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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Adrien Nash  April 2014,  obama–nation.com

 

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  ~  ~   ~   ~

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

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

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2908140/posts?page=18

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

The Law of Natural Belonging

versus U.S. “Imperial” Citizenship Policy

Individuals who think have at some time or other wondered “who am I?”. But that question can’t be answered without first answering the question that precedes it, -which is; “what am I?”
The problem is that that question is never answered because it is never asked. It never even comes to mind. It’s like the air pressure we exist in. It’s unrecognized, along with all of the implications of its answer.
What we are is the most fundamental issue in human life because our entire orientation to the rest of humanity is determined by it. Are we born as human cattle, required by our subservient nature to obey and follow our masters? Or are we born free?

With the complexity of human nature being what it is, it’s accurate to say that for many people, the answer to both questions is “yes”. That’s possible because the question combination isn’t legitimately logical. What we are by nature and what we are by Right are two different things.

We may be born free by natural right but not be adult enough to want to be completely non-dependent on those who are more adult or more capable at caring for us, -including financially.

So the questions are really aimed at those who are beyond the adolescent stage of life and are far closer to what is conceived of as being adult, if just in the social sense. What we are determines our role and position in life; …leader?… or follower?; -teacher or student?; superior or subordinate?; independent, or dependent?
What we are determines our role(s) in life, including our relationship to those with the legal and martial power of government. What is the proper role of government in society? What are its rights?

That can only be answered by first knowing what the natural rights of individuals are. What they are determines what those of government are, -and are not, since it is an artificial creation of the individuals of a nation, -provided the nation is actually free and not an autocracy or plutocracy. Under those systems the answer to the question of what we are is answered very negatively, with negative consequences for all who are not members of the ruling elite.

They define  RIGHTS  in terms of the rulers and not in terms of the ruled. The problem with that satanic approach is that there is no natural limitation on where their RIGHTS and assumed POWER ends. That is why absolute power has always corrupted absolutely.

Mature human nature rejects the power-grabbing greed of would-be masters and senses that their good intentions will not outweigh their bad and selfish inclinations when they reach the point where they have to choose their own personal benefit or the benefit of others.

Those who come to positions of authority, and see themselves as directors, executives, officers, administrators, supervisors, judges, masters, deciders, decree-ers, and dictate-ers are almost always incapable of seeing themselves as servants, -as in servants of WE, The PEOPLE.

Their power gives them a sense of “rightful authority” over their equals as well as their inferiors when there is nothing “rightful” about it. It is instead a sacred trust, a moral duty which springs from an obligation to represent the protection & defense of the rights of The People, and not an arbitrary and self-benefiting exercise of power lacking the consent of the governed.

The rights of the governors is therefore rightfully determined by their relationship to the rights of the individual. So determining what those rights are will answer the question of what we are.

We cannot be something that we are naturally not, and we cannot not be something that we naturally are, so we must deduce what we naturally are.
That is achieved by understanding how we are naturally constituted. How are we made or what is our innate nature? Not our own individual nature at today’s point in our life, but the innate nature of our species at the stage of adulthood.

Being born into a matrix of societal authority, our thoughts do not generally turn to the issue of what our rights are but to what our needs are, -what our wants are, -what will fulfill us and make us secure. As seen in a nation like China, one’s natural rights take a distant backseat to the issue of one’s financial advancement, and that is easily understandable since you cannot eat or wear or drive your right to speak your mind.
We treat our rights merely as an issue that opens doors to fulfill our needs and wants, and not as a primary issue of life that is equal to or superior to our needs and wants. We fail to properly prioritize our rights until they are threatened or stolen from us. That is exactly the reality expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

It speaks of how men naturally acquiesce meekly to the trampling of their rights because rebellion is an extreme and radical response to abuse, but… when the abuse becomes intolerable, they will forcefully reassert the rights that they had unwillingly let slip away via the usurpation of personal liberty, -a usurpation fostered by the oppressive dictates of dictators.

Only then do their minds begin to fully focus on what their natural rights are. The first one that then comes to mind is the natural right of self-defense. No one can tell anyone that they have no right to defend themself because that right is an innate instinct of all living things.

What does it spring from within human society? It springs from the first right of all, which is born in the most fundamental instinct of all, and that is the innate will to live.
The will to live and the right to live are naturally married throughout one’s life, -although they can tragically become divorced.
The right to live is the right that is most central to humans living together and not annihilating each other. If a despotic sadistic alpha-male has no consideration that others have that right, then you have pure evil on Earth. But among civilized beings, that right is recognized and paramount.

But an even deeper question can be asked, and that is; “From what even deeper right does the right to live spring?” That question is not one that need not necessarily be asked because it necessarily must be asked and answered because the answer changes everything by providing a force to make possible a matrix or framework of free and civilized life.

That force is like gravity. Without gravity we still have life, but we do not have an order conducive to living and pursuing happiness. We need gravity to ground us, and everything else, -just as we need an answer to the question about what our right to live is based on. The answer is the gravity that holds together a human existence that is capable of seeking and finding happiness within a social environment that includes individual Liberty.

The answer to the question is that the right to live springs from the fundamental right of ownership, -not of property but of one’s very self. Who owns you? Is it anyone who is stronger than you and can dominate you? Is it the government? Or do you own yourself? If you own yourself, then your life belongs to you, and no one has any right to take it.

What does human nature tell us about ourself? Does it tell us that we are born to be someone’s slave? Or that we are born to be free of anyone else’s ownership over us because we own ourselves?
The answer is not a philosophical one because it springs from the very nature with which we are constructed. It is innate, part of the fabric of our being. Independence is the only air that our spirits want to breath until the heart enters a relationship of co-dependence.

Beings that own themselves (“freemen”) do not accept dictators running their lives and herding them like cattle because the self-appointed masters do not own them. No one does. They own themselves. That is their natural right because that is how they are made. The core of their make-up is the spirit of self-autonomy.
But their natural right to own themselves does not end at just themselves. It extends to that which they rightfully own and need for self-protection and maintaining their existence. And it extends further still, -to those who are intimately tied to them; -their spouse and children.

They are a part of them and cannot be separated by any authority other than rightful punishment, -or for their own personal protection and right to be free from threat and harm. Otherwise they are all one unit, bound together by bonds of devotion and blood. They belong to each other.
And that brings up the issue of the other fundamental right, and that is the right to belong. One might think of it as co-ownership. One belongs to one’s self but also to another to whom they are naturally connected.

I’ve been told that there is a grove of Aspen trees in the High Sierras which are unlike other trees in that instead of each tree being a single individual tree, they are all linked together underground. Their roots are all connected to each other as one organism. No tree is an island unto itself.
That is similar to the situation of families, clans, tribes, and countries. In all natural countries, bonds of kinship bind them together, and those bonds are all natural bonds. Those bonds are the reason they are all natural members of their own people, -their own country.

When a country is advanced enough, it becomes a nation that is governed by established laws, written laws, administered by servants of the State. If the State is a monarchy or a dictatorship, then the members of the nation are its subjects.
If the State is an independent democratic republic, then the members of the country are the citizens of the nation. They are bound to their countrymen and to their nation by the natural bonds of kinship, -including the kinship of respect for natural rights and principles of individual liberty.
It is those natural bonds that produce natural members of the country, and natural citizens of the nation.

Government does not produce natural members of the country. Rather, the natural members of the country produce the government and the nation of which they are natural citizens. The nation belongs to them and they belong to it as a member of the national family.

They do not require the government’s permission to be what they are naturally.
Their membership is automatic, immutable, permanent because they are either of the generation that created the government or are descendants of those who did. (or they are members by legal allowance, -being children of those made legal members by immigration and naturalization)

What they are is seen in what they naturally belong to. They are first freemen and members of their family, and second they are countrymen, and members of their homeland, -and third they are citizens, -members of the nation established in their country.

The government does not make them freemen. The government does not make them sons and daughters, husbands and wives. Those bonds are natural bonds; -bonds of the heart and bonds of blood.
The government does not make them countrymen because they are born into that relationship with the fellow members of their homeland.
And THE GOVERNMENT does not make them CITIZENS because they are born as citizens by being born of citizens, -as the natural members of their own country and nation.
Their relationship to their family, their society, their country, and their nation is a blood relationship passed from parents to children generation after generation after generation.

Government does not create that relationship and government cannot terminate it. It is beyond any authority given to it by those who created the government. How could freemen give the government the right to own them and own their children as well, and to tell them whether or not they are accepted as members of their own nation?

But that absurdity is exactly what most people were raised to believe to be true. It’s not an overt belief that is indoctrinated into us all of our young lives. It is very covert, and it comes in the form of the belief that government owns us since it owns the means by which we were allowed to become members of our nation. It makes the rules and its rule is that members must be born on the government’s land.
Where do we find such a rule that is the source of the government’s “authority” over our membership? It does not exist.
The government has no such authority over us nor over our natural membership in our own country and nation. We belong because we were born belonging. Belonging is as much our fundamental right as is the right of self defense, -which is its sister right.
The right of belonging comes with the right to be defended and the duty to defend those to whom we are bonded. The able defend the disabled or less able. The strong defend the weak. The young defend the younger and the elderly. The mother’s defend the children. The males defend the females, etc. That is the duty of their bond.

That duty extends all of the way from one’s own immediate family on up to one’s nation. It is a natural duty to which we are born and which sustains societies and nations in times of attack or grave impending danger.
Governments are aware of the natural bonds and natural duties of their citizens, and require that members fulfill their obligations when and if needed. Many nations have mandatory military service for all young men, and Israel requires it even of her young women. That reflects a clear understanding of the right of self-defense, not just of individuals but also of nations charged with protecting them in perpetuity.
Governments rightfully require young people to do their duty not because they own them but because it is their natural duty to their own people and their own countrymen who are united in the task of national survival and defense of freedom.
And like a father who does not allow his children to shirk from their assigned chores, so the government does not allow its lazy and reluctant sons to shirk their national duty.
If they refuse, they will be sent to the woodshed of the federal penitentiary. But just as one can quit their family, so citizens can quit their nation because that is their natural right since they own themselves and are not the property of the government.
If the government owned you then it could tell you that you are no longer a member of the nation, and perhaps worse, neither is your wife, -nor your children. But if you have a primal right to own yourself, and a natural right to belong to those to whom you are bonded by nature, then government can do no such thing since you belong to the nation by a fundamental natural right which cannot be infringed.
That right does not evaporate at the water’s edge, nor just across an artificial and usually invisible border. It is an organic right that cannot be separated from you by any circumstance because it is supreme over all legitimate government authority.
An extension of your right to belong to your own is the right of the children you might produce. They inherit that right as a birthright and it is theirs regardless of the location of the momentary transition from womb to world.
Neither that event nor its location can negate their natural right to belong to the people and nation of those who produced them and in whose image they are formed. They are natural members at birth, by birth, before birth, and after birth. And “birth” does not mean birth-location. It means the process of producing new life, -new American life.

end of part 1 (of 3), pages 1-4 of 10.

by Adrien Nash  March 2014  obama–nation.com

Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors

about the nature and origin of citizenship

Part 1.  Revealing the Truth and Exposing Falsehoods  (Parts 1 & 2 PDF)

An advanced search of the term “natural citizen” located this from the Harvard Law School Library;     ~THE VEST POCKET LAWYER booklet c. 1919
~418. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
419. The Constitution of the United States gives to every natural citizen (and guarantees to that citizen) political, religious, and civil rights.
420. Every natural citizen of the United States is, first, a citizen of the United States.
The term “natural citizen” describes one who is naturally a citizen and not so via permission of law written for allowing foreigners to become fellow citizens.
The term is included here because of its absolutely central importance in understanding the nature and origin of organic citizenship.  That origin is Kryptonite to both those who defend the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama, and those who debunk it.  It kills their erroneous theories.

a.r.nash ruminates:    ~a new thought…
One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached.  It’s not attached in the real world but in the political world, -the world composed of nations.

That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s nationality and citizenship.
Also, what one is determines what one is not.
From that standpoint, one can make an metaphor of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.

One is either born live, -possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents (or a widowed American mother);  or…
one is born adopted, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father or mother (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…
one is born dead, -with the political DNA of a non-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government and in the country on a temporary Visa instead of with a Green Card (which makes one a member of American society).
Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.
Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.
Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen by birth to a non-immigrant father.
That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.
(1) He was born British. (uncontested).
(2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.
(3) His father’s residence status was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington.

(4) Only those born fully subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.
(5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.
(6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.
(7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(8) No non-citizen is eligible to be President.
What could be clearer?  It’s natural logic and natural and national law.
~     ~     ~
So far, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has not refuted anything that I’ve written because he has not addressed what I have actually written.  Instead he just pulls out his talking points one more time and rehashes them while leaving my remarks completely ignored.    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
He falsely thinks that merely countering them with his own views is a form of dissection of my comments, but if there is no dissection at all, then such a counter is a cop-out that avoids direct confrontation with that which he is unable to refute.
If I say that the sun will rise tomorrow because the Earth is rotating, and then Mario says the sun will rise because the Sun is revolving around the Earth every 24 hours, his statement refutes mine but it does not address it.  It merely proclaims an alternative explanation without first demonstrating the falsity of mine.
He can not demonstrate the falsity of things I’ve discovered and so he avoids attempting to even address them.  Rather, he just repeats his own view, which if accepted by the reader as true, then must be embraced as a pseudo-refutation that in fact is no refutation at all.
I share why and how his logic is defective, but one using defective logic may be unaware that they are doing so because of bias blindness.  I can’t fix that for him, -though Lord knows I’ve tried.

“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken,
“he will either cease being mistaken,
“or cease being honest.”
~anonymous

    Mario wrote in response to my claim “…you saying that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to naturalize people….”
Fact: Congress has no constitutional authority at all regarding immigration and naturalization except to make the State naturalization laws uniform.
All the authority it wields was stolen from the States by the federal government’s usurpation led by the Supreme Court.
“In Henderson v. Mayor of New York, the Court held [6-1] that all immigration laws of the seaboard states were unconstitutional because they usurped the exclusive power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce.”(!!!)
“In response to Henderson, States obediently  surrendered and abolished their Immigration Commissions and Port Authorities.
Then the entire burden of orienting foreigners and turning away the incapacitated fell to private, philanthropic organizations.  Overwhelmed by the strain that immigration put on their resources, charity workers petitioned Congress to have the federal government assume the duties of regulating the influx…
In the 1880s Congress began to bring immigration under direct federal control for the first time.  It could no longer rely on volunteerism or informal processes to manage this powerful social force.”
Kermit L. Hall, PhD  “Immigration,” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005
~      ~      ~
Mario talks a great game when it comes to “allegiance”, steeped as he is in the King’s royal right of human ownership, obedience, and subjugation, but for one born of Americans, allegiance is not relevant except in regard to the upbringing of children, and the naturalizing of foreigners.
There is no allegiance required of the natural citizens of the United States because where natural obligation begins, required allegiance ends.

What free men are bound by is natural DUTY; -RESPONSIBILITY for their own defense, and that of their family, and society, and nation, -not loyalty and obedience to a king or government.
Free men are not subservient to a monarch or government in exchange for protection because they protect themselves!
Young men “owe” their society their service as they replace older men who rendered theirs when they were young.  Allegiance is not a factor, whether felt or not.  Obedience trumps loyalty.
Necessary obedience to their natural duty is what justifies government forcing them to perform it.
Those who’ve never signed their life away to the federal government do not know the reality of such things, and have no grasp of the depth of their ignorance.
Naturally, loyalty is highly desirable and a unifying and inspiring force in all military units, but with or without it, orders must be obeyed because one is obligated to do their duty for national defense.
The founders though were bound by allegiance, to each other by solemn oath; pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
They required a similar oath of all men following the Declaration of Independence.  “With us or against us… decide and swear, -or refuse and leave.”
Btw, no oath of office in America requires swearing allegiance to the United States.  Instead they require defending and following the Constitution and the law.  Your oath is to it, not to the government or nation.
The bond of all countrymen is to each other and to our Constitution, -not the government that bastardizes it with almost everything it does.
The only allegiance the Americans embraced was to the revolution and to each other, and to their home country (colony). They had no allegiance to other colonies / States, and their relationship to the Union was purely self-defensive in nature, since if one was attacked, they all were threatened.
Promulgating a doctrine that is quintessentially  un-American requires wandering into a political religion that has no American roots. Its roots are in the Divine Right of Kings. And we overthrew that system.
If those who are possessed of patriotic notions of allegiance connected to U.S. citizenship could do so, they would quotes oaths of allegiance to America, to the United States, or to the government, but they can’t because they do not exist.
All allegiance is to the ideals of America, to its foundational values, -to the Constitution, and the rule of law, and to each other.  Nothing else can be trusted. We can’t even really trust each other because a third or more of us are socialists.
Mario’s quoted paragraph from a “prestigious law review made in its 1845 edition” is pure anti-American garbage!  Is that too blunt?
It is 100% statist delusion, -having no connection to republican democracy.  It begins right off the bat with a gigantic ignorant error: “…the character of an individual, as citizen or subject,”
Understand this, the character of a CITIZEN is not to be associated with that of an owned, subservient subject, anymore than it is to be associated with the character of a slave.  The two are from two related but completely different worlds.

William Rawle was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania. Later, in 1825, Rawle authored, “A View of the Constitution of the United States” in which he specifically addressed national citizenship. Rawle wrote, “every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”.

Everything Mario wrote is correct about Wilson and Rawle.  He did not supply any quotes but I came across the Holy Grail of citizenship origins in the Dissertation of David Ramsay (a founder), What he wrote flattens everyone’s sacred beliefs, and I illuminate it in its own lengthy exposition.

Rawle was a Pennsylvanian.  That is equivalent to being a Virginian.  Jus soli was an entrenched part of their consciousness, and that’s why he wrote with unwavering certainly regarding native-birth equaling natural born citizenship.  That was his view of natural membership, but it was not based on nature.  Nature is this: Like father, like son.
And what did the Supreme Court say in Minor v Happersett? Did it express his confidence in his belief about natural belonging?
No!  It said there are unresolved doubts about the citizenship of the merely native-born (born of foreigners).  So the dogmatic authority of Rawle was no authority at all, except in Pennsylvania, -and Virginia and the other two “commonwealth” States, -in those “countries” (as they called them) they allowed native-birth citizenship instead of only natural or naturalized citizenship.
But what was the basis of civic participation under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776?  Only that one had a stake in society.  That meant any freeman who paid taxes.
There was no such term as “subject” or “citizen” even used in their Constitution because all were viewed as equals.  All adult male members of society could vote and be elected, even if of foreign origin, because they had a stake in everything that native-born members did.  That was true equality.

Article I. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights;
II. That all men have a natural, and unalienable right to worship Almighty God.
It was all about Natural Law and Natural Rights.  They viewed the native-born as equal and indistinguishable regardless of parentage.  But that was not the view of the future central government of the nation.
It rejected presidential eligibility based solely on native-birth because that didn’t prevent loyalty to a foreign power.
Everyone belongs to the society in which they are raised. It is their only world and they are a part of it.  But no one belongs to the place where they were born unless that is where they were raised.
Two hundred years ago they were one and the same.  Everyone was raised where they were born, so a logic error came naturally, one which conflated the two and failed to recognize the possibility of being raised somewhere else, somewhere foreign, with foreign values and foreign loyalty.
The Founders were not unaware of the easy possibility of a British wife giving birth in America and then returning to Britain where she and her loyal-subject husband would raise a son who was loyal to their king.
They knew that such a son could not be recognized as an American merely because of where he exited his mother’s womb.  The place born and the place raised in such cases would NOT be synonymous. And that hair needed to be split, and it was (for the sake of national security) by employing the world “natural” in the presidential eligibility clause: “No person except a natural born citizens… shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
That means a citizen by nature, -and that means by blood connection or natural political conveyance.
The State where an alien was born might consider him to possess State citizenship.  No problem.  He would use State citizenship as the basis of possessing American nationality.
But the national government had a Constitution which prevented him from being President because he was not a natural citizen of the nation.
A State might view an alien-born son as one of its natural born members but it was only one “country” of thirteen.  It didn’t matter what it considered.  What mattered was “who rules the full executive and military power of all thirteen countries of the Union?”.
That person had to be guaranteed to possess no foreign alienage, and that was impossible to guarantee if born of an alien with foreign attachments.  Hence, the term “natural born citizen” meant something different at the national level than it may have at the State level.  Two different entities, only one of which determined the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
“~notwithstanding Justice Gray’s bold and unsubstantiated pronouncements in Wong Kim Ark regarding the English common law, there was no English common law jus soli rule of citizenship that prevailed in the United States after the Constitution was adopted and ratified that would have made Joseph a citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
William Rawle is not in the same league as Founder, Framer, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson.
Rawle’s is not a statement of a man that was influenced like the major Founders were by natural law and the law of nations in forming the new America.
There is no element of Lockean consent to being a member of society in what he said.
Missing from his statement is the element of parental influence over their children emanating from their duty to rear and educate their children.        He does not ascribe to the idea that children have no capacity to consent during their years of minority, and therefore follow the condition of their parents, and are not truly “free” like their parents until they reach the age of majority, -a concept which is the foundation for the Founders’ political philosophy that man had the natural right to expatriate himself from the society in which he was born.”

“On the other hand, Wilson was steeped in natural law and the law of nations; believed in consent, parental influence over children, that children followed the condition of their parents, age of reason, the state of being “free” obtained at the age of majority, and the natural right to expatriate.
Rawle was not a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a major contributor to the drafting of the Constitution. Wilson was.
Rawle simply stated a conclusion without any context or support. Wilson did not.”
“Rawle conflated and confounded being a citizen of a state with being a “natural born citizen.”  For Rawle, being a citizen of a state prior to the adoption of the Constitution automatically made one a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. Wilson did not so err.
Rawle does not have historical and legal sources which support his statement. Wilson does.
In short, Rawle missed the American Revolution and is no authority on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” Wilson is.”     ~     finis
~     ~     ~
There was no natural born citizenship in common law.  There was no citizenship period.

“The Framers definition is the only one that matters.”

They did NOT have a definition of “natural born citizen”.  The English language defined it, -not men, not law, not a foreign philosopher.  ENGLISH!
Who defines “native inhabitant, or “indigenous population”, or “natural member” or “first born sons”?  Men? -or the definitions of words?
If you ask a false question, (What is the legal definition of a natural born citizen?) you’ll get a false answer.  There has never been a legal definition.
~     ~     ~
Not all American families (and college students) were present in America in 1776, but in due time returned from England to the land of their nativity as new CITIZENS of their native country  (former colony) which was then an independent sovereign nation) and took the citizen’s oath of allegiance then.
Where their children were born was irrelevant (in their home country or abroad) because their national membership was via inheritance, -nothing else, -no added extraneous factor included, in other words; native-birth.
If after July of 1776, they traveled abroad after becoming CITIZENS of their homeland, (-the country/colony/ State of their birth), a child born to them abroad was an American by Natural Law and a recognized natural born member of the father’s country, -as would have been the children of all American Ambassadors and others born abroad before the adoption of the Constitution, -including Thomas Jefferson (Paris) and John Adams (London).
The word “natural” is devoid of any connection to native-birth.  Natural is via blood, inheritance, parentage.  “Native-born” is via location, borders, & law.  No connection between the two.  Two different worlds.
Confederate States Constitution:
“7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, OR a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible…”
A blogger wrote: “The Confederate authors obviously meant that ONLY a child born on the soil of a Confederate state would be considered to be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the Confederacy…”
That language was confused and confusing.  There is no mention of a natural born Confederate citizen being necessarily native born, so none can be presumed, even though 98% of them probably were.
The second group could have been naturalized foreigners, while the third group had to be natives of any of the States who were born before the date of secession.
What language supports claiming that native-birth was required? None. Using your own self-determined definition to explain the meaning of what is actually NOT defined is not how arriving at a definition works.

end of Part 1.  by Adrien Nash  March 2014

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers