Citizenship & Presidential Ineligibility
June 21, 2014 1 Comment
The “Cable Act” Conundrum and “a wise-ass Fool”
~a curious anomaly of Language & Law
Mr. S. wondered: “I believe that President Obama’s place of birth is very important,… If he was born overseas, it is not clear if he would have been a citizen at birth…”
He would have inherited at birth his mother’s American nationality (just as with a father) if she had been about 4 months older, (but when she gave birth she was too young to meet the statutory requirement of having lived in the United States for five years following her 14th birthday).
He then would be a legal citizen via a natural connection to a citizen mother, but not a natural citizen with lacking a citizen father. He would have been a citizen via a naturalization statute written by Congress.
The Natural Right of birthright national-membership only accompanies the children of American parents. With one foreign parent, the right does not exist because it is based on natural principle, and the principle’s requirement would not have been met.
Natural membership in a species or other natural group cannot be obtained if one parent is not a member, but is of a different species. That is so unnatural that is violates the fundamental laws of nature and produces no off-spring whatsoever.
That’s just as in human society, -parents’ of mixed nationality cannot produce a newborn natural member of either nation. They’re children are all statutory citizens. That is the unwritten natural law under-girding the fundamental operation of citizenship acquisition.
Here’s a shocking hypothetical scenario: in 1922 the Cable Act was passed to restore the American citizenship rights of women who ha married foreigners. Due to the Naturalization Act of 1907, American women lost their citizenship when marrying a man from a foreign country with which the United States had an agreement of reciprocal laws for such women. That ceased with the Cable Act and they no longer lost their citizenship. A surprising turn of events could have occurred at that juncture in time.
Just before it, if a foreign woman married an American twin, she herself automatically became an American as well, via marriage naturalization. Thus both parents were American and could produce a child who was a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.
Just after the Act, the foreign bride of the other twin brother would not become an American and would have to naturalize in order to become a citizen. Suppose they had a child. He would be part American and part alien, and thus not a natural born citizen. He would be a statutory dual citizen and thus ineligible to be President. Same circumstance but different laws.
A foreign bride who married her groom a day before the Cable Act went into effect became an American while one who married her American groom the day after would have remained an alien. The child of one American twin brother could be President while the child of the other could be everything but.
The door shut on a specific day at a specific hour. After that, everything changed for the foreign bride and their eventual child, -but not really since almost no one ever becomes President. The odds are horrendous. “All of the stars have to align”. Wouldn’t that be like the odds against winning a Grand Slam lottery?
~”natural-born subject” vs “born natural leader”
or… “wise-ass fool” vs. “foolish young man”
Natural-born subject, like wise-ass fool, contains a unitary adjective phrase whose words are joined by a necessary hyphen. Both are terms of art (as in artifice). The first is a legal term of art while the second two are merely a language term of art, or idiom, meaning they are not a literal phrase since there is no such literal thing as a “foolish young” or a “wise-ass”, -even though there is such a thing as “a wise ass”, in which case “ass” is not an adjective but a noun.
Just as in “natural-born subject”, in the term “wise-ass fool”, the two words of the adjective phrase cannot be separated and used individually in connection to the noun “fool”. One can’t use only the first word in connection to the noun; as in “wise fool”, and neither can one apply “born” alone to “subject” (born subject) with the result being a clear unambiguous meaning, (just as one can’t apply “ass” to “fool” as in “ass fool” with the result of any meaning whatsoever).
That ambiguity is because one could be either born a subject by allowance of law, (-having alien immigrant parents or parent,) or be born a subject naturally by having native subject parents. Having two completely separate meanings means it was meaningless, -until used to distinguish between those who were not born as subjects but were made subjects by Parliament as adults. Eventually they also were labeled “natural-born subjects”, and once that happened, then the bastardization of the words was complete and they ceased to have any meaning other than “subject”.
The Founders, and Framers of the Constitution were not even on the same continent as that bastardized usage when they used the words “natural born citizen” to describe in common-language-terms who was eligible to be President. The term was not a legal term in any nation on Earth, although it was adopted randomly in certain State constitutions. Rather, it was a sociological or anthropological term that was sister to its companion term of “native” but with the added legal factor that came with the word “citizen”.
The words, “natural born citizen”, sans hyphen, do NOT constitute a term of art. As with “foolish young man” or “born natural leader”, the adjectives can be used separately with no ambiguity. “A foolish man” and “a young man” result; or “a born leader” and “a natural leader” result, -just as “a natural citizen” and “a born citizen” result from splitting “natural born citizen”.
But one could not take “wise-ass fool” and shorten it to “ass fool” because “ass” is tied to “wise”.
Similarly, with a hyphen between “natural” and “born”, one cannot separate them either since they form a unitary term of art, “natural-born”, which had no actual legal meaning at all. It became a sort of legal-language embellishment (although it originally did not include naturalized subjects).
Not so in the American term which would also result in two ambiguities in regard to both adjectives if they were used separately, and that was why they both were needed, and why John Jay, (who proposed the requirement for the Command-in-Chief position) had to underline the word “born” in order to eliminate all ambiguity.
That is because a “natural citizen” was what everyone was regarded as being, including foreigners once they were “natural-ized”. That was a fiction of law that was an unwritten part of the British common law in Britain and the colonies.
“All Subjects Are Natural Subjects” became: “All Citizens Are Natural Citizens.” That made everyone the same and equal. E. Pluribus Unum.
“For the assembly, there will be ONE statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One Law and one Rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you” (Hebrew Scripture; Book of Numbers. 15:15-16).
“In other words, if we take our cue from Scripture, spiritual unity is as important to a nation as cultural unity and social unity. In fact, since religion expresses itself in culture and culture in law, unity in matters of religious principle is the most profound and important unity of all.”
[But like a theoretical subatomic particle waiting to be proven to exist, I have not come across any written mention of that nationality fiction of equality as of yet other than the term “equality of citizenship”, -which cannot be assumed to be a philosophically superficial thing. It is related to the very nature of citizenship itself just as in the philosophical and religious fictions of baptism and adoption. One becomes something new and is viewed differently.
I have not yet been able to even determine the origin of the term “natural-ization” and its concept. But I’m fairly sure that it is nearly 1,000 years old, or may even be Roman in origin. The Romans also followed the natural law pattern that nationality descends from the father; “Partus Sequitur Patrem”.]
So to disambiguate the term “natural citizen” from its fiction-of-law alternative (natural-ized citizen), the use of “born” was necessary. One had to be a natural citizen by being born as one. That is different from being a “natural citizen” at birth via the benevolence of law, i.e., the grace of the natives and their government toward children of immigrant aliens born on national soil. (another ambiguity: “by birth” vs “at birth”.)
So couldn’t one be a fiction-of-law natural citizen who was a citizen at birth via native-birth (14th Amendment) and qualify for the moniker “natural born citizen” as everyone believes? The question involves a whole lot of parsing of nuance. It is resting on a very fine balance of logic and could tilt either way. Or so it seems to the mind that fails to discriminate between fiction and reality.
By using all three terms and underlining “born”, John Jay (future first Supreme Court Chief Justice) sought to emphasize that the Commander-in-Chief be no one who was not a real natural citizen, which included the requisite qualification of having been born as a natural citizen and not deemed a natural citizen via a fiction of law, -even if deemed so at birth.
In other words, “at” didn’t cut it since it still referred to citizenship which was not natural but was merely legal via State laws and constitutions. It had to be real natural citizenship by birth to citizens and not artificial natural citizenship bestowed once an alien-fathered child entered the world. Real versus artificial. Natural versus Legal. Native parentage versus foreign parentage. Natural born citizen vs. natural-born citizen.
So it is clear that the term “natural born citizen” is not an artificial, contrived term of legal artifice as was “natural-born subject”. That naturally means that only American-fathered Americans and not foreigner-fathered Americans are eligible to be President since nationality for most of American history, and world history, flowed from father to children; -from the head of the family to the members of his family.
The man of the house, the master of the domain, the lord of the manor was the head. His “submissive & obedient” wife, who took his name for life and vowed to “honor and obey” him, might be compared to the torso of the family, while the children might be like the limbs, -all extensions of and under the control of the head.
That was, and remains in many (if not most) parts of the world, the current and historical pattern of most societies. Thus, only one with headship potential could take a headship position in government as an elected or appointed official or representative. Only the heads could vote or hold office.
That slowly changed over time, and with the final passage of the 19th Amendment, many collateral effects were felt, including in the area of nationality assignment. With the passage of the Cable Act and those that followed it, women were made mostly equal to men in regard to passing their nationality to their children if the father was not an American.
[The general rule just stated may not apply in extraordinary circumstances, -such as those of Ted Cruz. He was born not to an American father nor to a foreign father since his father was a stateless person, having no nationality subject to the Communist Castro government that had conquered his homeland of Cuba. Castro was not his dictator since he was a man whose government had ceased to exist while sojourning in the United States, and he never submitted himself to the sovereign authority of the Cuban dictatorship and its socialist constitution. So he contributed nothing to his son’s nationality equation. He was like a ghost. All of Ted’s natural national membership came from his mother alone. So one cannot definitively say exactly what he is and is not citizenship-wise. One could argue both sides and not be fully wrong or fully right.]
But if I’m recalling correctly, I believe that I read that an American man’s word that he is the father of a foreign woman’s child carries more weight than the word of an American woman that she is the mother of a foreign man’s child in the absence of documentation. A man, it is known, would not naturally claim paternity of a child that was not his, but a women who badly wanted a child might do such a thing even if the child was not really hers. Yep, men and women are actually different! Who’d have thunk it? And they’ve always been, and will always be so.
Thus the law treated them differently, both fairly and unfairly. It never forced them to fight for their country, and never will. To protect Liberty and women is why free men fight. Always have and always will.
And that relates to the reality of how men were wired in 1787. Not only were men wired differently from women, but American men had, thanks to the tyranny of the British Parliament and the King’s military, come to be wired very differently from the monarchists of the world.
They, and to a lesser degree, the British people, were very strong adherents to the attitude of self-governance, and individual liberty, and with a war of rebellion and revolution then being their recent experience, their mind-set was uniquely different in all of the world. And they wanted no President reigning over them who did not share that fundamental attitude about man and government.
In other words, they did not embrace the possibility of anyone with a foreign mind-set and attitude toward sovereign imperial power to ever wield the sword of presidential authority. The result of such leadership could be disastrous for American independence and liberty in one of two ways; he could be an imperialist who loyally deferred to the sovereign authority of a European kingdom, (as Catholics were always feared to be oriented toward the Pope) or he could be an imperialist who might seek to be a sovereign dictator himself.
Neither possibility was tolerable, and so when it was proposed that he be “No person, except a natural born citizen…” there was no disagreement. Only a man raised by an American father would dependably have an American mind-set, and the only sort of man who would have been raised by an American father would have been one born of his American father.
Did American men, born and raised as Americans, lose their American mentality by traveling beyond the sea to another land? Or was it an ingrained element of their psychological make-up?
Did they surrender their American sovereignty and become imperialism-embracing, boot-licking sycophants of royal dictators merely by their presence within a royal realm? Did men who were such, born and raised to be such, become Americans through-and-through merely by being present on American soil?
Men born and raised as obedient subjects of foreign monarchs could not be entrusted with the power of the Commander-in-Chief, nor could the sons raised by them. They could not be presumed to have a wholly American attitude. Merely being born could not create it, and being native-born within U.S. borders did not magically erase that fact. So it wasn’t about native-vs-foreign birth; it was instead about native-vs-foreigner birth.
Was a man born of natives or born of foreigners? The answer determined how he would be raised and what attitude would sink into his psyche. Only those born of natives could be entrusted with the presidency and the power of the Command-in-Chief position, and not just born of natives, but native citizens.
In Japan, there are four generations of native-born Koreans who are not citizens because they were born and raised as Koreans, (-and nearly half of them are born & raised and self-identified as Japanese North Koreans!!! The human propensity for submission to strong men is pathetic and rather astounding.) And their numbers are over half a million.
Assimilation is not an automatic thing for many men raised with an alien mind-set, -a non-American mind-set. No such person is eligible to be President, and never should be, but one was elected anyway because he said all of the right things in the right way with the right voice. And also had the right skin color for the zeitgeist of the time.
Hopefully America will recover from the consequences of his presidency, and a half century of bastardized socialist education across the land, and we’ll see a phoenix of restoration arise one day in the classrooms of America, and children will once again embrace an American mind-set, sing the great patriotic songs, and feel respect for the “God of Nature” and the liberties and rights with which He endowed his creation, -those individual natural rights secured for The People of America by the founders of a nation who respected those rights and not the “right” of government to reign imperially over those who are its rightful masters and not its servants.
by Adrien Nash July 2014 obama–nation.com
click below for a two-column, 4 page PDF version: