Who’s the Boss? American Kings or their Butlers?
August 1, 2014 Leave a comment
The fraternity of conservative, Constitutional-eligibility questioners includes many patriotic American heretics. You might be one. If you believe what they believe, -although believing that what you believe is the constitutional truth, then you are deceived by an anti-American doctrine that has no place where men are free and stand-up for their liberty and natural rights.
What their doctrine (that foreign-born American children are aliens needing automatic “naturalization”) boils down to is represented by this: Sitting Bull, Chief of the Sioux Nation, travels with his pregnant wife to the territory of another sovereign tribe to discuss the assault on their territories, their rights, and the treaties they signed with Washington. While there, she gives birth. Their child belongs to that non-Sioux tribe because it was born within the boundaries of their territory. It is considered an alien to the Sioux Nation, even though it is the son of the Chief of the Nation. Their son can never be allowed to serve as Chief in his father’s stead because he is not a natural born Sioux member and is contaminated with allegiance to the non-Sioux tribe because he was born on their soil.
That is exactly what they believe only in regard to Americans, Americans who used to have an unalienable right to pass their citizenship to their children until their heretical doctrine took that right away and gave it to the government that the sovereign citizens who formed the nation created.
American Sovereigns versus American Imperialists
American Freemen versus American subjects
His Imperial Majesty’s Government was replaced in America by a new Imperial American Government and the subjects of the Crown are replaced by subjects of the American government. Same role as before, -just a different sovereign. Or were the roles actually reversed? We not the Americans the new royals? The new sovereigns? And was not the government they authorized and established the subject of they, its sovereigns, who created it? Were they not the new American kings who’s co-equal share of national sovereignty was part of their adult citizenship?
Did it matter to the monarch where his children were born, -or were they royals regardless of birth location? How could the rights of the Americans be any less than the rights of the royals? After all, the Americans were their equals. They also bowed to no man. They also owned themselves and were not owned by any royal dictator. They also were imbued with the same sovereign rights of parenthood regardless of where they might find themselves bringing a child into the world.
The heir to the throne was not determined by birth place but by birth right and royal blood. Likewise, the natural citizenship of American children was not determined by where history or witnesses says that they were born, but by right of birth and American blood, -by the political nature of those who gave them life and raised them to be members of their society, and nation. Their status, like that of the royals, was determined by their origin, not by a fleeting moment during which they left the womb and entered the world.
When it comes to citizenship, those possessed of the wretched idea that it is either in the hands of circumstance of location or in the hands of government authority are victims of a view that fails to take into account a very significant event in the history of mankind, and that was the successful America Revolution. It changed everything, forever.
Previous to it, all assumed that the almighty government was the top dog on the block, and its word determined everything. Its sovereign imperial power reigned as the ultimate authority on most fundamental matters. But that all changed when the tyrannical imperial Parliament and the king that it served went too far in oppressing their equals in America as if they were subservient, second-class step-children of the kingdom.
They boxed the Americans into a corner from which they realized that there was no way out except to totally submit to serfdom or to fight their way out. But before they could make that choice, they first had to be certain what their rights really were, -as colonists and as English subjects, -and also… as human beings.
They knew that their rights were being abused as colonial entities since all of the colony charters were between the colonists and the king only; Parliament was not a party to them, but Parliament was tyrannically assuming power that it had no right to.
Also, they knew that their rights as British subjects were being abused since none of the things that were inflicted on them would have been tolerated by the British people in their own country. So the colonists had the high ground when it came to the law, but that was not enough. They needed to know that they also had the high ground morally, -and that drove them to familiarize themselves with the principles of Natural Law and the natural Rights bestowed upon mankind by the Deity that had created the human race and endowed it with many unalienable rights.
That exploration of the fundamental nature of their rights as free men and women would guide them in putting chains on those chosen to administer the new State (and eventually national) governments by limiting their authority in their constitutions. All rights not bestowed on government were retained by the Peoples of the sovereign republics of America and one of them was the right of their children to automatic membership in their father’s country.
That natural right was never a matter even contemplated as a possibility for surrender to the bureaucrats or lawmakers that their government would be populated by. That was as unthinkable as surrendering their natural right to be sovereign over their own children as the membership of their natural family. Natural family or national family, -membership in both was naturally determined and not government determined.
Only outsiders and their children were subject to regulation by government rules and laws. The absurdity of the idea that government had any say over the nationality of natives and their children can be illustrated by an analogous scenario to the view that the federal government appointed itself as the arbiter of the matter of national belonging for children of Americans:
The Butler versus the Boss.
Imagine that you are as wealthy as the Sultan of Brunei and you live in an opulent palace of immense size and impressiveness. You appoint many servants to care for your estate, including a head butler in charge of all of the house servants. He manages all of the affairs of the palace inside and his decisions are beyond appeal. All of the servants must follow his orders. He is like their General.
One day you and your wife are chauffeured to the closest hospital where she gives birth. Upon returning to your palace, you stop at its security gate and buzz the head butler to open the gate and let you in. He informs you that you are accompanied by a stranger that is not a member of the palace family and may need a special permission permit form to be filled out first. After all, he can’t let in just anyone from the outside since they are not members and inhabitants of the estate. They are foreign to it, so precautions must be followed.
The only problem with such an approach is that the stranger that is being scrutinized is your own new-born baby, -your own flesh and blood. How in God’s name can it be viewed as being “foreign”? Is your head butler an imbecile? -or are the people promoting the exact same sort of legal doctrine that the butler followed when they proclaim that American children are aliens if not delivered from the womb within national borders during that transient event called birth?
Who Owns Your Citizenship? You? -or the Government?
Before you can answer that question, you should first answer the one that precedes it: Who owns you? You? or the Government? Kings were once told that the people of their kingdom existed solely for the benefit of them, “Your Royal Majesty”. The reason for their existence was to serve him and keep him in the style which he rightfully deserved as the great and mighty, righteous and divinely appointed sovereign over them,.
The King did not exist for their sakes, -they existed for his. It was an upside-down sycophantic, subservient, obsequious, grovelling existence which people were born into because they were born into a world occupied by one who was vastly their superior, and they were to never forget that fact nor act contrary to it as long as they had breath. The King was a god on Earth.
That model could be remodeled without a king, -but with a dictator instead, a Hitler, a Stalin, a Communist tyrant such as those that ruled all around the world in individual communist nations until the collapse of the Soviet Union, leaving only Cuba and North Korea, still ruled, 50-70 years later by strong men.
But the ruler might be instead an elected committee, like the Soviet Politburo after the death of Stalin, -or the almighty imperial British Parliament, -unlimited by a written constitution of government. So history shows that monarchs can be gods, tyrants can be gods, and governments can be gods. Under the reign of a god, you are a servant, -born to serve your god, -the god who owns you.
As the property of your god, you do not own yourself because he or it owns you. You belong to him or it forever, unless allowed to move away to another land. That never happened under Soviet-style Communism, as the people of East Berlin discovered when their entire section of the city was encircled with a cement wall about 12 feet high, and people attempting to cross through the no-man’s land were shot dead.
But a wise and benevolent god will allow such a thing as the right to leave, -it’s good for maintaining the pretense that you are mostly a free person, and besides, no one will miss you anyway. There are plenty more where you came from. In fact, it might even be good to be rid of malcontents like you, -people who complain that their handcuffs are too tight, -their chains are too short. Best to be rid of complainers. And that is just what Cuba allowed during the crisis known as the Muriel Boat-lift.
Cuba’s socialist Constitution embraces concepts of American liberty and civil rights, with one them being the right to chose to live under a different government, as a citizen of a different nation; -the right of self-expatriation. That right was the foundation on which the American Revolution was based, and was in contradiction to the British doctrine that everyone born a subject of the king belonged to him for life, -with no option to reject his rule and authority ever. That was known as the doctrine of Perpetual Allegiance.
So Cuba flung open the gates to the discontented and made it known that those who wished to leave the “worker’s paradise” were free do to so. Well, America, meaning essentially Florida, was inundated with over 100,00 fleeing Cuban refugees, including many or most of Cuba’s imprisoned criminals, -arriving by any and every American boat that was willing to transport them from Cuba.
That let the pressure out of the Cuban pressure cooker, so allowing, at the government’s choice, the exercise of self-ownership served to stabilize the social situation and legitimize the plutocratic reign of the Cuban Communist Party. The Communist god of government thus appeared to be justifiable as the defender of “equality” and opportunity from the oppression of the cruel and greedy Capitalists who ravaged the poor before the Cuban Revolution.
With such a “moral” justification for wielding ultimate authority over the people, the Communist Party god appears to be unassailable. As does the American government god. It is comprised of 12 Kings, 11 of whom hold a position of power that they were not elected to by the American people, -they being the justices of the Supreme Court, and the Speaker of the House, and President of the Senate. The American people have no say in who is selected for those two strangle-hold positions, those two god-like thrones of power that hold authority over all of their 533 peers as well as the nation itself. But I digress.
If you believe that the American government does not own you, that you are a co-owner of the government, that you are not its servant but it is yours and your fellow Americans, then you must also believe that you own something that you have, because that something is what you are; an American citizen by birth, by nature, by blood, by descent.
Your American citizenship either belongs to you as a sovereign American citizen, -sovereign over the servants of the government, or it and you belong to the government, and it is merely loaning you citizenship according to the dictates of its rules. That existential question is tied to the very nature of national membership.
Is membership a “thing” that is owned, or is it a character with which you were born? It cannot be both. You cannot be considered to own your race or gender because it is not a thing. It is what you physically are. But what about “citizenship”? What exactly is it? A thing? -or a character of one’s nature? The answer is ridiculously simple, and almost right in front of you. It is seen in the foundation of all relationships: the family.
Are you a member of your family organically, by nature? Or do you “possess” a membership in your family, -one that can be taken away like a thing that is owned or not owned? The family is a microcosm of a nation, a national family, a group of related people, -hopefully related by background, language, culture, history, values, and principles.
If the members of a nation are naturally related, then an organic nation will exist, -such as Japan and China. The more the citizens are related, the stronger the glue that holds them together, as was demonstrated by the “fight to the death” attitude of the Japanese during World War II. But values and principles, as well as religion, can bind disparate peoples together in a great cause, -political or religious; for liberty and self-governance, or for holy and eternal purposes.
All such tight-knit groups are esoterically/ philosophically-bound families. They believe certain fundamentally important things, and those beliefs are the bond that binds them together. They are family to each other. They trust each other entirely. They are not connected by rules to which they conform, -by group by-laws that they adhere to as the basis of their membership in the family. They are members because they are alike, -of the same religious or philosophical blood which is an element of their character, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually.
Their membership in the family is not something that they possess; rather, it is the consequence of who and what they are as thinking and feeling human beings. Consider the example of an extremely devoted adherent of a religion, -like Islam. If you have been raised and indoctrinated your whole life to be possessed of fundamental tenets of the faith, then in maturity, they will define you, -they are who you are.
You do not possess membership in the Islamic faith. You are Muslim by how your mind in wired, how your thinking is patterned, -how your emotions are oriented. “Membership” in the Islamic faith is not a “thing” that you possess, -it is a thing that possesses you.
So it is also with natural citizenship. You are what you are organically because you were born that way. You were born being an American. Your Americanness is not an acquisition apart from you, but instead, it is you.
You are not a space alien, you are not a terrestrial alien, you are not a non-human. You are an American human being. But unlike human nature, one’s political nature or nationality can be artificially changed by deliberate subjective and objective rejection of the old and original, and the adoption of a new and different political character (not dissimilar to one changing their political gender via naturalization surgery).
If a naturalizing person’s self-identity as a political person in this world does not change, then their naturalization, like their assimilation into American society, will be a sham. They will remain what they were from and by birth, namely; foreign. They will not take on an American character and outlook. They will not be organically reconstituted as an American citizen via the natural-izing Oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. They will not shed the old identity and mind-set and emerge with a new identity and attitude toward their adopted country. They will “have” citizenship, but will not “be” an American inside.
The younger of the two Boston bombers comes to mind, since he was a naturalized citizen, but his natural-ization was only about an inch deep. He was nowhere near self-identifying as a natural member of American society, as naturalization is intended to reorder. So we see the difference between real citizenship and artificially constituted citizenship.
But when Government acts like a god, one’s view of one’s government can turn dramatically and become deeply hateful of it, as occurred within Timothy McVeigh following the the Ruby Ridge FBI incident of cold-blooded murder of an innocent mother holding her baby. Then the government came to be seen in his mind as the enemy of the American people, and deserving of punishment, even mindless indiscriminate punishment that punished the innocent a hundred times more than occurred at Rudy Ridge.
When one appoints himself as the great avenger, one’s self-righteousness pretty much replaces one’s rational perception with a singular mind-set of attack, minus any thought of the consequences. Out of thinking-mode and into Action mode. The time to think is over as the “doing” part of the brain kicks-in, and the contemplating part checks-out. But I digress.
One’s organic natural membership in a national family is the basis of presidential eligibility. That basis results in the effect that millions of native-born citizens are not eligible to be President, and that is because they were not born of members of that national family, but of members of a foreign family instead.
One cannot be a natural member of two different families, -at the individual family level and at the national family level as well. But, -one can be born as a member of two national families, although such membership is not natural. Rather, it is purely a legal thing, -allowed by statute. Only those born of insiders are natural members of a national family.
Having a foreign parent makes one an unnatural, quasi, hybrid member who is neither fully this nor fully that, but is an amalgamation of two different worlds. It is seen and illustrated all over nature, in the animal realm, the plant realm, and the chemical realm. Hybrid animals, hybrid plants, hybrid chemicals. Combine gaseous hydrogen with gaseous oxygen and you do not get more of either, but instead get H2O, water. Something different.
The presidency was put off-limits to those who are different. They must be of one and only one origin, and that origin must be American and only American. That truth is illuminated perfectly by the two similar but different perspectives regarding citizenship. One is the view of citizenship as a thing or a right, while the other is the view of citizenship as an inherited character, -a political character.
By the later, the children are imbued with the character of the parents. It is inescapable and pre-determined from conception. They will be born being whatever the parents are. If they are a certain species, or race, or nationality, the children will be that also. If is an organic natural inheritance. Human parents produce human children. White parents produce white children. Tall parents produce tall children. Intelligent parents produce intelligent children. Attractive parents produce attractive children. Eskimo parents produce Eskimo children. Japanese parents produce Japanese children. And American parents produce American children.
In no instances does the place of a child’s delivery affect what it is or becomes. Organic inheritance is genetically or politically determined; not geographically determined. Borders can’t change genes nor alter the political identity that children inherit from their parents. That fundamental truth is accompanied by the flip-side of the coin, and that is the view of citizenship as a possessed membership.
If citizenship is something that is owned, then it belongs to the person who possesses it. That person cannot be the government because it is not a citizen and is not the great loaner and owner of citizenship. Even if it is a god and not a servant of those it rightfully should serve, if cannot escape the inescapable fact that natural citizenship cannot be taken away by it, and that is either because you cannot take away something that a person is naturally, or that you cannot take away something that a person rightfully owns.
If all Americans born of Americans own themselves and own their own citizenship, and the government does not own them nor their citizenship, then it cannot take it away from them. That fact has huge implications for presidential eligibility, and that is because of the unalienable right to pass that which is yours to your children. Those who do not possess a thing cannot pass it to their children, but those who do, can.
Citizenship is not a finite thing but is like yeast in dough, or acidophilus in milk; keep feeding it and it grows and replicas, just like parents grow families, -replicating themselves in greater abundance. In another sense it is like a blood-born thing. Some people, like some organisms, possess unique protection against hostile organisms, -infectious organisms. Such people have immunity to them, -as those who survived the Black Death, -the Plague, during the Dark Ages, or those with immunity to the Human Immune-deficiency Virus.
Such people possess a unique biological characteristic that is passed on to their children. Such is natural membership. It is passed on the the next generation, and the generation after that, and so on down through the ages. But returning to the view of citizenship as a possession; just as your wealth is yours to pass to your children at your death, so also is your membership yours to pass to your children at their birth.
If both parents are insiders and not foreign, then no person or organization has a say in the matter. Insiders have an incontestable right to share their membership in their own natural group with their off-spring. That means that no thing and no circumstance can be offered as a factor that can cancel that right of citizen parents. That right is inviolable. Nothing can touch it, amend it, abridge it, abrogate it, or regulate it. It is fundamental, foundational, -the bedrock of civilization and human society. Their children cannot be labeled as aliens, outsiders, or foreigners because of a foreign birth location since they are born with a natural right to belong to their parents, -to their people and their society, -to their country and their nation.
That is a right that the founders of a free nation would never surrender to the god of government, allowing it to decide for them that their children have no rights beyond the water’s edge or the borderline. Sovereign peoples, the free equivalent to kings and nobles, do not surrender their rights to their servants, to their butlers. They retain their rights in full, and location has no impact on their retention of their rights.
The bush that I’ve been beating around is that of the issue of the nature of the citizenship of American children born beyond U.S. borders. What kind of citizenship to they “possess”, or what kind are they born with? Is it organic natural citizenship transmitted from their American parents? Or is it merely the indulgence of a sovereign Congress exercising a power not given to it by the Constitution?
Does Congress “make” American foreign-born children into Americans via its declaration of their American citizen identity? Or does Nature do that automatically by the law of natural membership which all of creation is governed by? Can the words of naturalization acts be read as the decrees of gods or are they merely words intended to protect and declare the natural rights of natural American children?
Who has the authority to declare that it is the former; -and on what possible basis could such a view conform with “Nature and Nature’s God”, -with Natural Law and Natural Rights instead of the “right” of Government to play God?
Does the Government really own you and your children, and have a right to step-in between you and them and mandate that your foreign-born child is not an American but is an alien if nor for its permission? Does your child really need their permission?
Who would have given government such a god-like authority, and why? Did not the framers of the American Constitution start with a clean slate, -with free hands, -with no obligation to the British bastardized nationality system based on the arbitrary factor of where one’s mother was located for that brief event long ago on the day they entered the world?
What logical connection would that have with anything so natural as belonging? Why would those men who had been under a death sentence as traitors return to the vomit of British nationality assignment which they utterly rejected since it was married to life-long enslavement to the Crown, and entailed dual-bigamous nationality, dual-bigamous allegiance, and the obligation to share sovereignty with an oppressive foreign power?
Did they take their clean slate and promptly regurgitate the British doctrine onto it? No! -instead they moved on, -on to natural relationships and belonging, -not the border-determined nationality assignment that the British adopted probably as a result of the Norman invasion of William the Conqueror in 1066-1068.
It was not ordained in any way that the founders and framers were chained to the abandoned enslavement that was their lot in life under a royal tyrant and his aristocratic, imperial Parliament. They, as masters of their own fate, would also be masters of their own government as well, -not the other way around, and it would not be established with the power to tell them that their own children were not the natural inheritors of their station in life. What free American man would assign government such a power over him and his own children?
The government would never be allowed to tell them that their children were born as something less than Freemen, -something akin to serfs or indentured servants, nor would it be empowered to tell them that their children were born as something less than natural American Citizens, -but instead were born as aliens, and thus were foreign to the country of their American father because of where their mother was on the day they left her womb and entered the world.
And yet that is just the very view that patriotic but ignorant folks adhere to today. It kind of reminds me of a decision I made today to the detriment of the Blue Jays that I’ve been feeding daily for many months. They enjoy the benefit of free food everyday, but then something begins happening at this time of year which they have no consciousness of. They begin to eat the blackberries, and then to poop them out anywhere and everywhere, including all over my green grass carpet of a back yard. Damn blackberry spouts popping up here and there and everywhere, enlivened by their passage through the gut of the birds. The birds have no awareness that there is a consequence to their eating the delicious blackberries and hanging around my yard, and it is to their loss because they will suffer the loss of any more free food until the blackberries are all gone.
It’s the same with the doctrine that the President must be born within U.S. territory. That doctrine has a collateral consequence and it is a fundamental denial of their own natural right to transmit their American membership to their own children, attended by the embrace of a dogma that their children are subject to government control, regulation, and even denial of citizenship if the morons in charge were that stupid.
To embrace such a dogma is to deny a significant part of your own American character, -which is the freedom and the right to tell government what its limits are, rather than it telling you what your children’s limits are. Your children were never up for discussion by the Constitutional Convention; only the right of Congress to decide the rights of foreigners and their children in their quest to become Americans.
When and how exactly did your children become foreigners merely by not being born within America’s changing borders? In whose foolish mind did “foreigner” become inextricably tied to “foreign borders”? How can borders cause foreignness?
There are Koreans in Japan who are not Japanese even though four generations of them have been born there. They are Korean no matter where they are born and do not accept the foreignness of Japan in defining who they are. Nor do the Japanese accept them as fellow Japanese since they cling to their Korean identity. Clearly, in a natural nation such as Japan, a foreign birth place is not viewed as a determiner of foreignness, nor is native-birth viewed as a maker of natives.
But at some point in its history, England embraced birth place as the determiner of membership in the English nation, -abandoning membership by blood, -by natural descent, but the founding fathers were not bound to that old unnatural system as they went about to form a new system, -one designed to protect their rights and security, and provide the best environment to pursue happiness.
To believe that their happiness and family security were served by abandoning their right to pass their American membership to their own children would be shear idiocy. But some erroneously assume that they are somehow mysteriously preventing foreignness from entering the White House and the position of Command in Chief by embracing and extolling a doctrine that forbids eligibility for the presidency to American children who happened by circumstance to have been born abroad.
But they cannot explain how American parents can produce the foreignness that they are seeking to avoid. Instead, they attribute it to foreign soil, foreign laws, foreign jurisdiction, foreign sovereignty, -none of which matter to American sovereignty and the American People who are imbued with certain fundamental natural rights as co-sovereigns of a free nation that does not have to bow to the claims of self-serving foreign government policy.
The British Crown and Parliament no longer claim for life all souls born on their soil, but they generously endow those born in their lands with membership in their nation and Commonwealth. That membership is no longer a life sentence of subservience to the King and Parliament, but purely a free-will gift of belonging, as it became for the first time in the newly independent and sovereign Republics of America. The parent country learned from the child country because the child country got it right, and returned to natural belonging and sanity.
One last analogy: If a company like Ford had a factory is another nation, and it was manned by American workers living and working there, building American designed and perfected vehicles, could you reasonably take the position that you would never buy nor trust such a product because it was foreign-made? What difference would that make? Answer: the same difference as the American nature of children born abroad of American parents, namely; -none.
Everything about them is the same as the domestic version, and that is why the founders and framers viewed them as natural born citizens, -and mandated that they be recognized as such in the first naturalization act. Their purposeful intent was to announce and protect their eligibility to serve in the office that only natural born citizens are allowed to occupy. That of the President of the United States.
Unfortunately, that protection of their right was an overt statement that the principle of citizenship followed by the American federal government was jus sanguinis, blood descent, natural inheritance. If that language was allowed to stand and not be repealed, then all of the loyal, patriotic sons of immigrants would be openly disenfranchised of the right to even think that they might one day be eligible to be President if they had been born before their father accomplished being naturalized. They thus would be ineligible for life.
So it was a tug-of-war between the happenstance of American children being born in a non-American location versus the happenstance of an American native-born State citizen fathered by an immigrant being born too soon, -before his father was allowed or was able to take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. One situation of happenstance versus another. One side had many souls in its favor, while the other had essentially none.
There were lots of naturalized voters to shoot-down that stance of the government seen in the Naturalization
Act of 1790, and so the language and declaration of the first Congress was removed and replace with the simple statement that foreign-born American children, along with children of naturalized immigrants, were considered to be “citizens of the United States”.
No more mention that the foreign born American children were natural born citizens since that indicated that native-born citizens were not natural born citizens if born of aliens. And so the Constitution’s language that the President could be no person except a natural born citizen was blunted by being ignored. The spotlight was turned off. Ambiguity was ushered into the American home so that one born of aliens could then day-dream that they were a natural citizen also and could one day possibly, conceivable, rise to the height of the office of President.
That fit their pursuit of happiness very nicely; but meanwhile the children of real Americans were left out in the cold of ignorance and darkness about just what sort of American they really were and why, (if they were not among the vast majority who were born in America).
The answer as to the nature of their citizenship has never been adjudicated to this day, and no one who ever has or ever will sit as a Supreme Court justice wants to see the day when it will, -because there is no good answer. There will be winners and there will be losers. If the losers would be the children of Americans instead of the children of aliens, then you would know that a portion of American liberty has been lost because a fundamental natural right has been thrown out with the dirty bath water.
“The greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie –deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myth offers the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. John F. Kennedy.
Here’s is an example of a believer in the myth of Congressional Citizenship Power equal to that of the unlimited Parliament.
You ask the question “does/did the Congress have the authority to do what they did…?”
The answer must be an unequivocal YES … !!! [note: the extensive POWER of CONGRESS shall not be doubted! It is King!]
The MANDATE of A2S1C8 [?? -make that Article 1, Sec. 8] “enumerated plenary power” to the Congress to ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization. [note: the insertion of a term (U.S. Citizenship) not found in the Constitution is evidence of an attempt to attach a doctrine of “implied meaning” via words that are not actually found where the believer wishes they existed.]
Once it is recognized and acknowledged [translation: once it is presumed, embraced, -believed as “the truth”…] that the Ratification of the Adopted COTUS [notice the attempt at heightened authoritativeness via capitalizations, -COTUS referring to the Constitution of the…] served as a “collective naturalization event” insofar as the EXISTING State Citizens were concerned,
[note: If you and your large circle of buddies decide to establish a legitimate hunting club, and you write up its rules and register it, do you all then need to be conceptually registered (naturalized) en mass into membership as if you are newbies, -outsiders wishing to join that which predates your arrival and interest?
That is the equivalent to saying that your children need to be adopted into your family or they are not real members. The concept of natural-ization is to remake strangers into new natural members, from outsiders into insiders. How can the makers of an entity (in which they are the natural membership) be considered to need to be remade into its natural members when they are already that?
If you and others pre-date the existence of the entity that you establish, you cannot be a stranger to it since it has no members if you all are not members. To be a stranger is to be a stranger not to “the Constitution” but to the natural members of the entity, -the union, -the natural group, the nation formed by those who constitute it.
Those who were not members of the groups (the States) that formed the union are the ones who are the strangers. They are the aliens in needed of being granted membership, -of being naturalized, and not the fathers and creators of the new group.]
…then following the ‘provisions of U.S. Federal Law” of the 1790 Act titled; “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship: implicit though not stated) naturalization”, which, by its title alone can be characterized as being “an Act to establish the U.S. Common-Law of U.S. Citizenship”.
[-that statement reveals the full degree of self-delusion by propounding a dogma that the Congress was supposedly expected to, and did, establish a rule of citizenship, -not a rule for naturalization of foreigners. That means the somehow, someway, the language intended to provide a uniform rule for all of the State governments to adopt as their naturalization policy, was reeeeally meant to exert national sovereign authority by Congress over the creators of the government by dictating new rules about the acceptance of their children into the national family.
The creation becomes the Lord of its creator. The butler tells the boss whether or not the boss’s child will be accepted as a member of the boss’s home. Wow? One has to be pretty darn oblivious to be the consequences of their own dogma to openly promulgate that one.]
“Try construing and reconciling the Acts of Congress on the subject of U.S. Citizenship from THAT perspective and you’ll find that it is NOT necessary to RESORT ELSEWHERE.”
[that is intended to imply that the authority of Congress extended far beyond the actual instruction that the Constitution gave, which was: The Congress shall have power to… (collect revenue, borrow money, regulate commerce, and…) “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States.”
So ask yourself, how much more minimal could such power given to Congress have possibly been? Where is the fictional authority over the citizenship of the citizens of the American States? I suspect that the delusion we are looking at is fundamentally one that one’s primary citizenship was national citizenship as recognized by the federal government, but that is backward thinking since one’s primary citizenship was that with the State where they resided, which was normally where they were born and raised.
Why did General Robert E. Lee turn his back on his country, -the one he had devoted his life to from his training and schooling at West Point Academy, through the Mexican-American War on up to the Civil War outbreak? Because Virginia was his real home. The Union was not his home. The other States were not his home, especially the Northern States. All of the other confederates felt the same way about their southern home State and were willing to die for it and its confederation with other like-minded slave States.
And that was four generations after the revolution. The States were still the center and focus of one’s nationality, their country. Only if they left America did they assume to some degree an American identity. Even today, a native-born and raised Californian or Texan or New Yorker or Hawaiian who travels abroad is more likely to view and present themselves as the State citizen that they are rather than as a generic American.
They are all about where they are from, and they are not from everywhere in the nation. [personally, if I were confronted in Egypt by Muslim Brotherhood extremists and they wanted to know where I was from, I sure as hell would never say I was from Washington D.C. even if I was. Instead, I’d say I was from Hawaii, or Hollywood, -keeping the national government out of the picture.]
His neo-imperialist view is a heresy against a fundamental American right, and is thus anti-American since it blatantly denies its existence, instead throwing it into the lap of Congress.
If his subservient view were real, then we not are all co-sovereigns but co-subjects of Almighty Government. Instead of being co-kings were are co-servants, and the Government is King. When put under the magnifying glass of real-world application, that is the direct result of such an obsequious view of government. It was just such a view that the founders feared from foreigners, with their foreign views of the rights of governments, and the absence of any awareness of the inherent superiority of citizens over all governments.
What he’s written is not only completely wrong, but is extremely dangerous and disgusting to every man who stands for his natural rights, and those of his children. He fails to grasp what a rule is, what uniform means, what a uniform rule is, what establishing a uniform rule is, and what the sovereign authority of all of the State Republics consisted of, -guaranteed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
That authority included the continuing authority to make new citizens of foreigners via the process of naturalization administered by magistrates of State Courts of Record, as well as the sovereign authority to allow State citizenship for native-born children of immigrants.
Washington could not interfere in the matter of State citizenship once Congress had made a rule that the State governments were uniformly obligated to adopt in administering their naturalization process.
But no government, federal or State, had any authority over the sovereignty of The People and their natural membership-by-blood in their own society, of which they were natives.
No government has any authority over natural membership because it is automatic, with or without the existence of government and laws. Natural membership extends from one’s own family, to one’s own clan or tribe, to one’s own colony, -State, or Province, -all the way to one’s country and nation. It is a natural right that transcends all government authority, since those who possess it are the ones who create and rule the government which is their servant, not their master.
The view that Congress possesses the constitutional authority to declare American children born abroad to be, in effect, aliens although “naturalized at birth” (and thus ineligible to ever serve as President) worships at the alter of OMNIPOTENT GOVERNMENT instead of at the alter of Individual Liberty and Individual Rights, -which go hand-in-hand.
Folks with that view might also have no problem with what the entire NSA and its unaccountable FISA courts are allowed to get away with even though it is criminally unconstitutional in every sense. Why is it then allowed nevertheless? Because of an imperialistic mind-set about the role and unquestionable authority of the government that those within it hold in contra to American rights of privacy, and freedom from government’s never-ending invasive over-reach.
by Adrien Nash August, 2014 obama–nation.com