February 4, 2013 Leave a comment
~the Constitution versus the 14th Amendment
The United States Constitution prescribes who shall serve as President, and, by exclusion, bars all others from that unique office, the one that holds the power of the Commander in Chief of all American federal, military, and nuclear forces. But staunch supporters of American Marxism, lovers of all things Obama, dispute that the Constitution means what it actually says. Instead they hold to the belief that what it says actually means:
“Any person born in the United State is eligible to be President if 35 years of age and 14 years a resident.”
But the Constitution says something quite different. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President,..”
No mention is made of where one must be born, nor that one must be native-born. Instead one must be either a citizen of the United States, -meaning an officially recognized legal citizen, -meaning a citizen by the laws of the individual states, meaning a citizen via naturalization before a state magistrate, or else one must simply be what everyone else was, which means a natural citizen, -without any connection to or permission through the administration of citizenship law, all of which was passed to deal with foreigners and their children.
What is not stated is that one must be a natural born citizen of the United States. That would be impossible because “the United States”, meaning, in this context, the federal government, did not have any citizens of its own. That would require the later creation of the federal district and the acquisition of federal lands. A child born on federal land to residents of that land would be born without a state homeland. It would, in effect, be internally “stateless”, -without a home state to call its own.
The Constitution only requires that one be “a natural born citizen”, which nearly all Americans were because they were born to American parents and not immigrants. They were natural citizens of their home state, not because of being born there, but because they were born to parents who were born there.
Children of the native-born are not just native-born also, but are actual natives of the United States and their home state. But their parents are not natives even though they were native-born because they were the progeny of natives of a foreign land, and thus were born with that inherited natural connection. They are the transitional generation between the generation of pure foreigner and the generation of pure American.
They were native-born but not natural born because their parents were not natives. Their natural inheritance at birth was foreign because they, by inherited nature, were born being what their father was. But the children of the native-born are natives and natural born because they have no direct connection to the nation of their grandfather.
Their roots through their native-born father are purely American. They, therefore, are constitutionally eligible to serve as President. But their father is ineligible since he was not born as a natural citizen but was granted citizenship solely because of the Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
It reads something like: “No person, except those born in the United States, -or naturalized, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States nor the state wherein they reside.” I misquoted it by mirroring the language of the presidential eligibility clause. It actually reads: “All persons born in the…”
Why use inclusionary language (i.e., “All persons”) instead of exclusionary language (No person except…)? Because the amendment was not about excluding certain people from citizenship, unlike the Constitution’s exclusion of certain people from the presidency, it was instead about including certain people; namely the freed slaves who had no other country or government. It gave them, along with naturalized citizens, national membership that was above the law since it was granted by the People as an amendment to the Constitution.
Freed slaves, unlike children of foreign residents, were not subject to any foreign power since their parents were all native-born (unless they were newly “imported” from Africa), whereas foreigners and any children born to them, whether here or abroad, were subject to their homeland’s government unless and until they renounced and rejected that subjection and swore allegiance to the United States alone, thereby becoming Americans as naturalized citizens along with their minor children who automatically inherited their father’s new citizenship via the principle of jus sanguinis (the principle recognized as the means by which national membership passes from father to children).
What would the presidential eligibility clause read like if it had been written to be inclusionary instead of exclusionary? Something like: “All persons, (except those under 35, women, homosexuals, non-Caucasians, non-Protestants, non-English speaking, non-literate, alien-born, Gypsy-born, or Indian-born) shall be eligible…” That would have included maybe 10-15 percent of the population, barring the rest. But instead they made it simple by excluding everybody unless they were a natural citizen, over 35, and 14 years a U.S. resident.
If they had intended that all qualified native-born persons be eligible, then they would have stated so, and yet they did not state that, but instead avoided it because even though without exception, all candidates would always be native-born,(until John McCain) that was not the criteria that held any importance. If it had then why allow naturalized citizens to serve as President during the founder’s generation?
The answer is that many naturalized citizens served the new nation valiantly and at great sacrifice, proving their loyalty to the United States during the long war. Those who did not had no chance in hell of getting any votes. So the nation would be safe from a President with divided loyalty because one could not be elected during their generation.
It was the future that concerned them, and so they limited the eligibility of those who were “Citizens of the United State” to only those who were such when the Constitution was adopted, and to none born after it was adopted. That meant that naturalized foreigners (i.e., immigrants and their children) could be President if they were a citizen when the Constitution was adopted in 1788. After that date, becoming a new citizen provided no one eligibility to be President, -even if native-born. After that date, only those born as natural Americans would be eligible. Those with only citizenship by law were henceforth barred because that meant that they had a foreign father, and thus could not be fully trusted with the power of the Commander-in-Chief’s position.
The 14th Amendment made no difference because it did not nullify the requirement that one be a natural born American. To understand that clearly, an alternative analogous substitute scenario is helpful.
“All persons born into a family, or adopted, having their parents’ names entered on their Certificate of Live Birth, are members of their parents’ family and siblings to their other children.”
That sounds like bullet-proof logic and clear as a bell, right? But the logic is flawed. It fails to take into account the extraordinary situation of a child being born via a surrogate, and without any genetic material from the couple adopting the child from day one. Neither the name of the real genetic parents, nor the surrogate mother will appear on the birth certificate. But the birth certificate must reflect the truth, mustn’t it? Absolutely not. It is unlawful to list them in adoptions, -at least in the version given to the parents.
So the person “born into a family” was not born of the family, and is not a natural member, which is something that the amendment analogy does not claim that they are. It only states that they are a member, -not a natural member. Similarly, the 14th Amendment does not create natural citizens thanks to it declaring only that those said to be citizens are “citizens of the United States…”
That made them official, constitutional citizens by national law, and above the authority of Congress to infringe. They can serve in every capacity in the governments of the nation, but all such citizens are un-natural citizens because their citizenship is not the result of natural (inherited) transmission. They therefore cannot constitutionally serve in one and only one position, -namely, the presidency which is off-limits to them.
Of course all of the hypothetical surrogate children would have all the same rights and benefits as the other children, but that doesn’t mean they have the same DNA. As in the case of twins, -all twins are not created equal. Some are identical and others are fraternal. To claim that all twins are similarly identical would be a total falsehood, because some are in fact different, -being fraternal and not identical.
So it is with all native-born citizens. Some are natural born natives but others are just native-born. They aren’t identical nor indistinguishable. The natural born have American fathers, buthave foreign fathers, and they therefore are barred from the office of the President.
That is a hair that is easily split, -a distinction that is easily drawn, a difference that makes a difference, having a very serious purpose behind it, -as serious as the purpose behind not allowing any native-born American citizen, who’s also foreigner-born, access to nuclear bombs, nor access to the President with a loaded weapon. They all must be natural Americans, and pass the Yankee White background investigation, and be, -like the President, children of Americans, -or else the President could end up like Indira Gandhi, leader of India, who was machine-gunned by her own Secret Service guard who was not a natural member of her faction of Indian society, but was from a hostile faction that should not have been trusted. But political correctness required political inclusiveness, and that inclusiveness resulted in her assassination.
An identical crusade for inclusiveness is what allowed the first non-Caucasian, Marxism-embracing son of a foreigner to be accepted and celebrated by over half the nation as being the legitimate President of the United States, when in fact he is totally illegitimate and knows full well that he is. But in his relative-morality perspective, his rise is wholly for the greater good, which means social justice via income redistribution. Children paying for the “sins of the fathers”.