The British Roots of Presidential Eligibility

If you were required to testify in a trial and you were asked: “Do you have internet access?” and you answered” “Yes”, then you would have failed to adhere to your oath to tell the “whole truth”.
If the commission of a cyber crime was dependent on your internet access, then a more precise answer would be needed.  So you would then have to elaborate by saying; “I have Hi-Speed internet access.”
That too would fail your oath to tell the whole truth.  That is well known to myself since I suffered under the torture of dial-up access for eleven years.  Recently my sister got me upgraded to DSL.

DSL is via the phone company ground wire but is about 20 times faster than dial-up.  But also about 20 times slower than fiber-optic cable.  So to say “I have internet access.” doesn’t say it all at all.

What’s my point?  It’s this; saying “I have internet access” is directly analogous to saying “I am a citizen.”
Saying: “I have High-Speed internet access.” is directly analogous to saying: “I am a born citizen.”
Saying: “I have High-Speed Fiber-optic internet access.” is directly analogous to saying: “I am a natural born citizen.”

This comparison illustrates that which makes the world go ’round; the ability of all sentient beings to discern differences, distinguish, differentiate, or discriminate between things.
Without it there would be no finding a mate, recognizing those of your own kind, those of your own family.  But that ability comes with a dark side.  It’s due to human nature.  It’s flawed with pride and prejudice, and that makes “others” unwanted, despised, or even hated.
Aside from avarice and pride, dislike is one of the most powerful emotions that individuals and peoples experience.  It results in the exulting of a privileged few (like Saul whom the Israelites made King because he was a head taller than everyone else) and the rejecting of millions who are considered inferior or worse: unclean (as with the untouchables of India).

Discrimination is a nearly universal thing; it’s everywhere where aliens live among natives, and that was true in ancient England.  It was a problem for the King because his basis of claiming that all the population was subject to him was, beside his “divinely bestowed authority”, his protection offered over all, -whether native or alien.  Everyone was equally protected and therefore were equally subject.  Everyone, that is, who was a part of his domain, a member of his society, and not merely passing through on a visit.

They owed the British Crown obedience to the law and civil order but did not owe the King allegiance for life as did his natural subjects whose parents’ were natives and subjects of the King for life.
To enlarge the reach of his authority, the king considered the alien-born children of foreign immigrants to also be his subjects, thereby affording them the privileges of subjects and their rights as well.  But such magnanimous treatment didn’t match the feelings of the native subjects toward foreigners and their children, with their foreign language, tradition, history, values, and religion (Catholicism) and so, like everywhere, discrimination was the result.

   Saying that those children were equal to one’s own children didn’t make it seem right in the eyes of the native Britons.  So something stronger was needed; -language even more emphatic.  Eventually, that resulted  in not simply saying they were the same as natural subjects but in saying that they are natural subjects.

   Such strong language served its purpose as the doctrine of equivalency was spread and adopted as the language of the government.  So all subjects came to be viewed as natural born subjects because there was no difference in the protection they were provided nor the responsibilities they were obliged to shoulder.

    By that doctrine, it seemed that everyone born in Britain was a natural born subject (except children of diplomats and visitors) but what came to be overlooked by many was the fact that that was a false characterization of that which is natural, as well as the fact that they could be characterized that way by the doctrine of “temporary allegiance”.
By it, foreigners owed Britain temporary obedience and allegiance since they were under the king’s protection, and those who put down roots as immigrants became integrated into British society as new members.

   As new members under the jurisdiction of the Crown, their children were born under that same subjection and “temporary allegiance”, only their allegiance was not viewed as being temporary or split between two sovereigns (unlike their father, since he still owed it to the king of the nation that he was born in) but was permanent allegiance and subjectship since they were born within the king’s dominion to one who was his subject.  [Britain didn’t have a naturalization process, but by becoming domiciled there, one placed himself under subjection to the national authority; i.e., the laws of Parliament, the common law, and the Crown, thereby becoming a subject automatically without any formal process.

With such a policy toward alien-born children, it was necessary to defend it and avoid discrimination.  Hence the doctrine of subjectship equivalency, -which was part of the common law in both Britain and the colonies.  When the United States was established via the adoption of the Constitution, that doctrine was also adopted as a fundamental principle of the United States, and was known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency.
By it, all citizens, whether naturalized, or derivative, or native-born to foreigners, were equal to the natural citizens of the nation in every way.  Thus citizenship discrimination was officially banned as anti-American.  [That was the position of the national government, but of course individuals were free to be bigoted just as they were free to be slave owners.]

But there was one tiny little corner in Britain, and later the United States, where discrimination was not only allowed, it was mandatory.  I speak of natural security.

Nothing is more important to any sane nation than its own preservation.  Avoiding conquest, slaughter, and the enslavement of survivors has always been the number one priority.  The positions on which survival depends must be manned by utterly dependable people with no room for error in their selection.  The best way to try to avoid risk was to appoint men who were beyond all suspicion.

They were the natural born sons of permanent subjects.  Foreigners and their children would not ever even hear of a position being open if it was so critical to national defense and security that it could only be entrusted to natural born natives.  Such positions would be filled without even considering someone who might harbor a secret devotion to a foreign king, a king who might one day make war against England.

Great and crucial national security secrets would never be shared with such subjects because they would never obtain an appointment or promotion to such a position, -a position that would include the knowledge of secrets or the command of forces upon which national survival might depend.

Strangely, while no one in the government who was not  a natural born subject would be entrusted with such a position (-a position through which one could betray the entire nation), someone above the government could and was entrusted with such power.  He was the foreign prince who married the young Queen.

   He was from a foreign nation and government, with a foreign language and history, and unknown ties and motives and priorities.  He was the equivalent to making someone President of the United States who was a total foreigner.  Wow!  That’s a hell of a lot of power to place in the hands of a stranger.  Such was the extent to which a nation would go in order to support the unnatural monarchical system.  Fortunately, he proved to be loyal to Britain and served in the best interests of his adopted country.

   In the new nation to be formed under the Constitution, no such possibility was to be allowed under any circumstances.  The President must be American and nothing but American.  He must not have any ties or bonds to a foreign nation or king.  His roots must be American roots.  His values must be American values.

   That didn’t mean that he could not be of a foreign background because they allowed such a thing as long as a potential candidate had lived in the colonies / states for fourteen years, was 35 years old, and was a citizen who had became one before the Constitution’s adoption in June of 1788.
After that cut-off date only those born of citizens would be allowed to be President.  They were described in the Constitution as “a natural born citizen”.   “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.”  Article II, Section I.

The requirement that the President be such was suggested to the President of the constitutional convention (George Washington) by his future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  He wrote to Washington, urging him to not allow the power of the Commander-in-Chief to be placed in the hands of any who was not “a natural born citizen”, (underlined by John Jay) thereby going one step further than what Alexander Hamilton had proposed, namely that he be one “born a citizen”.

Jay recognized that just as all high-speed internet access is not the same, just as all born subjects were not the same, so also, all born citizens were not the same.  Some were born of Americans and some were born of aliens.

   Like the British before us, he did not want to run the risk of all of that military power being entrusted to one with an uncertain national allegiance.  Hence it was necessary that the President be more than merely born as a citizen in one of the four states that granted their citizenship to native-born children of foreigners (immigrants) but that his citizenship be natural citizenship, -not merely legal citizenship provided by the generosity of a state via its naturalization law.

   But because of the doctrine of citizenship equivalency, he avoided urging that the President be “a natural citizen” because that would have been ambiguous since all citizens are deemed to be natural citizens (even if naturalized or naturalized upon birth) unless they were born as actual natural citizens by being the off-spring of citizens.

   Americans produce new Americans naturally.  Foreigners, in four states, produced new-born Americans legally.  They were not to be permitted to be President because legal citizens are not natural citizens, just as natural citizens are not legal citizens since the national constitution included no rule for who was or was not a citizen of the United States. 

   That was determined by the will of the States and their policy and law governing immigration and naturalization.  But under neither national nor state law could anyone born of foreigners be viewed as being a natural born American, -even though born within American territory.
Actual natural national membership has never been dependent on where an American baby is born but to whom it was born.  Congress addressed that issue in the first naturalization act because it was not addressed in the Constitution.

Question: “Are the sons of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, though born abroad (Paris and London respectively) during their service as foreign ambassadors, ineligible to ever serve as President even though their native-born brothers clearly were?”

I don’t know if that questions was ever asked, [though I strongly suspect it was] because I haven’t researched to find out if they even had sons while abroad.  I’m not quite curious enough to check.  But I know that they would have been aghast at the idea that they weren’t, and probably complained about it if just on principle alone.  That is the probable reason, -and perhaps the only one, why that act not only ordered that American children born abroad be recognized not just as citizens but as “natural born citizens”, -thereby injecting the issue of presidential eligibility into the order.

   Why do that in a naturalization act?  Because there was no where else to do it.  Since it was lacking in the Constitution, it had to be put somewhere and since U.S. citizenship was already being addressed as an issue in that act, why not kill two birds with one stone?  They had no good reason not to and so they did just that.

   They thereby supported and defended the principle of natural membership by which one inherits what their parents have and are, whether it is a position in society or a position (membership) in a nation.  What one inherits and who they are by birth is not related to nor dependent upon the borders of the land where their mother delivers them.  It is determined by the natural connection between parents and their off-spring, -whether animal or human.

  By the doctrine of citizenship equivalency, all forms of natural-ization produce new natural citizens who can never be stripped of their citizenship unless it can be proven that it was obtained by fraud, -which is nullifying.

    Other nations do not embrace that doctrine and can therefore strip naturalized law-breakers of their citizenship, but that has never happened in American history because it can’t.  We are married forever to the position that we are all equal, whether our roots go back to the Mayflower or merely to the latest naturalization ceremony.  Such citizenship then becomes an unalienable right and the sole political element of our political nature.

   But doctrine is one thing, (regardless of how highly it be honor), and national survival is another.  As was the case in Britain, national security comes first, and our king substitute cannot be what the spouse of the Queen could be.  He cannot be a foreigner nor be born of one.  He must have been born of Americans, just as all Generals and Admirals were similarly British born of British parents. Englishmen through-&-through.  True blue Englishman.  Natural born Englishman.  Sons of England and sons of Englishmen.

Americans once had to choose which identity they would embrace; their lifelong British identity or their new American identity.  Those who choose the former were invited to leave and go live in the land of their preferred nationality.  They were not of us even though they were born as our brethren.  But we changed, and they did not change with us.  Their loyalty was to a foreign despot and a foreign government.  They could not be trusted, nor could their children.  And so they were barred from the presidency if they were born after the new government was approved by 9 of the 13 states.
Thereafter only true natural Americans could hold the reins of power over the United States Army and Navy, (and militias in time of emergency).   Anything less would have been foolish and dangerous and unnecessary since 97% +/- of free Anglo-Saxon, protestant, educated, upright, mature men were natural born sons of American fathers.
All of them were perfectly eligible to serve as President since they were 100% American in fact, and not simply in doctrine.  They were 100% American by blood and not merely by borders, -by birthright inheritance and not merely by law, -by American parents, -not government  permission.  They were the natives whose national loyalty was undivided and thus unquestionable.  They were born as natural citizens and not made into natural citizens by an American “fiction of law”.

They are what Barack Obama never was and can never be since they are American natural born citizens and he is not.  They therefore are perfectly eligible to serve in the office of the President, and he is perfectly ineligible to do the same.  He will always the our first open illegitimate unconstitutional President, but that offense pales in comparison to the damage he is willfully inflicting on the U.S. economy via sins of omission and commission, as well as against the rule of law.

Crime and lying and dirty politics come as naturally to him as breathing.  His nature was formed in the Choom Gang of drug users in Hawaii and it has never left him.  He has even openly employed it as evidence of how cool he was and is.  He presented himself as the more cool candidate based on his past criminality.  Now we know we are on the road to hell in a hand basket because that is where all of the signs are pointing.

by Adrien Nash  July 2013  http://obama–nation.com

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

4 Responses to The British Roots of Presidential Eligibility

  1. Slartibartfast says:

    Mr. Nash,

    You say that a person cannot be a natural born citizen of two nations, but, if this statement is true, it infringes on the sovereign right of every nation to determine the methods of obtaining citizenship and that manner of citizenship obtained.

    [WHAT YOU FAIL TO GRASP IS THAT NATIONS DO NOT POSSESS ANY AUTHORITY TO RE-WRITE THE MEANING OF WORDS. Regardless of royal or dictator decrees, words still mean what they mean. being a natural citizen is not something that can be dictated by royal fiat because it is dictated by nature. No dictator can decree that all of any group of people are of another race. similarly, he cannot decree that they are of another society or nation. Reality is what it is and all governments must recognize certain facts, truths, and realities, beginning with the recognition that the children born to its subjects or citizens are of the same nationality as their parents. That is the means by which nations are perpetuated, so national sovereignty is irrelevant to natural citizenship.
    Your understanding of the nature of citizenship is flawed as is shown by “the sovereign right of every nation to determine the methods of obtaining citizenship and that manner of citizenship obtained”.
    NATURAL CITIZENSHIP IS FAR ABOVE AND BEYOND THE AUTHORITY OF REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT since government exists by the will and choice and creation of natural citizens. They are the master and the government is the servant.
    Any other form of government is a dictatorship and therefore morally illegitimate because all humans are endowed with unalienable rights, including the right to be a member of the group into which they are born via parents who are members. Nations only have the “right” to regulate the privilege and process of allowing foreigners and their children to become citizens. They cannot regulate citizenship that is via birth because it is far more primal and fundamental than the contrivance of government.]
    ~~~
    The extreme example of this would be (if your assertion is correct as a matter of US law) if Kim Jong Un declared every person born in the United States to be natural born North Korean citizens. Clearly Mr. Kim, as the head of a dictatorship, has the power to do this, should he wish.
    [HE HAS THE POWER TO DECREE ANYTHING CONCEIVABLE, BUT SAYING IT’S SO DOESN’T MAKE IT SO. AS LINCOLN SAID; “IF YOU CALL A DOG’S TAIL A LEG, HOW MANY LEGS DOES A DOG HAVE? FOUR, BECAUSE CALLING A TAIL A LEG DOESN’T MAKE IT ONE.”]

    You would have us believe that this would eliminate the pool of people eligible for the presidency within a few generations or, at the very least, require some sort of Constitutional Amendment to avert. Obviously this is a somewhat contrived example, but it highlights how national sovereignty is lost when the qualification for birthright citizenship in a nation requires reference to a person’s citizenship status in foreign nations.

    As less extreme example, imagine a Mr. A, a natural born citizen of the nation of G who immigrates to the US and becomes a naturalized citizen. Sometime (let’s assume after he was naturalized), he has a son S. According to the laws of G, which uses the doctrine of jus sanguinis to determine its citizenship and doesn’t recognize expatriation, Mr. A is still a citizen of G, as is little S. By your reasoning, if, in due course, S runs for the presidency he would be ineligible due to his dual citizenship, since, according to the laws of G, he is unquestionably one of their natural born citizens (which, in and of itself, already contradicts your thesis). You would think that such a situation would provide ample fodder for his political enemies to have him removed from the ballot, or, at the very least, discredit his candidacy sufficiently to taint any ticket that he was a part of. If, instead, he attained the office of VPOTUS and served until he, for instance, resigned in disgrace for reasons unrelated to his citizenship, wouldn’t that be evidence against your argument? In which case, how would you explain Mr. Agnew’s son Spiro being both a lifelong Greek citizen as well as Vice President of the United States?
    [HIS NATURALIZED FATHER’S NEW AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP DID NOT CANCEL HIS GREEK CITIZENSHIP NOR THAT OF HIS CHILDREN BORN AS AMERICANS. SO MY STATEMENT IS TRUE ONLY IF ONE EXCLUDES THE “UNNATURAL” CIRCUMSTANCE OF EXPATRIATION AND NATURALIZATION. NATURAL-IZATION IS A FICTION OF LAW. IN THAT ABSENCE OF THAT FICTION, IT IS TRUE THAT ONE CANNOT BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF TWO NATIONS BECAUSE ONE’S FATHER CAN ONLY BE A TRUE NATURAL CITIZEN OF ONE NATION.]

    [IN YOUR EXAMPLE YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES. There’s two things central to it: that the United States absolutely does not recognize the right of any nation to disallow the right of expatriation. Expatriation is the foundation on which the United States revolution was based as well as the nation that followed it. It is part of the air that we breath, -a fundamental human right.
    Second, when one becomes an American via naturalization, they renounce all allegiance and attachment to the government of their foreign homeland. They become 100% American via the oath of ALLEGIANCE & RENUNCIATION. Their previous citizenship does not actually ceases to exist, but from the U.S. perspective, it’s equivalent to cutting a political umbilical cord and then being adopted by another mother & father. So the children of any and all American couples are eligible to be President because they are all natural citizens by birth to citizens.
    The children of immigrants are not natural citizens even though the Supreme Court has erroneously reinterpreted the 14th Amendment by declaring that they are citizens. That is a good thing even though a bastardization of the clearly understood intent of the amendment when written. But such constitutional citizens are ineligible to serve as President because they are alien-born citizens and not American-born citizens.

    Why are you arguing against US sovereignty? [ALL SOVEREIGNTY IS LIMITED BY THE LAW OF NATIONS AND THE LAWS OF NATURE REGARDING NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY IS NEVER ABSOLUTE AS HITLER AND NAPOLEON AND IMPERIAL JAPAN LEARNED TO THEIR RUINATION.]

    I would also note that the statute specifying that mothers (under certain circumstances) could transmit citizenship to their foreign-born children while remaining mute regarding children born in the US is strong evidence that any child born in the US (to an American mother) was already considered a citizen at birth (and one which did not require a statute—in other words, clearly a natural born citizen). Were this not the case, why would Congress not grant the same status to US-born children of American mothers?

    [FOR TWO REASONS; FIRST, FEMALES HAVE NEVER BEEN THE SPINE OF NATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SOFT TISSUE. THEY ARE NOT CALLED UPON TO SACRIFICE LIBERTY, LIMB AND LIFE IN WAR BECAUSE THEY ARE THE CLASS, ALONG WITH CHILDREN & ELDERLY, THAT MEN, ON A PRIMAL LEVEL, ARE COMPELLED AND OBLIGATED TO PROTECT. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER BORN THAT BURDEN, THEY HAVE NEVER SHOULDERED THE FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF CITIZENSHIP.

    As a result, their civic rights were limited in proportion to their national responsibility. The manner of that limitation was in the form of the primacy of the nationality status of the head of the household. in the beginning, foreign women who married americans became Americans also, automatically. One family, one nationality.
    So citizenship never descended from a mother unless her husband (and child’s father) died before their child was born. As a widow, she became the head of the household. That was the common law followed until the age of women having the constitutional right to vote. But before then, American women who married foreign men lost their u.s. citizenship (1907-1922).]

  2. Dear Mr. Nash,

    You have a mistaken conception about questions and answers in Court. You said:

    “If you were required to testify in a trial and you were asked: “Do you have internet access?” and you answered” “Yes”, then you would have failed to adhere to your oath to tell the “whole truth”.If the commission of a cyber crime was dependent on your internet access, then a more precise answer would be needed. So you would then have to elaborate by saying; “I have Hi-Speed internet access.”That too would fail your oath to tell the whole truth. That is well known to myself since I suffered under the torture of dial-up access for eleven years. Recently my sister got me upgraded to DSL.” [etc.]

    Your assessment of the legal requirement is grossly incorrect. May I suggest you read this for additional insight:

    http://www.justice.gov/usao/pam/Victim_Witness/testifying_tips.html

    From there, this:

    “Do Not Volunteer Information

    Answer ONLY the questions asked of you. Do not volunteer information that is not actually asked for. Additionally, the judge and the jury are interested in the facts that you have observed or personally know about. Therefore, don’t give your conclusions and opinions, and don’t state what someone else told you, unless you are specifically asked.”

    In fact, a question can be objected to, if it contains multiple or compound questions. Your answer is, in fact, an answer to several different questions, to wit:

    Question 1: Do you have Internet access? Answer. Yes.

    Question 2: Is your connection a high speed connection? Answer: Yes.

    Question 3: Do you know the exact nature of that connection? Answer: Yes.

    Question 4: And what is that nature? Answer: It is high speed via fiber optic network.

    Question 5: And how do you know that? That is what it says on my agreement with Comcast.

    See. Now, there are reasons why a GOOD lawyer will ask those questions in little single fact bits like that. Because if he hadn’t asked Question 5, the basis of your knowledge would remain unknown, and that could be a significant fact.

    An oath to tell the whole truth is not an open invitation to ramble on in Court, and a judge will probably shut you down fast if you try to over answer questions. He will admonish you to answer the questions asked. Or not. Because the lawyer on the other side may be loving the way you volunteer information, and be quite content to let you blabber on. While your lawyer is burying his head in his hands and thinking, “I told that stupid $#$!!!**#@@ to just answer the question asked, and then STFU!!!”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • arnash says:

      The questioning scenario you give as example is only one possibility. Here’s another one: “What forms of communication do you have in your home?” Or: “Do you have access to the internet and if so, what kind?”

  3. arnash says:

    Slartibartfast says
    Mr. Nash,

    You said, “What you fail to grasp is that nations do not possess any authority to re-write the meaning of words.”

    This is obviously incorrect. The US Constitution is written in the language of the common law of the several states which descended to us from the English common law. The Founders showed themselves to be perfectly capable of redefining words like “treason”.
    [TREASON IS MORE THAN A WORD. IT IS THE NAME OF A SPECIFIC CRIME, THE PARAMETERS OF WHICH NEEDED DEFINING IN THE NEW AMERICAN CONTEXT. THEY DID THAT. THEY DID NOT BASTARDIZE ITS MEANING SINCE IT STILL MEANT TREASON.]

    That they did not see fit to alter the meaning of the term “natural born” suggests that they were using the term in the sense specified by Calvin’s case two centuries prior.

    [IT SUGGESTS NO SUCH THING SINCE THERE IS NO SUCH TERM AS “NATURAL BORN” TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE. THEY ARE MERELY TWO ADJECTIVES WHICH MODIFY ONE NOUN, LIKE “PRETTY YOUNG WOMAN.” “PRETTY YOUNG” IS NOT A TERM. THERE IS ONLY “PRETTY WOMAN” AND “YOUNG WOMAN”, OR COMBINED.]

    This is also consistent with James Madison’s statement:
    “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
    Do you know more about the U.S. Constitution than its author did?
    ~~~~
    [THAT WAS WHAT HE SAID OR WROTE AS A VIRGINIAN, -ONE OF FOUR STATES THAT ALLOWED JUS SOLI CITIZENSHIP. HERE’S WHAT HE SAID AS PRESIDENT UNDER HIS NOM DE PLUM AS CO-AUTHOR OF THE FEDERALIST PAPERS: (quoting Mario Apuzzo)

    “Publius,” probably James Madison who was President then, on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 concerning the particular at issue, published in the The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure:”

    “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 United States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

    The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James Monroe, who was serving the James Madison Administration, eventually declared McClure alien born, but a “Citizen of the United States” (not a “natural born Citizen”), not because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States” which made his minor child then dwelling in the United States a “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. (a derivative citizen)
    I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the early naturalization acts meant rather than Slartibartfast’s and the Obots’ in 2013]

    ~~~~~
    ~You say that my understanding of citizenship is flawed because natural citizenship cannot be determined by the government, but the original Congress in its first naturalization act provided that the children of US citizens born overseas were natural born, once again showing that the Founders disagreed with you. Obviously, they believed that they could (at least to some extent) change the definition of “natural born citizen”.

    [AGAIN, YOUR THINKING IS FUZZY BECAUSE YOUR LANGUAGE IS FUZZY. THERE IS NO “NATURAL BORN” ANY MORE THAN THERE IS “BORN NATURAL”. THERE IS ONLY NATURAL CITIZENS AND BORN CITIZENS, OR THOSE WHO ARE BOTH. Natural Citizen: one born of citizens; born as a citizen.

    Born citizen: one born with citizenship, -either alien born or American born.

    an unnatural Natural citizen: one who became a citizen by law but by the “fiction of law” known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency was made equal to all natural citizens by having been “natural-ized” by law.

    an unnatural born citizen: one naturalized via the adoption of law into the American family at birth via State law (when national jus soli did not exist via the 14th Amendment) or via post-1898 Supreme Court holding.

    John Jay realized the danger in the ambiguity of the language describing natural born subjects since it had been bleached of true meaning by the British government, so he underlined the word “born” to show he was not adapting those three words as some “term of art” which was defined by anything other than the meaning of the words themselves.
    The CiC must be born as a natural citizen; a born natural citizen, a natural born citizen.

    Other nations which lack the doctrine of citizenship equivalency can strip naturalized citizens of their citizenship for criminality. The United States cannot do that because all citizens are natural citizens except for minors with provisional citizenship.

    In the first Naturalization Act, the founders attempted to correct an oversight in the Constitution by making it clear that the principle of citizenship in the United States was one that applied world-wide. Children of Americans are America’s natural citizens because they are born of citizens. And all port officials and magistrates were thereby put on notice to not treat them the way that Wong Kim Ark was later treated. Congress did not change anything by ordering bureaucrats to treat them as the citizens that they are, and more, to make it known to all that they are in the same pool of presidential eligibility as their native-born siblings and brethren. The Act was about both nationality and eligibility because both were missing from the Constitution in regard to foreign born Americans.]
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    In my extreme example, Kim Jong Un clearly has the power to declare persons citizens of North Korea and confer to them all of the rights and privileges thereof. In other words, someone that he declared to be a citizen could get a North Korean passport and enter the country (subjecting themselves to North Korean jurisdiction). North Korea, like every other sovereign nation, gets to determine who they will treat as citizens and, for anyone under North Korean jurisdiction, this would be indistinguishable from “real” Korean citizenship.

    [NO NORTH KOREAN LEADER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE THAT HIS NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS ARE ALIENS, -STATELESS PERSONS, AND NOT NORTH KOREANS. IF ONE ATTEMPTED SUCH A THING, HE WOULD FIND HIMSELF IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL. AS FOR GRANTING CITIZENSHIP FOR OUTSIDERS, HE CANNOT DECLARE THEM TO BE NATURAL BORN NORTH KOREANS OR HE’D BE UNDER WATCH FOR FURTHER SIGNS OF INSANITY. ]

    Regarding expatriation, if the US refused to recognize the right of any nation to disallow expatriation and this is the foundation on which the Revolution was based (your words), then why was the Expatriation Act of 1868 passed to recognize the right to renounce citizenship?

    [BECAUSE BONE-HEADED ANGLOPHILES IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN GOVERNMENT HAD BEEN SUFFUSED WITH TOO MUCH HISTORY OF BRITISH LAW AND HAD BEGUN TO THINK LIKE SYCOPHANTS OF THE CROWN. THE LAW OF 1868 (WITH WHICH I’M NOT FAMILIAR) WAS PASSED FOR THE SAME REASON AS WHAT I STATED REGARDING THE PURPOSE OF THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790 IN REGARD TO PROTECTING SOMETHING THAT ALREADY WAS BUT WAS GOING UNRECOGNIZED BY SOME UNFAMILIAR WITH THE FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES OF THE NATION.]

    The truth is that the US didn’t take the position you suggest with regards to its own citizens until over half a century after the founding, so your assertion that this alleviates the problem with Mr. Agnew’s Greek citizenship is dependent on Greece recognizing the right of its citizens to expatriate—which they don’t.

    [THE TRUTH IS THAT THE US DID TAKE THE POSITION I SUGGEST AND FOR THAT REASON THE LAW WAS PASSED TO MAKE AN UNWRITTEN LAW INTO EXPRESSED LAW & POLICY FOR BONEHEADS WHO WERE CONFUSED AND THINKING IN AN UN-AMERICAN MANNER.
    AS FOR GREECE AND ITS POSITION ON EXPATRIATION, IT’S IRRELEVANT. THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES IS ABSOLUTE, UNYIELDING, EVERLASTING AND SUPREME. NO MAN IS THE PROPERTY OF ANY MONARCH, DICTATOR, OR GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY NOT SO FOR LIFE. THAT IS ONE REASON WHY POLITICAL ASYLUM EXISTS. THAT IS WHY WE RISKED ALL A SECOND TIME IN THE WAR OF 1812 WHEN THE BRITISH HAD HUNDREDS OF WARSHIPS AND WE HAD THREE. IT’S THE BEDROCK OF OUR NATION. AMERICANS ARE FREE. KINGS AND GOVERNMENTS DO NOT OWN US.]
    ~ ~ ~ ~

    While women didn’t have the same rights as men at our founding, the SCOTUS found Virginia Minor to be a natural born citizen and, in any case, what is important is what the laws of the time (and future laws which were applied retroactively) said regarding Dr. Dunham, not what the laws were in the late 19th century. But you really miss my point completely on this one: why, in your scenario, does a woman transmit citizenship to a child born outside of the country but not to a child born inside of the country?

    [FIRST, YOU HAVE TO FRAME THE QUESTION COMPREHENSIVELY. “A WOMEN” IS NOT A WOMEN IN THE OVERSEAS INSTANCE BECAUSE SHE IS A MARRIED WOMAN, MARRIED TO A FOREIGNER, NOT AN AMERICAN, -OR NOT MARRIED AT ALL.
    IF SHE IS MARRIED TO AN AMERICAN, THEN THE CHILD IS ALSO AN AMERICAN AUTOMATICALLY. BUT THERE IS NO NATURAL AND AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP IF A FOREIGN NATIONAL IS IN THE CENTER OF THE PICTURE. HENCE THE NEED FOR POSITIVE LAW TO PROVIDE HER CHILDREN WITH HER VALUABLE U.S. CITIZENSHIP.

    AN AMERICAN WOMAN DOES TRANSMIT CITIZENSHIP TO HER CHILDREN IN THE U.S. IF SHE IS AN UNMARRIED AMERICAN SINCE SHE IS THEREBY HEAD OF HER FAMILY. IF SHE IS MARRIED TO A FOREIGNER, THEN SHE DOESN’T BECAUSE SHE IS NOT THE HEAD, -HE IS. IF HE IS AN IMMIGRANT THEN THEIR CHILDREN ARE UNITED STATES CITIZENS BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT, BUT ARE NOT BORN AS NATURAL CITIZENS AND ARE THUS INELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT.]

    I say that there was no need for Congress to extend statutory citizenship to persons born in the US because they already had natural born citizenship by the democratic principle of jus soli, but it would seem to be a serious oversight by the legislature if you are correct.

    [JUS SOLI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOCRACY SINCE IT IS A VESTIGE OF THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS, -THE DOCTRINE DEFENDING HIS RIGHT TO BE LORD OF ALL BORN WITHIN HIS LAND. “they already had natural born citizenship” YOU HAVE A MENTAL TICK WHICH DEMANDS THAT YOU TRANSMOGRIFY ALL CITIZENSHIP INTO NATURAL CITIZENSHIP WHEN ONLY THE WORD “CITIZENSHIP” APPLIES.

    NOTHING IN ALL OF AMERICAN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE HAS ANY CONCERN WHATSOEVER WITH NATURAL CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH EXCEPT FOR THE CONSTITUTION; ARTICLE II, SECTION I, AND AN ACT OF 1813 WHICH REQUIRED THAT ALL U.S. SHIPS BE MANNED BY OFFICERS WHO WERE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS, AND TWO THIRDS OF THE CREW AS WELL.]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: