How “The Ring of Power” Shaped Presidential Eligibility

revised March 5, 12:45

How Rome, the Crown, and Benedict Arnold Limited Presidential Eligibility

How Rome Limited Presidential Eligibility

10 page pdf.

excerpt:  The British king, with command of British forces, showed to the Constitution’s framers the dangers of an autocratic Commander-in-Chief, -one who might act arbitrarily and not be limited by the authority of Congress.

That was a huge danger, but the bloodline of the monarchy revealed the potential danger of foreign allegiance since monarchs had to be born of royalty.

There was not enough military might in Britain to provide full assurance of peace with ambitious and aggressive European neighbors, so to ensure peace & security, -and a sense of fraternity between nations, it was necessary for heirs to the throne to marry foreign royals.  Thus, once that was established as the custom, the Queen, the woman that the King of England married, was inevitably a foreigner.  One hundred percent not British.
That was worse than a case of a one or two term President’s wife being say… Russian, -or Chinese.
Now far worse than that was the case in reverse, -where there was no male heir to the throne and so a daughter of the King had to be installed as the Queen of all England or all Britain.

According to royal custom, she must marry outside of England to maintain bloodline-ties to the royalty and aristocracy of Europe and Russia.

Well!  That was something highly conducive to producing great danger for the nation, since she would be married for life to a loyal royal from a foreign nation.  -And a woman by custom was viewed as subject to her head, -her husband who she vowed to obey with a sacred marriage vow.
What possible status quo situation could be more fraught with more potential for foreign plots against the sovereignty of the nation?
Imagine a female President for life married to Vladimir Putin.  That was the situation when a British Queen married a foreign royal.


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”.

13 Responses to How “The Ring of Power” Shaped Presidential Eligibility

  1. arnash says:

    # Mr. — Dave B. 2014-03-05 12:44
    What the author refers to as a “grandfather clause” was not a grandfather clause at all. The Founders considered those among themselves who had been born in the colonies that became the United States to be natural born citizens of the United States, requiring no naturalization and no exception to provide for their eligibility for the presidency. And they considered their residence in the colonies prior to July 4, 1776, to be THE SAME as residence in the United States, which is obvious when you consider that George Washington was inaugurated as the first president on March 4, 1789, which was only twelve years and eight months after that date– less than the fourteen years residence required by the Constitution.
    The “original citizens” exception was included for the specific purpose of making foreign-born, naturalized citizens who had adhered to the American cause in the Revolution eligible for the presidency, which is a matter of historical record.


  2. davidfarrar says:

    Wait a minute….”No person shall be eligible, but with two exceptions: one being white make (Protestant) American citizen (meaning any citizens of any of the States regardless of their parentage or place of birth.”

    That seem to be rather close to Hamilton’s suggestion. While I have always understood this to mean US citizenship, i.e., those alive, and of age, on July 4, 1776, supporting the revolution were US citizens, although they may also have been citizens of one of the 13 colonies as well.

    ex animo

    • arnash says:

      The Declaration of Independence did not turn colonial subjects into national citizens because there was no nation; there were 13. Colonial subjects became citizens of their home country where they were born and raised, which means their own individual sovereign nation-State. National citizenship didn’t exist until the articles of Confederation were finally adopted, but it only had meaning in an international context, not a domestic one. Domestic citizenship was then regulated via new State laws authorizing State courts and magistrates to naturalize their qualified immigrant petitioners. Naturalization and immigration were under State authority.
      The first of the two exceptions to the “No person” exclusion should have mentioned the cut-off date of the adoption of the Constitution, instead of leaving it sounding open-ended.

      I suspect you copied and pasted that quote so I must have over-looked a typo; make = male.

      • davidfarrar says:

        So in Art. II, §I, cl. 4, when it says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen”….they aren’t saying no person except a natural born (US) citizen, but a natural born (state) citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President?”

        ex animo

      • arnash says:

        Almost exactly right. Not quite right because of a wide-spread ambiguity resulting from the fact that “the United States” has about five different meanings. What is very confusing and misleading is one single letter that is often inappropriately capitalized, -the letter “u” in united.
        Almost across the board, everyone liked to capitalize it even when should not have been capitalized. That’s because of the practice of the founders and framers to capitalize many words in important documents, one of them being “United” when, if you remove all of the unnecessary and uncalled for capitalization, you would have the word united uncapitalized, as in: the united STATES. -“a natural born citizen or a citizen of the united States”.
        That is not a reference to national citizenship but also State citizenship, since all citizenship was State citizenship primarily.
        Nationality and citizenship are not the same thing. Other nations draw the distinction between them.
        The former British subjects became American nationals on July 4th 1776 and citizens of a nation only after the passage of Articles of Confederation which created a quasi-nation.

        For that first generation, membership in the new republic was via either State naturalization of foreigners, dedication to the revolution via participation and an oath of allegiance, or via natural membership as inherited from natives of the colonies.

        So there were natural members, legal members, and involvement members accepted as equals, with all who were not born of foreigners being natural born members of their home country or State, but with the native-born children of immigrant foreigners in an unlegislated, unajudicated limbo because their true nature was not necessarily known to be determined by natural law.

        By Natural Law they were the product of their father, a foreigner and subject to a foreign king just like him.
        That of course was confused by the long practice of the king’s doctrine of human ownership based on the momentary specifics of one’s birth event; (“born inside of my kingdom or born outside of it?” “Inside? Okay, then I claim you regardless of the fact that the event only lasted five minutes (or longer… irrelevant). Whatever emerges into the world within my property I claim as my property.”
        “Although the birth event occurred within the space of a brief nap, its location determines who you belong to for the rest of your life. I say it is so and thus it is so because I am the king.”

        With over a century of such brain-washing, people weren’t exactly sure what determined one’s nationality anymore, but even though the fundamental philosophy of the nation had dramatically changed, many people couldn’t escape from that one ingrained, unquestioned doctrine of Kings.

        The confusion resulted from the fact that one becomes a member of a society by being born and raised within it, even if born of outsiders. That definitely makes one a member, but not a natural member, -not a native member because native members are only those born of natives. Just ask the natives of Hawaii if Barack Obama is one of them merely based on where he was born, (supposedly).

        The convenient idea that everyone was naturalized into American citizens on July 4th 1776 is not reflective of reality. What happened was in the philosophical realm not in the legal realm in which naturalization occurs.
        Outside of all law, the entire country, through their elected representatives, cast-off their natural connections to Britain like severing an umbilical cord, and declared themselves to be free and independent of the mother country, assuming a purely American identity and nationality.
        Colonial subjects became State citizens. All State citizens were American citizens also since America was the new country and the United States of America was its new name. But it was not a uni-body entity. It was a close alliance of the united nations of America, aka; the united States of America.

  3. davidfarrar says:

    Also it seems “Dave B.” has come up with an interesting angle, which I find myself concurring…the Art. II grandfather clause was for Hamilton’s benefit, because he was a “naturalized” state citizen, not a natural-born state citizen like most, if not all of the other American colonial leaders at the time.

    ex animo

    • arnash says:

      About the “grand-fathered” label; it is inappropriate from the founders’ perspective. If I say that my natural children and my adopted children will both share in my will and estate, but children that they might adopt are not to ever be given inheritance that came from me, have I grand-fathered in my own adopted children? No, I simply elucidated the fact that both are heirs.
      It was the same with their fellow citizens who were their equals in every respect but were born of foreigners or born as foreigners under the boot of a foreign dictator.

      The founders wanted to not exclude them. Their inclusion wasn’t some sort of a charitable magnanimous gift. It was an overt expression of their egalitarian attitude of full acceptance and respect toward all who might have shared a gallows with them. A shared death sentence focuses the mind real well, and blows away minor differences between people. Together in death or together in life; no discrimination in either.

      As for Hamilton, I don’t know if he (and one or more others) were foreign-born (which I doubt) or simply fathered by an Englishman who had not been naturalized by the time of his birth, or perhaps ever. But the presence of one with such a background certainly would have added to the awareness that eligibility in their generation could not be limited to only natural born citizens.

      • davidfarrar says:

        I believe Hamilton was born out of wedlock on Nevis, as a British subject, but was a “naturalized citizen of New York on July 4, 1776.

        ex animo

  4. davidfarrar says:

    But it seems to me the two phrases in Art. II, §I, cl. 4, namely: “No Person except a natural born Citizen”… and “…or a Citizen of the United States,” ought to mean two different things, not one, as I think you are suggesting.

    I can see now where a ‘natural born Citizen’ may mean a natural born Citizen of one of the thirteen united, colonial states, but ‘or a Citizen of the United States,” seems pretty straight forward to me. It means a citizen of the whole, united, thirteen colonial states in federation. The first is state citizenship, the second is federal, the US Const.

    As Dave B. points out, most of the founders and framers of the US Const were, in fact, saw themselves as natural born subjects of one of the thirteen American colonies, and would have seen themselves as natural born citizens and residents of their individual colonial states. The grandfather clause was actually needed for those who were not natural born in one of the thirteen colonial states, but had been naturalized as a citizen of one of the thirteen colonial states at the time of Independence, July 4, 1776, and would have become citizens of the United States as well.

    ex animo

    • arnash says:

      What I said was that there was no difference or change in perspective between reference to natural born citizens and citizens of the united States. The only perspective was State perspective. That is why I took the time to write all that I wrote about the ambiguity introduced by capitalizing the letter “u” which should read in today’s manner of writing, as it was in their thinking, as a lower-case “u”, as in: “or a citizen of the united States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.”
      It’s hard to get the capital “U” out of one’s thinking, along with the impression it creates of reference to a national government that hardly existed as it would when the Constitution went into effect.
      The citizens of the thirteen semi-independent and sovereign nations of America didn’t think of themselves in terms of a national identity first since there was no real aggregate nation yet.
      They all thought of themselves as citizens of their home country/ State- nation first and foremost, and that should not be forgotten when reading the improperly capitalized word “United”.
      Even after the Civil War, the terminology was still in a plural sense, as is seen in the 13th Amendment which is falsely believed to have banned slavery and indentured servitude.
      “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME WHEREOF THE PARTY SHALL HAVE BEEN DULY CONVICTED, shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to THEIR jurisdiction.

      [that excluded D.C. and all federal territory, leaving slavery and servitude totally legal on those federal lands! It was only restricted within the States.]
      Clearly, the capital “U” should be a small-case “u” (united States).

      • davidfarrar says:

        Yes, I see where in the latter case this is certainly so, or it would have read, “…nor any place subject to its jurisdiction.”

        But in Art. II, §I, cl. 4: “No Person except a natural born Citizen (of one of the 13 colonial/states),” “…or a Citizen of the United States,” that inference isn’t there. In fact, the inference is just the opposite: the body, taken as a whole, as joined together as one, that singular political entity being the United States, with a capital “U”. But you are saying that is incorrect. In this case, too, the text is talking about the colonial states, with a small “u”.

        ex animo

      • arnash says:

        Only strongly pro-federalism, strong central government proponents would have had an image of a strong singular nation in their mind’s eye, the others distrusted government so much that they wanted a weak central government, hence all of the limitations placed on it to restrict its power.
        Some were so much opposed to and fearful of a new oligarchy that they refused to ratify the Constitution. The votes in favor were never overwhelming, but always hard fought and no where near unanimous. And did you know that the United States came into being, with its central government formed and function with only 11 of the States as members? Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to join for a year and a half after ratification by the ninth State which was the final one needed to go into effect.

      • arnash says:

        It has dawned on me that we have all been overlooking a very simple and almost obvious fact; and that is that in the pre-revolution era, the members of the colonies were BOTH subjects and citizens.
        Just read the long list of complaints of the Declaration of Independence and you’ll see that many or most of them were the abrogation of the rights of citizens and Englishmen. Britain denied them their rights as Englishmen, treating them like Cinderellas who could be walked all over.
        Then with Independence Day, they threw off not only their role as subjugated step-children, or aliens who were declared to be outside of the King’s protection, to being not just equals of all Englishmen, not just subjects who were equal to all subjects, but instead subject to no man and no government other than that of their own choosing. They were thereby superior to all subjects and all noblemen. They were totally free of subjugation to tyrants. What a day!

        But they had to make it stick, and so the long, protracted, torturous war before the light at the end of the tunnel finally appeared. Only then was their independence fully affected and tenuously permanent.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: