Of Presidents, Hybrids & “Terms of Art” Fantasies

        ~or how Presidential Eligibility has been warped by hybrid concepts

There’s a war coming.  It’s been ongoing now for five years but only in the form of skirmishes, like a smoldering fire that has not yet ignited.  But it will in the future if the latest “young Turks” in the Republican Party become leading contenders for the office of President.

When that finally happens, and it may be sooner rather than later, the meaning of the Constitution’s requirement that the President be “No one except a natural born citizen” will eventually have to become the center of attention because it is not a settled issue by any means.  Nearly everyone who expresses an opinion is doing just that, -expressing an opinion and not stating a fact, nor explaining their opinion based on facts or history or logic or nature.

There are three views on the matter.  One is the obviously contrived view of the supporters of Obama’s supposed constitutional legitimacy.  Their fantasy is that one can and must bastardize the meaning of “natural” by insisting that it actually means “native”, -as in “native-born citizen”.  The mountain-size error in that view is that not all native-born citizens are natural born citizens since some are not born of Americans but of aliens.  Those two groups have nothing in common and aliens may even be anti-American, -or raised to be pro foreign monarch, nation, and government (or religion), or worse, raised in their foreign father’s homeland as well, and imbued with his political, national, and/ or religious views and loyalties.

But the opponents of the fantasy that “native-soil birth = true natives and natural citizens” have a fantasy of their own.  They both have two major things in common without even realizing it:

1. Both embrace the fantasy that “a natural born citizen” does not mean what the words mean but instead is solely defined “legally” as a “term of art” in the political realm.

2.  Both embrace something that does not exist in nature except as a very rare anomaly, and that is a compound entity from two different sources, -namely; a hybrid nature.

Animals and humans mate with and reproduce with their own kind.  Hybrids result when living things from two different sources reproduce, whether it be hybrid fruit (the man-made nectarine) or hybrid animals (mules, lyers, and tigons, -or the cross-breed off-spring of Grizzly bears and wayward Polar bears)  But such results are never the natural pattern of nature because disparate life-forms do not make natural off-spring like themselves.  When you cross species (if possible) or breeds, you get something different, a combination of the parents’ different traits which is the definition of a hybrid.  In the Science Fiction world, Mr. Spock is a hybrid.  Neither true Earthling nor true Vulcan.  Not a natural specimen of either world.

The Obama defending adherents to the “native-born = natural born” dogma hold to the fantasy that the Presidency was intended (by our very cautious and concerned founders and framers of the Constitution) to be wide-open to the sons of our enemies as long has their wives managed to give birth within U.S. borders, delivering a child who would grow up abroad to be loyal to his King and nation while being free to emigrate to America at 21 years of age cloaked in the falsehood that he’s a natural American, and then run for and win the presidency at age 35 following 14 years of residency.  This is what their dogma asserts is something forefathers either wanted or were too stupid to have anticipated being possible.  Well, they are wrong on both counts.

Question: How is that convoluted view related to hybrids?  Answer: By parentage.  Native-birth citizenship never comes with native-birth being the only determinant of one’s nationality because when it is relied on it is because natural national membership can’t be relied on since the father, -or mother, is an alien.  The consequence of having a parent who is an alien is that their child is a hybrid child of two different nations via jus sanguinis –“by right of blood”, (-natural membership via parentage).

Such children are not natural citizens of either nation because they are not solely born of either nation but of both.  They are dual citizens; i.e., hybrids with two different sources of nationality (a mother from one country and a father from another).

Their circumstance is different from those with both parents being of another nation but having emigrated to the United States.  They are hybrids also but not by different parental nationalities but by different means of obtaining citizenship; -both jus soli (native birth, -right of soil, 14th Amendment) and jus sanguinis as well.  That makes them also dual citizens.

So whichever the situation was when one was born, the result is a hybrid form of nationality.  Such a form of nationality (dual nationality) is not natural in the political realm because it is via a combination of separate national origins or a combination of separate principles; one being a natural principle while the other is a man-made artificial principle rooted in the unnatural existence of national borders.

Birth is a 100% natural event while borders and nations and sovereignty are 100% unnatural things since they are not of nature but of man and his dominance over members of his natural group or other groups (be they slaves, serfs, servants, subjects or citizens).

Some borders can be natural things when great rivers and oceans are involved, -and mountain ranges as well, but it takes humans to designate them as boundaries, -with the exception of oceans or great lakes.  But most boundaries are abstract lines artificially imposed resulting from conquest, claim, or treaty.  So the question must be asked: What does natural membership by birth have to do with legal membership by law based on artificial borders?  The answer is that although they have nothing in common, they both can result in national membership.

That makes perfect sense and is the necessary means to judge which national group or groups one belongs to.  But what makes no sense is that which both Obama supporters and Obama opposers resort to.  They both claim that the words “natural” “born” and “citizens”, when used in combination, do not mean what the words actually mean but instead mean what they claim that they mean.

They impose their own preferred and embrace definition of the combined meaning by claiming that the words together constitute a “legal term of art”, and they attach their own definition of what that “term of art” means.

The problem is that they both successful refute the logic of each other’s position, and yet both refuse to acknowledge the truth of the refutation that debunks their dogma.

Their beliefs are like a sacred catechism to them which they hold onto like those who held to firm beliefs regarding the origin of the universe.  One camp was “certain” that God created the universe and it has remained pretty much unchanged since then (the steady-state universe)  While their opponents believed that the universe is endlessly and infinitely expanding and not steady in any way (on a macro time-scale).

It turned out that both were wrong and both were right.  The universe had a beginning and is infinitely expanding from that explosive beginning, but before that was learned, neither side could conceive of how they could possibly be wrong and the opposing side right about anything.  Clearly, certainty is not a determinant of factuality.

The supporters of Obama’s eligibility are not the only ones to cling to a theory that is built on a hybrid nature.  The opposers of his presidential eligibility also cling to a theory that is entirely built on a hybrid notion.  It is a notion that exists nowhere else on Earth except in their imaginations.  It is the notion that nationality is dependent on two opposite means of national membership being necessarily combined in every citizen who is not strictly a citizen by law.  That means that about 97% of American citizens must meet the unrelated criteria of both law and nature; -not one or the other.  That means that their American citizenship is not natural citizenship but instead is an amalgam of the two unrelated means of citizenship; both jus soli and jus sanguinis.  Thus it is natural citizenship combined with legal citizenship, -as a hybrid concept which requires both.

They go to great and elaborate lengths to support that Frankenstein monstrosity, relying on several huge errors that they gloss over and ignore as if they don’t exist.  That is an unacceptable situation because, as I said, a war is coming thanks to the source of citizenship for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others, and it is imperative that those who support the Constitution do so correctly and knowledgeably and with a united front.

That can’t happen as long as their error is allowed to stand because it flies in the face of fact and logic, -of nature and reason.  But they refuse to consider the possibility that their views contain any errors, and so it is beholden on us who can see them clearly, and realize how huge they are, to point them out.  And so that is what we must do or else the truth will never be unburied and stand and be recognized by all.  So let’s do it; let’s list the errors so they can be seen in stark contrast to the truth, to common sense, to history, and to the supremacy of the rules of language and the meaning of words.

Error # 1.  Pervert the meaning of words.  That can be done overtly or covertly, either with government authority or without it; either with seemingly logical reasons or without any logic at all (think Orwell’s “1984”).  The defenders of Obama take the distortion of logic that the British government of past Kings imposed when it moved from saying that alien-born children of foreign immigrants are equal to natural born sons of England to saying that they are not only like them but they are them as well.  They thereby ceased asserting that they had the same rights as natural born subjects of the King to saying that they are natural born subjects also since they were born subject to a father who was subject to the King –even though he was a subject (for life possibly) of another King who ruled his former home.  Thus the meaning of “natural subject” was bastardized by switching the emphasis from “natural” to “subject”.

When “natural” is focused on, it is clear that only children of Englishmen would be the King’s natural subjects; -not children of aliens, but when “subject” is focused on, the King could claim that anyone who was subject to him was his subject (natives and foreigners alike) and therefore any child born to such a subject was naturally subject to the King also.

With that shift in the focus, a shift was also possible in the meaning of what “natural” refers to.  It should refer to nature and a natural connection (through parentage) to the authority of the leader of one’s nation, -instead of referring to that which is “reasonable”, even though not natural.

Of course it is reasonable that children of immigrants are born as subjects of the King, but that which is reasonable is different from that which is natural.  But once the language was bastardized with the backing of governmental authority, then the falsehood was forced on public consciousness that merely being born within the King’s domain somehow made one a natural subject.  It didn’t have to make sense since it came close enough and with government authority behind it.

That is the story of how “a natural born subject” was bastardized and then adopted in the thinking of those ignorant of the principles involved (all while  fully aware of the authority of the Crown to bend the rules of language in order to change the focus of the words).

How did that impact America and the Obama eligibility issue?  It came into play when the Supreme Court majority in the case of Wong Kim Ark (1898) choose to lie about the American history and relevance of English common law on American nationality.  By promulgating the falsehood that it was controlling both before and after the Revolution and the adoption of the Constitution, they could claim that the 14th Amendment did not mean what it meant when it was written and ratified but instead meant what the words says, with their choice of what they meant being imposed by their 6-2 vote.

They choose that its words: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside.” meant that such children shall not be viewed as they had been viewed by the federal government from the beginning, including after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, as aliens just like their father because since the United States was supposedly under the supremacy of English law, -and it recognized such children as subjects, therefore the United States had no choice in the matter and must similarly recognize the children of aliens as being American citizens (from birth).

Their ruling was not a bad thing socially, but was a bad thing constitutionally since it was unsupported by fact or history or American legal precedence, and was actually in violation of them.

How did that decision regarding children of immigrants impact assumptions as to Obama’s eligibility?  It didn’t directly, but did so through a much greater bastardization of that ruling in two gigantic leaps.  The first was made by the U.S. Attorney General in 1898 when he decided the legal  meaning of the Supreme Court’s opinion.  He “ruled” that their holding did not cover what it actually covered (children of immigrants) but covered all souls born on American property except children of Ambassadors.  The extent of that new policy was ridiculous on its face because it meant that if a woman from Cuba was flying to China but during a re-fueling stop-over in Hawaii, gave birth, her child, who might never step foot in America, would be an American citizen.  One can’t help but ask; “On what logical basis would her Cuban child be an American?”

But the perversion didn’t stop there.  It took another giant leap forward via the assertion that anyone who is a citizen of the United States via any means other than the naturalization process, is not only a born citizen thanks to the 14th Amendment, but is also a natural born citizen and eligible to be President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the United States military and nuclear forces.

Question:  How does one go from being merely a 14th Amendment “born citizen” via automatic legal naturalization at birth to being a “natural” born citizen as though born of American parents?  Answer:  Pure fantasy and imagination.

There’s a wide gulf between the two, but they leap it by faith and the dogmatic assertion that since the English accepted the bastardization of the word “natural” then therefore so must the American public also.

They legitimize that leap by the same claim as the opposers of Obama’s eligibility; namely, by labeling the common English words “natural born citizen” as a “term of art” which is “defined” not by the English language, nor by nature’s law of the “right of blood” combined with human law and “right of soil” (as claim the opposers of Obama’s eligibility), but by the “logic” that the old English common law “definition” controls the meaning of those three words.

Determine your preferred meaning for the “definition” of the “term of art” and you can use it to support or discredit Obama’s eligibility. But what if there is no term of art?  What if that is all fantasy in the American realm, and even abandoned in the British realm?  Then what is left on which to define the meaning of those three words?  Answer:  The English Language, and the meaning of individual words, which together mean:  Natural born citizens are those born of American parents and not foreigners.

If you stand in the middle, instead of at the two extremes, you realize that they are both relying on a perversion of language to support their views.

The supporters of Obama pervert those three words by ignoring the meaning of the word “natural”, while their opponents do a similar thing by perverting the meaning of the word “born”, -distorting it into a reference to a human-designated geographic location instead of its actual meaning which refers to the natural event of a baby exiting the womb as the off-spring of its parents’ nature (and, when combined with “citizen”, inheritor of their nationality).

Pick your perversion.  Base your choice on whether or not you prefer one of the two “term of art” “definitions” or the other.  Either way, you’ll be wrong.  The truth, the reality, is in the logical middle where words mean what they mean, -and not what someone wants them to mean.  Let’s look at what those three words mean in the “term of art” definition of the Obama opposition which we can call:

 The Soil & Blood, Life & Law Fantasy Doctrine

 1.  Any words that can be categorized as “a term of art” when taken together can be assigned any meaning that can be justified by any manner of logic, whether errant or inerrant.  Justifying errant logic and its conclusions depends simply on the use of more errant logic, -logic that, even when flawless, is the fruit of a tree with a fundamental flaw of falsehood.

2.  Since terms of art require definitions, one must be found and legitimized even if no term of art exists in relationship to a word or a set of words.  If in reality no term of art exists, then it follows that any definition of it cannot be anything other than a fabricated fantasy.

3.  Require no proof that the words in question are in fact a term of art.

4.  All descriptions are by nature comprehensive definitions.  Although  definitions of terms of art cannot be based merely on incomplete descriptions, descriptions must be labeled unrelentingly as definitions if they are to be sold as terms of art.

5.  When a term of art definition is derived from a foreign language which has been mistranslated, that fact must be glossed over, ignored, subjugated to the supremacy of the assumed definition of the term of art instead of made subject to the laws of language (which do not allow such perversion).

6.  If the mistranslated language includes the term of art relied on for a theory, then it is perfectly acceptable to pretend and assert that the mistranslated words are what is being “defined” by the statement describing something else, because doing so supports that theory and its claim that not only does a term of art exist, but so does a definition of it, when in fact neither exists because the language is mistranslated and even if not, it doesn’t define anything by being a mere description.

If one writes: “Children born in Israel of Jewish parents are natural born Jews.”  That statement, while true, is not a definition of Jews because not all Jews are born in Israel.

If one writes: “Natives of Israel are those born in Israel of Israeli citizens.” it is also true until you mistranslate “Natives of Israel” as “Natural born Jewish citizens” then it becomes nonsense because some citizens of Israel are not Jewish and some Israeli citizens are not born in Israel.  That being so, how can one then define that mistranslation as meaning that all Jews or all Isralis are born in Israel and all others are non-Jews or are aliens and not natives or citizens of Israel?

Such logic has taken a detour to fantasyland, so grounding an entire doctrine on it can only produce a false doctrine.  And that is what folks such as attorney Mario Apuzzo have done with the mistranslation and mischaracterization of the writings of Emmerich de Vattel in his massive tome; The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758).  He wrote that the natives are those born in their parents’ country.  In the original French he used two words: “Les naturels ou les indigenes” meaning “the natural inhabitants, or indigenous population, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”

The absurd error of the Vattelians is in claiming that “Les naturels” is correctly translated as “Natural born citizens” and, even worse, claiming that the observation or description of Vattel was in regard to those English language words and thus constitutes an iron-clad “definition” of them when in fact he was only describing who the natives are, -and not who natural citizens are.

Are all Jews natives of Israel?  Does native-birth in Israel define who all Jews are?  Does native-birth on the reservation define who all American Indians are?  Does native-birth within U.S. borders define who all Americans are?  Or is it naturally all about the parents and who they are?

7.  In the Vattelian Catechism, it is both that are necessary.  To be a natural member of the American family you must not only be born of Americans but be born in America otherwise you are a foreigner in need of naturalization by the supposed authority of Congress.

That means that if you are the son of a President who was the son of a President, both of whom were awarded the Medal of Honor for bravery in combat, and who had ancestors who came to America on the Mayflower, you nevertheless are not a natural citizen of your own country, the United States, and a natural member of the American family if your mother could not make it all the way across the border before you exited her womb.

You would instead be an alien, -and, in order to be seen as being an American, would need Congressional permission via a naturalization statute.

In addition, you are in the same general category as all foreigners (non-U.S. citizens).  You can never be President because your citizenship is not “natural” but is statutory.  So being born of Americans means nothing.  Natural citizenship does not exist even though it is something mentioned in the laws and writings of all nations.  In the Vattelians dogma, natural citizenship is not enough to be a “natural born citizen” because you either fit their “definition” or else you are neither a natural born citizen nor eligible to serve as President.

They never say that it is not enough to be a natural citizen because they have to refuse to acknowledge that such a thing as natural membership exists.  In their fantasy, the only natural citizens of the United States are  Americans born in America -in conformity with their hybrid definition.  Soil & blood.

They get it right by recognizing that not all citizens from birth are natural born citizens since some are born of foreigners.  They get it wrong by not recognizing that all American children are natural members of the American family, and where they leave the womb is irrelevant to what parents, tribe, state or nation that they naturally belong to.

But their error doesn’t end there.  They further pervert logic by claiming that the Supreme Court in the case of Minor v Happersett “relied on”, “supported”, and adopted the falsely concocted “definition” of “natural born citizen” based on Vattel’s description of natives.  Thus, they feel doubly confident because they can claim Vattel as their authoritative source along with the Supreme Court which noted his description in explanations of their thinking in arriving at their official holding or opinion of the court in various cases.  Like Vattel, none of them treated his observation as a “definition” which would then be “binding precedent” regarding the meaning of a “term of art” that’s not even found in Vattel’s writing, nor therefore binding on the nation and the election of Presidents.

7.  They have one more hurdle to leap and that is the language used by the first Congress of the United States (-one comprised of many founding fathers and framers of the Constitution) when they wrote the first naturalization “uniform rule” which the Constitution empowered them to do in order to make uniform the differences between the naturalization statutes of the individual sovereign States.  That was so that the waiting period before applying for naturalization would not be all over the map, and the character requirements would also be uniform nationwide.

What did they write that debunks the Vattelian doctrine?  They wrote that the children of Americans born abroad were to be recognized not merely as “citizens of the United States” as were naturalized foreigners and their children, but as “natural born citizens”.  That language was a shout in the ear  to any America official, State or Federal, that would dare to view the children of Americans as being dependent on the rejected British system of jus soli subjection to the Crown and the British government, and who might consequently view non-native-born Americans as aliens, and therefore ineligible to serve as President.

They were attempting in that language to raise a bulwark against any future encroachments against the rights of such Americans because the language used provided them that which the Constitution lacked since they and the subject of their eligibility were so invisible in the minds of the framers at the time that they were totally over-looked.

But they were not over-looked after the Constitution was written because American Ambassadors, like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, would have noticed that short-coming in relationship to their sons born abroad during their many years of service.  They would have written to someone of significant importance about the first Congress correcting the over-sight, and no doubt such a letter exists in some dusty archive somewhere.

But the language of that first Congress was not understood by the next Congress a half decade later, so it altered it to make it uniform to that used for foreigners and their children upon naturalization, and thus stated that such Americanized foreigners and foreign-born Americans were both “citizens of the United States” (and therefore not aliens).  The protection offered by the first Congress regarding presidential eligibility thus vanished without anyone even realizing it was gone or why it was there to begin with.  Out of sight, out of mind.

But the Vattelians have to put a different spin on the alteration of the original language passed by the founding Congress by claiming in effect that they didn’t know what the heck they were doing, had no authority to do it, and thus it was rightful and proper to undo it by “correcting” the “error”.

The falsity of their view is found in natural law, but they must of necessity ignore it completely, -like it doesn’t exist.  In other words; children are not the same at their parents.  Parents pass nothing to their children in the way of status, social standing, membership in their country, nor citizenship in their nation.  It is all dependent on the policy of the government and the laws of the Congress, -a body which the natural citizens of America created of their own free will and wisdom.  But now the creation rules the creator!  If not, the whole hybrid theory crumbles at the feet of the organic and primal supremacy of natural law and natural membership.

The Vattelians hold that the later Congress was the wise one and “knew” that its predecessors made a serious mistake which they then in turn corrected by eliminating the specific presidency protection language, substituting in its place generic language that covers all citizens.

They rely on that change to declare that no American born over the border is eligible to be President, -and that Congress agrees as evident by their “stripping” the natural citizen status from Americans not born within U.S. borders.

They refuse to acknowledge that natural citizenship cannot be stripped from natural citizens any more than race can be stripped, or the stripes of a tiger can be eliminated by some law.  If citizenship is natural then that means that you are by nature a citizen of your parents’ nation, -organically, via political inheritance.

If you require the permission of law then you are not a natural citizen but are a legal citizen and consequently not constitutionally qualified to be President.  Two different realms and two different sources of citizenship.  One natural, the other man-made.

The Vattelians cannot accept the natural source because it would destroy the need for their term of art definition and their explanation for the naturalization language in 1790 which unmistakably labels all children born of Americans as being natural born citizens.  Without those two support pillars holding up their dogma, it collapses.

And it should because it is based on false premises, just like that of their opponents.  Neither side gets it right because they pervert language and logic and reject Life as the decisive factor in determining to whom and to what one naturally belongs.

Without the principle of natural membership, one not only does not belong to their own nation if not born within its artificial man-made borders, but one does not even belong to their own family and parents unless born under their roof.  How much sense does that make?   That’s a rhetorical question.

 

  by Adrien Nash  Oct 2013

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”.

11 Responses to Of Presidents, Hybrids & “Terms of Art” Fantasies

  1. arnash says:

    The simplest and most revealing fact that reveals the truth of the matter is seen in the sub-title of section 212 of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
    If anyone with an honest mind looks at that sub-title, the truth will be evident to them. It reads: Des Citoyens et Naturels
    Translation: Of Citizens and Natives.
    “Naturels” does not translate as “natural born citizens” but as natives.

    Were that not the truth then the title would be: Of Citizens and Natural Born Citizens.
    Such a translation is laughable and absurd. That is not the title because that is not the correct translation.
    Vattel’s use of “Les naturels” as a noun can only imply the natural something-or-other. The implication is “inhabitants”, as in “the natural inhabitants” . That alternatively translates as “the natives”.
    The word “indigenes” is not correctly translated as “natives” as claimed but as “the indigenous (population)”. Hence the claim that the French translates as “The natural born citizens, or natives” from “Les naturels ou les indigenes” crumbles.

    “Citizen” is not connected linguistically to either of those two words because they relate to a country, -not a Nation. “Citizen” only relates to nations since it is a legal concept while the others are natural concepts related to natural membership in a common people.

    It seems self-evident that the French used adjectives as nouns by dropping the implied nouns that they were naturally associated with in the common vernacular.

    Neither of those two words have anything to do with citizenship.
    The French contains no use of the words “born” and “citizen” together as adjective and noun, i.e., “born citizen” nor of the words “natural” & “born” & “citizen” together.

    Vattel wrote about the natural members of countries and natural citizens of nations, but he had no connection to any use of the words “natural born citizen” which John Jay used in writing a warning to George Washington.
    Those words were not only not defined by Vattel but were never even used by him.

    To understand them does not involve Vattel but involves nothing more complex than the English language. No “authority” defines what those words mean because they mean what they mean as common words and nothing more. They never had and still do not have a “term of art” meaning. Their meaning is not a transmutation of the bastardized “natural born subject” as the obots assert, nor a combination of the two completely separate basis of nationality; soil and blood, as the Apuzzians assert.

    The obots are wrong and the Apuzzians are wrong because they attach a meaning that perverts the meaning of the words themselves.

    Any attempt to change their meaning is a perversion of their meaning and cannot be supported by anything but presumptuous imagination.

    ~Natural born criminal~ Is that a term of art? No. “Criminal”, like citizen, is from the legal realm. Natural & born are ordinary adjectives. This is not legal rocket science.

    And what exactly does it have to do with the nature of the non-citizenship of the usurper in the White House? Absolutely nothing. Yet it is dogmatically embraced and preached as if it does, when in fact it is nothing but an irrelevant, erroneous article of faith, of doctrine, of presumption backed by no facts but instead by distorted logic only.

    Mario used the word “probably” in defending the fantasy of his faith. It is the perfect word for what he promotes because it is build of nothing but “probables”.

  2. arnash says:

    from a Natural Born Citizen essay by Charles Kirchner:

    “…requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or CLAIMS ON THEIR ALLEGIANCE at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or *claim of allegiance* on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with *unity of citizenship* and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

    Where, in any writing in history up to the writing of the Constitution, is this concept to be found: “claim of allegiance on them at birth” in relationship to top executive political or military office?

    NEWS FLASH! It is non-existent! It was concocted to defend the dogma that Americans are Foreigners unless the few and irrelevant minutes of their exit from the womb occurred within U.S. borders.
    That is heresy and treason against Natural Law. Vattel would utterly condemn it on principle alone.

    How unacceptable is the Truth to those who embrace the faith and dogma that links soil to blood? Just try to find a link to my website on Kirchner’s. He has everyone else linked but my site is MIA even though mine has more original content than all of them combined.

    That is because we both can’t be right and he isn’t willing to even entertain the suggestion that his dogma might be what is incorrect because it sounds so wonderfully secure as a policy (even though I’ve shown just how horrible it is in the real world, and in the view of our founders).

    “unity of citizenship” -where exactly can one find this concept in the writings of any of the founders and framers as related to citizenship via the natural inheritance from one’s father when he is an American?
    Nowhere! Jus soli citizenship in a foreign nation (like Canada) is irrelevant to the principle of natural citizenship.
    It is always nothing more than a gift with no strings attached.
    Such a nation has no claim on such a child, and would never think it had any right to his military service since he belongs to the nation of his father.

    Dual *allegiance* is only produced by parents with different nationalities, not due to place of birth.
    Place of birth has no connection to allegiance. It only comes into play if one is born in AND raised in the foreign nation of his foreign mother. Only then does he have an obligation to defend his foreign homeland via military service.
    But if he is raised in America, that foreign nation has no claim on him whatsoever even though by happenstance he was born there.
    This is Law of Nations 101 folks. AN

  3. arnash says:

    Understand this: no nation on Earth has any claim on any American who was born of Americans.

    Even if one thought it did, it would be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the founding fathers and the U.S. government. Americans who are born of Americans are Americans also, naturally, meaning not by operation of any law other than the law of natural membership. No exceptions. They are natural citizens by birth.
    ~~~~
    On Kirchner’s blog is found this:

    title; Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born”
    “This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This accepted translation of ‘naturel’ in 1781, predates John Jay’s 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.”

    Clear as a bell? Or misconstrued?

    What the original French proves is the opposite of what Kerchner reads into it.
    Nowhere in the French is the word “born” to be found. That is because it is unnecessary and is not modified by the adjective “natural” but instead modifies the noun “citizen”. All that is seen is what I’ve preached til the cows come home regarding natural membership: “subjets naturels”, meaning “natural subjects”, -analogous to natural citizen.

    The words “natural born citizen” are not present nor implied by “natural subject”. That is proof that no such term of art as “natural born citizen” existed. There were natural subjects and subjects who were not natural subjects. No term of art exists in the lengthy Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781.

  4. arnash says:

    Mario Apuzzo goes wrong (and for no good purpose) in marrying soil and blood, -law and life. The two systems can’t be married by any logic when you get the historical facts straight.

    Is a Native American mother’s child an alien to her tribe if not born within the boundaries of tribal territory? Does natural membership (like natural citizenship) not exist?

    The simple fact is that the words that John Jay wrote were not an invoking of a term of art but simple common words which make perfect sense by their common meaning.

    He and Charles Kirchner cling to the dogma that they must be defined in a manner other than the meaning of their words and yet there is no precedent for such a belief. Who, before 2008, ever heard of the dogma that combines soil and blood as the authoritative meaning of what a natural citizen is?
    Am I forgetting something or someone because I can’t recall any answer to that question? In fact, I can’t recall the question ever even being asked. So now I’m asking it. Where and when in history did it first came into public literature? Before the rise of Baracus Obamus or only after? I’ll put all of my money on after. ~ A. Nash

  5. arnash says:

    Quote from an Apuzzian:
    “Birth to a US citizen only, i.e. without native birth in the country of the parents’ citizenship, fell short of achieving the imperative of requiring the highest possible allegiance as eligibility for the office of POTUS.”

    You don’t get to make such a baseless and illogical statement and then back it by nothing from the real world. THE REAL WORLD is not where your dogma comes from because in the real world babies have nothing on earth to do with your non-republican concept of “allegiance”.
    Ask yourself this question (and be sure to not stop asking it until it is logically answered):

    How does an event that took mere minutes to occur, (movement from womb to world) is not remembered by any person on earth, imparts nothing to any soul, mind, or heart, somehow become a major factor in how one feels about their nation? America has tens of millions of natural citizens who has no attachment to their nation at all. Just look at any gang or inner city. Where is the “native-birth” induced allegiance?

    Native-birth induces no allegiance, and apparently you are unaware that the only allegiance that concerned the framers was that directed to the Constitution. And THAT has nothing to do with native-birth.
    Where in any oath of office is there any expression of allegiance, protection, or defense of the nation, its soil, its flag, or its government? Such attention in federal oaths of office, including that for military officers, is non-existent, and does not include such allegiance. It never has and never will. America is and was different from its very inception.

    All allegiance is to the Constitution, and the sons of American Ambassadors (and future Presidents serving as such) were, in effect, proclaimed to the nation and the government in the 1790 Act to be in fact natural born citizens of the United States just like their domestically born brothers.

    Please explain how their allegiance to the Constitution was racked with disloyalty. Explain how their devotion was any less firm and unwavering. Explain how they could be loyal to the Constitution and to a foreign King simultaneously. Explain from what source would come loyalty to any foreign King when Americans do not bow to kings nor recognize their legitimate moral authority. Explain how the American Ambassador to any other nation would raise his foreign-born son to have feelings of loyalty to the government or king or nation on whose soil he happened to have exited the womb.

  6. arnash says:

    Mario wrote: “You do present quite a confused landscape of the “natural born Citizen” clause. Unfortunately, your confusion leads to your error in how you interpret the clause.”

    That response is a total cop-out. It completely fails to counter the things that I pointed out, nor even addressed them. That is because to address them would confuse you to your core.
    Your clarity is false clarity resulting from a broad-scale doctrine that is founded on false assumptions. It is impossible to arrive at correct conclusions when the very premises of one’s hypothesis are fictitious.

    You know full well that nothing I have written is confusing in any way. It just minimizes the sphere of authority that you rely on to fabricate the zeitgeist that you have embraced like a religion.

    Your root problem is the total denial of the reality of *natural citizenship* via natural law, -via natural inheritance, by the Right of Blood. NOT the legal right-of-soil PLUS the natural Right of Blood.
    You cannot refute it head-on and so instead you simply ignore it and endlessly belabor your invented theory. But your theory does not exist anywhere in history.

    No nation has ever embraced a doctrine that combined natural law with human law. It is either one or the other. There is no historical precedent for combining both soil and blood as the basis of individual citizenship.
    You claim that the Romans adhered to it but that is not true. They adhered to natural citizenship via descent, although I won’t claim that they didn’t vacillate through the centuries in the same way that the British did. But they never combined both as a necessity in regard to individuals.

    What nation can you show ever had statutory law mandating both soil and blood in order for natives to be recognized as natural citizens?
    Natives are not dependent on government nor laws for their natural membership in their country because they are born with it regardless of national boundaries extant when born.
    They constituted 98% of the nation when they wrote the Constitution and they were all natural born citizens of their home colony / nation / State.

  7. arnash says:

    An Apuzzian wrote: “To an individual, their place of birth is important to them. It’s only natural they have to some degree an allegiance to that place.”

    You fail to grasp the proper context of 1787. The place of one’s birth to which one “owed allegiance” was the individual American colony or nation / State in which they were born and raised. What united the soldiers of the Revolutionary War was not national patriotism but national hatred and rejection of tyranny. They were not fighting for a nation other than their own homeland (colony / state).

    “the nation which they are citizens of, if non-citizens to the place of birth, still demands allegiance to their “homeland”, so then the individual has divided allegiance which may give birth to conflict.”

    Why are you wearing your thinking cap backwards? Babies have no allegiance to anything. Adults have no allegiance to anything other than that to which they are attached.

    “Divided allegiance”? Divided by nothing since allegiance that isn’t felt is allegiance that doesn’t exist. How can you mischaracterized what allegiance even is? It’s devotion. Loyalty.

    You claim that nations of native birth place a claim on all souls born on their soil but that is irrelevant and highly questionable as being true or justifiable since it violates the law of nations.

    The children belong to the father and he belongs, along with them, to his own nation. During the Civil War, native-born children of foreigners (immigrants) were in the category of “Aliens”, and couldn’t be drafted, and that was the reciprocal attitude of foreign nations toward foreign-born Americans.

  8. arnash says:

    Mario Apuzzo’s delusion has its roots in the mistranslation of these words:
    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    It’s accurate except for the unjustified insertion of the completely unrelated term “natural born citizens”.

    The correct translation is: “The natives (natural inhabitants), or indigenous population…”

    Without “natural born citizen” improperly inserted where it does not belong, your whole dogma evaporates since it is established entirely on that one mistranslation.

    What if it had been translated as: “indigenous peoples, or population” or “indigenous citizens” where would your orthodoxy be then?

    Without any reference to the mistranslation of Vattel, on what natural law logic does the Blood & Soil doctrine stand?

    Answer: NONE. The Apuzzian doctrine is not founded on Natural Law but on a Frankenstein monster that stitches together the Natural Law of blood and the dirt-based doctrine of the supremacy of man-made borders.

    Like I said, there is no nation that has ever combined the two in regard to its individual citizens until Donofrio and/ or Apuzzo came up with this invented idea.

    No one can name onel. No such nation exists nor ever has existed. He’s fabricated or embraced a fiction of law that is pure fiction and not of law at all.

  9. arnash says:

    Here’s the simple low-down: a natural American citizen was a child born of an American father and an American mother, whether married or not, or fathered by an American married to a foreign women who was automatically naturalized by marrying him. That’s all.

    That’s the sum total of natural law regarding citizenship because the wife and children were a reflection of the head of the family, having one nationality; his. It was all based on patrilineal descent. Like father, like son, and only sons could be President.
    The nationality of wives and mothers was irrelevant unless the mother was an unmarried foreign woman or the American widow of a foreign husband.

    quote:
    “since ‘natural’ is a reference to ‘birth’ and not to naturalization by ‘oath,’ then obviously birth in 1787 America MUST be by the union of two (2) married persons, NOT just two (2) persons living together.”

    Obviously, if your foundation assumption is wrong, then your conclusion will be wrong also.

    Natural is not in reference to “born” but to citizen. The three words are a combination of “born citizen” and “natural citizen”. There is no combination of natural and born anymore than there is when using a phrase such as “pretty young woman”.

    Does “pretty” refer to “young” as in “pretty young” or does it refer instead to woman, as in “pretty woman”?

    As for the original intent; it was that the President never be someone born of a foreign father because foreigners could not be trusted to not embrace dangerous and rejected notions about the role of subjects in regard to their sovereign government.

    We are still fighting the loyalists and statists to this day. Only now they are democrats and RINOs who don’t believe that the American People are the true sovereigns in America because they think it is the government instead.

    You want to believe that they insisted that Americans were not Americans unless born on sacred American soil and within sacred American borders which meant squat to them regarding citizenship since it was determined first by State citizenship, and then (by extension) was U.S. citizenship obtained.
    I ask you to name one other country in world history that maintained an insistence that all of its natural members fulfill the requirements of both jus soli and jus sanguinis. Don’t bother trying to find one. None exists, and that is because that hybrid concept does not exist as a defining principle of citizenship anywhere or at any time.

  10. arnash says:

    Loyalty does not develop due to no experience, no memory, and no subjective connection. None of those factors are involved in the involuntary event of a baby exiting its mother’s womb at nine months.

    An imagined bond to the soil, people, government, borders, King or Parliament where that impossible-to-recall event occurred means nothing to a baby nor to the adult he goes up to be unless his own nation treats him like crap (as would have been the case of slaves only).

    Where is it written that the President must not only be a natural American citizen but must also be something more (native-born)? NO WHERE.

    The framers could have written: NO person except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible.

    But they didn’t, and the reason that they didn’t was because that was not what they required.
    All they required was that no President be born (and presumably raised) by a foreigner instead of a Freedom-loving American father.

    Ask yourself this question: “Is a child born in America of naturalized parents (who immediately return to their homeland and raise him there as a son of their homeland) no different in outlook than the son of an American Ambassador (like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) who returns to America after his birth and raise him there as a patriotic son of his State & Nation and the U.S. Constitution?”

    Which would you rather have as President? The answer betrays the position that native-birth is an element of natural citizenship.
    Requiring native-birth assures no allegiance whatsoever. It results only from what is instilled by the significant adults in one’s life.
    And what was foremost on the American list? Was it Patria, Government, or was it the U.S. Constitution? What do the oaths of office focus on? There you will find the answer.

  11. arnash says:

    MichaelN wrote: “The FRAMERS knew that place (of birth) would impact on the child over time, especially with those with parents who were loyal to, and protectors of, that place.
    There is NO WAY the Framers would have excluded a certain measure of loyalty to place of birth,…”

    A. Nash replies:

    “Impact”? Just how would that happen if one has no memory nor experience of a foreign land where they happened to have entered the world to parents who were Americans? Please explain the attachment that would have “impacted” a son of Thomas Jefferson, born in Paris while he served as the American Minister to France?

    “loyal to, and protectors of, that place.” How would such a son be any different from his brothers born in Virginia, all who whom would have been raised in Virginia by their father the President?

    You are holding a fictional perspective. The founders were not nationalists. They were strong believers in Christ and the Kingdom of God, and / or strong believers in Natural Law and the Natural Rights of Man. Neither is tied to soil or borders or governments, but what devotion was tied to them was not of a national nature unless you accurately understand that each State was a sovereign nation in most regards, and retained all authority except the limited powers assigned to Congress.

    The founders and framers were not loyalists to the still non-existent central government nor the cobbled-together union that it would hold together.
    Their support of the union was not a matter of desire but of necessity and self-interest since States needed to get along and stand together on the world stage and not stand separately but in concert as they did under the Declaration of Independence.

    The founders did not write that the President had to possess a strong sense of nationalism for a union that was merely an amalgamation of loose ties in 1787. His perspective is from like the first World War, not the pre-Constitution epoch.
    They did not write that he had to be native-born. They did not write that “a natural born citizen” is a “term of art” which they couldn’t be bothered to define.

    They didn’t write that one born a citizen must be born within the borders of the States or the future federal government. Ditto for a natural citizen.
    Their choice of common words meant merely that the President must be no one who was not a natural citizen by birth instead of a fiction-of-law natural citizen via the doctrine of citizenship equality.
    ~~~
    “Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States…” Lee Resolution June 7, 1776

    “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, …solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States;
    …and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

    Allegiance was to one’s State, to Natural Rights, and/ or to one’s God, and the Constitution joined those core positions after its adoption with the Bill of Rights. The oath of allegiance for naturalization was to the State first and subsequently to the nation of which it was a part, or it may have been firstly to the Constitution. That is my reasonable supposition. You can try to disprove it if your wish but unless you can, there is no logical reason to suppose that it is inaccurate. AN

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: