Dane, Apuzzo, & Nash vs Bone-head Obot Bull
July 1, 2014 Leave a comment
More Silver Bullets to the heart of Barackula Dogma
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. responded to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 174-75 (1803).
~What Chief Justice Marshall is telling us here is that words in the Constitution have meaning and cannot simply be written out of it without any reason.
He is also saying that clauses in the Constitution have to have an effect and operation in a real sense and not rendered meaningless by some interpretation.
He is also saying that whatever powers the Constitution gives to Congress cannot simply be expanded beyond what the Constitution says those powers are.
Article II uses the clause “natural born citizen,” not “born citizen.” This clause has to have a real effect and operation. And the Constitution only gives to Congress the power to naturalized persons, not to make them natural born citizens. Hence, reading “natural” out of the Constitution so as to give Congress a power to make through naturalization what the Constitution calls “natural born citizens,” or equating a “citizen of the United States” at birth with a natural born citizen reads the word “natural” out of the Constitution so as to render the whole clause meaningless and gives Congress a power which the Constitution does not give to it. Such an interpretation of the natural born citizen clause is constitutionally inadmissible.
By pooh-poohing the natural born citizen clause and reading the word “natural” out of the clause, Maskell and the Obots just want us to forget or simply dismiss what the Framers had in mind regarding how born citizens, who later in life were supposed to be trusted with the survival and preservation of the nation and with the singular civil and military powers of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military that come with it, came into being and how they were most likely to be reared and educated.
They want us to ignore how the Framers saw future presidents and commanders developing their political character and conscience prior to being given the constitutional privilege to be eligible for those offices.
As Chief Justice Marshall explained in Marbury, the Constitution is a written expression of the people of the founding generation who had the original right to constitute their government in such a manner as to best provide for their happiness and having been adopted and ratified by them is the supreme law of the land. Id. at 176.
Hence, the only correction to your statement is that Jack Maskell, Dr. Conspiracy, and the other Obots just fail to see or refuse to admit these fundamental truths.
Now you’ve hit the bull’s eye. You perfectly point out the fact that “natural” is not some superfluous, unneeded appendage but a vital element of the phrase being as the founders were not given to adding meaningless or redundant words just for the heck of it.
The fact that “natural” has real meaning is a silver bullet to the heart of the obot dogma which stands or falls on the doctrine that the nbc phrase has no literal meaning at all, -only a legal term of art meaning, -one by which the words “natural born” carry the same sense as under the British doctrine of the common law, which eventually came to include everyone, even naturalized subjects.
But that doctrine did not use the words as separate words but usually joined them by a hyphen, revealing them to be one single, indivisible, unitary phrase in which neither word is defined independently.
Thus their term of art meaning can mean less than what the words mean, i.e., the sum is less than the parts since natural (as well as born) lost all meaning.
That was fine in a nation without an elected Commander-in-Chief, but not in the new U.S.A. which had the only one in the world.
The downside of your illumination being correct on that point is that it not only invalidates the obot doctrine of requiring a term-of-art interpretation, but it also invalidates your own as well.
Either the words have individual English language meaning and “natural” cannot be dismissed as meaningless, or they do not have individual meaning and the word “natural” can simply be ignored as it was under the British system.
You have an irreconcilable conundrum of conflicting doctrine and must some day deal with it, by picking the one you just shared and thereby invalidating the obots, or clinging to the opposite of what you shared and thus validating their term-of-art labeling of the phrase as well as your own.
It can’t be both a term-of-art and also not a term of art but instead simply common words used in conjunction in a natural way, not a fictional “legal” way. So which position will you support? You can’t have it both ways.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said…
You were doing just fine when following along. But you went off on the deep, deep end when you stuck your own two cents into it.
There is no conundrum on my part. Natural born citizen is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause. It means a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875).
All of what you wrote after the part wherein you said you agreed with me, to the degree that anyone can even understand what you are talking about, is pure jumbled up fantasy designed to continue to promote you family agenda. ~~~
my reply: “family agenda”??? I, who am as childless as Mario, at least understands that the real world is not one of single individuals who view their nation as their cosmic mother, but rather is rooted in families, without which no nation would exist. How could the rules of human life be devoid of accommodations designed for the foundational unit of the nation?
Why would the rules of social and national membership be divorced from the social reality of family cohesion? How can a baby be naturally consigned to a foreign group to which its parents have no connection? What principle of nature does that follow?
How can “natural” have any meaning if it is part of an adjective-phrase that has no natural meaning but only an assigned meaning? How can it mean natural and simultaneously not? If the words “natural born citizen” only have a unique, unitary, indivisible assigned meaning that is only marginally attached to the words themselves, then how can anyone say that “natural” also has a particular meaning, assigned by the English language, and very relevant to the Constitutions authors? Instead the meaning of the 3-word clause is arbitrarily assigned by a creator of a nationality doctrine who discards the word as undefined since he cannot define its meaning or purpose?
Mario rightfully questions how “natural” can be viewed as having no meaning but then turns around and denies that it actually does! He is unwilling to acknowledge that it means what it means and then argues that it does not mean what the obots, just as dogmatically, claim it to mean, which is nothing. So to the obots, it means nothing, but to Mario it means something of constitutional significance, but if pressed to say exactly what that is, he regresses to his dogmatic doctrine that it does not mean anything since it is merely are part of a “term-of-art” idiom, (which they agree on) whose meaning he defines by criteria not found in nature, nor reason, nor historical authority.
Talk about a conflicted mind! But no, Mario can see no irreconcilable conflict. How unfathomable is that? How does a mind pull off such a trick? “Natural” meant something real and substantial to the framers of the Constitution, which cannot be ignored, and yet to Mario it means nothing since it has no individual meaning. It simply cannot refer to natural citizens or his house of cards semi-collapses. It simply must somehow imply as part of the phrase that the fleeting moment of birth occurs inside of the artificial man-made borders of the country, -which is unrelated in any way to anything natural.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote: Slartibartfast, You said:
“My position, by the way, has an enormous amount of historical support rooted in four centuries of jurisprudence which has been confirmed by multiple contemporary courts…”
First, your four centuries of jurisprudence is relative only to subjectship in Great Britain, in the colonies, and citizenship in the individual states. None of it relates to our national citizenship. Hence, only through the grace of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark does it tell us since 1898 who is a citizen of the United States.
That monarchical jurisprudence does not tell us who is a natural born citizen. I will share with you one source from the Founding period which further shows I am correct and you are not.
Nathan Dane wrote “two major legal treatises. The first of these was published in 1823, titled A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law. Its eight volumes were supplemented by a ninth in 1829.
The Abridgment was very successful, and was the ‘first systematic treatise covering the entire field of American law.’ It became a standard work, and every lawyer of distinction bought a copy.
Dane used the substantial proceeds from the Abridgement to provide an endowment for a law school at Harvard University, specifying that the first Dane Professorship of Law would go to his old friend Joseph Story. For a while, Harvard Law School was called ‘Dane Law School.’”
Here is how Dane explained American national law on citizenship:
“By the Acts of Congress of March 26, 1790, and January 29, 1795, an alien father [upon] being naturalized, his children under twenty-one years of age, dwelling in the United States, cease to be aliens and become citizens.
Citizens of the United States having their children born beyond sea, are as natural born citizens. But the right of citizenship is not to descend to persons whose fathers never have been resident in the United States.” [4 Dane’s Abridgement, ch. 131; art. 2, § 2, 698 (1824).]
Dane did not give any importance to whether a child born to an alien father was born in or out of the United States. He made no mention of the place of birth because it was not relevant when the father was an alien. Any children born to alien parents were alien born.
Dane later explicitly confirms this rule in Section 8 of his treatise. Also, Dane said of children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents that they “are as natural born citizens.” He did not say that they “are natural born citizens.”
my reply: ~And neither did Congress which mandated that they be “considered as…”, just as naturalized citizens and their children were also “considered as citizens of the United States.” Those ordered to do the considering were all port authorities and other officials who might deny them rights if unaware that they had become Americans, and not merely deemed or pretend Americans, but actual Americans. There was no category of pretend citizens. One was either a citizen or an alien.
Mario means to imply that they were not really natural born citizens but were merely deemed by the authority of Congress to be viewed or categorized as such. That assumption hold no water. Parliament possessed unlimited authority and could do such a thing and did, but Congress had no such authority.
He implies that it up-graded their citizenship for the heck of it to super-duper but fictional natural status and yet gives no explanation as to why they would “mistakenly” do that, (none) nor how they could rightfully make such an up-grade from an uncategorized “citizen”.
But he goes much further by insisting that it not only possessed that authority but also possessed the authority of Parliament to declare American children born beyond sea to be out-right aliens!
So… Congress for some unknown and unspeculated reason, eventually even redefined American children from being natural born citizens to being aliens. You want answers as to why or how Congress could do that? You can look but all you’ll find is a black hole from which no light of fact or speculation escapes.
Dane further confirmed that after the American Revolution, children born in the United States to alien parents were alien born.
In Section 2, Dane fully explained Calvin’s Case and the English common law jus soli rule of acquiring the status of a “natural-born subject” in England. But then he goes on to explain what the American common law rule was. He stated:
“And now if an American citizen goes abroad and marries an alien wife, and has a child by her in a foreign country, that child is not alien, but may inherit his estate in the United States.
But if an American woman, a citizen, go abroad and marry an alien husband, and have a child by him, so born, that child is an alien, and cannot inherit her estate in the United States.
And upon the same principles, if an English subject comes into the United States, and marries an American wife, and has a child by her born here: it cannot inherit her estate here, because this child follows the allegiance of its father, and may inherit his estate in England.” Id. § 8, at 701.
nash notes: It is without foundation to assume the truth of this claim since unlike in Britain, inheritance law was a State matter, and not a federal matter, just as was birth and citizenship.
I do not omnisciently know that as a fact, but as an inescapable deduction based on the assumption that Congress never dared to tell the States what their citizenship principles had to be. With inheritance intimately tied to citizenship, and Congress having no authority over the citizenship of those who were Americans, it is illogical to think that it would have meddled in such a State matter, considering the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Just consider that all estate property was under the purview of the State in which it was located, not under that of the national government, so rules of inheritance would have been strictly State rules. Now how can I be right and an authority such as Dane be wrong? It baffles me too, but facts are one thing, and presumptions unbacked by facts are another.
He presented the common law “principle” of Britain without any acknowledgement of the codified statutory law of the individual States, -like they didn’t exist and all law was national common law or federal law, even though the “law” may have been in many or most States nothing more than inherited colonial legal convention brought over from England, in which case his statement would be correct.
The first thing to notice is that Dane said “[a]nd now,” meaning that now things were different from how they had been before. We can see in this statement the strength of partus sequitur patrem (children follow the condition of their parents) and the right of a nation to impose its positive or municipal law upon those born in its territory regardless of to whom they may be born.
Dane explained that in the United States where the child was born did not alone control the question of the child’s U.S. allegiance and citizenship. What did control was whether the child’s father (both father and mother [being] citizens under the then-prevailing rule of unity of citizenship between husband and wife) was a U.S. citizen.
So the rule that a “child follows the allegiance of its father,” what Dane described as “upon the same principles,” determined the citizenship of a child born either in or out the United States.
If the father was a U.S. citizen, making the mother also a U.S. citizen, then the child was a citizen regardless of the place of birth.
With the citizenship of the wife and child following the husband and father, dual allegiance and citizenship was also avoided under U.S. law.
Such dual allegiance and citizenship arose when a foreign nation like England used the jus soli concept of citizenship, allowing the child (born in England) of a U.S. citizen father to also acquire through English positive or municipal law British citizenship by birth in its territory although to alien parents.
Dane explained that a child born in the United States to a British subject father, even if married to a U.S. citizen mother, followed the allegiance of his or her alien father (which also made the mother alien) was alien born and a subject of Great Britain.
[nash notes: the mother’s nationality was irrelevant to British nationality because it centered in the center of the British family, its head, the father. Thus the nationality of the mother is of no concern except in the arcane issue of presidential eligibility and the natural citizenship it required. Only after the passage of the 19th Amendment giving voting rights to women, did they cease to automatically become American citizens by marrying an American. see: A Nationality of Her Own Chapter 1: Conscripted Allegiance: Marital Naturalization and the Immigrant Woman
It is not right to give a sweeping impression that all States had laws that rendered American women aliens who lose their U.S. citizenship via marriage, but many must have followed that British custom because eventually it was made the national law in the Naturalization Act of 1907, -repealed in 1922 by the Cable Act which restored their citizenship right regardless of who they married, a la the new climate following the 19th Amendment by which they obtained the right to vote along with men.
States had to pick one of two choices that they would make state law. Either the family was to have one and only one nationality, -per the custom of the common law, (with the father/ husband determining the nationality of the family), or, the children would be granted a citizenship which the parents did not possess, resulting in a divided family with dual citizenship and dual allegiance attached to the child.]
Clearly then, Dane would have considered Obama, (if born in the United States to a British father and an American mother), as born to alien parents and alien born, a subject of Great Britain, and not a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen. [by Dane’s words, that seems indisputable.]
Hence, requiring that children be born to U.S. citizen parents in order to be a U.S. citizen,.. there is no way that Dane or the Framers would have viewed Obama as a natural born citizen. Rather, they would have ruled that Obama was alien born and in need of naturalization which he could gain only after birth. [“after birth” means either “from birth” by State common law permission or upon reaching adulthood and naturalizing.
Duane also confirmed that if children were born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, those children were not natural born citizens, but rather, under the Naturalization Act of 1790, “are [considered] as natural born citizens.” (Under the 1795 Act and all that followed, in Dane’s words, they “are as citizens of the United States.”).
[note: neither Dane’s words nor Mario’s interpretation accurately reflect the words and meaning that the first Congress intended. It sought to insure the presidential eligibility of all citizen-born white American sons, regardless of where they happened to have entered the world due to temporary circumstances.]
read about Nathan Dane at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Dane and his Abridgement
As can be seen, a child born in the United States to alien parents was not even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. This comes from Nathan Dane who was intimately involved in the Founding and would have known what other Framers and Founders thought about who were the citizens and the natural born citizens.
[nash notes: such a characterization fails to take into account that Americans were in fact of two different views. Those who embraced natural membership via descent and those who embraced traditional common-law native-birth determined membership. It all was centered on one’s view of immigrants and their children. Were they outsiders by blood and foreign ties, or were their native-born children insiders by common law and ancient tradition dating back to perhaps 1066 and the Norman conquest of England?
One must take with a grain of salt any opinion expressed that is wholly on one side or the other, because States had rights over citizenship and the new federal government’s Congress via its naturalization acts (administered by the Justice and State Departments) had rights over its citizenship policy even in the absence of any naturalization act language specifically mentioning the native-born. And their unaligned interests could be and were contradictory.]
What Dane said also further proves ([along with] the James Madison Administration) that I am correct that Congress’s early naturalization acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. With that in mind and with many members of early Congresses being Founders and Framers, there simply is no way that the Framers saw a child born in the United States to alien parents as a natural born citizen.
[Update: I have since dropped the following view… | nash notes: that sounds entirely plausible but fails to take into account the huge significance of unwritten words and meaning that he is attaching to words that were never used, but extrapolating a view based on what was not said instead. That approach dogmatically pushes aside the very real presence of a factual ambiguity due to non-specific language which did not even mention the native-born.
To take the view that automatically excludes them is not unreasonable, but also, to not do so is even more reasonable due to the pervasiveness of the common law custom that had existed from the beginning of every colony in America.
Hence we are left having to acknowledge that without definitive statements from those who wrote and those who passed the naturalization acts, we simply can’t conclude that they all were of one mind, when given the ambiguity of the language, they may all have willing accepted it because each State could then assign it the interpretation that it choose. ]
“If you want to see this to be true (and you don’t respect the fact that the courts haven’t expressed any doubt on the issue of whether or not the native born children of aliens are natural born in over a century), just look at the original intent of the Framers of the 14th Amendment—to overturn Scott v. Sandford, by codifying the [common] law as it was under [the custom extant when] the Constitution [w]as originally written. This necessarily precludes the ‘naturalized at birth’ class of citizens which your theories require.” [bracket additions by nash]
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote: Slartibartfast,
You cannot overcome the simple point that the Constitution only names two classes of citizens, the “natural born citizens” and the “citizens of the United States.” All of the citizens who are not natural born citizens are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, or treaties.
Your attempt at arriving at who are the natural born citizens by merely separating from the citizens only those who obtained citizenship after birth (your bootstrapped natural born citizen) fails for the simple reason that not all born citizens are natural born citizens.
Congress told us that when they wrote all the naturalization acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, both of which make born citizens who Congress did not call natural born citizens for the simple reason that they did not satisfy the definition of a natural born citizen.
To find the fallacy in your argument, we start with the premise that not all citizens of the United States are natural born citizens.
Obama, at best (if he was born in the United States), is a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. But you have to prove that he is not only a citizen of the United States at birth, but also a natural born citizen.
It is there that you fail. You acknowledge because you must that a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. But you also contend, without any evidence, that that is not the only definition that the Framers used for the clause.
You contend that the Framers also accepted a child born in the United States to alien parents as a natural born citizen. But you do not provide any evidence that the Framers would have considered a child born in the United States to alien parents a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.
Instead of providing that evidence, you fast forward to 1898 and argue that under Wong Kim Ark Obama is a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. You know that the Fourteenth Amendment does not name a “natural born citizen” and that the high court did not hold that Wong was a natural born citizen.
Hence, fast forwarding is not enough for you. Indeed, you also need to do some revision to the definition of a natural born citizen. You have to invent a way to get the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark to make Obama a natural born citizen.
It is there that Maskell and people like you come up with your revisionist definition of a natural born citizen, saying that all born citizens are natural born citizens, in effect telling us that the Fourteenth Amendment alone makes natural born citizens, even though Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and current courts have all said that the Amendment did not amend Article II’s natural born citizen clause.
You then go forward and say that since Obama is a born citizen under the amendment, he must be a natural born citizen. But you do all that without ever linking any of that to the Framers. None of that stops you, for you supply the missing evidence with a logical fallacy. Here is your final argument which completes your fraudulent argument:
All natural born citizens are citizens of the United States at birth.
Obama is a citizen of the United States at birth.
Therefore, Obama is a natural born citizen.
-this is fallacious logic.
So, you do not have historical and legal evidence which shows that the Framers considered a child born in the United States to alien parents a natural born citizen.
I have produced plenty of evidence which demonstrates that they did not. You do not have any historical and legal evidence which shows that the Framers considered all born citizens to be natural born citizens. I have produced plenty of evidence which demonstrates that they did not.
You make up for your lack of evidence with fallacious logic.
I see that you did not care to address what Nathan Dane said about whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a citizen. Dane said he was not.
Can you just imagine if you asked him if that child was a natural born citizen. Without any doubt, Dane would have ruled that Obama was not even a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.
You and all the Obots must really be hurting over such an authority agreeing with me.
ballentine stumbled: “All persons who are found within the boundaries of a State are to be deemed subject to the Government of the said State, whether their residence be permanent or temporary…..a State has full and absolute jurisdiction over all persons who are found within the boundaries of a State.”Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy, First Platform of International Law, pg 175 (1876)
Nash responds: And…. Sir Edward, the pompous, elitist, imperialist ass speaketh that which he knoweth not… except as regarding his own legal playpen.
He was a sycophant of all things imperialistic and monarchical. His very mind-set was an enemy of the United States’ fundamental principles of Liberty.
For God’s sake, just look at the title in front of his aristocratic name. Who could possibly have more self-confidence in his own correctness while being wrong than someone in his station in life?
He plows right off the rails with the first word “All”. All persons are not subject, -except in a nation with no foreign ambassadors, -no foreign invaders, no foreign guests, no indigenous tribes, no Gypsies, vagabonds, or slaves.
My God! How much more wrong can he be? But he was on his high & mighty pedestal to utter profundities like a god. No time to waste with trivial details like facts.
” are to be deemed subject to the Government”, “are to be” says who? Name the authority. That doesn’t mean quote the opinion. Opinions are not authority. Guess what? There was no such authority to be found. It was purely doctrinal and based on a baseless doctrine.
He was saying that by his authority everyone was to understand that by some authority or other, the rules he prescribed should be deemed to be “the law” even though they were not law at all, but everyone needs to play along because in the grand game that the empire was playing, those were the agreed to rules. Natural human rights be DAMNED!
“From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute.” It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself.
This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.” George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law (1884) (quoting Chief Justice Marshall)
That is shear madness. It asserts that human authority has no limits on its conduct. Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot believed that, but here it is coming from the mouth of an American? He understood nothing about reality but everything about superficial theory. Unless… he understood that “absolute” referred to being undiluted by sharing with another foreign sovereign power.
It would hardly be possible to make a more ridiculous statement, -not from an orthodoxy stand-point, but from a rational stand-point.
He got the orthodoxy just right but the reality dead wrong. Not fully dead, more like in a coma.
To understand reality, simply try to imagine how in practical terms anyone, including a government agent, can possibly exercise “jurisdiction” over a new-born baby. It also is a “person”. How exactly is that done?? By assuming authority over its diapers? Or its feeding? Maybe its nap-time?
To be very clear; pompous, self-important men, male chauvinists all, and probably slave owners, enjoyed the power of their elitist positions in government or law or legal academia, and also enjoyed mouthing or writing great words about great power, -the power that they were within close proximity of and rubbed shoulders with at the country club.
So from the outset, their words about power begin in an unreal place, and enlarged into an unreal expansion. That false enlargement includes people that in actuality, (like babies) are not under that power because they remain under the power or authority of their own parents or government. At this point, the point needs to be made that power and authority are not the same thing, although similar and overlapping.
A government can have great martial power by usurping it, and thus have no legal authority, since it is illegally exercising power that it has no right to have.
Also, an entity of government can have full authority by law but cannot exercise it because of the absence of command of martial forces to enforce its will. It has authority but no power.
So a wise student of reality must be cautious to not fall into the error of presumption regarding the use of ambiguous and overlapping terms. That explains ambiguity no. 1., and now let’s expose no. 2.
Everyone who discusses sovereignty is likely to be wrong about it due to failing to parse the difference between different forms of jurisdiction. One form represents full sovereignty while the other represents only limited sovereignty, it being the arena of civil law.
Full sovereignty does not end at civil law but goes much further, -all of the way to military and political law. Civil law is concerned with what you are allowed to do and what you must not do, -what your rights are and what they are not. But full sovereignty involves what you absolutely must do. And it is not limited by considerations of equal treatment.
It can involve the authorizing of very unequal treatment as occurred to the Japanese Americans during World War II, albeit unconstitutionally permitted by a Supreme Court deceived by the military commander of the West Coast (a racist bigot and despiser of Japanese).
The high court did not exercise its lawful judicial authority but exercised raw political power by granting it to the military. Also under full sovereign jurisdiction were most of the men of the nation who faced the possibility of being drafted and sent to their death in combat.
That is as far as full sovereignty can go. What can be a greater power than the authority to order a man to do something that will almost undoubtedly kill him?
Those who bloviate about the subject of sovereignty have never in their lives experienced nor realistically contemplated the true magnitude of such power over the residents of a nation.
That is because they were the ones born exempt by their status in life, -above the common man, -among the elites of society. Their understanding is very myopic and as a result they do not comprehend what the reality and significance of sovereignty is.
It is not the cogs of the administration of civil law. Civil law is irrelevant to the heart of sovereignty because enforcing it cannot save a nation from invasion and destruction or enslavement.
An important nation in my lifetime failed to exercise its capacity for full sovereignty, -after 50,000 America men had perished on its soil. As a result, when the Americans left Vietnam, the government (and society) of South Vietnam was too immature to exercise the sovereign power it had a right to exercise over its young male population as the North was vigorously exercising it to the maximum, and thus they failed to mobilize the nation to the maximum extent needed in order to be able to counter the inevitable invasion by the North Vietnamese Army and the devastation that would follow.
America, as a mature nation, but with an arrogant, plutocratic, overly self-confident but sociologically ignorant leadership, made horrible and unfair decisions with the lives of tens of thousands of young American men because they had the willingness to exercise the sovereign authority of government over them. But even that sovereignty had its limits. It did not include authority over babies, nor over the elderly, nor over minors, nor over women, nor over the disabled, nor over non-immigrant aliens (like Obama Sr.).
And yet the comments of pompous men completely fail to recognize the last group as being among the former ones mentioned. Even worse yet, they even fail to recognize the exemption of all of the former ones. The bellow out the words “All persons”!!!
Last time I checked, “all” means everybody, -no exceptions. Well… not so much. None in those groups are under the sovereignty of the federal government because of something that the windbags also fail to take into account: self-limitation, along with a greater sovereignty that all nations are subject to, it going by the name of “the law of nations”.
The law of nations goes back thousands of years and includes moral law, practical rules for comity between nations, and some minimum standards of behavior of all governments, including certain human rights, such as no right to commit genocide.
That higher international universal human law trumps the sovereign authority of dictators to do any damn thing their evil hearts desire. So there are internal self-limitations to sovereignty and external pressures to exercise self-limitation for fear of the international community exercising its moral sovereignty to end the dictator’s reign, such as happened with Saddam Hussein.
So all talk about “absolute sovereignty” is just the demented arrogant justification of devotees of imperial dictators in support of their absolute authority over the vast empire for which he served as the figure-head.
It has no real world connection to democratic republics founded on allegiance to human rights and liberty. Knowing the untrustworthiness of men with power, such republics do not invest them with absolute power. Instead, they chain them to the limitations of Law and the voice of the People’s representatives.
Otherwise you get views like these two men of the past who are held up as “expert authorities” because of the passage of time and the unquestioning trunk-to-tail elephant-line following of students of the law down through the eras:
“As a rule, a nation has full jurisdiction and control over all persons and things within its boundaries…” John William Dwyer, Leading Cases on Private International Law, pg. 47 (1904)
“Every independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886)
So…unbeknownst to you, government has full power over “all” volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, etc., or are they not “things transitorily present”?
Such pompous words never include any specifics as to who and why and how. Such as; who exercises such unlimited authority? The President? Well, as we all know, his power is limited by the Constitution. How about Congress? Well, as we all know, its power is also limited by the Constitution. How about Parliament?
Well, as we do not all know, its power is not limited by anything, and so when men of old spoke of absolute power, they were men of Parliament or the British Government which oversaw a vast world-wide empire which they ruled with a rod of iron and law.
The United States was created in the opposite mold, hating the megalomania of the British titled aristocratic elites. Our founders wisely, but inadequately, slapped hand-cuffs of constitutional limitation on government officers, but the statists in the federal courts have allowed them to ignore them.
But while our arrogant aristocratic-minded elites also love to bath in the warmth of the absolute power steam bath, talk is one thing, but reality is another. They talk an all-powerful game, but they dare not play one because they would be hunted down with pitch forks.
Just ask yourself; what government agent would presume to have the authority to stand at the arrival gate at an international airport or dock and simply grab arriving foreign guests and throw them into Marine Corps Boot Camp? How about arriving seniors, or women, or children? Are they not persons and thus included in the limitless category of “All persons” who the sovereign power of the U.S. government extends over?
You can see the foolishness when its pointed out, but do you also see this: the nature of the restraint of authority that the government is claimed to have? Is its restraint voluntary and could it therefore be rescinded in effect and the unthinkable could then become not only possible but effected?
Or is its supposed unlimited authority actually limited, -and not “absolute” (as the British dogs claimed of their government)? You know the answer and pray that it never changes because that would mean civilian war against the American government.
The point of all of this is to bring your attention to one particular aspect of sovereignty that our government does not exercise because it does not presume that it even possesses it in the real world, and that is the one that indirectly affects who is eligible to be President by directly affecting who is eligible to be a U.S. citizen.
The, native-birth bestowed common law citizenship, a la the 14th Amendment, requires in addition to native birth, that one be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. What that means is what is at the heart of all that you have seen here explained.
The first question that should come to an aware mind is; “how extensive is the jurisdiction that is referred to?” “Is it merely some form of normal, everyday civilian law, or is it the full, marital sovereignty of a government over the administration of national defense?”
The amendment, with its inadequate, constitutionally elegant minimalist but ambiguous language does not answer that question. But reason does. Along with its immediate predecessor: the Civil Right Acts of 1866. It declared that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are citizens of the United States.
Its authors stated that the definition of the 14th Amendment’s requirement that one born in the United States also be subject to its jurisdiction meant not being subject to any foreign power. And there is where the truth is revealed.
Since it is impossible to be fully subject to two different governments, or two different slave masters, one must be more sovereign that the other when it comes to people within the area of its jurisdiction. Which government has ultimate authority when it comes to the full and real meaning of subjection?
It is the government of which a person has residence, -the current homeland of a person, -where they live, regardless even of what their citizenship is. That rule of international relationships and national policy results in two rather unexpected consequences. One is that when a young man skedaddles to the United States, while under orders of the government of his home residence, to submit to induction into the military, if that government asks the U.S. authorities to extradite him, that is exactly what they will do, even if he is a native-born U.S. citizen. And that government will do likewise for the United States regarding one of its citizens.
The other is that when an immigrant to the United States is of draft age, and the nation is drafting young men for war, he too will be called to serve even though he is a citizen of another nation. How can the U.S. government do that? Because he is a permanent resident with an official Green Card making him a member of American society, and no longer a member of his own. Thus he owes an obligation to help defend his adopted country just as he would his own country if that was still his home.
What this all points to is the fact that jurisdiction is not mere civilian jurisdiction as the ignorant have presumed for over 100 years. Federal jurisdiction, as the expression of national sovereignty, does not extend to foreign guests, tourists, family visitors, and all other Visa Card transients who are “transitorily present” in the U.S., (contrary to what the authoritative bloviaters of the past have presumed).
They, like foreign ambassadors, are exempt and excluded from the actual operational jurisdiction of the government. Fools can shout from their soapboxes that “everyone is subject!” And yet, in a real sense, only three kinds of subjection are relevant:
~world-wide paying of U.S. taxes, world-wide bans against American residents having dealings with certain parish nations, and the world-wide obligation of young American men to serve their nation in the military unless they have put down permanent resident roots abroad, and even then, the government might try to order such Americans to join the U.S. Armed Forces, albeit with no penalty for not doing so. But that scenario is only conceivable for those raised abroad right up to adulthood.
Not so much for young adults who emigrate after being raised in the United States. They would not be viewed as integrated members of that foreign nation, but merely impermanent transplants.
So, we see than certain foreigners in America are not subject to federal sovereign authority, and that is relevant only if they have a child here. Children are an extension of the parents, in every way, including the extension of government authority.
If it does not extend over the parents, then it cannot extend over their minor children. If the parents are in the “transitorily present” category, then so are their children, and thus are not logically definable as being American citizens since America is not their home. Their home is where they will soon be moved to when their parents return from their transient visit. And they will be raised there as well, as members of their parents foreign homeland.
Can anyone at all propose any logical reason or justification for classifying them as American citizens? No they can’t. But they do it regardless, and have been doing so since 1898 in a brain-dead allegiance to long rejected British nationality common law.
By that mindless policy, the unconstitutional non-natural born citizen President is deemed erroneously to be an American citizen, regardless of the meaning of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s judgment of what it means (applicable only to immigrants and not transients).
So we have a stalemate between reason (and actual law), and institutionalized policy & ignorance. If one stands on the side of the truth then one stands in opposition to the establishment. If one stands on the side of the establishment, then one stands up for ignorance and falsehood. But that stand comes with the full acceptance of one’s peers within that legal Matrix, while rejection of it on behalf of the truth will make one an outcast.
If one is willing to ignore that antagonism, one might be like the brave Frodo whose efforts, with those of his faithful fellows, helped to bring down the evil twin towers of Saroman and Sauron.
The twin towers in America are twin towers of ignorance and misconception. Everyone almost universally accepts the falsehood that they are Americans because they were born in America when that is only true of the children of foreigners, and secondly, they presume that everyone born in America is eligible to be President, when those born of foreigners are not. They are not born as natural citizens of the United States because they are born as natural citizens of their parents nation, especially so if the parents, or father, was a non-immigrant transient alien as was the father with the name of Barack Hussein Obama of Kenya.
“The person who wrote the Civil Rights Act said such Act and the 14th Amendment adopted the English common law which he said was the common law of all nations. He said “natural born citizen” meant the same thing as “natural born subject” and that the President needed to be a “native born citizen.”
He also said native born children of unnaturalized aliens were citizens long before their parents.”
That is only partly true. Just as a citizen can be President, but not all citizens can, so also the children born of aliens are deemed to be citizens, but not all aliens. Only immigrant aliens have any legitimate legal basis for citizenship because only their fathers are subject to full federal authority. Which means the full obligation of citizenship; defending the nation via military service.
“As I have pointed out, aliens, while in the United States, are not subject to any foreign jurisdiction.”
How could that possibly be more wrong? Just ask the 5 million or so Americans abroad if they are or are not subject to American tax laws. And Selective Service registration requirement.
Anyone visiting this nation is subject to its laws. No foreign nation has jurisdiction over them while in this country. Such persons still owe obedience to their native country, however “obedience” is the definition of “allegiance,” not jurisdiction.
They in no way mean the same thing. Hence a visitor owing allegiance to his native country can be punished for violating its laws but only when he returns to the jurisdiction of such country. Such is the nature of extradition. Asking another nation to use its jurisdiction over your citizen to return him to your jurisdiction.
Most of that is false in the real world as I’ve shown. The use of the undefined, and unexplained weasel term “owes obedience” is something pretended to exist in a vacuum devoid of sovereign authority. Yet is does not. It is right at the heart of national membership and applicable only to males, -they being the sword and shield of the nation.
The obedience alluded to has nothing at all to do with allegiance, unlike claimed. Allegiance is voluntary loyalty and the accompanying obedience that is exercised not because it is obligatory but because it springs from that loyalty automatically, -not by command.
Obedience-by-command is that which is owed as a duty to one’s own society, whose older members defended the nation before the generation of their children. The most basic element of a nation’s sovereignty is its authority to compel its own males to do their duty. That sovereignty over its own is the moral authority to compel their service no matter where they travel to.
It is not sovereignty over land but over people, and it follows them everywhere because those who are theirs are obligated to do their share. That is not an obligation that ends at the national borders. No other government has the authority to exercise that sovereignty over them unless and until they adopt another nation as their home and become citizens or permanent legal residents.
The international reach of a nation’s sovereignty is the very basis of extradition. If a foreign government had no sovereignty over its own citizens, then there would be no basis to claim legal authority over them since legal authority is accompanied by moral authority.
That authority is the right of the government to compel the young men of the nation to do their duty. Moral authority is not some esoteric philosophical conceptualization. It is as real as moral authority in an individual family. The members are expected to do certain things and not do others. That is grounded in morality and natural rights.
The same sort of dynamic applies at all levels of society, including national, and is its very basis. It is not limited by borders. All they do is limit the exercise of martial power and judicial authority. Not moral authority and national sovereign rights.
the high court’s definition of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause:
“The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.
The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States.”
“Such is the definition from the English common law. Such definition “INCLUDES” persons of WKA’s status, i.e., a child of domiciled aliens.
Nothing in the case ever says domicile is required.
[~that’s like saying it doesn’t say that aliens are the only subject. The only subject is: domiciled aliens, no others; -otherwise the court can be accused of stupidly adding unnecessary and confusing extraneous adjectives for no damn reason.]
Rather, it clearly states what the 3 exceptions are from the jus soli rule and in no way implies there is any other exception.
[~and the three exceptions to the rule are regarding… domiciled aliens. Their children and theirs alone, are naturalized at birth into insiders, fellow citizens, American children. The children of the other three exceptions to that rule were barred.
But the giant hole in the perception is the presumption that the doctrine of exceptions is a hard and defined doctrine, when it is just the opposite. Everything ever said and written about the exceptions was merely the observational assumptions logically drawn from reality, -but its authoritative elucidation by British jurists always failed to state that “the usual exceptions” were not the only possible exceptions.
They avoided saying that because that would have required saying something that was inherently illogical. In fact some statesmen in America said as plain as day that transient aliens could not sanely be included in the general rule regarding children of aliens because the rule applied to immigrant aliens who were expected to become Americans and not turn around and head back over the ocean to Europe and abandon the country that they had come to settle in.]
~This is after nearly 50 pages of telling us we adopted the English common law and repeatedly saying what the exceptions were.
[And yet there was no “we” at all. There were many separate sovereign republics allied in a union which gave the national government no say over those born within their borders. Only over those born of foreigners beyond their borders. So “we” did not adopt anything and that was why the case finally had to go to the Supreme Court. There was no national law about native-born citizenship other than the Civil Rights Act, which rendered them non-citizens from the standpoint of the federal government. With the 14th Amendment being horribly ambiguous, it could be taken to mean very different things, and was so taken by the federal officials.]
“When a court limits the holding to the facts, it actually says just that. Again, it must be frustrating to claim to be an expert on things you know nothing about.”
The court is under no obligation to state the obvious, such as:”Our opinion only applies to the situation covered by our holding. Our opinion cannot be taken to mean many other things that we did not rule on, nor include in our ruling.” Why the hell would grown-ups presume that the court had to state that every time it issued a ruling?
Your bastardized view of the status quo view is that they imply by not making such a statement every time that they are giving their benediction to any twisting, warping, supplementing, or expunging of the clear and unambiguous language of their holding. THAT is an asinine position to take, and yet it is exactly what you are taking? And the establishment backs you up? No wonder our national government is so totally screwed up. People with your mind-set must be everywhere.
“It means what we want it to mean! We’re free! -to reinterpret it the way we want!” Just like A.G. John Griggs did in 1898 and permanently wrecked the distant future that we now have to live in.
by Adrien Nash June 2014 obama–nation.com