Revealing the Truth and Exposing Errors
March 21, 2014 1 Comment
about the nature and origin of citizenship
Part 1. Revealing the Truth and Exposing Falsehoods (Parts 1 & 2 PDF)
An advanced search of the term “natural citizen” located this from the Harvard Law School Library; ~THE VEST POCKET LAWYER booklet c. 1919
~418. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
419. The Constitution of the United States gives to every natural citizen (and guarantees to that citizen) political, religious, and civil rights.
420. Every natural citizen of the United States is, first, a citizen of the United States.
The term “natural citizen” describes one who is naturally a citizen and not so via permission of law written for allowing foreigners to become fellow citizens.
The term is included here because of its absolutely central importance in understanding the nature and origin of organic citizenship. That origin is Kryptonite to both those who defend the presidential eligibility of Barack Obama, and those who debunk it. It kills their erroneous theories.
a.r.nash ruminates: ~a new thought…
One enters the world as a living infant but with a certain political character invisibly attached. It’s not attached in the real world but in the political world, -the world composed of nations.
That character is determined by who one’s parents are. It is inherited. It determines one’s nationality and citizenship.
Also, what one is determines what one is not.
From that standpoint, one can make an metaphor of birth resulting in one of three possibilities in connection to presidential eligibility.
One is either born live, -possessing the life and the political DNA of their American parents (or a widowed American mother); or…
one is born adopted, -possessing the political DNA of a foreign immigrant father or mother (via the political equivalent of a sperm-bank donor and/or egg donor with artificial insemination); or…
one is born dead, -with the political DNA of a non-immigrant foreigner who is the child of an ambassador, a hostile invader, or a guest of the U.S. government and in the country on a temporary Visa instead of with a Green Card (which makes one a member of American society).
Born Live: one is a natural born citizen by being citizen-born.
Born adopted: one is a constitutional citizen via the 14th Amendment (as construed in 1898) by being immigrant-born.
Born dead: one is an alien and not a citizen by birth to a non-immigrant father.
That is the category in which Barack Obama was born.
(1) He was born British. (uncontested).
(2) His mother’s citizenship was not transmitted by U.S. law.
(3) His father’s residence status was as a temporary guest so neither father nor son were subject to the full sovereign authority of Washington.
(4) Only those born fully subject (the citizen-born and the immigrant-born) are U.S. citizens.
(5) Obama Jr. was not born subject.
(6) Obama Jr. was not born a citizen.
(7) No non-citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States.
(8) No non-citizen is eligible to be President.
What could be clearer? It’s natural logic and natural and national law.
~ ~ ~
So far, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has not refuted anything that I’ve written because he has not addressed what I have actually written. Instead he just pulls out his talking points one more time and rehashes them while leaving my remarks completely ignored. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
He falsely thinks that merely countering them with his own views is a form of dissection of my comments, but if there is no dissection at all, then such a counter is a cop-out that avoids direct confrontation with that which he is unable to refute.
If I say that the sun will rise tomorrow because the Earth is rotating, and then Mario says the sun will rise because the Sun is revolving around the Earth every 24 hours, his statement refutes mine but it does not address it. It merely proclaims an alternative explanation without first demonstrating the falsity of mine.
He can not demonstrate the falsity of things I’ve discovered and so he avoids attempting to even address them. Rather, he just repeats his own view, which if accepted by the reader as true, then must be embraced as a pseudo-refutation that in fact is no refutation at all.
I share why and how his logic is defective, but one using defective logic may be unaware that they are doing so because of bias blindness. I can’t fix that for him, -though Lord knows I’ve tried.
“When an honest man discovers he is mistaken,
“he will either cease being mistaken,
“or cease being honest.”
Mario wrote in response to my claim “…you saying that Congress does not have the constitutional authority to naturalize people….”
Fact: Congress has no constitutional authority at all regarding immigration and naturalization except to make the State naturalization laws uniform.
All the authority it wields was stolen from the States by the federal government’s usurpation led by the Supreme Court.
“In Henderson v. Mayor of New York, the Court held [6-1] that all immigration laws of the seaboard states were unconstitutional because they usurped the exclusive power vested in Congress to regulate foreign commerce.”(!!!)
“In response to Henderson, States obediently surrendered and abolished their Immigration Commissions and Port Authorities.
Then the entire burden of orienting foreigners and turning away the incapacitated fell to private, philanthropic organizations. Overwhelmed by the strain that immigration put on their resources, charity workers petitioned Congress to have the federal government assume the duties of regulating the influx…
In the 1880s Congress began to bring immigration under direct federal control for the first time. It could no longer rely on volunteerism or informal processes to manage this powerful social force.”
Kermit L. Hall, PhD “Immigration,” The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, 2005
~ ~ ~
Mario talks a great game when it comes to “allegiance”, steeped as he is in the King’s royal right of human ownership, obedience, and subjugation, but for one born of Americans, allegiance is not relevant except in regard to the upbringing of children, and the naturalizing of foreigners.
There is no allegiance required of the natural citizens of the United States because where natural obligation begins, required allegiance ends.
What free men are bound by is natural DUTY; -RESPONSIBILITY for their own defense, and that of their family, and society, and nation, -not loyalty and obedience to a king or government.
Free men are not subservient to a monarch or government in exchange for protection because they protect themselves!
Young men “owe” their society their service as they replace older men who rendered theirs when they were young. Allegiance is not a factor, whether felt or not. Obedience trumps loyalty.
Necessary obedience to their natural duty is what justifies government forcing them to perform it.
Those who’ve never signed their life away to the federal government do not know the reality of such things, and have no grasp of the depth of their ignorance.
Naturally, loyalty is highly desirable and a unifying and inspiring force in all military units, but with or without it, orders must be obeyed because one is obligated to do their duty for national defense.
The founders though were bound by allegiance, to each other by solemn oath; pledging to each other their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
They required a similar oath of all men following the Declaration of Independence. “With us or against us… decide and swear, -or refuse and leave.”
Btw, no oath of office in America requires swearing allegiance to the United States. Instead they require defending and following the Constitution and the law. Your oath is to it, not to the government or nation.
The bond of all countrymen is to each other and to our Constitution, -not the government that bastardizes it with almost everything it does.
The only allegiance the Americans embraced was to the revolution and to each other, and to their home country (colony). They had no allegiance to other colonies / States, and their relationship to the Union was purely self-defensive in nature, since if one was attacked, they all were threatened.
Promulgating a doctrine that is quintessentially un-American requires wandering into a political religion that has no American roots. Its roots are in the Divine Right of Kings. And we overthrew that system.
If those who are possessed of patriotic notions of allegiance connected to U.S. citizenship could do so, they would quotes oaths of allegiance to America, to the United States, or to the government, but they can’t because they do not exist.
All allegiance is to the ideals of America, to its foundational values, -to the Constitution, and the rule of law, and to each other. Nothing else can be trusted. We can’t even really trust each other because a third or more of us are socialists.
Mario’s quoted paragraph from a “prestigious law review made in its 1845 edition” is pure anti-American garbage! Is that too blunt?
It is 100% statist delusion, -having no connection to republican democracy. It begins right off the bat with a gigantic ignorant error: “…the character of an individual, as citizen or subject,”
Understand this, the character of a CITIZEN is not to be associated with that of an owned, subservient subject, anymore than it is to be associated with the character of a slave. The two are from two related but completely different worlds.
William Rawle was United States Attorney for Pennsylvania. Later, in 1825, Rawle authored, “A View of the Constitution of the United States” in which he specifically addressed national citizenship. Rawle wrote, “every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution”.
Everything Mario wrote is correct about Wilson and Rawle. He did not supply any quotes but I came across the Holy Grail of citizenship origins in the Dissertation of David Ramsay (a founder), What he wrote flattens everyone’s sacred beliefs, and I illuminate it in its own lengthy exposition.
Rawle was a Pennsylvanian. That is equivalent to being a Virginian. Jus soli was an entrenched part of their consciousness, and that’s why he wrote with unwavering certainly regarding native-birth equaling natural born citizenship. That was his view of natural membership, but it was not based on nature. Nature is this: Like father, like son.
And what did the Supreme Court say in Minor v Happersett? Did it express his confidence in his belief about natural belonging?
No! It said there are unresolved doubts about the citizenship of the merely native-born (born of foreigners). So the dogmatic authority of Rawle was no authority at all, except in Pennsylvania, -and Virginia and the other two “commonwealth” States, -in those “countries” (as they called them) they allowed native-birth citizenship instead of only natural or naturalized citizenship.
But what was the basis of civic participation under the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776? Only that one had a stake in society. That meant any freeman who paid taxes.
There was no such term as “subject” or “citizen” even used in their Constitution because all were viewed as equals. All adult male members of society could vote and be elected, even if of foreign origin, because they had a stake in everything that native-born members did. That was true equality.
Article I. That all men are born equally free, and independent; and have certain, natural, inherent, and inalienable rights;
II. That all men have a natural, and unalienable right to worship Almighty God.
It was all about Natural Law and Natural Rights. They viewed the native-born as equal and indistinguishable regardless of parentage. But that was not the view of the future central government of the nation.
It rejected presidential eligibility based solely on native-birth because that didn’t prevent loyalty to a foreign power.
Everyone belongs to the society in which they are raised. It is their only world and they are a part of it. But no one belongs to the place where they were born unless that is where they were raised.
Two hundred years ago they were one and the same. Everyone was raised where they were born, so a logic error came naturally, one which conflated the two and failed to recognize the possibility of being raised somewhere else, somewhere foreign, with foreign values and foreign loyalty.
The Founders were not unaware of the easy possibility of a British wife giving birth in America and then returning to Britain where she and her loyal-subject husband would raise a son who was loyal to their king.
They knew that such a son could not be recognized as an American merely because of where he exited his mother’s womb. The place born and the place raised in such cases would NOT be synonymous. And that hair needed to be split, and it was (for the sake of national security) by employing the world “natural” in the presidential eligibility clause: “No person except a natural born citizens… shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
That means a citizen by nature, -and that means by blood connection or natural political conveyance.
The State where an alien was born might consider him to possess State citizenship. No problem. He would use State citizenship as the basis of possessing American nationality.
But the national government had a Constitution which prevented him from being President because he was not a natural citizen of the nation.
A State might view an alien-born son as one of its natural born members but it was only one “country” of thirteen. It didn’t matter what it considered. What mattered was “who rules the full executive and military power of all thirteen countries of the Union?”.
That person had to be guaranteed to possess no foreign alienage, and that was impossible to guarantee if born of an alien with foreign attachments. Hence, the term “natural born citizen” meant something different at the national level than it may have at the State level. Two different entities, only one of which determined the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
“~notwithstanding Justice Gray’s bold and unsubstantiated pronouncements in Wong Kim Ark regarding the English common law, there was no English common law jus soli rule of citizenship that prevailed in the United States after the Constitution was adopted and ratified that would have made Joseph a citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. validly wrote:
William Rawle is not in the same league as Founder, Framer, and U.S. Supreme Court Justice, James Wilson.
Rawle’s is not a statement of a man that was influenced like the major Founders were by natural law and the law of nations in forming the new America.
There is no element of Lockean consent to being a member of society in what he said.
Missing from his statement is the element of parental influence over their children emanating from their duty to rear and educate their children. He does not ascribe to the idea that children have no capacity to consent during their years of minority, and therefore follow the condition of their parents, and are not truly “free” like their parents until they reach the age of majority, -a concept which is the foundation for the Founders’ political philosophy that man had the natural right to expatriate himself from the society in which he was born.”
“On the other hand, Wilson was steeped in natural law and the law of nations; believed in consent, parental influence over children, that children followed the condition of their parents, age of reason, the state of being “free” obtained at the age of majority, and the natural right to expatriate.
Rawle was not a signatory to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and a major contributor to the drafting of the Constitution. Wilson was.
Rawle simply stated a conclusion without any context or support. Wilson did not.”
“Rawle conflated and confounded being a citizen of a state with being a “natural born citizen.” For Rawle, being a citizen of a state prior to the adoption of the Constitution automatically made one a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. Wilson did not so err.
Rawle does not have historical and legal sources which support his statement. Wilson does.
In short, Rawle missed the American Revolution and is no authority on the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” Wilson is.” ~ finis
~ ~ ~
There was no natural born citizenship in common law. There was no citizenship period.
“The Framers definition is the only one that matters.”
They did NOT have a definition of “natural born citizen”. The English language defined it, -not men, not law, not a foreign philosopher. ENGLISH!
Who defines “native inhabitant, or “indigenous population”, or “natural member” or “first born sons”? Men? -or the definitions of words?
If you ask a false question, (What is the legal definition of a natural born citizen?) you’ll get a false answer. There has never been a legal definition.
~ ~ ~
Not all American families (and college students) were present in America in 1776, but in due time returned from England to the land of their nativity as new CITIZENS of their native country (former colony) which was then an independent sovereign nation) and took the citizen’s oath of allegiance then.
Where their children were born was irrelevant (in their home country or abroad) because their national membership was via inheritance, -nothing else, -no added extraneous factor included, in other words; native-birth.
If after July of 1776, they traveled abroad after becoming CITIZENS of their homeland, (-the country/colony/ State of their birth), a child born to them abroad was an American by Natural Law and a recognized natural born member of the father’s country, -as would have been the children of all American Ambassadors and others born abroad before the adoption of the Constitution, -including Thomas Jefferson (Paris) and John Adams (London).
The word “natural” is devoid of any connection to native-birth. Natural is via blood, inheritance, parentage. “Native-born” is via location, borders, & law. No connection between the two. Two different worlds.
Confederate States Constitution:
“7) No person except a natural-born citizen of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, OR a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible…”
A blogger wrote: “The Confederate authors obviously meant that ONLY a child born on the soil of a Confederate state would be considered to be a ‘natural-born citizen’ of the Confederacy…”
That language was confused and confusing. There is no mention of a natural born Confederate citizen being necessarily native born, so none can be presumed, even though 98% of them probably were.
The second group could have been naturalized foreigners, while the third group had to be natives of any of the States who were born before the date of secession.
What language supports claiming that native-birth was required? None. Using your own self-determined definition to explain the meaning of what is actually NOT defined is not how arriving at a definition works.
end of Part 1. by Adrien Nash March 2014