Why A Hyphen and an Underline Condemn Obama’s Presidency

Why “naturalborn subject” and “natural born citizen” are different

Suppose there was a huge controversy over who was eligible to be the American President.  Suppose the debate was centered on the meaning of a couple of words.

Suppose that opposing sides argued not about what the words actually mean and how they are used, but about what they meant long ago, and even longer ago.  Suppose one side argued that when they were written they meant what they meant according to an outside international system, while the other side argued that they meant what they meant throughout the entire history of the British American colonies (and even longer -dating back hundreds of years) under an overthrown dictatorship (the British government & Monarchy).

Suppose the supporters of the international system that is claimed to define the meaning of those words resorted to a fictional meaning to define them, -a legal “idiom”, a legal term of art(ifice) instead of simply relying on the meaning of the words themselves.

Suppose that their opposition did the very same thing but argued that the fictional meaning was the original fictional meaning under the British and not the fictional meaning attached correctly or incorrectly, logically or illogically, under the international system.

Suppose that the theories of both sides had gigantic fundamental flaws the size of houses in them and yet neither was willing to acknowledge those holes.  Suppose that the holes were clearly identified and illuminated and yet they still refused to acknowledge them because they preferred instead to adhere to their embraced dogma and its supports for their self-constructed matrix of false reality.

In such a scenario, how would or could the actual truth ever emerge and slap them in the face and shout; “WAKE UP!  YOU’RE DREAMING!”?

Suppose that the actual truth is found in the meaning of the words themselves, just like most other sayings used in life.  Might there be some evidence to show that the words were not used as a legal term of artifice but in a literal sense?

As a matter of fact, there is such evidence, -hints of the reality of their actual meaning.  Those hints reveal the truth about their usage and intent.  They are seen in only two seemingly inconsequential usages.   One, the first, is the use of a hyphen between the two adjective modifiers, and the other is the use of an underline by John Jay when he wrote to General Washington, (President of the constitutional convention) urging him to disallow anyone from becoming Commander in Chief who was not a natural born citizen.

A hyphen and an underline are all that we have, but they are all that we need.   In Britain, the term natural-born subject was invented to gloss over the difference between subjects of Scotland and subjects of England after the King of Scotland came to be also the English king when the Queen had no heir.

It emphasized what they had in common (born within and under the dominions of the same king) instead of what divided them.  In such a context, the word “natural” lost its original meaning (natural subject by blood, -by descent) and assumed a new amorphous meaning by being tied to “born”, resulting in “natural-born”.

It combined the two scenarios of subjects who were naturally the subjects of the British King and those who were his subjects merely because of being born under his authority, -within his expanded borders.  Perhaps it originally was used in a different arrangement, such as “His Majesty’s natural & born subjects”, perhaps evolving further to “His Majesty’s natural / born subjects”.  At any rate, it came to be simply “natural-born subject” and within some time to come, was applied even to those naturalized by Parliament.

Per human nature, it was easier to say that someone is a natural-born subject than that someone is equal to and indistinguishable from a natural-born subject since they were granted all of the rights of such.  So the bastardization of the term devolved to including everyone who was deemed a subject of the Crown.

There was only one caveat, and that was that no naturalized subject could serve in Parliament nor in the Privy Council to the King.  So, in America that was the meaning of a natural-born subject, but there was something different in America once the Constitution was adopted and a new nation was formed and headed by a President who was also the Chief Commander of all military forces.

He had to be elected and so qualifications had to be met in order to be eligible to serve.  They were; 35 years of age, 14 years residency, and in perpetuity after the Constitution’s ratification, one had to be a natural born citizen.  Well the question then was: “Is natural-born subject entirely analogous to natural born citizen?”

  Applying the devolved meaning of the British term, a naturalized citizen could be President since there was no constitutional prohibition specifically barring such citizens (unlike the British naturalization statutes).  So a house-size hole in the theory that natural-born subject = natural born citizen is seen to be that it cannot explain why naturalized citizens can’t be President regardless of embracing that fact that they can’t.

Instead of seeking or promulgating an explanation, they simply resort to a new theory that anyone born as a citizen is eligible.  Of course that approach also has a house-size hole in it; to what then does the word “natural” apply?  Why was it added if it has no meaning?

They are answer-less, stumped, silent, check-mated.  They have no explanation as to why “born” applies to citizen but “natural” does not.  Their dead-end position renders “natural” superfluous, pointless, meaningless.  The framers of the Constitution just became idiots when it came to those two very crucial words, -words on which the survival of the nation might depend if a traitor managed to get himself elected by stealth and cunning and foreign backing.

They do NOT want anyone to focus on that flaw in their Matrix, that illogical inconsistency.  Instead they want to point everyone in the direction of the magnanimous inclusiveness of the eligibility clause and how the native-born children of aliens, -foreigners, were embraced as one day being eligible to be the American President.  After all, it would be “unfair” to deny such Americans the honor and privilege to serve their nation in a leadership position in any of its branches.

Well, that would be fine and good, and is the policy of many governments, but they did not emerge on this planet via the audacity of the American Revolution and men who were willing to sacrifice everything to be free.  Other governments were not organized with the same dynamics as were at play in the North-Eastern American continent, with a mother country aggressively wishing to reconquer her lost colonies and the vast land mass beyond their borders.

No citizen harboring such a secret wish or agenda or scheme could be allowed to wield the power of the Chief of Military Command, and the only way to prevent that was to bar the sons of foreigners (aristocratic, titled British immigrants in particular were feared as a potential source of British loyalty, -being raised by a royalty-supporting father who speaks the same King’s English as the Americans).

If a naturalized British subject could not be entrusted with the full American military authority, then neither could a native-born son of an un-naturalized British subject, or subject of any other monarch.

The issue of national security that concerned the founders is an issue that the defenders of the British system of nationality assignment cannot touch.  They cannot go there.  It’s quick-sand to them.  It’s Kryptonite.  Their doctrine implies INclusion when the founders were focused on EXclusion.  [“NO PERSON except a natural born citizen…”]. But they religiously support their doctrinal tent anyway, holding it in place regardless of it gigantic holes regarding naturalized citizens and the purpose of “natural”.

Their fervent opposition’s theory has equally huge holes, centered on the same belief that the words constitute a term of art instead of common English.  Now let’s exam that fallacy.  Here’s the situation, -it’s one of ignorance in which people place or fail to place a hyphen where it belongs or where it does NOT belong.

The place where it belongs is between natural and born when connected to “subject”.  If one writes something about citizenship and omits that hyphen, (as I’ve done many a time in the past) then their understanding of the subject is deficient.

Similarly, if one places a hyphen between those words when attached to “citizen”, one is even more ignorant of the truth about the phrase “natural born citizen”.

Here’s why; a hyphen connects words that should be connected, and might even need to be connected.  Placing one where it does not belong creates an error of language and an error of understanding as a consequence.  The evidence is found in analogous examples, such as: Bill Gates is a filthy-rich entrepreneur.  The hyphen is not optional.  Without it you have: Bill Gates is a  filthy, rich entrepreneur.

“Filthy-rich” is a unitary adjective phrase.  It has a single meaning, -not two.  Thus you cannot emphasis nor underline just one of its two words since they come together as one package.

If there is a hyphen, and it is there out of need, then you have an adjective phrase modifying a noun; -not two separate adjectives modifying a noun separately, -as in: Bill Gates is a nerdy rich guy (equivalent to “a natural born citizen”).

It’s adjectives (rightfully without a hyphen)  do not relate to each other, and no hyphen connects them together as in “natural-born subject”.  It says that Gates is a nerdy guy and a rich guy.

“Nerdy” does not modify “rich”, as in “nerdy-rich”.  There is no such term, just as there is no such term as “natural-born” when it comes to “citizen”.  There is only two separate adjectives: “natural” as in “natural citizen”, and “born” as in “born citizen”.

Thus, there is no such term as “natural-born citizen” with a hyphen!  Wherever you see that written, you know that the person who wrote it does not understand the true nature of citizenship because they are unaware that it is not based on the condition of being a subject of a royal dictator nor the subject of a republican government nor that natural does not modify born but modifies citizen.

The absence of a hyphen shouts that the term the Americans employed is NOT a unitary, hyphen-connected “term of art” as it was for the British since for them it was all-inclusive.  All subjects were eventually ensconced under the umbrella term, rendering it meaningless.  (In the modern world, it has been abandoned altogether.)

An analogous equivalent would be to say that the meaning of: (Bill Gates is) a super-rich guy includes the possibilities that he is (a.) financially rich, b.) -is rich in talent and genius, and c.) is rich in the love of his family and friends.  Thus “super-rich” can mean more than one thing, -bastardizing its actual meaning.

That perversion was not anywhere near where the minds of the founders and framers were.  They were steeped in and embraced Natural Rights and Natural Law, -not Royal Rights nor British rules of nationality.

One of their rights was the right of natural inclusion or belonging, (at the family level), natural membership (at the clan-tribe-society level), and natural citizenship (at the Nation-State level).

Their right of membership in their family, society, and nation was a natural right that they would never have surrendered to any doctrine, any law, nor any government.  They were the ones writing the laws and creating the government so why would they, “The People”, choose to become subjects again to their own creation?

Why would they allow it to dictate to them whether or not their natural children were Americans or were aliens?

Why would General George Washington participate in the creation of a Constitution or system of government which would or could dictate to him that his favored nephew (being childless) who became an associate Justice of the Supreme Court, would never be eligible to serve his country as President if not born within American borders?

The neo-nativists who oppose the unconstitutional presidency of Barack Obama believe that Washington and all of the great American founders did just that.  That they willingly made themselves the “bitch” of the government they created by surrendering their natural right to pass their national membership or American political DNA to their children via patrilineal inheritance, or right of descent.  Why would they not retain and protect their child’s natural birthright?

Of course his defenders are utterly without any explanation as to why they would do such a thing when they had just risked it all to be free of government that abrogated their natural liberty and natural rights.

What I’m referring to is something that gets zero attention as people go about their superficial lives and superficial investigations into the nature of American citizenship.  It’s the truth that’s seen in the whole ugly issue of the nature of the citizenship of Americans born on foreign soil.  What kind of citizenship to they possess?

Why and how do they possess it?

By what authority is their citizenship assigned to a particular class of citizenship (legal vs. natural)?

 What law, what doctrine, what policy, what body, what judicial opinion decides and has the authority to decide that issue?

The short answer is: “None!”.  They are Americans by natural right or else they are not Americans by any right whatsoever and are therefore aliens dependent on the kindness of Congress to allow them to be Americans like their American parents and American brothers and sisters.

If they are Americans by natural right then nothing has any say in the matter of their citizenship since they are natural born citizens regardless of where in the world they happened to have left their mother’s womb.  They were born as Americans since they were conceived as Americans and born of American blood.

On the other hand, if the government has the authority to declare them aliens, then they have no rights whatsoever.  It is all or nothing.

If the government has such power over the children of Americans, beginning with the sons and daughters of the founding Presidents, Congressman, Justices, Ambassadors and all who followed them, then the government is God in regard to who gets to be deemed to be naturally an American, and the natural right of natural relationships has no place in American society.

Why would the founders adopt such a view of all-powerful government when it was the very one that they risked all to demolish?

Were they truly free or were they still subjects, -only to a different government?

In the starkest and most elemental terms, it boils down to the analogous situation of all of the parents of the nation surrendering their right to have their own natural children rightful deemed to be theirs and not the property of the government.

What American father would surrender his natural parental right to own his own children and pass his name and family membership to them?  Who would ever agree that under some certain circumstance, they would accept that their own child did not belong to them & America but belonged to a foreign nation?

Well, by extension, that is just what the neo-nativists espouse.  Your sons or daughters are aliens, – foreigners, if born on foreign soil, and do not belong to your country because they are separated from you by authority of government policy which has no basis in any law, natural or otherwise.  It’s only basis is the abandoned bastardized British common law system of nationality assignment centered wholly on His Royal Majesty.

Government can give a child (as a consequence of native-birth) a nationality that his father does not have but would like to have, but government cannot take away or block a child from inheriting the nationality that its parents do have because that would be in violation of the Law of Nature and Nature’s God.  It only works in one direction.  Government can give that which is not naturally possessed but cannot take away that which is naturally possessed and passed from parents to children.

So ask yourself: “which one seems more American? -Natural Rights or ancient Royal policy?”  Which one seems more accurate: “natural-born citizen” or “natural born citizen”?  [the reason for underlining born is explained in other expositions]

They represent opposite worlds.  They are opposite possibilities within a finite limited system in which they constitute a zero-sum situation.  If blood-born American children by natural right are Americans regardless of anything, then acknowledging that situation results in rejecting all who are not born of American blood, -those who were alien-born, -regardless of native-birth.

In light of the fact that there are a heck of a lot more of them than foreign-born citizens, and they all can vote, how in the world could politics possibly be kept out of deciding such an issue?  Well, it can’t and never has been.  But it had remained a draw, until the election of Barack Obama tilted the table decidedly in the direction of ignoring Natural Law, original meaning, and being inclusive instead of exclusive.

We can all see how well that has worked out; -one with no allegiance to American values; whose top goal in life was to undo three hundred years of American tradition and values and “fundamentally transform America” into something wholly alien to America, -a non-merit-based, non-effort-based, non-accomplishment based society that steals from industrious Peter to give to lazy liberal voter Paul.

  The future of the nation is in the balance, and demographics will decide, -unless sanity returns and success-versus-failure becomes transparently evident to all, -as has happened in Detroit, -in contrast to Texas.

But elections in decisive swing states are so close that they may be decided simply by voter fraud alone, as happened in many counties in the 2010 election, -with nary a pip out of the milquetoast Republicans.

But the biggest travesty is the fact that there exists no established manner to determine the eligibility of presidential candidates, and so the process of deciding if someone shall be allowed on a state ballot is 100% arbitrary, with there being no one that State authorities must answer to no matter what the powers-that-be decide.

And worst still, no court will entertain a suit to force them to follow state law because state law fails to prescribe how to follow it.  And so Barack Hussein Obama Jr. sailed illegitimately through the processing in all 50 States and the District of Columbia, -was placed on all 50 State ballots, and was elected and approved by the People, the electoral college, both houses of Congress, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Folks, if that is not a picture of what reality looks like in a complete compromised world, then nothing is.  It could not possibly get any more corrupted and upside down other than by every court that faced a suit to expose the corruption refusing to rule on the merits of the cases presented to them (as has happened).

One judge, in Georgia, even ruled in favor of the defendant (Obama) even though he failed to present a case or show up in court, even after being threatened with suffering the consequences if his lawyer did not.  Magically, he won anyway!  All of the way to the Supreme Court!

Well folks, that is the very picture of having been conquered from within, -by stealth, by cunning, by nefarious counterfeits, by ignorance, by omissions, deceptions, lies, bullying, shaming, mocking, insulting, and tossing racial discrimination grenades.

And, now it appears that murder can be added to the list (Hawaii Director of Health, Loretta Fuddy).  Fuddy’s autopsy of her unexplainable death has been unlawfully redacted in its entirety regardless of being a public document.  That tells you something about the power of the faceless forces behind the Democrats’ Socialist Agenda 21 President when even an entire police force leadership stands on the side of lawlessness and cover-up.

How strong were the threats or huge the bribes (or both; “the bullet or the bribe, -you decide.”) to effect such compliance with the puppet-masters behind the curtain?

With the NSA knowing everything there is to know about everyone, including the police leadership, its pretty likely that secrets were threatened to be revealed if compliance was rejected. Often, the bigger the leader, the bigger the secrets.  Bill Clinton being example # 1, and Eliot Spitzer being example # 2.

One must assume that the age of constitutional security and privacy for Americans is over, and we are now in the age of unconstitutional, blood-sucking, Anaconda-like Liberty-crushing ruthless, faceless, Godless, conscience-less, unaccountable, totalitarian-bent, oligarchical Super-Statist tyranny.

That is the Liberal’s idea of the path to utopia but since it is paved with good intentions, it is justified.  How is such an attitude not flat-out treason to the United States Constitution? -the one that they’ve taken a “solemn” oath to preserve and protect?

They justify such treason on the basis that it is what’s best for the country, (-in their deluded fantasy).  But it can only end badly for everyone, just as it has in every instance of every prior republic that has ever existed.

Will we be different or are too many Americans already non-American in their world outlook, and uninterested in defending the fundamental principles of Liberty and Natural Rights that our nation was founded on?  Will we be the frog that jumps out of the slowly boiling water or will we just boil?

The answer, as in Detroit, will not be decided at the national level but at the local and State level.  Will the States finally defend their constitutional Rights and The People’s Liberties or will they continue to allow the District of Corruption to rule their roost in their stead?

Each State will decide how much federal perversion of the Constitution they are willing to go along with and submit to, as seen in the response to the Health Care Act and federal marijuana law. But that is not nearly enough.  The decrees of unelected federal judges need to be nullified by the States whose Constitutions they have audaciously and unconstitutionally over-turned.

The federal government, -all branches, and the bureaucracy, is beyond salvaging, beyond repentance, beyond self-correction and self-limitation.  If the States do not begin to rein it in, it will destroy the future of all but the elite.  Then what will happen?  The French revolution, American-style?  A new Iraq?  The have-nots against the haves?

Of course that is worst-care scenario talk.  How could that possibly be in the cards?  Answer: 20 TRILLION DOLLARS OF UNREPAYABLE DEBT!  PLUS…another 100 TRILLION DOLLARS of unfunded mandates.  Just to be clear, that’s $100,000,000,000,000.  One hundred thousand million dollars.

Something awful is in the cards somewhere down the road because the entire world’s financial system is one gigantic house of cards built of U.S. currency and debt.  If it is ever deemed untrustworthy, the rush to the exits will equal that of matter being sucked into a Black Hole, -a hole of Obama’s purposeful enlargement in order to promote the undefendable transformation of American into something that we would not recognize nor want to live in.

by Adrien Nash  June 2014  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”.

6 Responses to Why A Hyphen and an Underline Condemn Obama’s Presidency

  1. David Farrar says:

    Where is your cite to support your conclusion that English common law ALWAYS used the hyphen when referring to a natural-born subject, Blackstone, I can assume, is there anybody else, or any place else? has English common law ever used as a legal term of art: natural born subject?
    [ONE CANNOT CITE THE LONG CENTURIES USE OF THE TERM BUT ONE CAN READILY RECOGNIZE THAT WITH IT DESCRIBING THREE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF SUBJECTS WITH THE SAME WORDS, THAT IT COULD BE NOTHING ELSE BUT A TERM OF ART.
    “SUBJECT” WAS LITERAL, SO “NATURAL” AND “BORN” CONSTITUTED THE ARTIFICIAL TERM, WITH NEITHER BEING REFERRABLE SEPARATELY THEY THUS HAD TO BE TIED TOGETHER TO PREVENT THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY WERE SEPARATE AND INDIVIDUALLY SIGNIFICANT. I DON’T ASSUME THAT EVERYONE, ALL OF THE TIME, ADDED THE HYPHEN, BUT FROM WHAT I’VE READ, IT WAS THE NORM TO USE IT WHEN REFERRING TO AN ALIEN-BORN SUBJECT OR A NATURALIZED SUBJECT.]

    I assume Justice Gray used the term it is a “term of art” when trying to use “natural-born subject” as analogous to Art. II §I cl. 4 natural born Citizen; is this true?
    [OFF-HAND, I DO NOT KNOW.]

    It would be useful if you would go through Gray’s Wong Kim Ark decision and draw parallels between where his construct fails to measure up using the hyphened natural-born subject (term of art) and what is actually used by the founders and framers of the US Const,. namely: a natural born (US) Citizen.
    [AGREE. THAT COULD BE VERY ENLIGHTENING, BUT AT THIS STAGE, NOT VERY NECESSARY. I HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH AND DEBUNKED ALL OF THE MAJOR HISTORICAL FALSE STATEMENTS BY AUTHORITIES POINT BY POINT. THE RESULT WAS 20 PAGES IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. WHAT I LOOK FORWARD TO IS GETTING MY LENGTHY EXPOSITION ON THE DISSERTATION OF DAVID RAMSAY ONLINE. IT IS KIND OF THE LAST WORD, ONLY I STILL HAVE ONE MORE BEYOND IT; PART TWO OF “TRANSCENDENT, INVIOLABLE, A PRIOR CITIZENSHIP”. IT WILL BE THE FINAL, FINAL WORD. IT WILL ILLUMINATE TRUTHS THAT NO ONE IS CONSCIOUS OF.]

    A filthy-rich person is not the same as a filthy and rich person; this I understand. But I am having trouble understanding the difference between a natural subject and a born subject and a natural-born subject. I assume the term natural-born doesn’t mean without medical intervention, as some have suggested. But in what way does the word “natural” modify the word: “born”, to the extent it would be absolutely required to accurately describe, by English common law, a natural-born subject, rather than a natural born subject?

    [A NATURAL SUBJECT WAS SUBJECT BORN. A BORN SUBJECT, FOR LACK OF ANOTHER TERM, WAS ONE DEEMED A SUBJECT PURELY BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY WERE BORN, NOT TO WHOM THEY WERE BORN, -MADE A SUBJECT REGARDLESS OF BEING ALIEN-BORN.
    NATURAL NEVER MODIFIES BORN BUT WHEN THE BRITISH WERE REFERRING TO A SUBJECT-BORN ENGLISH OR BRITISH SUBJECT SPECIFICALLY THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO INCLUDE A HYPHEN, JUST AS THERE IS NONE IN THE U.S.
    THE HYPHEN SERVES TO INDICATE NOT A CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO WORDS BUT A LEGAL ARTIFICIALITY TO THE ENTIRE TERM nbs IT WOULD HAVE MADE NO DIFFERENCE IF THEY HAD ADDED ONE BETWEEN BORN AND SUBJECT ALSO SINCE THE ENTIRE TERM WAS A TERM OF LEGAL ARTIFICE, BUT SUBJECT HAD SPECIFIC MEANING AND SO IT WAS BETTER LEFT SEPARATE WITHOUT A HYPHEN.]

    A natural subject and a born subject, a natural citizen and a born citizen. It seems to me, they both mean the same thing. [ASIDE FROM THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUBJECT AND CITIZEN, THEY ARE OF THE SAME ORIGIN; BLOOD DESCENT VS GOVERNMENT PERMISSION; NATURAL CRITERION VS THE GOVERNMENT CRITERION OF NATIVE-BIRTH WITHIN THE DOMINION.]

    These are just some of the thought and question you insightful article has raised. I need to clarify your hyphen point more clearly. As I say, I can readily see the filthy-rich example. But I can’t really see it when you apple it to natural-born, or natural born, and how the hyphen relates to subjectship and without a hyphen indicates citizenship.
    [THE HYPHEN HAS NO CONNECTION TO EITHER. THE CONTRAST IS NOT BETWEEN SUBJECT AND CITIZEN BUT BETWEEN THE WORDS “NATURAL BORN” AND “NATURAL-BORN” WITH THE FORMER BEING TWO SEPARATE WORDS WITH THE LATTER BEING A SINGLE UNITARY PHRASE WITH NO MEANING AT ALL. “NATURAL-BORN” MEANT NOTHING IN THE BRITISH NATIONALITY SCHEME. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT THE LANGUAGE DEVOLVED TO AS AN UMBRELLA TERM FOR ALL SUBJECTS FROM ALL ORIGINS. A. NASH]

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  2. Bart F. says:

    It does not matter anyway. Nobody knows exactly what the Founders meant by “Natural Born”. If you had asked 10 of them at the time, you would have got 10 different answers. It is a waste of time trying to figure out something that they were not sure about themselves. I would say to amend the Constitution to remove the phrase “Natural Born”, but I don’t think anybody cares about it one way or the other.

    [OR… THEY ALL KNEW EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANT AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHY THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION. IF THE WORDS DID NOT MEAN WHAT THEY STILL MEAN, THEN THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSION.

    BUT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY ONE THING TO DISCUSS; “ARE ALIEN-BORN CITIZENS CONSIDERED TO BE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS?” NO ONE WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO ASK A QUESTION TO WHICH EVERYONE ALREADY KNEW THE ANSWER.

    FOREIGN SUBJECTS GIVE BIRTH TO FOREIGN SUBJECTS EVEN IF THE STATE THEY WERE BORN IN GRANTS THEM ITS CITIZENSHIP IN ADDITION TO THEIR FOREIGN SUBJECTSHIP.
    BRITISH DOCTRINE WAS THAT FOREIGN-BORN CHILDREN OF SUBJECTS WERE NOT NATURALLY BRITISH BUT WERE DEEMED TO BE BRITISH ANYWAY BY THE COMMON LAW OR STATUTE. SO THEIR CHILDREN BORN IN AMERICA WERE SUBJECT TO BRITISH JURISDICTION IN THE EYES OF THE BRITS, AS WELL AS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE NEW NATION OF THE UNITED STATES, -WHICH DETESTED THE VERY CONCEPT OF DUAL NATIONALITY. IT WAS AKIN TO BIGAMY.]

  3. Bart F. says:

    Re: “If the words did not mean what they still mean”…

    That is the rub. Because the words do not still mean what they once meant. The meaning of words changes with time, and it is impossible for us to go back and recapture exactly what was meant. But even more problematic, they did not ever say or define what they meant. So it is all a futile exercise in speculation.

    Our laws do not come from G*d. Our laws do not come from England or Ancient Rome, or from Swiss philosophers. Our laws come from The People. The People have spoken on this. Trying to turn back the clock is a waste of time.

    • arnash says:

      That is a simply wonderful view of reality,… if you are in the fourth grade. Our laws do NOT come the the People. They come from ignorant self-serving statists and corrupt judges who impose their personal views on the meaning of the clearly understood words of the United States Constitution, -which is NOT an evolving document, nor dependent on current popular sentiment. Either it alone is the Law of the Land, or there is no law and we are simply a nation governed by men and not laws. You should hold off on making comments while still in a less than knowledgeable state. Example; “Our laws do not come from God.” That reveals very clearly the level of your ignorance since no one has ever said that they do. They have said, and you can look it up, that our RIGHTS come from God, the creator of mankind. Rights are not dependent on laws. They exist eternally as a fundamental element of humanity, including your right to spout off and not be silenced.

      • davidfarrar says:

        Addendum: If Bart has a problem with our ‘inalienable’ rights coming from God, it is just as accurate to say our ‘inalienable’ rights were establish by natural law.

        Secondly, the founders and framers of the US Const were perfectly aware of what happens to governments that are solely established by changing law; inevitably, they lead to a dictatorship. This was the very point of establishing a written constitution, to slow that process down, to make it harder for those who would use the law to empower themselves. This same point can be used to defend the use of “natural law” to define an Art. II §I cl. 4 natural born Citizen, i.e., its relative immutability, compared to positive law. There is no argument, in the eyes of the founders and framers of the US Const. their purpose was to maintain the ideals of the revolution, to prevent the people from reverting back to an elected monarch, in their day, and eventually an hereditary one. In our day, it would be to prevent a president from becoming an elected President for Life.

        ex animo
        davidfarrar

  4. Bart F. says:

    “Ignorant self – serving statists and corrupt judges who impose their personal views” are not gods. “Ignorant self – serving statists and corrupt judges who impose their personal views” are PEOPLE. Judges and Legislators are appointed or elected by other PEOPLE.

    Our laws come from people. When people change their minds (which is frequent) the laws are changed. The people will continue to change the laws for better or worse. It is silly to think otherwise.

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: