A Presidential Citizenship Eligibility Primer

~Obama Presidential Eligibility
- An Introductory Primer excerpt

Copyright (©) 2009-2012 Stephen Tonchen

Revision date: October 10, 2012


introductory remarks by Adrien Nash:

This section (and the one that precedes it, -which details the statements of those who held to the presumption that birth within U.S. borders constituted a traditional right to U.S. citizenship, and worse, that such citizenship could be presumed to be natural citizenship) illuminate the conflict between those who understood the simple actual meaning of the English word “natural” and those who had risen to positions of authority while adhering to a baseless  certainty in a belief unbacked by logic, any universal colonial tradition, nor universal state laws, nor federal law.
The belief that the human-contrived convention of assigning national membership by the geographical location of one’s mother during delivery has no connection to Natural Law, nor Natural Rights.  The Founding Fathers were steeped in the philosophy of Natural Rights, and viewed it as the only legitimate source for guiding principles upon which to found the most unique and free nation in world history.
Those who later held to the opposite view were in fact unknowingly adhering to a philosophy that was antithetical to American values.  They were unaware of that fact because they only focused on American magnanimity toward valued immigrants, whose children they viewed as being new Americans, even if their fathers were unnaturalized foreigners.  But that position came with a history and philosophy that was evil, not in its branches, but in its root.
If one’s national membership is consigned by the government based on nativity and not nature, then one is a prisoner of a system that is opposed to the authority of “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s GOD”.  One is instead a cog in a machine what is Godless, -a machine devoid of unalienable Natural Rights given by a Creator who made man in his own image and nature, i.e., as free individuals, -not drones, possessing a free-will, and the innate unalienable right to exercise it for one’s own benefit and that of his own family and people as long as one’s action does not infringe on the rights of other to do likewise.
The cogs in the machine instead belongs to the GOVERNMENT, and all rights derive from it and therefore are not permanent, unalienable, and can be canceled at the Government’s choosing.
Such Big Government’s foremost “right” is ownership of all who enter its dominion via birth.  Such an attitude could not be applied to those who enter it via travel, because then other governments would do the same and travel therefore would cease, along with trade and all the benefits that come with it.  But those who emerge into the Big Government’s realm via birth can be claimed because they emerged on the property that belongs to Big Government and they therefore belong to it, -just like the off-spring of cattle and fowl.
If Big Government is Lord & Master of the land and all who reside within it, then they belong to it and no other government.  They are its property exclusively, -its subjects due to the place of their nativity.  It is strictly an issue of Property Rights, and they are owned by the government and not the parents.  Parental Rights do not exist in that sense.  The father is not the head of the household, -the government is.  He does not own his own children because he is not the Lord and Master of the land on which they were born.  That is the principle of Jus Soli, -the law of the soil.
Opposing that philosophy, (known as The Divine Right of Kings) is the Natural Law principle that:
     a.) Off-spring inherit their parents’ nature.
     b.) Parents of the same nature (including political nature) naturally produce off-spring with the same nature and group membership as themselves,
    c.) off-spring are solely the property of the parents that produced them.
    d.) The group into which they were born is their natural group, and they are natural members of it.
    e.) That group can be a family, a clan, a tribe, a people, or a country.  F.) They are members because they are part and parcel of their member parents, -cast from the same mold, -produced by the same nature, grown from the same DNA, whether it be biological DNA or political DNA.
Their membership is natural membership, based on Nature, and not the GPS coordinates of the location of their nativity.  Man-made contrived, conquest-determined borders have nothing to do with their natural membership.  Their national membership is natural membership, and does not require, and is not based on human choice, human law, nor dictator decision.
Whatever group their parents belong to, -they belong to also (for better or for worse) by being born a member, -not made a member by authorities.  They are beyond the will and choice of authorities.  Authorities’ only option is to accept and recognize that which is naturally determined.  They can write that acceptance into law, but they cannot change their natural membership by any legitimate law because they don’t possess the authority to abridge the Natural Rights with which the human race was endowed by its Creator.

The Founding Fathers never wrote any such law regarding the national membership of natural members of the new nation, with one small exception which sought to protect the rights of natural members born in other jurisdictions, i.e., in other nations.
In one of the first acts of the new Congress, they wrote the Nationality Act of 1790, by which they set a standard for all states to adhere to in choosing which immigrants they would grant citizenship to via naturalization.  Since the  status of Americans born abroad was not addressed in the Constitution, and since enacting a constitutional amendment to protect their rights was not convenient nor perhaps feasible, the first Congress, -including 40 authors of the Constitution, dictated that Americans born abroad were to be “considered as natural born citizens” they not only intended that they not be viewed as foreigners who needed to be naturalized, but that they were to be viewed as that which they were by birth, namely; natural born American citizens.
That protected the rights of children of American Ambassadors & diplomats, merchants, attorneys & scholars living overseas to one day be entitled to serve their country as its President.

No other law regarding the natural U.S. citizenship of Americans born to Americans  outside of U.S. borders has ever been passed except to assert the same principle but minus the political component which is not logically an element of naturalization law.  Future revisions of that Act simply omitted the inclusion of “natural born” when mandating that such children were to be recognized as U.S. citizens.  That omission was a logical choice for a naturalization statute, but the absence of “natural born” clouded the thinking of many in future years who failed to grasp the Nature Law principle that children born to Americans are Americans no matter where on Earth they are born; -that children take after the parents, -which if born within Holy Matrimony (wedlock) meant that they inherited the nature and status of the father, including his political nature, i.e., nationality.

Section 12.  Doesn’t the Julia Lynch case show that Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen”?

In 1789, two years after the Constitution was adopted, David Ramsay argued that a child naturally receives federal (United States) citizenship at birth only if the child’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Anyone can acquire U.S. citizenship artificially either by state law or by naturalization statutes enacted by Congress. Anyone who acquires state citizenship according to state law is automatically a citizen of the United States.  But, in the absence of an applicable state or federal law, you do not receive federal (U.S.) citizenship at birth unless your parents were U.S. citizens when you were born:

[Birthright citizenship] …is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. … The citizenship of no man could be previous to the Declaration of Independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776. … From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the Declaration of Independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring. (Ramsay)

Ramsay’s comments were made in connection with a dispute over William Smith’s eligibility to serve as a U.S. representative from South Carolina. Despite their disagreement on the eligibility issue, Smith agreed with Ramsay that you naturally receive, at birth, the citizenship of your parents, particularly your father:

Vattel says, “The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent.” (William Loughton Smith, as quoted in The Documentary history of the first Federal elections, 1788-1790, Volume 1, pp.178)

In 1811, the U.S. State Department refused to recognize James McClure as a U.S. citizen (Publius Enigma). McClure was born in the United States, but his parents were not U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. He would have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth if he had been born in a state (such as Virginia) which conferred state citizenship to anyone born within its borders.
At the time, anyone who acquired state citizenship under state law was automatically a citizen of the United States [31]. But McClure was born in a state (South Carolina) which had not enacted any state citizenship laws. In the absence of state citizenship laws, federal (United States) citizenship is conferred only to persons born in the United States, of parents who are U.S. citizens:

Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States — he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does — for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen.

The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen — but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such. (“Case of James McClure”, The Alexandria Herald, Vol. I, No. 37, October 7, 1811, page 2, left-most column)

In 1845, an article entitled “Massachusetts and South Carolina”, appearing in The New Englander, explained that, in the U.S. Constitution, the term “natural born citizen” means a U.S. citizen not owing allegiance, at birth, to any foreign state. According to the article, all adult U.S. citizens are presumed to owe allegiance to the United States exclusively, but a natural born citizen owes exclusive allegiance from the time of her or his birth:
The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used, and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states; in the other cases the word ‘citizen’ is used without the adjective, and excludes persons owing allegiance to foreign states, unless naturalized under our laws. (“Massachusetts and South Carolina”, The New Englander, Volume 3, 1845, p.414)

In 1859, Attorney General Jeremiah Sullivan Black clarified the distinction between a native and a naturalized citizen. All adult U.S. citizens are presumed to owe allegiance to the United States exclusively. The native is a citizen who never owed allegiance to any sovereignty other than the United States. Only a native (i.e., natural born citizen) may serve as President.

There can be no doubt that naturalization does, pro facto, place the native and adopted citizen in precisely the same relations with the Government under which they live, except so far as the express and positive law of the country has made a distinction in favor of one or the other. … Here none but a native can be President. … A Native and a Naturalized American can go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under heaven, including the country in which the latter was born.
They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulations, threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. (New York Times: Attorney General Black’s Opinion upon Expatriation and Naturalization, July 20, 1859)

In 1866, during a speech before the U.S. House of Represenatives, John Bingham (1815-1900), the father of the 14th Amendment, said that a natural born citizen is one who is born in the United States, of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [of the 1866 Civil Rights Act], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. (Congressional Globe, 39th, 1st Sess.(1866), p.1291, center column)

In 1884, an article by George Collins, appearing in the American Law Review (1884), criticized the Lynch v. Clark ruling:

In Lynch v. Clark, the vice-chancellor held that the common-law doctrine — that the place of birth and not the nationality of the father determined the political status of the child — was applicable to the United States, constituted a part of the jurisprudence thereof, and that accordingly a person born within the United States, whose father at the time of such birth was an alien, was a citizen of the United States.

This case, aside from its fallacious and unsound reasoning, can not be upheld upon principle. It is well settled that the common law is not part of the jurisprudence of the United States. … Birth [in the United States] … does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, on in case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. (Collins)

In 1894, The Nation magazine reported an opinion by Thomas Bayard, who was U.S. Secretary of State under Grover Cleveland. In Bayard’s opinion, the U.S.-born child of alien parents was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of its birth, therefore was not a U.S. citizen at birth:

In 1885, Secretary Bayard decided that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ‘subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’” (The Nation, Vol.59, No.1521, August 23, 1894, p.134, near bottom of right-most column)
In 1896, an article by Percy A. Bridgham, appearing in the Boston Daily Globe, defined native born as “born within the United States,” and natural born as “born of parents who are U.S. citizens”. In Bridgham’s opinion, one did not need to be native-born in order to be natural-born. His understanding, at the time, was that all post-1787-born Presidents were both native-born and natural-born; the United States has never had a President who was strictly natural-born (natural-born only, without also being native-born).

The fact that the Constitution says “natural” instead of native shows to my mind that the distinction was thought of and probably discussed. A natural born citizen would be one who by nature, that is by inheritance, so to speak, was a citizen, as distinguished from one who was by nativity or locality of birth a citizen….
It seems to me that if the founders of the government had meant to confine the presidency to such of its citizens as were born upon the soil of the country, they would have used the word “native,” which is a much more apt word than natural….

A comparison of the meanings of native and natural as given by Webster bears me out in my opinion of the intent of the constitution. The very first definition of natural is “fixed or determined by nature,” the nationality of a child born abroad of American parents is fixed by the nature of things and not by the locality of birth. I do not find that our courts have ever passed upon the meaning of the word natural in connection with citizenship, so we must take its ordinary meaning. (Percy A. Bridgham, People’s Lawyer, Boston Daily Globe, November 9, 1896. See also The Boston Globe: “native born” does not equal “natural born” for Presidential eligibilty)

Also in 1896, the New York Tribune published an article, questioning the eligibility of Mr. Shurmann, the Labor Party presidential candidate. Mr. Schurmann was born in the United States, of non-U.S.-citizen parents:

Is he [Mr. Shurmann], under these circumstances, “a natural-born citizen” in the sense implied by the fifth clause of Art. II. of the Constitution? Various Attorney-Generals of the United States have expressed the opinion that a child born in this country of alien parents, who have not been naturalized, is, by the fact of birth, a native-born citizen entitled to all rights and privileges as such, and the State Department has always acted on this presumption in deciding upon questions of this nature brought before it.
There is, however, no United States statute containing any provision on the subject [of natural born citizenship], nor have any judicial decisions ever been made in regard to it. It is at best an open question, and one which should have made Mr. Schurmann’s nomination under any circumstances an impossibility.
(New York Tribune 1896: Those born of non-citizen parents may not be eligible for POTUS)

In 1904, Alexander Porter Morse argued that parental citizenship is essential to natural born citizenship; one cannot be a natural born citizen unless one’s parents were citizens at the time of one’s birth:
At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, immigration was anticipated and provisions for naturalization would immediately follow the establishment of the government. Those resident in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted were made citizens. Thereafter the president must be taken from the natural-born citizens. If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say, “no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth. (Morse)

In 1916, attorney Breckinridge Long argued that Republican presidential candidate Charles Evans Hughes was not eligible to serve as president. Hughes was born in the United States, but at the time of his birth, his father was not a U.S. citizen. In Long’s Legal Analysis, a U.S.-born child of a non-citizen father is not a natural born citizen of the United States:

It must be admitted that a man born on this soil, of alien parents, enjoys a dual nationality and owes a double allegiance. A child born under these conditions has a right to elect what nationality he will enjoy and to which of the two conflicting claims of governmental allegiance he will pay obedience. Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. If his sole duty is not to the United States Government, to the exclusion of all other governments, then, he is not a “natural born” citizen of the United States. (Long)
Roots of the Dispute: There is general agreement concerning state citizenship. When the original thirteen colonies became independent states, some of them (for example, Virginia) retained the jus soli principle of English common law. In these jus soli states, any white person born within the borders of the state (other than the child of a vagrant, slave or foreign diplomat) was a citizen of that state. Anyone who became a citizen of any state was automatically a citizen of the United States [31].

However, there is disagreement as to the manner in which a person acquires federal citizenship in the absence of state citizenship. If you did not receive state citizenship at birth from any state, under what circumstances would the federal government still recognize you as a citizen of the United States? Regarding this question, there has been (and still is) a dispute between:

~authorities who believe that all persons born on U.S. soil (except the children of foreign ambassadors) are natural born citizens of the United States, regardless of their parents’ citizenship; and

~authorities who believe that one cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States unless one’s parents were U.S. citizens at the time of one’s birth.
The dispute arises, in part, from differing understandings of our nation’s founding principles. Those who believe that the Founding Fathers were guided by English common law tend to believe that the jus soli principle governs the meaning of “natural born citizen” in the Federal Constitution. Those who believe that the Founding Fathers were guided by European political theorists, such as Vattel, tend to believe that the meaning of “natural born citizen” is constrained by the jus sanguinis principle. (See Section 26: Root of “Natural Born Citizen” debate).

Various Unadopted Presidential Eligibility Requirements

When the Founding Fathers composed the eligibility requirements for the office of the President, they did it with great deliberation, not wanting to make any mistake that might endanger the future survival of the nation, nor an unwise choice that might result in serious harm due to a nefarious President with a secret foreign loyalty acquired via indoctrination by a father who was a foreigner and a loyal subject of a European King.

A potential for great harm was embodied in the powers that the President would command because his office would be combined with that of the Commander-in-Chief of all military forces; Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and state militias in time of national emergency.  Therefore it was imperative that he be incapable of possessing any loyalty to any nation other than the United States, -the nation of his father.

If the United States was not the nation of his father, then it would not be his nation alone but only one of two to which he might be loyal, and that possibility was not a situation that was free from any possibility of disloyalty to the United States.

They therefore choose the only circumstance that was free of the possibility of disloyalty, and that choice was the one that precluded all citizens born of foreign fathers, -meaning those born with either no inherited U.S. citizenship, or born with state-granted “son of the soil” citizenship, which at least one state (Virginia) granted to the children of its immigrants.  So to be safe, they wrote the statute with the exclusion of anyone who was born to a foreigner, meaning a father who was not a U.S. citizen (either by birth or via naturalization).

They weighed various options for how they might word the eligibility requirement. The following could have been among them:

1    Every person born within these united States of America shall be eligible to the office of the President;…
2    Every person born with citizenship in any of the States of America shall be eligible to the office of the President;…
3    Every person born a citizen in any of the United States of America shall be eligible…
4    No person except a born citizen of the United States shall be eligible…
5    No person born of a foreign father shall be eligible…
6    No person born outside of the United States of American shall be eligible…
7    No person except a son of citizens, or of immigrants who have declared their intent to become U.S. citizens, shall be eligible for the office…
8    No African, Asian, Eastern European, Southern European, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, nor son of such, nor any female, divorcee, adulterer, felon, blasphemer, uneducated or property-less person shall be eligible to the office of President.
That’s eight versions for framing who could be allowed to be President.  Most of them sound decent, and yet they rejected all of them, and mostly for the same reason; -they would have allowed the son of a foreigner to be President.  That ended up being forbidden because the Constitution declares that: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,  neither shall any person be eligible to that office who has not attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years resident within the United States.”

When the Constitution was written, no one born in America was a subject of the British Empire, -having become a citizen of the United States via the “mass naturalization” of the Declaration of Independence.  Those who weren’t naturalized foreigners were natural born Americans because they were born to Americans, and born in America in the colony that was their home.  They were natural citizens of the sovereign state in which they were born.

All eligible and electable men of the founders’ generation could be President if they were alive when the Constitution was written.  That generation would not live forever, and when the naturalized citizens among them were all deceased, no later naturalized citizens, nor children of un-naturalized immigrants would be qualified to be President.  Thereafter only natural born citizens qualified.

So candidates would be from one of two allowed groups.  One included not only the off-spring of foreigners, but also actual foreigners who had become naturalized by state governments.  The other excluded both of those types of citizens and allowed only children of citizens to be President.  They were the 98% who were not born to foreigners but to American fathers.  They would be entrusted with the enormous power of the Commander-in-Chief.

Children born to foreigners, even though considered citizens from the time of their birth in one or more States, would not be entrusted with the national government’s martial power because it only recognized the children of Americans as being natural born American citizens.  Only those born as citizens would be entrusted, because they would have no connection to any foreign power, people, nation, or culture.

A concept that needs to be parsed, -a hair that needs to be split is that of the difference between being born with U. S. citizenship [bestowed as a gift by the government], and being born with one’s innate political identity being American by nature, possessing U.S. citizenship as a right  [versus possessing it as a legal grant].  They who are born of citizens are born as citizens of the USA only.  They are American and only American.

No one born of a foreigner is born as a citizen, but is instead, thanks to a Supreme Court misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, born with U.S. citizenship.  They are citizens from or at birth, not citizens by birth.  Citizenship is something that they are allowed.  Their national membership is bestowed by the rule of law, not by nature.  That law can be changed via the amendment process or judicial review.  It’s not permanent and unalienable, as is nature, (including political nature).
It is citizenship by permission, -not by parentage. It is based on the place of one’s nativity, (not on one’s nature) and tied to an inherited foreign political nature.  “As is the father, so is the son.”

The U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark in 1898 resulted in children of foreigners being viewed as being U.S. citizens even though not previously recognized as citizens in many or most states.  Previously citizenship depended on their father becoming naturalized, i.e., becoming an American.  Then they acquired derivative citizenship through him.  They were then legal citizens.

But those born as citizens, -begotten by citizens,  were not citizens by U.S. law because no law governing their membership in the nation was ever written, nor was ever needed, nor could legitimately be legislated because it was bestowed by nature and was beyond the reach of human-devised authority.  Natural citizenship is not “obtained”, it is not “acquired”, it is not “bestowed” by human law, but is, -like race and ethnicity, something with which one is born.
One cannot be born as something completely different from what one’s parents are.  One cannot be born as a member of a racial group that’s different from one’s parents’ group.  An Asian child cannot be born to African parents.  Similarly, one cannot be born as a natural member of a nation to which one’s parents are outsiders, -foreigners.  One can only be a natural member of the group to which their parents belong, just as in all natural animal groups.  Thus children of  foreigners cannot be born as natural Americans.  To be born with U.S. citizenship requires the deliberate intervention of government to grant something with which one was not naturally born, and that grant can begin at birth.

From a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject”:

  “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…”
“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

~one response: “But ‘subjects’ are not ‘citizens’; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from ‘subjects of the British Crown’ to Citizens of a Republic!”    Publius Huldah

Splitting hairs & parsing ambiguity:

  “It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born.”

That sounds like a clear, straight-forward statement, but it is woefully confused and confusing thanks to the use of a wrong word, namely the word “person” when person is not actually meant.
It should have used the word “adult”, or even more realistically; “adult male”, -as in “every adult male owes a natural allegiance…”.  Neither children nor maidens nor wives had any responsibility for the defense of the nation, and could not be called into national service in time of emergency or threat, but men and male youths could.  So to couch the concept of “allegiance” correctly, it is necessary to recognize that no child or female “owed” any government or any king any “allegiance” because they were under the jurisdiction of the male head of the household, and not directly under that of the government.

No child is born “owing allegiance” to anything.  Its only obligation is to eat, sleep, play, and grow.  It is not “owned” by the government via the concept of a natural inherited loyalty being owed to the king in exchanged for the protection provided by the government.

It is instead totally under the father’s jurisdiction, and has no responsibility toward the government until reaching adulthood.  Only then does the natural responsibility to help defend the nation and ensure its survival become an element of one’s membership in the society and nation of one’s birth.

“Allegiance is defined to be a tie that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…”

Clearly that concept is not a direct transmutation of the code of a monarchical government established on The Divine Right of Kings to that of a free society established on the Natural unalienable Rights of Man.  In an attempt to justify the reign of a single individual over all others who were his equal in every measure (Christians all) the concept of the “legitimate” rights of Kings was formulated.  He was God’s chosen authority on Earth and even the head of the Church in the case of break-away England, so his authority was characterized as divinely ordained, and people were therefore obligated to obey his dictates and edits.

As a means of making such a requirement of obedience seem like a fair trade-off for some benefit, the benefit of “protection” was offered as a perfect basis for the “relationship” between subject and Lord.  But the whole thing was just a self-serving conceptual concoction and could have had its wording reversed and yet still make sense, perhaps even greater sense, as in:
“Allegiance is defined to be a tie that binds the  State to the subject, and in consequence of the Protection the State provides, the King is entitled to his subject’s obedience…”

In that wording, the Protection comes first, and Obedience is a “natural” response of allegiance  owed in indebtedness for that protection. That justifies the monarch expecting obedience to his rule, -it makes the members of his kingdom subject to his will, making them his “Subjects”.  But in time and with the hegemony of royal greed, that subjection came to be assigned not just while they lived and worked within his realm, but for an entire lifetime no matter where on earth they may have settled.  Such a gross over-reach was evidence of the true motive behind the whole concept of “allegiance”.

  “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

In reading that statement, it is easy to assume that he stated something that he did not in fact state.  He did not state that the children of aliens actually are natural born subjects, but merely are to be considered as, or treated as, or equal to, but not identical to natural born citizens.  In other words, their citizenship was essentially identical to that of natural citizens because there was zero difference in their rights and privileges.  That was the same as the situation in England between actual natural subjects and children of alien subjects.

No difference existed in their relationship and responsibility toward the king’s authority, nor their protection and rights.  But England was different from the individual states of America, -it had a national Army, a national Navy & Marine Corps, a national foreign service, and an office of national security.
Who they allowed to occupy the highest positions in the most critical offices involving national security and state secrets was of vital importance to preserving and protecting the Empire from its numerous enemies and the traitors they might enlist.  The top leaders of the nation would not allow the sons of a foreigner to hold such sensitive posts because just one traitor could doom the nation.  No one but a full-blood “natural” subject could be considered for such appointments.

Such positions were not a right, -they were a unique privilege and privileges are not given to just anyone and everyone.  They were reserved solely for those of whom there could be no doubt as to their loyalty, nor any reasonable possibility of disloyalty or treason.  So while sons of alien subjects were treated as equal to natural subjects, when it came to national security a distinction was drawn and that distinction was very real.

But aside from those unseen offices, and the officers who filled those few positions, English subjects and American colonial subjects, (or state citizens) were identical in the comparison between the natural citizen-fathered and the alien-fathered law-made members, -having the same rights and responsibilities.  But…the Federal government was not the same as a State government.  Like Britain, the national government included control of an Army and Navy, Marines and Coast Guard.  It had critical top security posts, with the Presidency being the greatest of them since it held the power of the Commander-in-Chief.  Rules for who would be allowed to wield that power needed to be wisely chosen, and so they were, just as in England.  No son of a foreigner would be entrust with that great power.  Only sons of Americans would be allowed.

That was not a narrow exception since 98% of American males were born to American fathers.  So only the exceptions to the rule were ruled out.  Only natural citizens were deemed as being trust-worthy with the power of the President.  And that power was not a slight thing.  King George said of George Washington something to the effect of “If he relinquishes power when his term is up, he will be the greatest man on earth.”

In the relationship between nations, in particular England, power was central.  How American power was used and for what purpose was central to whether or not the union would survive.  So it was critically important that the person wielding it always be someone who would use it to protect the nation, and not compromise it in favor of a foreign monarch.  Therefore no one born with a connection to a foreign monarch could be assumed to possess loyalty only to the Constitution and government of the United States.

Hence, Presidents were required to be a natural citizen, -born of citizens, born as a citizen, and not a dual citizen, with dueling allegiances between two nations with two histories, two  traditions, competing  political philosophies, and potentially warring Armies and Navies.  They must be what Barack Obama can never be.  Their citizenship must be beyond the reach of government, and not due to some obscure century-old Attorney General’s misinterpretation of a Supreme Court opinion regarding 14th Amendment citizenship for children of foreigners.  The citizenship that results, not from nature nor United States law, but merely from an administrative policy of the CIS (formerly the INS) that erroneously grants citizenship to children of non- immigrant foreign men is inadequate to constitutionally qualify for the office of the President.  But the United States Constitution is no longer the law of the land, which was demonstrated clearly by the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the Presidency.

by a.r. nash  Oct. 2012   obama–nation.com

The Truth about U.S. Citizenship

& 14th Amendment Jurisdiction

~the quagmire of questionable & unnatural citizenship

Nations, -like their citizens, reserve for themselves certain unalienable rights which no other nation has a right to abrogate. The first and foremost of which is the right of survival via self defense.  The self-defense of nations can be characterized by bands of patriotic volunteers joining together to mutually take on the burden of armed combat.  But when the going gets seriously tough, such bands will crumble because they lack the iron hand of a powerful, dominating, merciless authority ruling over them.
The American revolution began as the former but would have crumbled if it had not evolved into the latter.  General George Washington hired a Prussian military officer to organized, train, discipline, focus and harden his troops for the long war ahead. Until their contract of service expired they were fully under the military discipline imposed by that trainer and Washington’s officers.  They had surrendered their right to do as they please, -to quit the fight, quit the war, quit obeying orders if they tired of the whole thing.  Their desires no longer mattered.  Their preferences were irrelevant.  Their personal choices were no longer legally possible.

When, after a long period of winter without adequate provisions, adequate protections from the elements, and without pay, a group of soldiers rebelled, -mutinied, and that created a horrible tension and schism that had to be resolved.  It was resolved, but not to their liking.  They were arrested and sentenced to death.  They had committed the treasonous act of disobeying lawful orders in a time of war.  Their hanging was scheduled for a certain day soon after their sentencing.  When it arrived, there was a great sadness enshrouding the entire camp.  The gallows had been prepared, and a hangman’s noose placed around each of their necks.

Everyone was about to have their heart broken.  But Washington was someone that they didn’t really know at that point.
He was someone wiser than they knew, and he knew that the damage of that execution would be worse for morale than it would be good for discipline.
And so, at the very last minute it was announced that the execution was canceled and their lives were spared.  A great sigh of relief was felt as that news lifted the spirits of the soldiers and united them in a bonding experience that only they had ever been through in American history.
The seriousness of such a war experience has been illustrated by other experiences depicted in many motion pictures.  The authority of military command over the actions and lives of those subject to it has been demonstrated in scenes in which an officer is confronted with a soldier who has had enough and is unwilling to carry out the possibly fatal orders he’s been given.
He refuses, and turns and starts to walk away.  The officer pulls out his pistol, aims it at him and warns the man to stop, -to obey the lawful order he’s been given.  Either he realizes the seriousness of his action or he stubbornly continues walking and consequently receives a bullet in the back of his head.
The point has been made that free-will is out, and total obedience is in.  Being less than fully subject to orders is forbidden.

Washington’s army had equal and greater suffering awaiting them a few years in the future.  Conditions got so bad that a rebellion resulted.  But they were fools to think they had any chance of succeeding in achieving their righteous goals since they were vastly out-numbered by the obedient.  Consequently they were captured, tried, and sentenced to death.  But that time was different.  The earlier lesson had been forgotten or ignored, and so the result was that no mercy could be shown.
The leaders were ordered to be executed by firing squad, and the soldiers who were ordered to form the firing squad were the mutineers’ second-in-command.  They had to kill their own friends and leaders, -men that they might have been willing to die for if necessary, but now it was a matter of carrying out the execution order or joining their companions in being executed.

What’s the point of sharing these scenarios?  It’s to illuminate the fact that the civilians in the federal government are oblivious to.  They who have never taken the oath, never worn the uniform, never been subject to the total absolute authority of military command, nor faced the danger, nor possibility of danger that comes with defending the nation, -they are completely ignorant of an important truth that’s been forgotten with the passage of time, and the result is that America is following and believing a false understanding of just what subjection really means.

The ignorance that is now almost universal is allowing foreign persons to be rewarded with the prize of American citizenship by their act of breaking our sovereign entry laws.  They don’t obtain it directly for themselves but obtain it for those dearest to them, -their newborn babies.
One such baby was Barack Obama.  Although not born to an illegal foreign mother but to a legal foreign student father, what they both have in common is that of not being subject to the full authority that a nation can require of the male  members of its society.

Obama’s father was not subject to the jurisdiction of Washington’s will over him as a citizen nor as a legal resident because he was neither.  He was merely a temporary guest of the government in order to obtain a college education.  Nothing more. He could not stay here.  He could not be drafted into the military.  He was not subject to being forced to undergo the tortures of boot camp nor orders to engage in combat unless they were given by Kenya or Great Britain, since he remained under the jurisdiction of his own government.
Similarly, a foreign woman is not subject to the same national responsibility, especially if she is in the country illegally.  But even if she’s not, it doesn’t make a difference, nor does it make a difference if she is an American woman.  Women have never been subject to the responsibility to defend the nation.
What about foreign immigrant women who become naturalized citizens upon completing the required process and taking:

The Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation
by which they pledge to bear arms to defend the nation?  Does that mean that they are subject to be drafted if needed?  No.  It means that the ancient oath was not written for women but only
for men.
What is the implication of that?  It’s a rather profound one since it indicates a significant fact about the role of women in the world and in American society in particular.  Women have never been subject to the authority of a nation’s government which governs men, with the except ion of Israel, because only men shoulder the burden of national defense.

The government does not retain for itself the authority to put a gun to the heads of American women and order them to advance against an enemy machine gun.  But it does retain the authority to do that to men.  And that is the ultimate true meaning of being subject to the national authority of a government.  It means being subject to orders to defend the nation, -even at the cost of one’s own life.
Women are exempt because they are women and that’s what makes all the difference in the world.  Men never have, and never will, tolerate putting women in danger, but they will and do tolerate putting themselves and other men in life-threatening danger and they tolerate allowing their government to do the same.

Men of a certain age are the members of a singularly responsible group that are subject to the most fundamental responsibility of national life and that is the ultimate inescapable obligation and responsibility that comes with membership in the nation.
That obligation is to fight in and possibly die in war.  Citizens are the most obligated, but if the threat is dire, then legal immigrants can also be called upon to defend the nation, as was the case during World War II.
But women can’t because they are in a deliberately protected class.  The men of no nation will ever require that their women be forced to fight, -although they may be allowed to do so if that is what they want and are as capable as men.
To what is this relevant?  It’s relevant to the national delusion that the 14th Amendment makes Barack Obama a constitutionally eligible President. That delusion results from a loss of the understanding of what its second citizenship requirement means.  The amendment reads as follows:  “All person born in the United States, or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
Everyone understands what being born in the United States means, but their understanding ends there.  The delusion that has overtaken the entire government is that the jurisdiction referred to is something other than what it really is.  Civil authority and criminal law have become substituted for the authority that is the bedrock of a nation, and that is the right to require of its male members that they sacrifice their security, comfort, and possibly their life in order to preserve the nation from destruction.
General Robert E. Lee’s soldiers understood that authority as they were foolishly and recklessly order to march into the withering fire of the union soldiers defending a hill at Gettysburg.  The soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy, wading into German machine gun fire understood it as well, as did the Marines that confronted deadly Japanese Army resistance on one Pacific island after another.
But our leaders in Washington do not understand it at all.  That is part and parcel of a national landscape in which men who’ve never given nor received a military order in their lives are elected and appointed to the most powerful offices in the nation.
Ignorance is part of what they are because they do not have the experience that brings understanding.   As a consequence, no one realizes that neither the father nor the mother of Barack Obama were ever subject to the jurisdiction of our full national authority.
That means that they were incapable of bringing a child into this world which was born subject to that authority.  His father was not subject to it, nor was his mother, but he himself eventually became subject by remaining in the United States instead of living in places like Kenya and Indonesia.
But it’s doubtful that he ever felt subject because his Selective Service registration card appears to have been forged.
But if he had been born as a natural citizen of the United States, with American parents, then he would have been subject no matter where in the world he was born, raised, or lived.  Natural citizens cannot escape what they are by birth no matter where they live, unless they choose to become naturalized citizens of another nation.  The United States absolutely does recognize that choice because it was the very choice which created our nation.
But only a citizen himself can make that choice, -the choice to abandon his American citizenship. The government cannot make it for him because he is an American by nature and has no other national nature.  He was born as an American and as only an American, and being an American is his unalienable right, -just like the right to live.
But one born to a foreign father has no such right.  If he obtains membership in a nation it’s because the nation allows it for humane as well as practical reasons. But having it does not make him a natural member of the nation because he is a natural member of the nation of he who gave him life.  That nation has first claim on him unless his father has become an officially recognized legal member of a different nation, -with or without citizenship.  If he has, then he’s made himself one who is subject to the jurisdiction of that nation’s government and become responsible to defend it if needed and called.  He’s then subject to both governments.

But if a foreigner who is not a part of the nation in which he is temporarily dwelling, fathers a child which is born there, his child lacks the natural connection to that nation which the children of its citizens are born with, and therefore his child possesses no natural membership in it, even if the nation gives it to him by its laws or policy.  Barack Obama was such a child and being such does not meet the qualification to be the President because he is not, as the Constitution requires, a “natural born citizen”.
Until our modern era of ignorance, birth within the United States was not viewed as a prerequisite for citizenship, nor did such a meaningless fact automatically result in a natural American citizen, although it was the ancient law and custom in some colonies/states that those who were native-born were thereby citizens.
But that was never federal law, practice, nor policy.   The federal government required the children of immigrants to undergo the naturalization process if they reached adulthood before their father completed it.  It he completed it first, then through their blood connection to him, they became what he had become, -a new American citizen.
That was the American way, and remained so until it was replaced by the 14th Amendment in 1868, which was enforced regarding freed slaves but ignored regarding children of immigrants until in 1898 the Supreme Court interpreted its words to mean what they say [-the Wong Kim Ark decision].

Ever since then the meaning and significance of what federal jurisdiction involves has  faded from the collective consciousness of the American people, including those in its government, its Congress and its courts.  It’s possible, perhaps probable, that none of them understand it. And that is not likely to change.
As a result of their ignorance, the practice and policy of the executive branch is contrary to the Constitution and the 14th Amendment.  Their views and policies currently are law.  Everything that has been related here is irrelevant because the authority rests with them even if they apply it incorrectly and unconstitutionally.
What can change our current situation?  Nothing.  Regardless of which party is in power, neither will enforce the true meaning of  “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because it would alienate Hispanics whose votes are needed.
The Supreme Court could turn everything upside down, but that would require an opponent to the current policy having standing to sue the government, and only states would possess that standing because illegal immigration affects them directly.  But if they did so, it would create an administrative nightmare involving unraveling decades of error, and children and grandchildren of citizens who should never have been viewed as citizens.  But I digress.
Just as correcting the mistake of the presumed citizenship of those born to illegals and non-immigrant foreigners would be a nightmare, so unraveling the impact of the execution of presidential authority by one ineligible to wield it would also be a nightmare, and that’s a headache that no one in government is willing to contemplate.  It’s the unthinkable thought.  The aversion to it is so strong that our leaders would rather hide in a closet than confront it.
Maybe they are right to fear it so.  Maybe they realize things that the rest of us don’t.  I hope so, because if their silence is strictly out of cowardice, or aversion to a sticky, messy situation, then the betrayal of the Constitution has been and remains totally unjustified because it is far more important than our or their comfort.

The constitutional criminality at the heart of an illegitimate presidency is accepted and unmentioned in the corridors of power in Washington, and around the world.  No competent government in the world is unaware that Barack Obama presented a nine layer fake image of a Hawaiian birth certificate because they have examined it just like tens of thousands of Americans have done, and found that it is totally unexplainable as being the result of the scanning of a real document.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from that fact is that no original exists, and that must be because his actual birth place was somewhere other than a hospital in the United States.

It’s evident that he’s boxed-in on every side when it comes to the nature of his citizenship and his unconstitutional presidency. But knowing about it and being able to do something about it are two very different things.  Congress definitely will not act since no one in it will speak the unspeakable truth, -especially if they’re ignorant of it.  So that leaves only the courts.

But they’ve been unwilling to get involved in a process that could de-legitimize their political champion, or, if they’re neutral, place themselves in the cross-hairs of nefarious men who will do anything to protect their usurper-in-chief.  So the status quo holds for now, but like a dam with a serious crack in it, time will eventually exact its toll and the truth will be spread far and wide.  Will you help spread it?

by a.r. nash 2012  http://obama–nation.com

[Update, Oct. 2012:  The U.S. Supreme Court declined, without explanation of any sort, to hear the appeal of the case (-rejected at every level in Georgia) which was decided in favor of a defendant whose lawyer refused to even appear before the court, -the defendant being Barack Obama who was unwilling and unable to defend his constitutional eligibility to be President, nor his counterfeit birth certificate image.]


A Few Water-Cooler Questions for Bair’-ack Obama

(correct phonetic pronunciation; -accent on first syllable as that was how his father pronounced their shared name)

Hey Mr. President,…may I call you Barry?  Thank you.

I was just wondering, are you really an American citizen?
You are?  Great!  I thought so.
Uuuuh, I have just one more question.

By what law are you an American citizen?
I can’t seem to find any answer to that question.

Since you’re a constitutional scholar and all, I expect that you will be able to explain the legal source of your citizenship.

Having read the 14th Amendment I’ve learned that you are not covered by its citizenship clause.  It only bestowes citizenship to children of immigrants, but your father was not an immigrant.   He was merely a foreign student in the country on a student visa.

That meant that neither he nor you, his natural off-spring, were subject, as the amendment requires, to the full jurisdiction of the federal government, -which included foremostly, the authority to draft immigrants into the U.S. military and send them to war.   Since you and your father were subject to the British Nationality Act of 1948, -as was openly declared on your 2008 election website, it’s evident that neither you nor anyone else can possibly be totally subject to the full authority of two different nations.

Since your father, the Kenyan student Barack Obama, wasn’t subject to U.S. jurisdiction, you could not have been covered by the authority of the 14th Amendment since you were excluded from it by its requirement of being fully subject to the authority of the federal government.  Since your foreign father was only in the U.S. temporarily, you, through him, did’t fall under that authority.

So, since it is the only source in U.S. law for obtaining citizenship for merely being born in the United States, and it didn’t apply to you, what exactly did?

The reason that I ask is because of the inconvenient issue of the Constitution’s only eligibility requirement that applies only to the presidency.  As every Constitutional scholar knows, the President must be a natural born citizen.  I’m sure that you, being an honest decent man, have a perfect explanation as to how your brand of citizenship can be considered “natural born”.  But before you get into explaining that, could you first simply identity what U.S. law it is by which you possess U.S. citizenship?  Since the 14th amendment doesn’t provide natural citizenship to children of immigrants, nor citizenship at all to children of non-immigrant aliens, what other avenue remains?  How exactly are you qualified to serve in the office of the President with your brand of citizenship, whatever it is?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers