The Truth about Vattel, Presidents, Citizens & Subjects
May 5, 2013 Leave a comment
“As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first…”
The ignorant and highly biased defenders of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional reign as America’s President, base their entire defense on the notion that only three kinds of persons inhabit a country; natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and foreigners. That is one of the greatest absurdities of all time, and that is because there are ten identifiable types of citizens in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
In addition to them, there are 6 types of non-citizens, which are, -excluding any possible enemy combatants:
1. foreign diplomats (whose U.S. born children are not citizens) 2. foreign government employees of lower rank, including Consular Officers (their U.S. born children are considered to be citizens) 3. Legal immigrants (Green Card recipients) 4. Illegal immigrants 5. Visa Card recipients, (Foreign visitors, tourists, temp. workers, etc.) 6. non-citizen American Nationals from American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and Swains Island.
Those who are Americans are so in these 10 ways:
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United State
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children born of legal immigrants (Green Card holders),
automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children born of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, not law),
presumedly automatically naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens, (-citizens by policy also)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam)
9. Children born abroad to only one American parent. American citizens via statute
10.Children born to American women who lost their citizenship by being married to and
living with a foreign husband in a foreign nation between 1907 and 1922 who along with
their mother (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was amended
The idea that all citizens who are not naturalized by process are “natural born citizen” is asinine. But everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, yet the Constitution mandates something else. They think it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to only parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage, -being as parents determine one’s inherited nature, -one’s social and national position and membership.
Why is it that both would seem equally plausible determinants of presidential eligibility? It’s because of the words the Constitution used to describe the citizenship of the President. For all other offices it used the descriptor of “a citizen of the United States”. As one can see from the list, that is very inclusive. But when it came to the position that wields the power of the Commander of the American military they used very exclusive language. They put it like this:
“No person, except a natural born citizen,…shall be eligible to the office of the President,…”.
In order to bind that description to the borders within which one was born is quite a feat, but they accomplish it by resorting to elevating, and then twisting the meaning of an old English term that lost its true meaning over the centuries due to sliding down a slippery slope of language bastardization, namely the term: “natural born subject”. That term originally meant a son born into subjection to the King by inheriting his father’s relationship to the crown.
If the father owed a debt he could not complete payment on, the debt fell on his heirs, his sons, and it continued in perpetuity as a family debt. If that debt was a debt of obedience, subjection, allegiance & loyalty, then that debt as well was inherited by his sons upon their birth. They, by their birth to one so bonded to the King, were his natural subjects.
But those born of foreigners who took to living within the King’s domain were not under an inherited bond, -an inherited relationship, because their fathers were subjects of a foreign monarch, and so they inherited that connection and nationality. They were known in the realm as alien born subjects.
But having superior and inferior classes of subjects was not conducive to peace and harmony because it would result in discrimination in various forms, beginning with rights of inheritance and property, along with hiring by the government, and so, over time, the label came to apply to all children born in the King’s domain as they were all equivalent to his natural born subjects, even though some were not his natural subjects.
That change shifted the focus from the inherited bond with the monarch to the territorial authority of the King’s power within the realm he ruled, -in which he and his noble lords could make the rules and decide what-is-what, including how to view and label all children born within his borders. That shifted the relationship from an individual bonded relationship to a land or territory based relationship. Such a relationship could not possibly exist before the firm establishment of national borders. Before they were so well defined, one’s connection to his sovereign was based solely on his bond of Fidelity, or faithfulness & obedience, in return for the King’s protection and justice.
Thus, by bastardizing the descriptor of his native-born subjects by progressing over the centuries from referring to his alien born subjects as being in the eyes of the law equal in every respect to his natural born subjects, as being equivalent, as essentially being natural born subjects in all legal respects, the actual truth was pushed aside in favor of the new “legal truth” that all of his subjects would be called natural born as an established fiction of law.
But when it came to reality, the fiction was ignored in situations of appointed positions of trust which held highly sensitive national secrets, or held power over critical military forces. For those positions of trust, privilege, and power, only true natural born subjects were considered. The fictional “natural born subjects” were never considered.
The defenders of Obama’s illegitimate presidency assert that an old English fiction of law was swallowed whole, and then bounded and limited the thinking of our broadly thinking, deeply thinking, rationally thinking, Natural Rights thinking, independent thinking, realistically thinking Founding Fathers and Constitution framers and then incorporated it into the most important provision in the Constitution, -that of who would be allowed to wield the ultimate power in America.
Were they really so stupid, ignorant, unthinking and unwise as to adapt the legacy and bastardized language of royal dictators into the heart of the American charter of Liberty, Unity, and mutual security? Why would the Obama legitimizers assume that our founders did not know of nor understand the history of natural national bonds upon which nations were built, and rather than framing the eligibility requirement in real terms, frame it instead in artificial fictional terms?
If we can easily understand it, it’s for certain that they would have understood it far more because they were at that unique stage in the life of a country during which its whole future will be determined. They knew full well what had bound the people of a nation to their king and it was not the borders within which they were birthed. It was the authority and obedience into which they were born. And that authority was over their fathers, and they, being under their fathers, were born under it as well, -not because of where they were born, but to whom they were born.
Those who were born to foreigners, including foreign ministers, and especially those born to wives of mere visitors, were not born under that authority and obligation of obedience because they had no obligation to defend a nation and king that was not their own. There was no legitimate basis to force them into an unnatural relationship to the crown. But in time, immigrants, as new members of society, came to share the obligation of national defense if needed.
In the situation of settled residency, they became subjects of the King on a temporary basis (not life-long) because they were subject to him. As such, it was reasonable to view their domestically born children as born subjects, but being as the parents remained aliens who had never renounced their allegiance to their own king and homeland, their children rightfully were labeled by their father’s status: alien born subjects, -or alien born natives.
They were not subject to the authority that subjects were under and so to call their children natural born subjects anyway was a perversion of language that the founders were not ignorant of. Nor would they have blindly incorporated its perverted usage into the description of the holder of the most important office of the land. Instead, they chose wisely to allow no one, no citizen, no American to be President unless they were one of the first two types of citizens. Those born to American fathers.
[or mothers, if the child was the result of rape by an attacker of unknown nationality. That would preclude conflicting dual allegiance inherited from a foreign father].
It is practically self-evident that those facts and deductions lead to those conclusions, but the complexity of the confusion does not end there since some hold that not only must the President be born of American parents, but must also be born on American land, -that he also would be ineligible to serve and lead his country (though born of Americans) if his mother birthed him just over the U.S. border. That would stringently cut off the American sons born abroad from their birthright as natural born citizens. The founders took measures in the first Congress to prevent that from happening. But in time, the reason for their action was forgotten and so that protection was ended by the removal of the words “natural born” to describe the citizenship of children of Americans born abroad that was part of the naturalization acts.
The blood-&-borders view incorporates both nativity and patrilineal descent into a theory that looks mainly to the distorted words of the wise Swiss observer, philosopher and writer; Emmerich de Vattel who penned the influential tome titled “The Law of Nations, or Principles of Natural Law”. It was published in 1758 and was a mainstay of the founders when preparing to fashion a more perfect union. It was not in English, but in French, which they could read, probably along with Greek and / or Latin.
He described many things and illuminated or verbalized the obvious, -things that common sense tells everyone. But his words were twisted in a fashion that is so subtle that the twisting is hardly noticeable unless one focuses down like with a microscope. The truth is only revealed by a strict and accurate parsing of his words, not by asserting self-supported “legal definitions” based on them.
So at this point, the contest is between those who claim anyone born within U.S. borders, (with the exception of children of foreign diplomats) is eligible to be President based on the notion that all native-born citizens are eligible, versus those who believe that he also must be the off-spring of Americans, i.e., be a natural citizen. Without thinking about the unacceptable implications inherent is requiring domestic birth, it is presumed that that is a perfectly reasonable requirement. But in fact reason is thrown over-board by it.
But that is explained thoroughly elsewhere, so the question here is whether or not it is demonstrably accurate. Is domestic birth really required? Obama’s defenders claim that it is because of (the perverting of) the meaning of what a natural born subject came to be in time, (anyone born within the King’s realm, to either subjects or aliens) while his faithful opposers claim that it is required because of (the perverting of) the words of Vattel and Supreme Court observations that quoted him, -neither of which bothered to dissect his observations and descriptions. That badly needs to be done, and we are going to do it now, in a way even beyond the nearly thorough way that I’ve done it in earlier expositions. Since a new realization stuck me today, it’s obligatory that I share it.
What I noticed was that Vattel made a very slight conceptual error, but it is one on which the whole matter hinges for the promoters of the dual blood-&-borders theory, which they present not as a theory but as an established fact.
They encompass all references to it by the U.S. Supreme Court, which they view as having adopted their miscontruence of Vattel’s remarks, thereby establishing what they label “national American common law” as being the basis of the Court’s “correct” imposition of the supposed Vattel “definition” which constituted the citizenship standard of “American common law”. But let’s see what Vattel and the courts actually said, and then examine what it all meant:
In the case of The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814), Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
Vattel who…is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. …”
Chief Justice Marshall relied upon a pre-1797 edition of Vattel’s text. The 1797 translation was adopted by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), where Chief Justice Waite stated:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. [children of foreigners, immigrants] As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first… [children of married American citizens]
[It’s significant that this decision was issued six years after the 14th Amendment was enacted. As such, Minor illustrates that the 14th Amendment simply defines who is a citizen, not which citizens are natural born. Leo Donofrio, Esq.] [–meaning that the amendment does not make new “Citizens of the United States” into natural citizens.]
The conceptual error that Vattel (or his translator) made is in conflating country with nation, -citizen with native, so lets examine the difference between them. Countries are comprised of peoples who have significant things in common, such as culture, language, history, and religion. Think of ancient Greece. It was a country of unassociated city-states with much in common. Eventually, after together resisting invasion and subjugation by Xerxes and his massive army, they set aside their differences and united to form the nation of Greece. So the country of Greece became the nation of Greece. The natives of the country became the citizens of the nation. The reverse cannot be said: “the citizens of the country became the natives of the nation”.
The terms are not interchangeable because they relate to two very different entities. One is a natural association of people (a country), the other is a legal association tied to a government formed by them to unite them under law (a nation). If the government were to crumble or be overthrown by an invader, the country would still exist, but the nation would not. So countries are not nations, and nations are not countries.
If you are traveling abroad and someone asks you: “What are you?” You can answer one of two ways: “I am an American.”, or “I am a United States citizen.” The first relates to the country of which you are a part (America) while the second relates to your relationship to the nation in which you live, -and its government (the United States). Being a citizen does not imply that you are an American because you might have just recently, and insincerely been “naturalized” into U.S. citizenship.
You can be a United States citizen without truly being an America, as was proven by the younger of the Boston bomber brothers. But it is proven even more dramatically by the horrible long civil war that raged in Yugoslavia between people that were not only not naturally associated, but were hostile to each other. That nation disintegrated in a long and bloody war because it, like Iraq, was a man-made creation of the super-powers that once ruled the region. Czech-o-slovakia also splintered into two separate nations; Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. More recently is was Northern and Southern Sudan.
Being members of a nation is a political and legal association. But being members of a country is a natural association. But Vattel conflated the two by referring to citizens as something other than members of a nation. He employed the legal or political term of citizen to describe the members of a civil society. He was not referring to what we think of as “civilization”, but of any civil society that was not the equivalent of a “Road Warrior”, “Mad Max” state of barbaric existence.
That means a civil society would also describe indigenous peoples, native tribes governed by civil leaders and tribal rules. You do not call their members “citizens”, because that term relates only to nations as we think of them. But “nation” was also applied to indigenous tribes (the Sioux Nation) because it conveys the concept of “sovereignty”. By calling a people who are not a nation by that term, you are respecting their independent sovereignty.
The correct terminology is: “natives of the tribe (or country) and “citizens of the nation”. If you mix them then you are combining two separate systems of reality into a dual system, a combined system, a hybrid system that is conceptually unnatural because natural systems are singular in nature, not compound.
One system is the system of the nation. It is political and formal and legal. It is built upon a government. It makes its own rules and laws and can embrace or reject various seemingly natural rules and order. [bigamy? or no bigamy?]
It is a closed system, and defines its elements based on its own internal definitions. But some of them must of necessity be from outside of the system, -from the open and natural system that governs human nature and human association, beginning with the parent-child, husband-wife relationships.
They are natural things, not legal things, but all moral government must organize itself to respect the positive natural above the legal; but respect the legal above the negative natural. Laws, legal constructs, are written to guard against the negative natural that resides in the categories of danger, harm, or “evil”.
Societies are natural entities and comprised of people who share a natural association. That is the normal pattern, but it can be perverted by super-powers forcing dissimilar peoples into a national legal association, -enforcing its rule and defending its structure by the use of force. Once that force and authority is remove, unnatural societies fracture and split apart after amicably separating, -or via bloody civil war and the eventual victory of one over the other.
So it isn’t proper to connect the word “citizen” to the word “society” since it only relates to “nation”. There is no good word in English for referring to members of societies, and so they are best simply described as that; members of society. But there is a word for referring to members of countries, and that is “native”. The natives are the natural inhabitants of a country. They are something whose abstract, non-legal nature is from outside of the closed system of law & government, so the use of “native” is only in association with “person” or “inhabitant”; as in “native person” or “native inhabitant”, or “native member”.
You would never say “native citizen” unless you intentionally wanted to bridge the gulf between the natural and the legal. That sometimes is necessary because no other terminology will convey what results from that combination of words. “Natural member”, and “native member” are in contrary origin to hybrid terms such as “Native citizen”, “citizen native” national native”, “citizen member” “indigenous citizen”. Such terminology confuses the understanding that there are two separate spheres and they are being combined into one, and not naturally so.
That was the error of Vattels translated words. In the French he wrote merely “les indigenes ou les naturels” to refer to those born in a country to parents who were its natives. -ERROR ALERT! He did not write that. The translation reads: “parents who are its citizens.” The error is that countries do not have citizens, only nations have citizens.
Countries have natives (les indigenes ou les naturels) The natives or the naturals. They are the natural members of a civil society, -not citizens. Citizens are the legal or political members of a nation and that citizenship is base 100% on either the natural native indigenous status of a person, or on positive law to make outsiders into new members. So to say that Vattel defined “natural born citizen” as being a native born member of a country is an error built upon an error.
His words “les indigenes ou les naturels” should have been translated as “the natives, or the indigenous members of society” -not “the natives or natural born citizens”. That translation did not appear for a decade after the Constitution was written, and was probably influenced by its words.
Vattel was describing, -not defining, a country’s natives (those native born to citizen parents) while simultaneously describing the natural members of a society or country. He was not defining “citizens”, but was describing the population that comprises both countries and nations. The members of a country united to form their nation. They then are its natural citizens. They, almost without exception, were born and raised within the territory of the country (which eventually is established with defined borders, -providing the boundaries of the nation) but a small percentage were birthed outside of its borders.
The short-lived, momentary event of their birth, -and its naturally insignificant location, have no impact, conceptually, nor philosophically on the nature of what and who the child belongs to. It belongs to its parents, and they belong to their country, and it belongs to their nation. To proclaim that the child belongs to the foreign nation across the border because of the location of that fleeting event is extremely illogical and nonsensical. The philosophy that say that it does is known as jus soli, meaning Right of Soil, while that which follows natural ownership and membership is known as jus sanguinis (Right of Blood)
The child is a natural member of its parents’ country, -born into membership, as a member by birth, and not a member of the foreign society, or country, or nation across the border where it was delivered from the womb.
Vattel himself within the same exposition made it clear that country membership, national citizenship was inherited from one’s father (the head of the family), and not from the birth-location national borders, so the insistence to the contrary is doubly absurd and illogical. And yet, ossified minds have it frozen into their unquestioning and unexamined thinking. Like living, flexible wood that has become life-less and petrified, it is no longer flexible nor living. So is their though process, -being locked firmly inside the closed thinking of their expertly described closed structure.
Concepts, principles, facts from outside of their closed system cannot penetrate it, like living inside of an opaque bubble, they remain unaware of what is outside it, of the connections to the heart of the bubble’s central structure, they assume that all of its structures are self-contained and therefore definable in terms of its flawed concepts. But principles of natural law, natural relationships, natural loyalty and natural responsibility are not a part of the closed legal structure that seems to be self-supportive due to the strength of the insider experts & authorities whose pontifical power is embraced as defining reality within the system.
The problem is that their reality is built on the sand of a definition that includes the word “natural”, -a word from outside of the legal system which attempts to define it in legal terms even though it is from the open, larger system of Natural Law and can only be defined in natural terms.
Their fallacy is seen in the rewording of the Vattelian sentence: ” it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
It should be worded by either or both of these two alternatives: ” it was never doubted that all children born in a country of members who were its natives became themselves, upon their birth, natives also.” Or…
” it was never doubted that all children born in a nation of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.”
Both make perfect sense and don’t hybridize the two concepts and terminology. But what doesn’t make sense is this version which the blood-&-borders believers insist his words mean: (which cuts-off membership and citizenship from children who happened to have entered the world on foreign soil) “it was never doubted that only children born in a nation of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.” They blindly refuse to observe that he never said such a thing, while doggedly asserting that that is the official definition of what a natural born citizen is because the Supreme Court quoted Vattel.
Vattel never used the word “only” in his descriptions, and that alone proves that they were in fact not definitions. A definition defines by what it excludes and what it includes. It disambiguates. His description only contains the inclusion half, while the exclusion is missing, demonstrating clearly that his words were not an attempt at a definition. Claiming that they were is a perversion of language and logic. Unfortunately, there has been and continues to be a whole lot of perversion going on by men who are psychologically unable or unwilling to acknowledge reality.
So Obama’s flying monkeys and citizenship law “experts” argue that birth in the country makes one a natural born citizen, while the opposition claims one must also be born of American parents, while the truth is neither of those two, because the meaning of what a natural citizen is, is not found in either of those two closed systems.
They lock horns and do battle big-time, wrestling over control of an issue that can’t be and isn’t defined by their two limited closed systems of thought, history, and logic. But like the Creationists and the Evolutionists, neither is capable of grasping that both systems may be incorrect. Both may not reflect reality. Reality may be outside of the closed systems. But their ossified built-in biases are not interested in, nor capable of opening a big curtain to let in the light from outside. They have built a perfectly arranged interior world and won’t allow anything, including the truth, to shine into it, because such sunshine will do to it what it does when focused through a magnifying glass onto ants and bugs. Things would go up in smoke.
So now you know something that neither of them know. You know something that the entire legal establishment is unaware of, as is its opponents. You can see things from a perspective that both of them lack. You can see the entire forest and not just the surrounding trees. You can see the truth via the light of reality. And in that light we see that America twice elected a constitutionally ineligible, unqualified candidate to the office of the President, and yet doesn’t even know it.
What’s worse is that most wouldn’t care much even if they did know, because the Constitution is out-of-sight, out-of-mind, and there is no public persona who is going to change that in the foreseeable future. Ted Cruz could, but he has the same problem as Barack Obama. He is not a natural born citizen either. [born in Canada (no problem) but to a foreign father]
But that won’t stop me from voting to make him the next President, which he will be. Sometimes you just need to fight fire with fire, and not water. If he would undo the travesty of unconstitutional governance that has transpired under both parties, and cram the Constitution down the throats of those who have willfully ignored and perverted it, then he could be the savior of the Constitution, while others who are fully eligible may be only continuaters of the unconstitutional government we’ve been afflicted by for over a century.
All Hail President Cruz!, -Obama’s fellow non-natural born citizen, but Savior of the Constitution and undoer of the leviathan monster government with its inconceivably massive non-budget and off-budget spending.
If he is not the next President, then we should all reserve a bottle of champagne which we will sooner or later uncork to toast our demise as we sink beneath the waves on the good ship-of-state; USS Titanic.
The folly of the Left that asserts that the Founders of the nation and Framers of the Constitution were so stupid as to trust future generations of alien born citizens, children of immigrants, to be the Commander of all American military might, is seen in the situation in Afghanistan where political correctness has reaped a rotten harvest of dead Americans slain at the hands of their beneficiaries; -the Afghan soldiers who they had trained to help save their own country from religious totalitarianism.
The total of Americans murdered by government soldiers is approching 70. We fell victim to people we trusted. To people we thought we could trust, and rightfully should be able to trust, but whom we could not know for sure that we could trust, because we could not truly know them and how they thought.
The Founding Father experienced the same sort of situation when it came to making the final decision of who they could truly trust with all of the power of the American Army and Navy and Marines. They did not want to reap the whirlwind that we have reaped after our incountry leaders decided that in order to foster trust toward us, he would disarm our soldiers in environments where they lived and trained together with Afghans, yet leave the Afghans fully armed, locked & loaded.
We made ourselves sitting ducks, and thus became sitting ducks. The founders did not want that to happen to the people of America at the hand of a traitor in the White House who could order the execution of any and all who disobeyed his commands as Commander-in-Chief. So they considered the matter in light of the treason of one of their own, the heroic and totally trusted General Benedict Arnold who was not given the command position he wanted.
If your own can betray you, how much more likely is it that one who half belongs to others might betray you, -one with divided parentage, divided nationality, divided background, history, and philosophy? Was allowing the son of a foreigner to be Commander-in-Chief a risk they were willing to take? For what possible motive would they even conceive that they had to take any risk? There was no reason whatsoever to take any risk, -to stick the nation’s neck out and hope it wouldn’t get chopped off.
There was no reason to makes citizens of the risky kinds of people who have made Jihadi attacks against America after being accepted by us, embraced and promoted by us, salaried by us, and protected by our rights. No radicalized Muslim has killed or sought to kill us who was born of us. They were all born of others, of outsiders. Being born on our soil or allowed to live among us did not make them one of us in their own mind.
If they’ll bomb each other, how much more likely are they to bomb us? Timothy McVeigh was of us, but did not attack “us”; he attacked what he felt was a wicked, murderous government, a tyrannical government that he felt needed punishing. Like Jihadis, he put real people in the cross-hairs, not a system run by evil men. The people died, the system was uninjured. Such is the result of infantile attacks.
Is there a great reason why we should asume that they are trustworthy? The founding fathers asked that very same question among themselves when it came to deciding who to allow to be President. Naturalized Americans? Immigrant-born Americans? alien foreign-born naturalized children? Or only natural Americans, -the natives of our nation, -the issue of our own selves, -of our own flesh & blood?
They decided on a sort of middle path based on what they believed was reasonable, -on who they believed they could trust. It included all of the citizens of the Republic who had labored through the long war, thereby not excluding those who had come to American seeking liberty and prosperity and happiness and had become Americans willingly and eagerly, renouncing all ties to their former homeland.
They had born the burden and shed their blood for our and their freedom. If foreigners, well-to-do British immigrants, had signed the Declaration of Independence along with Americans, they would have been just as guilty of treason as our fore-fathers. They were all in it together. In for a penny,..in for a pound. In for rebellion,..in for hanging.
The new Americans married our sisters and daughters, including one of my own ancestors. I don’t know who she was, -the woman who married the young Marquis de la Porte, companion of the Marquis de la Fayette, but I know who her daughter was because she was one of my great grandmothers several times removed. [something I just recently learned]
And so they made an exception to their prohibition against all who were not born of American fathers, and allowed their fellow citizen compatriots the priviledge and honor of serving as the leader of the nation. Their trust was very well placed, but the chance of it back-firing was zero because there was zero chance of a foreign-born former foreigner being chosen by the American electorate and electoral college. No doubt that was an unspoken reality.
But the framers of the Constitution put a time limit on that segment of the population in regard to when they became citizens of their home state, and thereby citizens of the nation. That window of opportunity closed when the final state needed to ratify the Constitution, (the ninth) did so in May of 1788. After that month, no one subsequently born of other than American parents would be eligible to serve.
United States Constitution: Article II, Section I, Clause IV: 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,..(age & residency requirements).
How is all of this not perfectly reasonable and rational and wise? Let’s reword it using both the language of the natural realm combined with that of the legal realm: “No American, except a natural born Americans, or a citizen of the United States at the time…shall be eligible to the office of the President.
That language reveals the stark difference between the two realms. One natural, one legal. Natural citizens, like natural children, are not legal (adopted) citizens, just like adopted children are not natural children. One is the result of the natural world, the other of the legal world.
The children of adopted citizens (naturalized) are of us because they are born of parents who are of us, in the legal sense at a minimum, but the children of foreigners, outsiders who are not of us but of their foreign homeland, they are not our full-blood children in the natural sense since their parents are not of us.
They are deemed by a fiction of law to be 100% of us because our law grants them that right. But law is not reality, and reality is outside of the closed system of the law, and so they may have been raised by they foreign fathers to actually hate us and want to one day kill us. We cannot read their minds anymore than the soldiers in Afghanistan could read the minds of their murders. Trust should be earned as it was during the Revolution, not given away lightly, because the consequences can be deadly, as was the case in Fort Hood and Boston.
As a matter of fact, we don’t give our trust away when it comes to national security. We require major FBI or DOD background checks before allowing an American to serve in critical positions. If you are a Marine being considered for duty guarding the President, you must first pass a Yankee White single scope background check. If it finds that you were born of foreigners, or connected to foreign nations, you are automatically disqualified. Similar checks are required for those with top secret security clearances, especially those “above top secret” (?).
To be accepted for such clearances one must be a natural born citizen of the United States, -not an alien fathered citizen naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment. This is especially true for positions involving the guarding, maintaining, and firing of nuclear bomb.
Our Founding Fathers were more aware of the factors of reality than any of the leaders of generations that never saw and tasted war. President Kennedy saw and tasted war, and he was the last President who experienced reality and was shaped by it. Ever since we have been governed by men with no experience of the realities that the men they command must live in, under, and through. As a consequence, they are unable to grasp the thinking of the founders when they chose to protect the nation from a traitor in the White House, -from one who was from among us, but not of us in a fully natural way -in a way that produced one who was more than a citizen, more than a born citizen, but one who was a natural citizen by birth; -a natural born citizen.
by Adrien Nash May 2013, http://obama–nation.com