St. George Tucker’s American Heresy
March 11, 2014 Leave a comment
St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries 1:App. 316–25, 328–29 (1803).
“By cutting off any acquisition or inheritance of foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis (inheritance from alien parents) or jus soli (acquisition from birth in a foreign nation), the “natural born citizen” clause was seen as serving to advance the goal of keeping foreign and monarchical influence out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military by requiring future presidents to be born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, which produced allegiance, loyalty, and faith only to the United States from the moment of birth.
Indeed, any person born after the adoption of the Constitution who was born with allegiance to any foreign power was to be excluded by the natural born citizen clause from being eligible for the Office of President and Commander of the U.S. military.”
St. George Tucker was what you could call very “high minded”. He was partly thinking in a philosophical realm, and then applying its concepts to the real world. But guess whose philosophical realm he was thinking in? That’s right, the one in which his mind was raised and indoctrinated, -that being the realm of the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings.
That realm altered the way his mind functioned, just like the religious dogma realm altered the way the minds of the inflexible, autocratic rulers of the Churches functioned whenever they encountered any newly gleaned facts of science. They were programmed to think in one way and one way only. And so also was Tucker.
At the heart of his programming was a concept invented solely for the purpose of strengthening and solidifying the authority or royal dictators. The entire concept was solely for their benefit, and that concept was of course the concept of allegiance. Allegiance is an amalgamation of “natural” loyalty, “natural” debt of gratitude, and a resultant obligatory obedience to royal authority.
His use of the language of the over-thrown King’s justification for power and its exercise, shows that Tucker was thoroughly brain-washed and indoctrinated by the monarchical system of thinking regarding one’s relationship to larger entities.
The two dominant entities in British life were the unquestionable authority of the Church of England and its Laws, and the unquestionable authority of the Crown and its executive agents. What did they both have in common? They were vertical structures, -not horizontal.
All top-down command structures are vertical, with the military being the best example. From the General to the Privates, the only horizontal relationships are those between peers of similar rank, with commissioned officers even forbidden to fraternize with non-officers, i.e., enlisted personnel. That’s a line that can’t be crossed.
The officer corps’ authority over enlisted personnel is absolute, just like they are kings. The impression of their infallibility is a fiction maintained in the minds of the enlisted personnel and serves to support a mind-set of total obedience. That is the mind-set in which is grounded the concept of allegiance to the Crown. Its sister is that of loyalty to a nation. They absolutely are NOT the same thing.
One is to a person or office, while the other is to one’s own, to one’s home and people, -and in America, one fundamentally important thing more, and that is to the principles of the revolution, -principles of Liberty, Natural Rights, and self governance.
So when Tucker wrote: “By cutting off any acquisition or inheritance of foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis (inheritance from alien parents) or jus soli (acquisition from birth in a foreign nation),..” his thinking was in the philosophical weeds of the British vertical system of royal authority and aristocratic Parliamentary rule.
The foolishness of that dogma is seen in how disconnected it was from reality. Its basic tenet was that allegiance is like a trait of character that is biologically transmitted rather than inculcated by years of social familiarization through childhood and youth.
He used the word “citizenship” in place of nationality, -apparently oblivious to the fact that Britain was not a republic governed solely by its citizens but was a monarchy governed by an autocrat and his aristocratic Parliament of men with inherited titles of nobility in a “Class system” in which the people were not first and foremost Citizens but subjects of the Crown. Britain in that era did have the House of Commons, but power lay (as with all governments) with those who executed the law as they saw fit (fairly or unfairly; selfishly or unselfishly).
He writes of “inheritance of foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis” when the truth is that all that one inherits is their national membership, -which in Britain’s case, was subjectship. If actual allegiance to the King was inherited, then why would so many people have fled his rule and sought to become Americans instead?
You see, the monarchists wanted to pretend that along with one’s mandatory obedience being inherited, one’s required, “natural” loyalty was also, although that is completely asinine. Loyalty cannot be imparted via any natural means. It only comes through the sociological means of acculturation through early life. So any talk of inheriting allegiance is pure high-concept philosophical garbage that served only the elites and their status quo.
But that talk and way of thinking was justified in the minds of those whose thinking had not been revolutionized and revamped by their enlightenment regarding the Natural Rights of Man. And that justification was based on thinking that the “inherited” allegiance that was “owed from birth”(!) was not an element of the totally rejected British system of rule but was a perfectly natural thing that continued on in the newly liberated sovereign nations of America.
But how could that be? By simply shifting its focus away from the King and placing it on… -well, they weren’t quite sure what it was placed on exactly but it was American whatever it was. Well, in truth, it was nothing other than their own fellow Americans themselves. People who dare to attempt to govern themselves owe each other their honestly, fidelity, and loyalty or else they absolutely will fail.
That is allegiance democracy-style. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything “inherited” from birth as some sort of tangible nor intangible thing.
What is inherited, latently, is the eventual obligation to support, participate in, and defend the democracy and liberty that one is born into, along with one’s government in its efforts to defend living in freedom.
But obligation, duty, and responsibility are not synonyms for allegiance because they do not include the elements of loyalty nor gratitude toward a king or government for its “protection” nor their “owed” obedience in return.
Every society grounded in required obedience and not accepted shared responsibility is a dictatorship.
Such nations do demand “allegiance”, -just ask any North Korean. But that is not the basis of democratic republics.
Tucker writes of cutting off the acquisition of something that one cannot in fact acquire by birth, but he combines it with something that one can, and the reader fails to recognize the error of doing so.
One can and does inherit their nationality but no one can inherit loyalty, submission to authority, or obedience to orders. Human nature rebels against being dominated by one’s peers, but of course royalty did not include any of one’s peers since royalty and nobility were on a much higher plane. But exactly where in America and American government do we find royalty, -as in superiority?
Answer: only in the vertical hierarchy of the military, -but not in the horizontal matrix of civilian life which is not governed by the military, but is governed by peers, by one’s equals (even though some feel they are “more equal” than most).
So nationality is inherited but “allegiance” is not. That fact adds to the destruction of his next claim, which is that “allegiance” can also be acquired by “jus soli (acquisition from birth in a foreign nation)”.
It’s plain and simple that a nation that is not your own can bestow citizenship on anyone born on its soil. If you are Canada, and your neighbor is the United States, there is no down side to doing so but if you are South Korea, and had a border with the North that was not closed, pregnant North Korean agents of the government could be delivering children on the soil of the South and acquiring citizenship even though they would be raised and brain-washed in the North. A most undesirable situation.
And conversely, if a pregnant South Korean woman had a baby while visiting the North, the North could claim it as one of its subjects, and that would not provide anything except negative consequences.
So the question unasked and unanswered by Tucker was: “how exactly does one “inherit” anything from the soil, or from borders, or from law & philosophy?”
Obviously the idea is asinine on its face. Allegiance can conceptually be inherited, though not literally, but how the hell does one even conceptually imagine that it can be inherited, transmitted, or inculcated at birth? -and from a purely conceptual human-construct of legally assigned membership? -or from a non-parent?
That is inconceivable. Yet his programmed thinking regurgitated that line from the library of a mind educated in British Law.
If you were born in North Korea when the plane your pregnant mother was flying on had to make an emergency landing due to some flight problem that pushed her into pre-mature labor, would your jus soli “North Korean citizenship” impart a sense of foreign allegiance into your psyche that you would still be resisting all of your life because it calls to you to be loyal to the North Korean dictator? [I rest my case]
So St. George was simply full of it, -full of indoctrinated thinking that had become such a deeply rooted part of his thought-life that it never occurred to him that it might be just a whole lot of hooey. He never had a total revolution in his manner of thinking, and thus never fully grasped the founding principles of the nation.
From Wikipedia: As a young man of 19, Tucker moved to the colony of Virginia in 1772 to study law under George Wythe. Upon arriving in Williamsburg, Tucker entered the College of William & Mary. Tucker passed the bar on April 4, 1774.
During the American Revolutionary War, Tucker enlisted in the Virginia militia as a major under the command of General Robert Lawson;” [becoming indoctrinated with the vertical command structure in which he, as a major, was a god over his enlisted subordinates. I have some experience with that as that military indoctrination of superiority happened to my father and eventually wrecked his family life and marriage.]
“Tucker used William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England as the basis of his course at the College, but added discussion on how the Commentaries differed from American law. Tucker also added lectures on principles of American government, and told his students that the laws passed by American legislatures, both state and federal, would be more important in his course than the authorities whose treatises were the traditional resources for learning about the English common law.
[he recognized the primacy of American law but failed to recognize his own failure to adopt all of the American principles]
Along those lines, Tucker’s course would discuss how civil law principles had replaced common law ones in American jurisprudence since the Revolution.
…Students were expected to study outside of sessions by reading the great treatises on English law.”
And what was a major element of English law? The application of principles of royal sovereignty over all subjects through the employment of the invented doctrine of allegiance, -which was presented not as invented but as the perfectly natural order of nature. But it was only “natural” within the philosophy of the Divine Right of Kings, and not natural in the real world where actual natural principles are eternally immutable.
“Under Tucker’s plan,…students would be expected to know ancient and modern history, politics, and constitutions (with special emphasis on the Virginia and United States federal Constitutions); and they would also have to “be well-versed in” ethics, municipal laws, and British laws still in effect in Virginia, as well as rules of practice in the Commonwealth.”
“Tucker taught his courses from his home in Williamsburg so that he could have his full library, an extensive and well-regarded collection of Virginia law, United States law, and the law of nations, close at hand.”
“Tucker was known for writing extremely thorough opinions that analyzed numerous angles on every issue involved in the case;” [but he failed to analyze his own acquired views regarding natural membership, -simply swallowing entirely the then current British view.]
“During his tenure, Tucker ruled in the notable case of Hudgins v. Wright (1806), a freedom suit in which his former mentor George Wythe had decided in favor of freedom for the slave Jackey Wright and her two children. She had sued for freedom based on her grandmother’s and great-grandmother’s American Indian ancestry, as Virginia had ended Indian slavery…
Based on the Court of Appeals record, Wythe appears to have based his ruling on two elements: that the three Wrights appeared white and their master had not proved that they were slaves or of African descent, and that residents of Virginia had a presumptive right to freedom based on Virginia’s 1776 Declaration of Rights. The Wrights’ master appealed the case.
Tucker and the other appellate judges (all slave-holders) disagreed with Wythe’s argument that blacks could be presumed free at birth (as were whites). They noted that Africans (“negroes, Moors and mulattoes”) had been brought into the state only as slaves and were non-Christian.(!)
Tucker wrote that the Declaration of Rights applied only to “free citizens, or aliens”, and could not be applied like a “side-wind” to overturn the “rights of property” in slaves. [empasis added]
~The justices affirmed freedom based on the Wrights’ Indian ancestry and the limited nature of Indian slavery in Virginia, and the appellant’s failure to prove any African ancestry on the maternal side. ”
That kind of says it all. He was a slave-holder who had no problem with human ownership and vertical hierarchical authority ruling over lesser beings.
By the Virginian model, anyone born on the King’s plantation belonged to the King, and anyone born of the property of a slave owner belonged to the slave owner. Slaves produced newborns that were slaves also under property rights instead of them being born freemen who had never been purchased and thus should be free from the ownership that comes with purchase.
Ownership was tied to property rights and land ownership, (-in regard both to slaves as well as to government, borders, citizenship & nationality. One “belonged” to the place where one was born, -even though one also belonged to their own society as a result of natural inherited inclusion or membership. If that’s not philosophically schizophrenic, what is? How can it simultaneously be both when they are unrelated? And yet he never had the thought to examine that contradiction since it never occurred to him that it even existed.
Tucker’s quote continued with: “…the “natural born citizen” clause was seen as serving to advance the goal of keeping foreign and monarchical influence out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military by requiring future presidents to be born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, which produced allegiance, loyalty, and faith only to the United States from the moment of birth.”
I hardly need to point out how asinine it is to claim that anything “produces” anything in a baby “from the moment of birth”. But aside from that absurdity, we also see his British–Virginian indoctrination in the practice of embracing jus soli as government policy and law.
That was never, as in NEVER, a policy adopted by the laws of the national government of the united STATES, nor was such a thing ever codified in any manner in any constitutional amendment. That makes perfect sense since it would be an unnatural hybrid-combination of an unnatural policy with a natural principle, -the principle of natural membership.
That combination was embedded in his thinking, just like the justification for slavery was also. He was brain-washed by being in and of a jus soli colony / state that was also a long-time slave colony. There’s no way his thinking would have been anything different since he was steeped in British law and slavery, and not American principles.
All of the authority in the world does not correct a mistaken belief, or else we would not have a world history of nearly every major discovery and realization being rejected by all of the authorities of the day.
Tucker’s view of American liberty was skewed by his indoctrination, and he merely repeated what he had learned and had absorbed from the “authorities” in British law who preceded him. They were all wrong about the nature of membership in a free democratic republic and how it is acquired and what it requires.
It is a mistake to assume that Tucker was expressing the view that the common words “natural born citizen” applied only to the presidency and not to the basis of American citizenship itself.
The gist of his view was not that only Presidents must be born in the united States but that no one but those domestically born are even citizens at all by natural nationality inheritance. That violates the Natural Law of belonging, natural bonds, -of natural association,and natural membership.
His thinking attempts to marry jus soli with jus sanguinis. That’s like combining a ballpark’s Life-Pass tickets with a need for season tickets. If you have one, then you don’t need the other. You don’t need both in order to get in, but the jus soli + jus sanguinis theory says that you do.
Such a marriage has never existed in human history by the laws of any nation, (including Britain, which was jus sanguinis in principle but jus soli in practice) because one is either a natural member of their parents’ nation or they are not, and where they were born cannot abrogate their natural birthright to membership in the society into which they were born by being born of members of that society, even if one entered the world somewhere else.
Dictatorships can pretend that it is within their natural authority to accept or reject their own natural members based purely on where by happenstance they happened to have entered the world. That authority is not natural authority but is a totalitarian, North Korean sort of authority. Totally illegitimate, -even though accepted by dominated and subservient subjects.
Such authority was recognized in Britain for a time, but eventually they all came to realize that their own children were not aliens if born abroad. The eventually-abandoned view resulted from the attempt to avoid inconsistency in the doctrine of the royal right to rule which insisted that not only was one born subservient to his Royal Majesty but was subservient for life, with no right to reject his authority and choose a new nation and new government to live under as a free member.
You see, if you claim that all souls born within your territory belong to you for life, then the same policy applies for the kings of foreign nations where some of your subjects might give birth. That results in exposing a flaw in the Matrix of the royal doctrine which is that such a position of government defied nature, because it required identifying all English children who were foreign-born as being aliens and the natural subjects of foreign kings rather than being subject to their parents and through them being subject to their king.
Dictators always pretend that they rightfully have more natural authority than they do, and the British Crown was no different. The problem was that so many educated men like Tucker never experienced an epiphany that opened their eyes to the fact that the very basis of such authority was illegitimate, -just like slave ownership.
One is either a member of their society by being born of members (citizen born) or is a member by the permission of its natural members (via their laws, traditions, or policies that legally acknowledge or “recognize” domestically born children of outsiders as being members of society, (-though not by any natural right).
Membership by legal permission is far too easily conflated with membership by natural right although they have no connection whatsoever, other than the fact of being born and probably within the nation’s borders.
But tradition is very powerful, and so ubiquitous in the psychological environment in which one grows up that it seems identical to natural principles since both are equally determinative, but tradition can be completely unnatural, -and yet won’t be recognized for what it is because it is unquestioned, automatic, universal, and inescapable, -just like real natural law principles. Tucker failed to recognize the difference and therefore spoke things from a view that failed to understand underlying reality.
Understanding natural reality and the nature of babies makes one cognizant of the fact that babies are not born with an innate loyalty to anything, but are born with an innate natural right to share membership with their parents in the society of which they are a part. Tucker failed to look beneath the covers of legal dogma and see the truth beneath.
by adrien nash march 2014, obama–nation.com