Sovereignty & Citizenship; Jurisdiction & Corruption of Blood

Part I.

The issue of Barack Obama’s right to be President is indirectly tied to the issue of Sovereignty, and directly tied to two other issues.  The first is the constitutional issue of whether or not he is a natural born citizen as the Constitution requires, or is something else.  The second is the issue of jurisdiction and one’s submission to it.  That issue determines whether or not he is even a citizen at all.

As I’ve demonstrated in over 100 expositions regarding both issues, he fails on both of them.  He cannot be a natural born citizen by the actual meaning of that description if he is not even a citizen by actual United States law (as apposed to policy).

If we seek certainly and truth about what he truly is or is not, then we must understand history and  microscopically examine all of the issues tied to citizenship, -to parse the nuances of the history of British law and legal terms & statements by prominent men of authority and/or scholarship in past and present law.

That approach alone is still insufficient of itself because reality is not encompassed within the finite borders of the legal system but is grounded on the bedrock of human nature and how it responds to natural relationships.

That aspect of needed understanding is the primary source of law dealing with national identity.  That refers to the issue of what one is in relation to others. (-one of the group or an outsider?)  If one is an insider, then the next issue is that of the reach of that relationship, -the reach of belonging.

What are its limits if any?  Is it limited by some sort of boundary or is it unlimited?  The answer is naturally not a legal answer but a human answer, -and not only human but elemental to all sentient emotional beings, including those in the animal and pet world.

Its members are also capable of strong attachments that last a lifetime and are part of the picture regarding the reach of belonging.  But only humans tie that connection, those heart strings, to legal relationships in the arena of national belonging, -national identity, national oneness and unity.

Human, or sociological connections form the basis of all national identity laws.  They are like the foundation of a house, while the legal connections involving jurisdiction and sovereignty are like the wooden floor built atop it.  Without the foundation you cannot have the floor of the house, but without the floor you could still have a house built on the foundation.

That is analogous to the nature of belonging to native tribes and clans.  Belonging is not a legal issue but a blood-connection issue.  Blood connections are the foundation of all belonging, and do not need a floor of law in order to exist.  But the floor of law needs the foundation of natural attachments in order to exist or else it would be totally arbitrary in nature and have no natural basis at all.

That would mean that natural membership would go unrecognized and thus no natural citizenship would be acknowledged.  Such a situation is the one that afflicts and infects the thinking of the American legal world today because they erroneously presume that the house of nationality law and rules is built on the floor of law and not on the foundation of natural relationships.

That is the delusion spawned by the United States Attorney General in 1898 and subsequently assumed and accepted by all to be “the law of the land” regarding nationality assignment.  It has never been questioned since then nor, as a result, has the natural order ever been restored.  And yet the situation is even far worse than that because not only is the issue of the basis of citizenship totally confused, but that confusion bleeds into and perverts the understanding of what a natural born citizen is and thus who is eligible to be President.

The actual meaning of “natural born citizen” is tied to presidential eligibility and nothing else, while the actual meaning of “jurisdiction” is tied to the possession of citizenship itself.  Discovering the true meaning of jurisdiction along with the true basis of citizenship will serve to also reveal the meaning of what a natural born citizen is, and thereby dispel the confusion and misconceptions regarding both.

The truth can only be found in understanding the origin of citizenship.  Citizenship cannot exist without a nation within which to possess it.  One cannot be a member of a group if no group exists.  And what is the origin or basis of nations?  It is the assemblage of laws created to govern the people of the nation, and the government created to write and administer those laws.  Having a functioning government raises the issue of sovereignty, -what it is and what is its origin.

Sovereignty is simply the Right to rule.  There are two forms of the Right to rule.  One was once called natural law and meant the natural law of the jungle; the mighty are naturally and therefore rightfully dominant over the weaker, -whether they be fellow animals or fellow humans.  Might truly makes Right in that version of natural law.  It was one of the versions relied on by the Kings of England & Britain.

The other form is the moral right to rule.  If all men are created equal, then no man has a natural right to lord it over his equals except to the extent that they allow him via their willing permission.  When they give a man authority, -even supreme authority, then he has a right to rule because his authority is delegated to him by those who possess the fundamental right to rule themselves.

They, all created equal, (or “evolved” being equal by having the same human DNA) are sovereign over themselves since they own themselves and thus have the inherent right to rule themselves or to choose others more capable to do so.

The People, being the sovereigns of a country and nation, imbue their government with a portion of their sovereignty, or right to rule themselves, and it consequently has a right to exercise the authority that it has been given.  That authority goes by the term “jurisdiction”.

The realm within which that authority is exercised is the national territory of the nation.  If one is within that jurisdiction or realm of authority, then one is under the authority, or jurisdiction of the nation.  As can be seen, jurisdiction as a word has two different applications; one referring to the area within which authority reigns, while the other refers to the authority itself as something “under” which one is subject and also protected.

So a non-seditious person, citizen or outsider, may be both within and under the authority or jurisdiction of the government.  And that is how jurisdiction is always properly referred to.  “Within and under the…”  But here is where enlightenment begins; citizens can be “without” or outside of the jurisdiction and yet will still be under it and obligated to obey the laws, rulings, and policies of their government as well as pay the taxes it requires even though far outside of its borders.

They are outside, and perhaps living permanently outside of the national jurisdiction but as life-long members of the nation, they are not exempt from obedience to the national “rules of the house”.

A further revealing fact is that outsiders who are outside of the national jurisdiction are not “under” the government’s jurisdiction or authority since they are under the jurisdiction of their own government.  They cannot be, and are not, required to obey American laws and policies because they are not members of the national family; and its head (the federal government) can’t tell them what to do because they are not its children and it is not their father.  They have another father and they must obey his rules because they are of him and subservient to the sovereignty that their forefathers gave to him.

Their children will be born also subject to the jurisdiction to which their fathers are subject because they inherit his station in life, -his membership and his belonging to his own people.  They cannot be morally nor legally disinherited from membership in the group into which they were born.

partus sequitur patrem:  “Children follow the status (including nationality) of the father,”

Think about it; no government exercising rightful sovereign authority given to it by The People has a right, legal or moral, to disinherit at birth the children of its members, -and yet there are many very patriotic Americans, -even extremely patriotic Americans who hold to a doctrine which beneath the table includes just such an authority over all American children, and worse still, exercises it via its government doctrine of nationality assignment.

I speak of those who believe that in order to be a normal natural citizen of America one absolutely must be born within American jurisdiction (borders or bases), -regardless of being born totally under or subject to it via birth to American parents who are under it everywhere on Earth.

The basic tenor of that doctrine is “Blood be damned!  Borders are GOD!”  The upshot of that doctrine is that American children born abroad inherit nothing!  They have no moral natural right nor even a constitutional right to be what their parents are, nor to belong to the country of which they are members because by their exit of their women’s womb within the sovereignty of another nation they are thereby disinherited of their American Rights and are therefore ALIENS having some foreign nationality instead.

In essence, they and their parents are victims of what amounts to a form of nationality attainder with corruption of blood; a form of disinheritance punishment forbidden by the Constitution because of the inherent unfairness of punishing the children for the sins of the father.

I suspect that all who hold such a view are childless, lonely souls who view their country and its laws as their cosmic father & mother, son and daughter, -their family, and have no connection to real relationships like the rest of the human race.  Or they’ve been bamboozled by the “earned” authority that springs from academic accomplishment achieved by such persons who authoritatively promote such an anti-American and anti-human doctrine.

They insist that an American child is not a real natural member of the nation unless it was born under two completely separate and contrary systems of nationality assignment; jus soli (by right of soil) and jus sanguinis (by right of blood).  They dogmatically declare that no one whose birth does no comport to both systems is not a natural citizen of the United States and thus can never constitutionally be President.  Which brings us back to the issue of the reach of belonging (in the natural realm, both animal and human) and the reach of jurisdiction.  Where do they end, under what condition?

If your loved one is rotting in a foreign prison, does the reach of their belonging and attachment to your heart end at some physical place or is it unrelated to any physical demarcation such as boundaries of any kind, natural or man-made?

Such an absurdly unnecessary question is asked in order to point out that belonging and attachment do not end at the water’s edge.  They are not physical in nature, and are not produced via physical events, including the location of one’s birth event.  That event and location does not tie one to anything nor anyone.  It is irrelevant to bonds of affection and bonds of connection.

When Americans are languishing in an Iranian or North Korean prison, the heart strings of their fellow citizens feel the connection to them because that connection is unbounded by anything physical, and that is the very same nature as the reach of belonging regarding the children of Americans wherever they are born.

We are attached to them by bonds of national connection because they are attached to their parents to whom we are connected.  We can’t be attached to their parents without being attached to them, their own flesh and blood.  But the neo-nativist doctrine says that we have no natural connection to them at all, and thus no legal connection either.

Supposedly, that they are even allowed to be Americans is purely a gift of the all-powerful government.  Why would anyone promote such a doctrine?  Well, in a sense they don’t.  They simply ignore the moral deficiency of its collateral consequence and pretend it doesn’t exist.

That consequence is that any child born a foot or a mile or an ocean beyond the border can never be the man who puts his country back on a survival path as its President.  It does not matter if his twin was born shortly after him but on the “right side” of the border, nor that his father was the President of the United States, -and his father before him.  He IS AN ALIEN! -and can never be President since he does not fulfill their definition of what makes one a natural citizen of our nation by birth.

He failed to get himself born on American soil, and thus that lousy foreign soil will never raise him to be a true-blue 100% American.  He is stained forever by the national sovereignty within which his mother happened to be at the time that he felt was right to leave the womb and enter the world.  It’s essentially his own fault.

Not really, but their view is just as stupid as that.  Perhaps the best extreme example of the absurdity of their doctrine would involve a mother giving birth to twins in an ambulance traveling from Canada to a U.S. hospital, with the babies each born on opposites sides of the border.  Or a women on a boat traveling down a river running from Canada into the U.S. with the same situation.  Could one child really be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President while its sibling is an alien and not even have a natural right to be a citizen?

I rest my case.

by Adrien Nash  June 2014  obama–

available as a Windows Word document here:


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”.

Leave a Reply

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

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

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: