Born a Citizen, -but Ineligible to be President PDF
Some people care about the rule of law not being replaced by the rule of men. Some people care about the authority under which government is ordered to operate not being push aside, ignored, trampled, and violated for the furtherance of political agenda.
Some people care about adhering to our nation’s fundamental charter; the Constitution of the United States. And some people just don’t give a damn. Whatever their desires are is what will dictate what path they take, -the law be damned, -or be locked in the basement, in an invisible trunk with no key.
An alternate choice is to pretend to be honest and law abiding but in order to appear such, pervert the meaning of its words so one can pretend to not be lawless in not applying them as they were written and defined.
One egregious example of that is the wording of the Constitution regarding the qualification to be President and Vice-President. It requires that one be born a citizen in order to be eligible. No, -wait…it requires that one be a native-born citizen. Yeah, that sounds right. That’s what we all agree on. That’s what we all assume. That is what the entire nation and government and media and judiciary and both political parties and electoral college understood to be what the Constitution requires in order to qualify to be President.
But guess what. They are all wrong, -and you are about to find out why. It’s because the Constitution does not require the President to be native-born; (-although he needs to have lived in the United States for 14 years). Instead it requires that “No person, except a natural born citizen,… shall be eligible to the office of President;..”. (Uh-oh; natural and native aren’t synonymous!)
A fair number of awake and alert Americans realize that fact, but they have a huge conceptual problem. They think that it is like a mystery term which needs discovery as to its true original meaning.
They think it has a unitarian meaning by which the individual words are not important but instead the combined meaning taken together as a whole, and defined by some authoritative source, must be the explanation for what those three words mean.
Its like the term for what men wear below the waist. A pair of pants. Does that mean we’re wearing two pants, whatever they are? What a confused term that is and clearly it doesn’t mean what the words mean. There must be some ancient reason we speak like that, -one which would need investigation and solving. So it is with natural born citizen.
People think that the individual words do not mean what they mean individually, -and that misconception results from a false assumption regarding the logic of which words modify the noun and how they do that.
The noun of course is “citizen”. How do “natural” and “born” relate to it? Answer that question correctly, and the answer will appear to you.
Answer it incorrectly, and a false answer will appear to you, -in fact three will appear, one of which you can match to your bias. And that is what everyone has done. They’ve picked the wrong answer about which words modify what and consequently have arrived at one of three answers, -all of which are wrong because their basic assumption was wrong. That assumption leads to a second major error which doubles the error of their conclusion. Let’s look at them from the beginning.
The first choice one’s subconscious makes is in interpreting which word “natural” is related to; -to “born”? or… to “citizen”? Everyone, almost without exception, makes the erroneous assumption that it relates to the word “born”, and yet that turns out to be completely wrong. It instead relates to the word “citizen”. As in “natural citizen”, -grafted onto “born citizen”, -like rich…young…man = “rich man” and “young man” combined, -with there being no such term as “rich-young”.
A born citizen is one born as a citizen. A citizen from birth. That means one did not become a citizen via the naturalization process.
Combine that with needing to be a natural citizen, -a citizen by nature, by natural political inheritance from citizen parents, similar to natural subjects of a monarch who were born of subject parents and not foreigners, and you have one who was born as a natural citizen.
One could say; “a born natural citizen” or a “natural born citizen” which mean the same thing, but with a reversed focus. That difference could be emphasized by underlining one of the words (which was done by the originator of the proposal to require such a qualification for the presidency.
But if you err, and assume that the word “natural” modifies the word “born”, then you find yourself in fantasy land. In fantasy land there are three different possible meanings for “natural born citizen” and they are all dependent on its meaning not being derived from the words themselves but from an attached meaning to the three as a whole, a unitarian meaning which does not rely on the meaning of the individual words.
That meaning is like a dental bridge made up of three crowns welded together into one piece with metal rods protruding from the two end crowns and inserted into two roots, (which can’t be done with the middle crown because the root is gone). You can’t take the crowns as separate units because they are not separate but combined. And so it is with the results of assuming incorrectly that the word “natural” modifies the word “born” instead of the word “citizen”.
By that assumption you produce the undefined term: “natural-born”. Many very intelligent, and insightful minds have failed to recognize that error of linguistic logic.
They have failed to because they immediately find themselves confronted by an elusive, ancient, unknown meaning that they must decipher and make sense of, -a puzzle they must solve and come to a conclusion regarding; -picking one of the three possibilities that result from the assumption that “natural-born citizen has a unitarian-phrase meaning.
But does it? Or does it means just and only what the individual words convey?
Before identifying those three possible erroneous meanings, it’s necessary to first show the basis of their presumed correctness. That basis is a fictional device of language known as “a term of art”. By that device, they can attach to the words whatever meaning their biased desires choose, and that their logic will support.
By kidnapping the three words, and re-characterizing them as something they are not, a new adopted meaning can be attached to them, a new character. They hold it to be the correct character, but is it?
They hold that the conclusion they have arrived at must be the true meaning of natural born citizen, but since their starting assumption is wrong, their conclusion is as well.
They were easily seduced by the assumption that the three words are a “term of art”, and that they are smart enough to figure out what the heck that fantasy meaning is, -and was long ago. And they do figure it out.
But their conclusion is distorted by the false assumption that the words together constitute a “term of art”, -a legal term of art, -which itself might be a term of art since “art” does not refer to actual art but to artifice, -as in artificial or fictional or man-made construct.
Legal artifices, -legal fictions, or fictions of law, are necessary conceptual devices of language needed in law to make harmony, equity, clarity or justice possible in unusual circumstances.
The fallacy that “natural born citizen” is a term of art is rooted in the British bastardization of “natural born subject” -a term invented in 1608 to make foreign subjects into English subjects so that under English law they would be allowed to inherit land from their English relatives, -which foreigners were forbidden from doing.
The foreigners in that case were the Scots. In the seminal case known as Calvin’s case, they were labeled as “natural-born subjects” of the King of England who happened to assume the throne of both nations due to lack of an English heir, with James the VI of Scotland becoming James I of England.
Still, Scotsmen were not Englishmen, and logically could not inherit English property since their allegiance was not to the English King but to the Scottish king. But the logical leap of the national court in that case was that those born in Scotland after the enthronement of James as King of England, were born subject to him and therefore could inherit.
That meant in effect that instead of needing to be Englishmen, born subject to the English throne, they merely had to be born subject to the person who occupied the throne, and not to the English sovereign office of monarch itself.
As a consequence, natural English subject was replaced with “natural-born subject” of the Crown, -with being English being left out of the equation.
If that had never happened, then “natural-born subject” would not have been needed as a term of art description, and neither English subjects nor colonial subjects would ever have been called natural-born subjects, but instead only natural British subjects or natural colonial or American subjects.
So the history of the English term of art has colored the perception of most regarding what General George Washington and the constitutional convention had in mind regarding the meaning of the American words “natural born Citizen” (not “subject“). Many blindly hold the view that the words, -the term of art, had to have had a pre-existing meaning which the founders had to figure out in order to understand their own choice of words, -their own requirement. But just as they threw out the British word “subject”, -so also they threw out the British “term of art” adjectival modifier “natural-born”, and replaced it with the common language words “natural” and “born”. The order of their use could have been the opposite.
But why did they not simply adopt the analog to what had been used long ago before the Calvin case, and simply require the President to be a “natural citizen”? The answer is that because they knew that that term had become by their choice a real term of art and was thus ambiguous, -with one original meaning alongside a new added meaning.
What was the added meaning, (besides meaning being citizen-born)? It was a meaning derived from a little known American doctrine regarding fundamental equality of citizenship.
That doctrine of citizenship equality was rooted in the American belief that all men, all Americans, all citizens are created equal. No royalty, no nobility, no aristocracy, no elite class, no inferior class, no native class, no foreign class.
All Americans were Americans, -equal brothers in a grand experiment in liberty and self governance under law. That required an American fiction of law by which new Americans became the same as all other Americans, i.e., -natural American citizens. All natural American citizens are equal and their citizenship is unchallengeable.
It would be an unequal situation if that were not true.
Thus the fiction that newly sworn in Americans were not citizen-ized, but instead were natural-ized. That meant made into new natural citizens.
There is no such term as citizen-ized, nor native-ized. There is only natural-ized, -meaning American by blood because only blood is natural. Nature is not tied to birth location nor is the word “natural”. Thus all citizens were natural citizens by the American doctrine and fiction of citizenship equality.
As a result, the suggester of the requirement that the President be a natural born citizen, (John Jay, former President of the Continental Congress and future Supreme Court Chief Justice) urged General Washington by letter to require that no one be allowed to wield the power of the position of Command in Chief except one born as a natural citizen. That suggestion was conveyed by what he did to the supposed term of art. He did something to it that cannot be done to any term of art. He underlined one of the words.
He underlined the word “born”, -indicating that using the term “natural citizen” alone was subject to ambiguity, and some so-called natural citizens were not to be trusted with that power.
Only individual words can be underlined. Terms of legal artifice are unitarian like a dental bridge. The individual words cannot be separately emphasized since the fiction is that they don’t have individual meaning. Example, you cannot underline the words of the term of art: “coupled with an interest”. If one underlined any of them then that would be evidence that individual words carry their normal individual meaning, and not a unitarian combined meaning only.
So Jay wanted the position of America’s military Chief of Command to be restricted to only those who were citizen born. American born, -not just born in America, but born of Americans.
Neither “born citizen” nor “natural citizen” could unambiguously convey that fact, but combining them could, -along with underling the word “born” for emphasis that one must be a natural citizen by birth, -not by a legal fiction of the American doctrine of citizenship.
Nor could one merely be “a born citizen” since some States choose to bestow their citizenship from birth on the native-born children of their immigrants, -with immigration and citizenship being State matters, -not federal since there was no federal government, nor did the Constitution give the future central government authority over either except to make their various naturalization requirements uniform nationwide.
The first Congress did that, and threw in something extra; a protection for the sons of Americans born beyond America’s borders, -a protection of their equal right to be eligible to serve their country in every possible capacity, -including as President and Commander in Chief if destiny so called.
It made it known in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that foreign-born Americans were to be recognized as “natural born citizens”. How could they be that?
Because native-birth was not an element of real natural citizenship. Its only element is blood. Not dirt. Not borders. Not geography. Not artificial, arbitrary, conquest-acquired boundaries.
All that is elemental to natural membership is natural transmission, -transmission of life, species, race, ethnicity, and group membership, including political membership, aka, nationality.
~”Born an American”. But born an American by what? By Nature? Or by Law? Ambiguity again!
John Jay eliminated all ambiguity by suggesting requiring that the Commander in Chief be not just born a citizen, but born a natural citizen; -not born simply a legal citizen by the beneficent allowance of some of the States toward native-born alien children.
The central government from the beginning viewed all minor alien-born children as having no nationality other than that of their family head, -their father.
If he never became an American then neither did they because they were born subject through him to the same foreign monarch or sovereign power. They were “flesh of his flesh”. If his “flesh” was foreign, then so was theirs. They only inherited his nationality, regardless of individual States granting them their State citizenship from birth.
Such children were accepted as American nationals, even citizens of the United States, but for constitutional purposes, were not accepted as “natural born citizens” who were eligible to hold the office of President. Being alien born disqualified them.
To be able to accept the obvious truth requires that one rejects the blind subconscious leap of presumption into the fantasy land where the word “natural” modifies the word “born” instead of “citizen”. In “natural-born” fantasy land one can pick from three, -yes three! possible choices.
Select any which one that suits you. Here we have fantasy choice number 1. It’s that “natural” actually means “native”… somehow, -magically. But in fantasy land, proof is not really required, so no sweat. Run with it if that is what you need to believe. Embrace it and don’t worry about whether or not it might be “factually” incorrect.
And over here we have fantasy choice number 2. It’s like choice number one but with whipped cream on top. The whipped cream is the additional requirement that the native-born citizen be born of American parents. That sounds really, really good. So Patriotic! BORN OF AMERICANS… -IN AMERICA!
That is like a double-barrel shotgun of American-ness. Why skimp on the American-ness? That doesn’t seem like it’s going too far, -after all, it’s not requiring that one be born of American grandparents. It seems like a perfect Goldilocks sort of requirement; not to little, not too much. Just right! But also just wrong! That being because of the addition of the non-applicable requirement of native-birth (which is unrelated to anything natural).
And… over here we have one that everyone will enjoy, -the one concocted by a respectable member of the bar (Jack Maskell) hired by the august U.S. Senate to get to the bottom of the situation of John McCain’s eligibility. He hit it out of the park with a new and ingenious solution. It was…
Embrace either one of two! Either native-born 14th Amendment citizenship, or uncodified, pre-Constitution, pre-U.S. government natural citizenship which existed originally as inherited natural State citizenship. That way, everyone gets included, -except those suspicious naturalized citizens.
Hear ye, hear ye… All citizen-born natural citizens…YOU ARE ELIGIBLE! Plus… All alien-born foreign-fathered citizens… COME ON DOWN! YOU TOO CAN BE PRESIDENT! And while we’re at it, there’s a darn good chance that even you illegal alien born… whatever you are… citizens? are eligible as well. After all, -you were native-born too, right?
That is the great “OPEN SESAME!” magic pass, isn’t it? No one is sure, so why not just give you the benefit of the doubt? Just because your father was Osama bin Laden doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate against you.
After all, our American soil is magical, and can do what no other soil on Earth can do. It can turn 100% illegal alien babies into Americans! Presto! Man! No other nation on Earth has soil that can do that! We are so blessed. Why, I look forward to one day seeing bin Laden Jr. running for President. Wouldn’t that be special?
To recap: natural born citizen misconceptions begin with not understanding the adjective relationships. Followed by erroneously presuming that the words are a term of art, -which leads to supporting theories not rooted in natural membership but legal membership, or both, combined or separate.
Four possibilities, and only one is correct. Namely, the one explained by the word “natural” and the underlining of the word “born”. The others cannot explain those two factors. Only overlapping terms used to eliminate ambiguity and fictional misconceptions can’t do that. A term of art that’s fictional can’t really explain what natural citizenship is.
It is membership by natural connection to one’s national group via blood relationship inheritance of nationality from parents who are members. That is what is known as nationality by jus sanguinis, which means “by right of blood”. The other means of citizenship is by jus soli, or “by right of soil”.
Of course soil produces no rights, other than legal rights via native-birth designated as a legal basis for a government’s gift of citizenship to the alien-born who have no natural right to membership in the national group, -or… a dictator’s command assignment of nationality giving him power over all souls born within his dominion, -just like the basis of ownership on a feudal estate or slave plantation.
Everything born on or of the property of the owner belongs to him, including not just born of seed and sow, sheep and cow, goat and fowl, but of souls as well. Human property bound by chains of debt, slave ownership, or required allegiance.
In Britain, they embraced the doctrine of allegiance for life; “once an Englishman, -always an Englishman.” without any innate human or natural right to belong to the people and nation of one’s own free choice instead of inescapably born a slave for life to one’s inherited nationality.
But those crazy Americans believed that people had a right to not only join another nation but to actually reject, abjure, and renounce their own sovereign monarch, -his Royal Majesty! The nerve of those uppity Americans! -thinking they are not obligated to bow to their king!
Their attitude was the fault of those darn ideas about having some unalienable natural rights that were above the Divine Rights of Kings. One of those rights was the right to belong to their parent’s group, or as adults to choose another group to belong to by abandoning the nationality with which they were born.
That nationality derives from their blood relationship to the parent members to whom they were born. National membership based on birth location is unrelated to that natural right which is based solely on descent, inheritance, blood relationship, natural birthright.
If one is a member of one’s nation due to where one was born, then one is not a natural member of the nation and has no natural right to its citizenship.
Such persons are 14th Amendment citizens allowed American citizenship if born in America, albeit to aliens. They are children of legal immigrants who are fellow members of American society, and subject to the full authority of the national government.
Barack Obama’s father was not such an immigrant, and thus the son born to him was not such a citizen. Not a natural citizen, not a 14th Amendment citizen, not a statutory citizen through his mother, not a citizen of any kind. So, that being true, it’s pretty safe to say that he is not eligible to serve as President.
by Adrien Nash Feb. 2014