Understanding Vattel, Citizenship, and Presidential Eligibility
September 3, 2013 1 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 eleven identifiable forms of citizenship in the United States, and only two of them are natural.
Let’s make a list: 11 Ways to be a Citizens of the United States.
1. Children born of citizens in the United States
2. Children born of citizens outside the United States
3. Immigrants naturalized by the naturalization process.
4. Children of legal immigrants (Green Card holders), naturalized at birth by the 14th Amendment
5. Children of illegal immigrants (citizens by policy, but not by the 14th Amendment ),
considered naturalized at birth
6. Children naturalized by their parents’ naturalization though born abroad (derivative citizens)
7. Children born in America to non-immigrant aliens, (- also citizens by policy and not actual law)
8. Foreigners made citizens by Congressional proclamation (Puerto Rico, Guam, Vietnam)
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 only (re)acquired American citizenship after the 1907 Naturalization Act was replaced.
11. Artificial Citizens, -aka Corporations, -yes, corporations are U.S. citizens under Supreme Court rules.
The notion that there are no other types of citizens besides the “natural born citizen” and the naturalized citizens is asinine. Everyone thinks that all citizens except naturalized citizens can be President, but the Constitution mandates something else. They think that it requires that the President be born in America, connecting only domestic birth with eligibility. They could just as easily connect eligibility to parentage since what one is when born is determined by parentage, (-to whom one is born will determine one’s inherited political nature, status, standing, membership, and citizenship).
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 uses 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 what 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 meaning over the centuries, namely; “natural born subject”. That term originally meant a child born into subjection to the King via his inherited relationship to the crown.
If the father owed a debt he could not complete payment on, the debt fell to his sons. If that debt was a debt of obedience, subjection, and allegiance in return for the King’s provided protection, then that debt as well was inherited by his sons upon their birth. They, by their birth to one so bound and bonded to the King, were his natural subjects.
But those born to foreigners who took to living within the Kings dominion, were not under an inherited bond because their fathers were subjects of a foreign monarch, and so they inherited that connection and nationality. They were 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 hiring by the government, and so, in time, it was decided to label all children born in the King’s domain as 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.
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 every respect equal to his natural born subjects in the eyes of the law, -as being equal & 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.
The defenders of Obama’s illegitimate presidency assert that an old English fiction of law was swallowed whole, and bound and limited the thinking of our broadly thinking, independently thinking, wisely thinking, Natural Law thinking, and realistically thinking founding fathers and Constitution framers and then incorporated 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 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?
If you 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 born.
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 born to foreigners, especially those born to wives of mere visitors, or to hostile enemies in occupation of areas of the royal domain, 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.
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 her child was the issue of rape or seduction by an unknown male 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 that he also would be ineligible to serve and lead his country if his mother birthed him beyond U.S. borders.
They incorporate both views together into a theory that does not look to anything but the distorted words of the wise Swiss observer, philosopher and writer; Emmerich de Vattel who penned the lengthy tome: “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-serving generalities 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 in 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 even 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, 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.
Their leading proponent, Mario Apuzzo, Esq., construes all references to it by the U.S. Supreme Court, (which he views as having adopted his miscontruence of Vattel’s remarks, and thereby established what he labels ” American national common law”) as being the basis of the Court’s “correct” definition 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, …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.”
Leo Donofrio, Esq. wrote: “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.” [–meaning that the amendment does not make newly natural-ized citizens of the United States into natural citizens.]
The conceptual error that Vattel (or his translator) made is 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 peoples 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, the other is a legal government formed by them to united them under law.
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.
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 associated, but were hostile to each other.
That nation disintegrated 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. Also like Northern and Southern Sudan.
Being a member of a nation is a political and legal association. But being a member 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 well beyond that of a “Road Warrior”, “Mad Max” state of barbaric existence.
That means “a civil society” would also describe indigenous peoples, native clans & 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 proper terminology is: “natives of the tribe or country” and “citizens of the nation”.
If you mix them them 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 natural rules and order to some degree. 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, and husband-wife relationships.
They are a natural thing, not a legal thing, but all moral government must organize itself to respect the Natural that is positive above the legal, but the legal above the negative natural. Laws, legal constructs, are written to guard against the negative natural, -that which falls into the categories of “evil” and “unjust” and “crime”.
Societies are natural entities 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 power is remove, unnatural societies fracture and split after amicably separating or via bloody civil war and victory of one side 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 perfect 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 natural use of “native” is only in association with “person” or “inhabitant”; as in “native person” or “native inhabitant”.
One can talk about the inhabitants of a country, but one can’t talk about the inhabitants of THE STATE because a STATE is not a geographical entity but a political entity composed of its members, and its government. Like the State or Nation of Kuwait which had to flee the country of Kuwait in order to escape the invading Iraqi Army.
You would never say “native citizen” unless you intentionally wanted to bridge the gulf between the natural and the political. That sometimes is necessary because no other terminology will convey what results from that combination of words. “Natural member”, and “native member” are of a contrary origin to hybrid terms such as “native citizen”, “citizen 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 Vattel’s translated words, -the words “natural born citizen”.
In the French he wrote merely “les naturels ou les indigenes” which was translated to “The natives, or natural born citizens…” to refer to those born in a country to native parents. He wrote they were: “born in a country to parents who are its citizens.” The error is that countries do not have citizens, only nations have citizens.
Countries have natives (“les naturels ou les indigenes” “The naturals or the natives.”) They are the natural members of a civil society, -not citizens.
Citizens are the legal or political members of a nation and their citizenship is based 100% on either the natural indigenous status of a person, or… on positive law to make outsiders into new members.
So to claim that Vattel “defined” “natural born citizen” as being a native born of citizens of a country is an error built upon an error.
Vattel was describing, -not defining, a nation’s inhabitants (native born of citizen parents) while simultaneously describing the natural members of its 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 progress from being the natural members of the country to being the natural citizens of the nation. They, almost without exception, were born and raised within the territory of the country (which eventually becomes defined, -providing the borders of the nation) but a few were birthed outside of its borders.
The short-duration, momentary event of their birth, and its naturally insignificant location, have no impact, conceptually nor philosophically, on one’s political nature, nor to whom and to what a child belongs. 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 it was the location of that fleeting birthing event is the height of foolishness, -illogical and nonsensical.
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, across the continent or across the ocean where its mother gave them birth.
Vattel made it clear that membership in a country, and citizenship in a nation was inherited from one’s father, (and not from the borders surrounding one’s birth-location), 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 thought process, being locked firmly inside the closed thinking of their clearly 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 & 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 a legal system which attempts to define it in legal terms even though it is from the open, borderless system of natural law.
The fallacy is seen in their elucidation of the central Vattelian observation:
” 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 re-worded by either or both of these two possibilities: ” 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 the version 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.”
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. 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 artificial doctrines.
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, and logic. But like the literal Creationists and the Darwinian Evolutionists, neither is capable of grasping that neither system may be correct.
Both may not accurately nor fully 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 can see things from a perspective that both of them lack. You can see the entire forest and not just the trees surrounding you. 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 doesn’t even know it.
What’s worse is that most wouldn’t care much even if they knew, 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. But that wouldn’t stop me from voting to make him the next President, which he will probably 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 may be only continuators 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-budgets.” That’s best-case scenario.
If he or someone like him, -say Sarah Palin, is not the next President, then we should all reserve a bottle of champagne which we will uncork to toast our demise as we sink beneath the waves on the good ship-of-state; USS Titanic.
by Adrien Nash August, 2013 http://obama–nation.com