering his up as their candidate.  What they did, successfully.

Nothing in American law or court opinion had ever spelled out what the basis of citizenship was in the United States.  But that does not mean that it was unknown.  It was thoroughly explained by David Ramsay, -a founding father, jurist and historian who was there throughout the revolution and founding of the nation.  He explains in crystal clear terms the truth of the matter regarding American citizenship.

I’ve written an extensive exposition on his dissertation on the subject, and together all questions are answered and all doubt is eliminated. [It is not yet upload to the internet but will be by the end of April I expect]

The common law Americans who asserted their right to be President base their certainty on the common law meaning of a “natural-born subject”, claiming that both terms are directly related, and the American version means the same as the British common law version.

But that argument is seen to be without foundation when one looks at how the American version was written by the man who suggested it as a necessary requirement to wield the power of the Command in Chief.  He, John Jay, future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and associate of General Washington, underlined the word “born” (which I’ve extensively analyzed elsewhere).

There is no conceivable rational reason to ever underline either of the modifiers in the British term “natural-born subject”.  The false logic that equates it with natural born citizen argues that the term “natural-born” is the same in both terms, -only “subject” is changed to “citizen”.  That means that the individual words do not have individual meaning, -which means that they are only taken together as a two-word unit that modifies the nouns “subject” and “citizen”.

But one cannot underline, as John Jay did, an individual word that has no individual meaning.  You either underline both of them or neither of them.  The fact that he underlined “born” indicates that both of the two words were actually individual adjectives with individual meaning, -one of which he wished to emphasize.

That further means that the word “natural” does not pertain to the word “born” anymore than the word “wise” pertains to the word “old” in “wise old man”.  Where is there such a term as “wise old”?  Similarly, there is no such term as “natural-born”.  Instead the three-word term is an expression combining “natural citizen” with “born citizen”, -just as “wise old man” combines “wise man” and “old man”.

Thus their theory that John Jay could not have possibly used two common English language adjectives in their common usage falls apart.  Their logic holds no water.  That means the words mean what they say and not what the common law had perverted them to mean in the English system by turning them into a sort of legal fiction which categorized together two very different groups of people (natives and foreigners).

If John Jay had not underlined the word “born”, there would be a bit less certainly about what a natural born citizen meant to George Washington, -the man who would first fulfilled its requirement and served as President and Commander-in-Chief.

To him and to those in the constitutional convention with the same vision of fundamental American principles, the words were not a distorted, fictional version of a compound English language term that they were forced to employ to prevent foreign influence at the top of the American government.  The underlining of just one of those words is one more nail in the coffin of the the view that they were still willingly accepting the British common law basis of nationality at the national level.  They were beyond that unnatural legal amalgamation and into and back to that which was by the law of nature.

They were a brotherhood of Liberty-loving countrymen, and no one was allowed into that brotherhood except by being born into it, -born of its members, or sworn into it by a personal solemn oath before a magistrate given in a court of record including swearing allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and openly rejecting and renouncing specifically by name one’s life-long former sovereign.

It was a cutting, -a severing of one’s political umbilical cord to the government of their homeland and the adopting of a new umbilical cord to America.  A divorce from one’s former political husband and marriage to a new one all in one momentous moment.

So membership was only by blood or by oath, -not by birth location even though the States continued to treat the alien-born native “sons of the soil” as citizens.  Such a conundrum and conflict could not find reconciliation and never has.  Instead the conflict is ignored or rejected in the minds of those who embrace the British common law view of citizenship by government mandate.

Those who embrace Liberty and individual rights will not accept  the rules and doctrines of government as being the basis of their natural right to be a member of their own family, clan, country, or nation.

Which one do you embrace?  Are you a loyalist toward British common law and the supreme authority of government?  Or are you a patriot toward the supremacy of Natural Law and natural belonging?

Who do you believe owns you?  Yourself, or the Government?  Who do you believe has a natural right to be an American, outsiders and their off-spring, -or only insiders, Americans, and theirs?

That question doesn’t ask about “the right” to be an American.  It asks about the natural right, because the presidency is not precluded to those with a natural right but only to those with merely a legal right to be Americans.

Was your father an alien when you were born?  Was he an immigrant to America with a Green Card granting a right to permanent residency?  If so then you were born with a legal right to be an American thanks to Supreme Court opinion in the Wong case based on the 14th Amendment based on the common law based on the Calvin case opinion that was over 400 years ago.

But that means that you are not eligible to be President because it means that you are not a natural citizen of the United States.  You are merely a legal citizen.  A common law citizen.  A 14th Amendment citizen.  A Wong opinion citizen.  A Calvin case citizen.  And therein lies the difference.

Natural versus legal.  There is no middle ground in logic nor fact, but there is plenty of motive to ignore and deny both.  And that is exactly what the supporters of the Obama regime do and have done from the beginning.

Will they succeed at it forever?  Possibly.  But a new wind is blowing in America.  But no little wind will move a ship as big as the American political landscape.  It would require an enormous wind, -or… a hand full of judges willing to do the right thing.  We have so far not seen a single judge in America who was so willing.  That is a very, very bad sign.

Why is it so bad?  Because it is very likely not due simply to ignorance on their part, because curiosity can naturally intercede when uncertainly is present, but probably due to one thing and one thing only, and that is fear.

Everyone whose eyes have been opened in resent years has come to strongly suspect and see proof that the law of the jungle has returned to dominate the “rule of law” in America.  The law of Superiority has replaced the law of Equality.

The government alpha males are now the lords who do not need the permission of the American sheep that they herd as they are able to manage by hook or by crook, with their supporters on the supreme court validating their unconstitutional usurpation of the rightful authority of the States and The People.

When the cards are stacked in the court of courts, then the only things left are revolution or the replacement of those in power who allow and perpetrate the relentless parade of crimes against the American people and the United States Constitution.

by Adrien Nash  April 2014   obama–


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–


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–

400 Years of Bastardized Citizenship Ideas

~or how the Calvin case dooms our future~

America’s citizenship predicament is a result of an odd situation that occurred in England three centuries ago. The aftermath of how it was dealt with reverberates in the United States to this day.

Have you heard of or seen a case where an illegal alien woman, or a very pregnant Visa Card visitor gives birth in the U.S. so that her baby will be considered to be an American? Well, the absurd reason that the government mindlessly adheres to a self-damaging and brain-dead policy of citizenship is because of the aftermath of a court decision in the early 1600′s in England. It is known as the Calvin case.

It involved a Scotsman who inherited property in England. But an English law did not allow anyone but Englishmen to inherit English lands (nor, I would presume, to buy them either). But his lawyer found a way around the law and the court of 14 judges bought his argument.

He pointed out that even though his client was not English, he nevertheless was a subject of the English King and therefore a sort of English subject just like Englishmen.  He was a subject of the English King although the King was first and foremost the King of Scotland.

England, without a male heir, was forced to turn to the young King of Scotland in order to supply someone to assume the throne of England. So James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

That’s how Scotsman came to be subjects of the King of England and thereby quasi-subjects of the English nation. But, of course, they were not real, natural Englishman, or natural subjects of the nation of England because they were natural subjects of the nation of Scotland. But they had one King in common.

How did that affect the issue of nationality? It had to affect it in order for a Scotsman to inherit English land, which is what the court wanted to be allowed. It affected nationality by changing the language and the orientation of nationality.

Before their decision, Englishman were not men without a country simply because they were men without a king. They were the natural members of the English nation. It’s native countrymen.

Following it, the court recognized that every Scotsman, who was born after James VI assumed the throne of England, was born being a subject of James I of England, and therefore could be grouped in with the natural subjects of the English nation.  Those born before that ascension to the throne, remained as foreigners, as Scotsmen not born subject to the King of England.

So people in Britain were of three types; those who were still aliens to England, those born as subjects of the King, or “born subjects”, and those who were his natural subjects by being born with the blood of Englishmen. Aliens, born subjects, and natural subjects.

What was the difference in the real world between his Scottish born subjects and his English natural subjects? Well, with the barrier between them erased by the court’s decision that Scotsmen, -not as English subjects, but as royal subjects, could inherit English land, they essentially became equivalent before the law.

That was due to the focus on them and their relationship to England being shifted from England as a nation to the English King as a royal sovereign over both peoples. From then on the concept of nationality became distorted, bastardized from its natural focus on one’s relationship to their countrymen and their country, to one’s relationship solely to their king.

The focus shifted from the natural relationship of national membership to an artificial criterion which applied solely to the Scots.
Englishmen continued to be Englishmen by being born of Englishmen, but in addition, others were added to the kingdom of the king of both nations from the perspective of the English. From the perspective of James, he was the natural sovereign of the Scots and the artificial sovereign of the English.

To the English he was the artificial sovereign of Englishmen as well as the sovereign of new ancillary subjects (Scotsmen) who were now tied to the English in an artificial relationship, -and that relationship was based on where they were born and when they were born, instead of to whom.

They were tied to the English king by having been born within his dual dominion. They were not Englishmen and had no “blood connection” to them but had a connection of also being subject by simply being born under their king’s reign. That gave them a quasi-equality with Englishmen and their rights. So then they had as much in common as not.

The language used when referring to both separate groups was probably “the king’s natural & born subjects”, which in writing was probably shortened in time to simply “the king’s natural/born subjects”, or “natural-born subjects”.

With the new births of Scotsman under the combined reign of their common king, the English had to acknowledge that birth within the king’s dominion, under his sovereignty, required recognition of their “subject” nature and their inclusion based on their birth location, -not their blood.

Their inclusion under English law could not be based on their inheritance of English nationality from English fathers, so it had to be accepted that it was instead based on their birth within the borders of the king’s kingdom, -the new larger royal realm. [Like a father having two separate families in two separate homes.]

Thus appeared the the recognition of place of birth being a substantial co-equal factor in the determination of who were subjects, -not of England, but of the combined Crowns. So, thereafter there existed two means of national attachment and royal attachment.

One’s allegiance was owed not only to one’s English countrymen and nation, along with its laws and government, but also a separate allegiance owed directly to “his Royal Majesty”, the titular head of Church & State of England.
And… you no longer had to be born of an Englishman to be his subject. You could be born of any subject person who was within the boundaries of his domain as long as they were not invaders in possession of national territory, nor foreign ministers.

So other than birth to such men, you had those who were born of Englishmen as natural subjects of the king and nation, and also those who were born as subjects (but non-English) since he was their king also. Since they were his subjects from birth (-and naturally so since their fathers were subject to the king who ruled their country as part of his kingdom) they, like sons of Englishmen, could reasonably be labeled as his natural, born subjects, -even though of a completely different nation with a separate throne, (-but eventually united; -the United Kingdom).

Logic and meaning applied differently to the two separate types of subjects since some were only subjects of England while others were only subjects of Scotland. But those born after James because king of both realms, were in a sort of new fangled unnatural nationality situation.

One could say that both his born subjects (by place-of-birth within his realm, i.e., Scotland) as well as his natural subjects by the blood of Englishmen, were both born as his subjects, and were naturally subject to him, making them, in effect, both natural born subjects, although by different principles and origins.

Did the difference make a major difference in their lives? No, it made no difference whatsoever, -just as it makes no difference in America whether or not one is born of Americans or born of immigrants, -everyone is equal. Almost…
-but some are more equal than others when it comes to one arcane, totally unique, rarely attained but highly visible job. That job is the one held by the President of the United States, -the same man who also commands all of the nation’s defensive and offensive weaponry, systems, infrastructure, and military personnel (including 1000’s of nuclear bombs).
In Great Britain, it did not matter what the origin and source of your subjection to the king was, -whether birth within his expanded kingdom or birth to his Englishmen. He was king of both types of people, and now English law recognized them as subjects of the English king.

The property rights of his foreign subjects (Scotsmen) were thereafter protected from discrimination by English law thenceforth directed only at other foreigners, with the king, -as the head of both states, fulfilling his duty to defend his own peoples and uphold their rights under the laws and charters of the realm.
But in America there was that one, small, unusual, unique rare office that almost no one was capable of being elected to; -the Presidency.

Between America and England, there was only one King, and also there was only one President. Only one of each. The king was not appointed nor elected so there was no legal issue written in stone about what kind of bloodline he was required to have. In fact, he was not even required to be English, Scotch, Irish, or Welch, -not even British by blood. He could be a total foreigner!

Why would they allow such an insane thing? Because they were permanently locked into the monarchical system of government, -and when it failed to produce a male heir, they were forced to look abroad for a king or for a husband for the Queen.

A foreign husband was expected of a Queen because it bound nations together by marriage & blood (via their children) which otherwise might end up in enmity and at war. So having a foreign monarch or royal spouse was the protocol for the royals while it was the exact opposite for the leadership of the Americans. [* see Thomas Paine's explanation at bottom]

For that one single, exceptional, extraordinary position they would allow no royals at all, nor any nobles, nor aristocrats, nor any foreigners, nor… -and here’s the point where almost everyone falls into error, -no son of a foreigner either.

No person from a foreign nation who is not an American can be President, (-nor can he be made eligible by being naturalized), nor can his children be made eligible either since they, like him, are not naturally Americans, even though they are allowed by law to be citizens if born within the boundaries of the American “kingdom”.

As with the sons of Scotsman who were fortunate to be born after their king became the new king of England, the timing of one’s native-birth in America to immigrant parents is critical to whether or not, like Calvin, (born after James assumed the English throne), they could be deemed to be American citizens.

If born while their parents were still foreigners, they would not be off-spring of Americans and thus would not be describable as natural Americans, or natural citizens of America, i.e., natural born citizens, -but if born following their parents becoming Americans, then they would be American children by birth to Americans, but something more; -they would not be alien-born Americans like those born of un-naturalized foreign immigrants; they would be natural Americans, -which would make them eligible to be the American President. So birth timing mattered.

Being eligible to be President involves nothing more, citizenship-wise, than being in the same class with all equally eligible natural American citizens, and not being in the class of all alien-born American citizens. They make-up about 3% of the citizenry.

For those in the natural born citizen group, it does not matter if your father & mother became Americans the day you were born, or are descendents of the settlers who arrived as Pilgrims or Puritans, -because there is no difference since all natural citizens are equal.

Returning to the situation in Britain, a new development followed that of the situation in which Scottish children were the king’s new natural subjects at birth thanks to the adopted legal fiction that they were co-subjects of the English subjects, -into the mix is added…: children of European immigrants.

They were off-spring of foreigners, and at adulthood owed allegiance & obedience to their father’s foreign monarch, unless… the English king claimed them as his from birth. That would cripple the foreign king’s claim to their obedience and allegiance at adulthood being as the foreign English king was claiming them as his from the day they were born, (their whole life) -provided of course that the family were immigrants and not just visitors.

That made quite profitable sense to the English monarch since it increased the number of subjects that he could claim as his own, -all of those children of Europeans fleeing to England from endless European wars. He could not reasonably claim their foreign-born children, but could their England-born children, and so he did just that.

But what did he call such alien-born children of foreign fathers? The answer had already been provided by the Calvin case and the Scottish subjects situation. They simply slapped the same new label on them as on the Scots’ children; calling them also his natural-born subjects.

Using that new appellation demonstrated that they were not second-class subjects since they were known by the same label as his real natural born subjects. And who was going to tell the king, (or Parliament) that he didn’t have any right to attach any old label that he chose to such children?

So no one objected because there was no outward practical difference between them are far as their rights, privileges, and protects were concerned. So not calling them his alien-born subjects seemed like a preferable choice. It wasn’t like a distinction had to be drawn between them in regard to who would be elected (not selected) to command the Royal Army and Royal Navy.

The position of military commander in chief was not up for a vote by the citizenry. It was by appointment only. But those responsible for the survival of the nation kept all high positions of national security and national secrets in the hands of only men born of Englishmen, not born of aliens, nor other Britons.

They did not have an eligibility clause but they had an unwritten eligibility policy, and no doubt they stuck to it, just as we do when it comes to guarding the President, as well as America’s secrets and access to and control over American nuclear bombs. We are stupid, but not that stupid, unlike Indira Gandhi who allowed the hiring of guards for herself (India’s Prime Minister) from hostile ethnic groups, one of whom murdered her.

We are stupid because we fail to understand the background of national membership inherited from the British, how it originally was solely by patrilineal descent, but expanded to include foreigners who were subject to the power and authority of the Crown.

The same sort of dual-system of nationality came to be established by the settlers of the British colonies in America.

Within a century, after civilization was established and cities and towns were built, -along with the creation of needed bodies for self-governance, the Americans no longer saw themselves as British, nor as Englishmen because, they were not their countrymen, -although they were members of the growing British empire and the brethren of the English.

They were neither born nor raised in England as Englishmen, but they were nevertheless tied by charter to the sovereignty of the British king, with each of the individual colonies having its own unique charter, and thus its own unique identity and character.

Within the borders of each of them lived mostly people born in the colony except when a colony was new and populated by new immigrants from England or Europe who arrived en mass to create a new society.

With the passage of generations, the Americans inevitably would see themselves as the native-born natural members of their individual colonial country. Folks who migrated into the natives’ societies from other colonies or countries would in a short amount of time be allowed to participate in the common duties of citizens, whether in a civic role or via simply paying taxes to support the administration of government.

They were not natives but they were valued just like an extra pair of hands helping to push a cart uphill or construct a new barn. They remained deemed to be subject to their European king if not British but children born to them in America, -in the colonies of the king of England, were deemed to be his subjects from birth.

So again you have a dichotomy; the natives are natural members of their colonies by birth to native parents, while the native-born children of foreigners were members by their subjection to the king of the colonies which resulted from having been born within his dominion, -just as had been the Scotsman in the era of the Calvin case long before.

by Adrien Nash April 2014 ~end of part 1 of 4  ~  ~   ~   ~

The following valuable comment was posted by Political Junkie Too at:

From The Rights of Man, Chapter 4 — Of Constitutions, Thomas Paine, 1791:

If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country.

In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner; always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is never in full natural or political connection with the country, is not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years; yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without its consent.

But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the government had been the means.

The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature and business of that department which is called the executive.

What the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but with respect to what, in Europe, is called “the executive”, as distinct from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of unknown things.  finis.

~Yes, Paine did use the term “native of the country.” Does this mean “native born” instead of “natural born?” [-or born of natives?] We have to look at the following statements to answer that question.  Paine refers to English examples in order to define this. Paine cites “foreigner” and “half a foreigner” as the opposite to “full natural” connection to the country. So, what is “half a foreigner?”

It seems to me that “half a foreigner” is a person with one parent who is a citizen and one parent who is not. This person does not have a “full natural… connection with the country.”

Paine wrote plainly of why the Framers did not want “half-foreigners” to be president, and why only people with a “full natural… connection with the country” were allowed to become President.

Paine was widely recognized as the most influential writer of the time of Independence because of his plain writing style that resonated with the common person.

Paine’s description of the meaning of Article II was written in 1791, and I take it to be reflective of the common understanding of the time. This was, after all, written just 2 years after the ratification of the Constitution.

If Paine said that natural born citizens meant both parents were citizens, then that was the plain meaning.

PJ 18 posted on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 by Political JunkieToo


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers