~What the Supreme Court Doesn’t Know But Should

The Origins of U.S. Citizenship

Maybe in an unforeseeable future the U.S. Supreme Court will accept for adjudication a case requiring establishing the meaning of the phrase  “natural born citizen” as found in the presidential eligibility clause of the U.S. Constitution.

supreme-court

If that ever happens, the outcome may prove to be completely wrong if the following facts are not presented and accepted.  A true and correct presentation should go something like this:

Your honors,

The question before us is “who is a natural born citizen and who is not?”  For answering that question allow me to pose a question to you:

What is the legal basis of your authority to find someone in contempt and violate their constitutional rights by throwing them in jail for an unlimited period of time without trial or conviction of anything?  By what law do judges possess such authority?

Answer: by no law whatsoever.  So then what is the source of such authority if not law?  It is a source more ancient and fundamental than any law ever written because it is a necessary element of the nature of all societies, -even the barbaric, and that element is the need for respect.

No family or society or nation can exist in a state of order without respect.  It’s influence must be present or chaos and anarchy result.

It began with respect for fathers, and alpha males, -extending to respect for leaders of clans and tribes and eventually kings and high priests.  Respect for leadership was and is the glue that holds groups together.  It binds the elements of the foundation to each other.  But there is an even more fundamental element that glues groups together, and that is “blood”.

Blood connection is the largest and most central block in the foundations of all natural groups, -from families, flocks, herds, prides, tribes, -all the way up to nations.  Nations are structures built atop of countries which are their foundation.

Countries pre-date all nations and are more organic than structural and it’s because their composition is essentially the land of a group and the people of the group, including their leadership.

But nations are something else.  They are composed of the country and the government legal structure built atop of it, -which is the floor of the nation.

The government and its laws are not organic or natural.  They are man-made and changeable, but countries only change by war, and great natural cataclysm.

Nations include in their floor of law a means by which outsiders may be allowed to become members of the country and thus be recognized as citizens of the nation.  To become members of a country, outsiders must first be given permission to dwell within it.  Nations give that permission in the form of granting permanent residence.

GreenCardSampleFINAL

With that grant, the outsiders are not compelled to leave the country by a certain date, but instead are allowed to stay indefinitely.

After they have stayed for several years and been law-abiding members of the society, they are allowed to petition to become more than just members of the society and country but also citizens of the nation.

If they fulfill the requirements for citizenship, they then become a part of the floor of the nation via its naturalization law.

Naturalization ceremony

But if they become a citizen of the United States in particular, while they were once perceived as being a plank in the floor of the nation, in fact they became more than that.

Planks can be removed and tossed out, but the foundation stones cannot.  In America new citizens do not become planks in the floor but stones in the foundation.  They cannot be removed and tossed out because they are equal in all regards to the natural members of the country who are the natural citizens of the nation.

They are not equal like fraternal twins are equal, -the same but separate and distinct.  Rather, they are indistinguishable in every way because they are identical in essence.  They are one and the same as the natives of the country by the American doctrine of Citizenship Equality.

By it all citizens are of the same nature.  That nature is not a legal nature but a natural nature.  All natural citizens are organic members via blood connection.  That is what makes them all citizens by nature.

How can foreigners become natural citizens?  By natural-ization.  They are made natural, -or natural-ized; –not citizen-ized.

By our widely unknown fundamental American Natural Rights philosophy, they are not made into a member of a second class of citizens but are adopted into the only class of citizens existing, -which is the natural class.  And then the fact of their adoption is essentially buried and banished from thought and recognition.  They are accepted as new members of the national family as though they were and are such  from-&-by birth.

That view of them is a pretense of egalitarian democracy.  [egalitarian;  e·gal·i·tar·i·an,  adjective:

1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.   ~ “a fairer, more egalitarian society”

Egalitarian democracy embraces, practices and follows a blind-folded view of the nature of all Americans.  By its fiction of law all Americans are not just brothers by name, or by adoption, but by blood.  They are blood brothers and blood citizens.

2767_n

In a civic-political sense they are all identical twins or clones.  Those who were born as foreigners via birth to foreigners have been separated from that past and that fact and have become new natural citizens like their native brethren.

That legal fiction is what protects their equality and equal treatment under the law.  By it there is only one form of citizenship [natural citizenship] and only one form of American, not two.

If there were two, then one of them (the original, native, citizen-born members of the nation) would be seen as having greater natural rights than those made into citizens though having been born of alien outsiders or even born as aliens.

Not all nations embrace our American fiction of law, including at one time the former United States of America.

~     ~     ~     ~

Do you understand what has just been explained to you (excluding the last sentence)?  Is it not fairly simple to comprehend?  Could a child not understand it?  A simple, fair, innocent mind can understand it, but self-important, elite, privileged, top-of-the-pyramid wealthy & powerful alpha-males in government were incapable of understanding it in America for nearly a century of Congressional law-making, executive branch administering, and  judicial branch adjudicating.

They had no idea of the truth that has just been  explained.  They thought that (-like other nations) America was not so egalitarian in it fundamental philosophy and that they had the power and authority to treat naturalized citizens differently, -as though they were merely planks of the floor of national law and not stones of the foundation.   They thought that naturalized citizens were second-class citizens created by law-makers and thus still subject to their whims and preferences.  They thought wrong.

They felt that just as they had the power to give citizenship, they also had the power to take it away.

They failed to grasp the fact that America does not create new naturalized citizens.  It only creates new natural citizens and they are all stones in the foundation of the nation.  They are considered Americans by nature, and not by mere permission.

But eventually they were put in their place by the Supreme Court.  It only took four generations of bastardized laws, regulations, and court opinions before fundamental American values were finally acknowledged and given preeminence over the matter.

2658_n-50

How did that come about?  By striking down the basis of the so-called Bancroft treaties which allowed the governments of treaty nations to strike the citizenship from their naturalized citizens if they returned to their homeland and lived there again for two full years.

220px-George_Bancroft_US_Sec_of_Navy_c._1860 US Ambassador George Bancroft

Other nations had that authority but the high-and-mighty leaders of the United States did not possess that authority because of the American doctrine of CITIZENSHIP EQUALITY.

By it, naturalized citizens were natural citizens, -citizens by blood, by birth, and were not in a second-class category that gave the government the power to treat them differently and discriminate against them.

That discrimination was manifested when a naturalized citizen sued the Unite States government for discrimination when his or her citizenship was revoked for living abroad when no such authority existed for doing the same to those born as Americans.  Only in the face of that discrimination did the doctrine of citizenship equality once again come to light.

As I recall, the over-throw of four generations of U.S. law and policy began with the case of Afroim v Rush in the 1960s.  In it, the court found it was unconstitutionally discriminatory for Congress to revoke the U.S. citizenship of American women who married foreign men and then lived with them in their country.

I’m not sure but I suspect that the court’s members may have viewed the situation is a different light, -in the light of the equal treatment guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

In other words, they looked at it as they look at almost everything, -in a legal light.  I doubt they even got past the legal justification for overturning discrimination and looked at the underlying reason why that ban on discrimination exists, (-the fundamental reason that is not a part of the floor of the nation but is a part of its very foundation).

That foundation is built of Natural Rights and natural members.  The first tenant of Natural Rights governing a nation is and must be based on the belief that all men are created equal, with no superior and inferior classes.

A confusion exists because of conceptual ambiguity surrounding the nature of citizenship and citizenship terms.  The one regarding the nature of American citizenship has been cleared up, but there remains another one which normally would be irrelevant, or, as in dictatorships, non-existent since they do not have an office of a freely elected President who commands all military forces.

In America it has always been non-existent as an issue because no President in U.S. History (until Obama) was someone who ran for office as the son of an alien and thus the subject of a foreign power.

Those who are ignorant of the truth and cling to the faith that Barack Obama is a legitimate President do so on the false basis that all “born citizens” are natural citizens, -embracing the fiction that citizenship-from-birth is all that is required to fit their false definition of what a natural citizen is.  But they are ignorantly playing with ambiguous words.

A perfect analogy is the word “twins“.  When we hear the word we immediately have a concept of what it implies.

r-kate-25 l-emily-25

If we hold fast to that concept then we are holding fast to a delusion because, like “born citizen”, it is also ambiguous since there is more to it than a single simplistic definition.  There are in fact two completely different forms of both twins and born citizens.  What is the difference?  ORIGIN!

Identical twins have the same origin, -one single fertilized egg, but fraternal twins are the result of two fertilized eggs.  They have different origins.

denise_n_helen1-33

It’s the same with born citizens.  One type is born of an American egg, -having American parents, while the other is born of an alien egg, -having one or two foreign parents, and only becomes American by the allowance of American law.

Two Americans who were born of Americans are American identical citizen twins, but one born of aliens is only a fraternal twin in a real-world sense.  But all are considered to be identical citizen twins except in regard to the power of the Commander-in-Chief.

Only in regard to the issue of who is given Chief Command of the American military is the hair split and a distinction drawn between fictional “identical” U.S. citizen twins and actual ones.

Then the ambiguity of “born citizen” must be parsed because the United States Constitution requires that it be parsed since its authors stepped outside of the fundamental legal fiction of equal citizenship to delineate a real-world difference based on ORIGIN.

They went “there”, -outside of the legal system that they were constructing and they had to do so because of the fundamental fiction that was an inherent part of it.  They had to make it clear that the legal fiction did not reach all of the way into the post of ultimate power over all military forces which the President, as Commander-in-Chief, would occupy.

So to make that point unmistakably clear, they had to employ language which would have no other application in American life.  They had to resort to language dealing with blood inheritance, patrilineal descent, hereditary birthright, natural transmission, and unalienable rights and thereby shove egalitarianism aside regarding one single matter for the sake of national security and possibly national survival.

They had to restrict the office to only those who were of the class of Americans who were the citizen equivalent of identical twins and reject all who were only native-born fraternal twins, -or not twins at all (the naturalized, -born as foreigners).  The origin of the citizenship of candidates for President was singled out as either qualifying or disqualifying.  That was not the case for any other office in the nation.  Only for the presidency.

Article II, Section I, U.S. Constitution:

 “NO PERSON (meaning no born citizen) SHALL… BE… ELIGIBLE… to the office of the President, –except…a natural born citizen;”.

The U.S. President must be an American citizen not only from birth but by birth, …by birth to Americans.

by Adrien Nash  Jan. 2014  http://obama–nation.com

0126_n 131_n387_n 1193_n

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”.

5 Responses to ~What the Supreme Court Doesn’t Know But Should

  1. arnash says:

    NaturalBornCitizen wrote:

    The framers clearly required and understood the meaning of Natural Born Citizen. Remember Article 2 also said “shall have attained the age of 35 and been a resident for 14 years”. Why? Because they clearly understood foreign influence.

    George Washington, in fact, was history’s greatest spy master. He and our founding warriors understood the cost of freedom. They chose 35 and 14 for very good reasons. 21 was a common age for a US citizen to have returned home from a foreign education which was highly common since we still had strong family ties in Europe and few universities here of noted stature.

    We still had a ruling class mentality, we still had children of european nobility, and we still had the folly of youthful political exuberance. So, even when natural born sons of nobility went off to Europe to be educated and returned they understood that even they must demonstrate through a 14 year resident period that they had been cleansed of the influence of their period in Europe and of their exposure to the european nobility class they lived with, schooled with, debated with, and were possibly politically influenced by.

    The battle for independence didn’t end with war, and they new it. So that’s why 35 and 14 were chosen; -because the age of maturity was 21 and add 14 years of known military service, (yes we have been a nation of warrior Presidents. [consider the years of military service of Britain’s current royal sons] ) Public service, and business experience were required so the stench of foreign influence could be seen to have been purged with this 14 years of resident public and private experience of even a ‘natural born citizen’.

    Yes, our founders and framers even feared unvetted natural born citizens. Hence they qualified even them with 14 years of vetting.

  2. arnash says:

    from another blog:
    cfkerchner
    Your premise and your use of the word “naturally” is wrong. Ted Cruz and Obama were not naturally born with U.S. Citizenship. You are muddying the water to cloud the facts when you use the word naturally they way you do.

    They only have U.S. Citizenship due to man-made positive law, not natural law and the laws of nations in effect during the founders and framers time when they put that into our Constitution.

    And natural law is universal and eternal. Read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence if you doubt that the founders were looking to Natural Law and the Laws of Nature for guidance. It does not change and is from the laws of nature and nature’s Creator.
    Using the term natural or naturally in a legal sense means you are referring to “natural law”, not statutory or other man-made positive laws or actions. You must look to the laws of nature and Natural Law for any term with the words “natural” or “naturally” in them.

    Also, you must first ask yourself the question … “why did the founders and framers choose the term “natural born Citizen of the United States” as the constitutional requirement as to who can be President and Commander in Chief of our military after the founding generation was gone?”
    They wanted to preclude anyone born with foreign influence on them by and at birth or any foreign allegiance. They wanted a person who had sole allegiance and unity of citizenship at birth to the USA and only the USA.

    Citizens who have to renounce foreign allegiances are not “natural born Citizens of the United States”. Sole allegiance at birth. That was the purpose and goal of putting that term into Article II Section 1. Being simply a basic Citizen at Birth does not in and of itself preclude foreign citizenship and attendant allegiance and responsibilities to a foreign country at birth. Ted Cruz is finding that out.

    Obama knows it too but few in the MSM will go there. His father was not only not a citizen of the U.S. but was not even an immigrant. In fact Obama’s father was deported.

    Cruz and Obama are not just dual Citizens, they are triple/multiple citizens. Cruz is Cuban, Canadian, and U.S., while Obama was British, Kenyan, maybe U.S., and Indonesian.
    The founders and framers NEVER envisioned such multiple Citizenship people to be ever allowed to be Pres and CinC of our military. As to being simply “born a citizen”, Hamilton proposed to the framers that one merely had to be born a citizen to be President. The framers did not go with his idea.

    They went with John Jay’s suggestion to require a “natural born citizen” which is defined by natural law as one born of two citizens of the same country. Read this link for more on the historical record as to how and why the NBC term got put into the Constitution and why it is there. It is an issue of national security and Obama sure as heck demonstrates the type of person as to allegiances that they never wanted to be Pres and CINC:

    Read this material: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html And also, once again, I say watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

  3. arnash says:

    from another blog:
    Birther By Logic
    The people won’t revolt if the media doesn’t cover it because they will not know and the media would never cover it.
    Ever notice how there are conspiracy documentaries and shows on everything from the moon landing to 911 to Kennedy assassination and so on, yet not a single one on the BC.

    No MIT, Poplar Mechanics or Skeptic magazine coverage. The silence is deafening. Why pass up a great opportunity to prove us birthers wrong? Because they know the only way to fight is to keep the people ignorant of the subject. Fox won’t even report even though they claim to report and let us decide.

  4. arnash says:

    from Apuzzo’s blog:

    Starti says…
    ” If citizen parents were required, then why would President Obama forge documents that weren’t sufficient to make him eligible?”

    You already know the answer to your own question, so why ask it? You know full well that everyone is ignorant and has no clue that place of birth has nothing to do with being a natural citizen. Believing that it does and qualifies one to be President (see O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Huckabee, etc.) is a very, very obvious reason to forge a fake birth certificate and then get your subservient minions in the HDoH to produce what everyone will assume makes one presidency eligible.
    A fourth grader can figure that out, -don’t try to convince us that you can’t. You fake.

    “~along with a letter from the Hawai’i DoH verifying its authenticity…”

    HA! Nothing yet has come out of that quack factory that has verified anything because nothing yet has been signed by anyone. No court in the world accepts unsigned documents, and yet that is all that Hawaii ever proffers. Why? Because it protects them from being charged with a felony since they can claim that they didn’t send the letter in their name and no one can prove that they did since it is not signed nor stamped with the dept. seal which they control.
    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out such elementary facts. So what the heck is wrong with your short-circuited brain? AN

  5. arnash says:

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…

    II of II

    There does not exist in the public record one contemporaneous medical document showing that either Ann Dunham and/or Barack Obama were patients at Kapiolani Hospital in August 1961.

    The courts have not been willing to grant to any plaintiff any discovery which would shed much needed light on this issue.

    Additionally, Obama did not prove with any competent evidence in one of the many courts of law in which he was challenged on the issue of his place of birth where he was born or who he even is. Courts like those in New Jersey (ALJ Masin), Georgia (J. Malihi), Illinois, and Arizona have ruled (although erroneously) that Obama is a “natural born citizen” based on their finding that he was born in the United States and that the parents’ citizenship is not relevant. The Indiana Ankeny court even dismissed plaintiff’s complaint without any finding that Obama was born in the United States and that he is a “natural born citizen.”

    ALJ Masin even confirmed and Obama’s lawyer concede on the record that there was no evidence of Obama’s place of birth before the court, including that the 2011 online birth certificate was not evidence (ruling that such evidence was not relevant because even Mickey Mouse can run for President), but yet ALJ Masin found Obama to be a “natural born citizen” because, as the court concluded, he was born in the U.S.

    Not being presented by Obama with any birth certificate, not one court ruled that any of Obama’s birth certificates were validly established and binding upon the court because of the Full and Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. So, those courts made those findings or rulings without a shred of evidence before them demonstrating that Obama was born in the U.S.

    Any rational and honest person would give significance to this lack of evidence and request more from Obama. So, we will just have to keep the place of birth issue an open one with the realization that Obama has not yet conclusively proven where he was born.

    While Obama can skirt the place of birth issue, he cannot get around the birth to citizen parents requirement. The record is clear that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. He, like Ted Cruz, therefore is not nor can he be a “natural born citizen,” regardless of where he may have been born or what actions he may have taken after his birth.

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: