Exposing the Ignorance of 14th Amendment Pontificators of Old

Here’s some back-and-forth between ignorance and truth regarding the meaning of the term that describes what the American President must be (“No person except a natural born citizen…”)

Ballantine said: “he (yours truly) insists that his theory has always been our law even though he can’t cite any authority to support such. “

What I insist is that it has never been our law.  I insist that we never had a law because one was never needed since natural citizenship is fully natural and doesn’t require the intervention of government lawmaking.  It’s automatic by the function of our fundamental principles and is antecedent to all of our laws .

“We have cited 4 Supreme Court cases expressly saying he is wrong.”

And yet you cannot show a single one that has ever elucidated any principle that any government dictate has ever pointed to.  It is all 100% claims of historical precedent, -precedents which are not inscribed in our Constitution or law anywhere, regardless of the pontifications of fools who dared to proclaim what our reality is when their presumptions were just that, and not fact.

I’m surprised at how often I’ve learned something that I never knew was true.  Just a day ago I was writing the word height, but my mind was thinking of a variation that I’ve been familiar with all my life, -it being the same word but with the ending pronounced with a “th” sound, instead of a hard “t” sound.  I’ve always distinguished the two but couldn’t and hadn’t ever spelled it; higth? highth? heigth?  heighth?  nothing made sense so I called my local sister and she instantly went online and read what she found.  The pronunciation I’ve known and used all of my life was mentioned as something native to California.(?!) That’s why it wasn’t even mentioned in the dictionary. It doesn’t exist except in the minds of those who have absorbed it from their “local” environment.

You think that what you have always “known” must be true and accurate, and yet it may be completely otherwise.  As Einstein discovered regarding the size of the real universe (not limited to the Milky Way alone).

not a single person who was involved in the drafting of the 14th Amendment even mentioned a rule of descent as part of American citizenship law.

They couldn’t because they were unaware of it, or so it seems.  Natural citizens, like themselves, probably never knew a single American who was not born in America. Hence the conflation that resulted from the concurrent overlap of native-birth and natural inheritance.

“they pretty much all said …they said, they said, they said…”

They all expressed their absorbed views which were nothing beyond being opinions.  You embrace claims as if claims are facts.  Okay, here’s one you should take to the bank.  My mother was Miss America and I was Mr. Universe.  I stake my reputation on it.  Therefore it must be true.  I’m am an authority on me so one must take my word as being authoritative.

Speaking of which, no sane person can claim with an ounce of legitimacy that the Supreme Court, or its justices, is authoritative.  That would reveal a total lack of understanding of what authoritative even means.  It is grounded on certainty. Unequivocal fact and logic, backed-up by much experience in the real world.
That essentially never describes what the court provides since opinions coming from it are from opposite ends of the spectrum.  The majority side has no more credibility than the minority side.  One can only have a decent level of confidence when a unanimous or near unanimous ruling is arrive at.

How many of the vaunted citizenship opinions (holdings) were unanimous?  Who gets to impugn the reasonableness of those fellow justices who are in the minority on an issue?  What god has the right and duty to call their views stupid?
Whenever someone says that the Supreme Court says this or that, one needs to question their grasp of  how human society works, unless they are referring to a unanimous holding.  That truly reflects the opinion of the court.  Split decisions do not settle matters of fact, only matters of opinion.  Only unanimous opinions reflect “authoritative” rulings.

Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to Congress made some awfully bad statements due to his misconceptions and word choices:

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United [united] States and subject to their laws…..”  [He tied subjection not to the national authority but rather to sovereign state authority.  Curious.]

His phraseology was backwards.  Would one say: “An Indian is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of a tribal nation and subject to tribal law.”?

A third grader might come up with such a word order, but it should be the opposite; “One born within the limits of a tribal nation and subject to its law is held by the courts to be: an Indian.”  Even that is horrible since it should follow the only realistic pattern by ascribing an Indian nature to children born only of Indians.

   “They became such in virtue of national law (the Civil Rights Act of 1866), or rather of NATURAL LAW which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country.”

There he went right off the tracks.  Natural Law dictates that off-spring are the same as the parents that produce them, -just as in all of nature for all eternity.  He then demonstrates his ignorance by conflating and confusing to completely different subjects and did so because they both employ the same ambiguous word;
“jurisdiction”.
He should have described persons born under the jurisdiction (the authority) of every country but instead he mistakenly switched to geographical location of their birth which came out as “within” the jurisdiction.  People! Two completely separate issues!
Children of invaders and ambassadors and tourists and Gypsies and Indians could be born “within” the boundaries, limits, jurisdiction of a country and yet are not under its authority, -its jurisdiction, (remaining separate and unattached).   Since they would not be in subjection to it, they thus would not be a subject nor a citizen.  That was a very elementary error due to not parsing the nature of the ambiguous word “jurisdiction”.

   “But I held that, (in the sense of the Constitution) every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard,

Wow! Talk about an ignorant presumption backed by no quoted laws nor any natural principle of human life!  The Constitution makes no reference to birth within limits of any state.  What moonshine was he drinking?  He just blustered on as if his State-law concepts were reflective of national-law reality when in fact they were detached from it.

“Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries”?

Sure, if you are a pathetic subject of royal dictators as in all monarch-ruled nations.  He failed to do what his ancestors had done when they risked everything for liberty; they rejected that whole system of assigning national membership based on the Divine Rights of Kings.
Notice the sweeping expanse of his baseless claim, -embracing the logical location of one’s birth while rejecting the nationality of one’s parents.  It required a gigantic leap of presumption to conceive that the father is irrelevant to what his son is, and has no actual connection to him and the membership he is born with, -supposedly inheriting nothing from his father.

Members give birth to members regardless of birth location.  Natives give birth to natives regardless of a native territory location.  Almost 100% of the native-born  are natural natives.  But some are not because they were born of outsiders, -aliens.
The vast sea of natural citizens of a nation are like a herd of elephants that is forever behind an observer of the terrain, and never seen or noticed because all attention it drawn to the odd creatures out in front who are tiny by comparison but unusual also, -they being foreigners and their children,  They get all of the legal attention and discussion and focus because they are not natural members of the national herd that draws no attention but are odd, -outsiders, and  there are questions as to how to treat them.
It is felt by some that since they were born in the elephants’ territory that they should be considered as honorary elephants.  But they have no inherent right to be accepted and made equals.  It is simply a benevolence of the herd.  Their gift of  membership among the herd is legal membership; -not natural membership.  Their nativity gives them no natural rights whatsoever.  They are not natural elephants.

“It is a rule of universal law, adopted and maintained among all nations, that they who are born upon the soil are the citizens of the State.”

What a statist ignoramous!  “all nations”?  He means all monarchist dictatorships!  Their subjects are anyone born on their land.  In a nation founded on liberty, there is no royal ownership of subjects because there is neither royalty nor subjects, so no one is born on the land of a dictator (except slaves of course).

“citizens of the state”?  What other nation even had citizens except perhaps in the perverted and failed revolution of the French?  What other nation was free and founded on a written Constitution and Bill of Rights?  None practiced national republican democracy except for little Switzerland.

“They owe allegiance to the state, and are entitled to the protection of the State.”

They owe the state nothing except to obey its laws.  What they owe is their personal participation in any effort needed to defend the nation and its people.  They are not “entitled” to protection as a right that the state must provide because they are the state and possibly one of its defenders!
The men of the nation owe the women and children and elderly protection and they are obligated to fulfill that obligation while they are young and able.  [But State citizens may be expected or allowed to serve in the state militia up until their mid-forties.]

“Such is the law, whether you put it into this bill or not. So far as this declaration of the bill is concerned, it is but reiterating an existing and acknowledged principle of law.” Rep. Thayer,

“principle of law”?  What law?  There was no such law except in monarchical kingdoms.  Principle?  What principle?  The one that declares that every soul born on the dictators land belongs to him for life?  That is not a principle!  It is a royal dictate, an autocratic policy.  It was not even an actual law in the mother country of Britain and that is why no one ever cites one.  It was just ancient custom probably originating in the aftermath of the Norman conquest of England.

“Mr. Justice Curtis held that the Constitution of the United States assumes that citizenship can be acquired by nativity.”

Citizenship is not “acquired” by natural citizens, (they are born being citizens) but via the beneficence of State governments or constitutions it could be acquired via law that covers children born of their alien immigrants.

“Now where is the authority to except the native-born African from the application of the general rule of law that every native shall be a citizen of the country on whose soil he is born?” Rep. Raymond

If the native-born African is the child of an African ambassador, or African tourist, -or African athlete, or African student,..
“the general rule of law..”  “Rules” are not laws!  That being the case, there was no law because a general rule is merely a policy.

“What is a citizen but a human being who, by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a government, owes allegiance to that government?” Congressman Broomall

What a treasonous and dangerous idea.  It betrays our Declaration of Independence completely and the foundational principles of our nation.  He puts the government about the People.  He makes it an ultimate entity like the State Dominion of royal dictators.  The government owns you?  No, you own the government, and it owes you, the People, its allegiance.
No oath of office is an oath to protect the government.  It is an oath to protect the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) from people with such views (domestic enemies of liberty).

“and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born.”

The extent of his citizenship delusion is revealed by his falling-back into colonial thinking about it, conflating “native-born citizen” with one born as a natural citizen.  To believe in the world-view of citizenship that suffused his thinking, one must be oblivious to the reality of the natural citizenship of “natural citizens”. (do an advance search using exact words selection)

Notice that he confirms what I’ve heard no one else other than myself proclaim, namely that is was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, -but he assumed the opposite of natural citizenship was the “rule” merely because it had been so in the colonial empire of the royal dictator.

But even though States chose to continue to grant such citizenship, the new national government chose to not recognize it on the international stage, and revealed that fact in the first naturalization act and its subsequent replacements.  Only the children dwelling in the United States whose alien immigrant father became a naturalized American were considered to be US citizens.  Without the naturalization of their father, even if born within the US, they remained foreigners just like he whose nationality they inherited.  That was the actual US Law.  Congressman Broomall was, no doubt, from one of those former colonies with a long and continuing tradition of common law native-birth citizenship and it colored his whole perspective on the matter.

“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it.”

“the law”?  The law that was actually unwritten and unsettled by the Constitution and the Congress?  The only law that the 14th Amendment was declaratory of was British common law still followed under State laws.  Not Federal Law since it was just the opposite.

“We must depend upon the general law relating to subject and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition,..”

What he means is general policy or presumed rule, -not “general law“.  And it was not recognized by the U.S. government as manifested in the Wong appeal by the U.S. government to over-turn his citizenship.  How could it have been a “settled issue” when the government opposed it?

“and that must lead to a conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural born citizen of such States…” Rep. Wilson.

Opinions are not facts, even when they are erroneously presumed to be facts.  The only conclusion that could be drawn was that native-born citizens were born citizens, -not natural born citizens.  He deceitfully attempted to drive the word “natural” out into the wilderness of oblivion and pretend that it didn’t exist or had no meaning.  One could rightfully suspect that he himself was born of an immigrant father before he was able to become an American citizen and thus was not a natural born citizen, and resented that fact and was determined to change the political landscape by changing perceptions and definitions of terms.

“The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. ..-the children of foreign ministers … By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States.” Senator Wade

The fiction of law only exist as a theoretical doctrine because there is no principle in the common law that provides an exception to subjection for all native-born souls.  So one had to be invented out of thin air by ignorant men who were unaware that children of ambassadors inherit their father’s nationality and their fathers are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction by treaty and the law of nations.  Thus, neither are their children.

They are subject, like foreign tourists or students, or visitors, solely to their own government.  The place of their child exiting its mother’s womb was and is irrelevant, as was that of Barack Obama.  He was not born as an American citizen by a fiction of American law, but by a fiction of an Attorney General who concocted a fiction not based on anything in American federal law.

Instead, he based it on ancient British court law, aka, common law.  That was the so-called “law” that the American founders and framers rejected in establishing American citizenship based on Natural Law instead.  What element of Natural Law did they rely on?  It was a Natural Principle and a Natural Right, -the principle of nature by which children are the same as the parents that produce them, -same species, same color, same size, same nature, etc., etc. along with the natural right of free and sovereign citizens to pass their national membership on to the next generation regardless of the location of their entrance into the world.

by Adrien Nash  July 2013  obama–nation.com

Advertisements

About arnash
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.

One Response to Exposing the Ignorance of 14th Amendment Pontificators of Old

  1. slcraignbc says:

    Look, either you accept the Constitution as a “compact” between ITS people and the Constitution ITS-SELF, or you don’t. [THAT MEANS NOTHING. FORM A DISCERNIBLE THOUGHT BEFORE PUTTING SOMETHING IN WRITING. WHAT YOU’VE WRITTEN IS REGARDING A COMPACT BETWEEN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE CONSTITUTION’S PEOPLE. THAT IS NOT CONNECTED TO REALITY. THE COMPACT WAS BETWEEN THE STATES THAT HAD TO CHOSE TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION OR NOT. YOUR LANGUAGE VERY MUCH CONFUSES THAT FACT.]

    If you do not, then you are a form of anarchist which demands the benefits of the Constitution but deny the obligations it requires. [OBLIGATIONS? IT REQUIRES NO OBLIGATIONS. IT IS A CONSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT, NOT A REGULATORY SCHEME FOR CITIZENS.]

    There is NO SUCH THING as a “CITIZEN” that is not provided for by the LAWS of a POLITICAL SOCIETY, there ARE “native & indigenous” peoples who are NOT members of a POLITICAL SOCIETY, but EVEN they are provided for within OUR Constitution.

    [WHAT BLINDNESS. THE CITIZENS OF THE NATION PRE-EXISTED THE LAWS OF THE NATION. THEY ARE THE FATHERS OF THE GOVERNMENT WHICH THEY ESTABLISHED TO WRITE LAWS, INCLUDING REGARDING FOREIGNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN. THEY DID NOT WRITE LAWS TO DEAL WITH THEIR CREATOR (AND THEMSELVES) THEY BEING THE PEOPLE OF THE SOVEREIGN STATES.

    THE NATURAL MEMBERS OF A SOCIETY HAVE NO NEED OF LAWS TO ESTABLISH THEIR MEMBERSHIP. IT…IS…NATURAL! NOT LEGAL. IS YOUR MEMBERSHIP IN YOUR OWN FAMILY LEGAL OR NATURAL? IT IS LEGAL IF YOU WERE ADOPTED, OTHERWISE IT IS NATURAL, WITHOUT NEED OF A LAW BECAUSE THE RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS OF SOCIETIES SUPERSEDE GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT IS SUBSERVIENT TO THEIR RIGHTS OR THEY DO NOT HAVE RIGHTS. ONE OF THOSE UNALIENABLE RIGHTS IS THE RIGHT TO PASS THEIR MEMBERSHIP TO THEIR OFF-SPRING, -AS VATTEL NOTED.]

    You need to go back and read Vattel more thoroughly; and I might suggest you read Aristotle’s “Politics” 1st so that you have a better understanding of where many of Vattel’s thoughts found their authority.

    It is obvious that you are relying on the strict interpretation of the following;

    Ҥ 212. Citizens and natives.

    The citizens are the members of the civil society;

    bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority,

    they equally participate in its advantages.

    The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. [THAT SHOULD READ: THE NATURAL INHABITANTS OR NATIVES…]

    As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
    The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

    The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
    I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country….” [THAT DESCRIBES THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP]

    But where you fail is in NOT asking and answering the question; How and when did the parents become “Citizens” and under WHAT terms did they become…
    [ARE YOU DAFT? I’VE SPENT FOUR YEARS WRITING ABOUT ALMOST NOTHING ELSE. YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND THE DEPTH OF THE SUBJECT YOU ARE PONTIFICATING ON, BUT YOU COULD DEEPEN YOUR UNDERSTANDING BY READING A TENTH OF WHAT I’VE WRITTEN.] “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. ” and if a child becomes a “Citizen” by the doctrine of TACIT CONSENT is that child then ” bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority”; [DEFINITELY, MORALLY OBLIGATED, IF MALE, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DEFENSE OF THE NATION] or, as a “native” do the laws that made the parents Citizens then NOT apply to the child when grown…???

    A child DOES NOT become a “Citizen” by the doctrine of TACIT CONSENT. HE MERELY REMAINS A CITIZEN BY NOT CHOOSING A DIFFERENT NATION TO JOIN. AS FOR THE LAWS THAT MADE THE PARENTS CITIZENS… THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN UNLESS THEY ARE NATURALIZED OR NATIVE-BORN OF IMMIGRANTS. THE LAWS ONLY PERTAIN TO OUTSIDERS. ONCE AN OUTSIDER BECOMES AND INSIDER, THEN THERE ARE NO MORE LAWS DEALING WITH THEIR MEMBERSHIP, NOR THAT OF THEIR CHILDREN.

    IT’S LIKE A GUARD AT THE BRIDGE-GATE INTO A WALLED CITY. ONCE THE GUARD LETS YOU IN, YOU ARE NOT UNDER ANYMORE INSPECTION REQUIREMENT. THERE IS NO MORE LAW OR FORMALITY OR REGULATION OVER YOUR ADMITTANCE BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY INSIDE, -AN INSIDER, -AND A CHILD BORN TO YOU INSIDE DOES NOT NEED THE GUARD’S PERMISSION TO STAY BECAUSE IT, LIKE YOU, IS PASSED THE INSPECTION PHASE. IT ONLY APPLIES AT THE ENTRANCE, -NOT INSIDE.

    IT’S THE SAME WITH CITIZENSHIP. NO LAWS ARE NEEDED FOR INSIDERS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OUTSIDE THE BRIDGE-GATE. WHAT THE NATURALIZATION ACT OF 1790 DECLARED WAS THAT ALL AMERICAN CHILDREN ARE BORN INSIDE THE BRIDGE-GATE, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE BORN, BECAUSE INSIDE-NESS IS NOT DETERMINED GEOGRAPHICALLY, BUT GENETICALLY, -BY ONE’S POLITICAL GENES OR INHERITANCE, EXACTLY AS VATTEL DESCRIBED.]

    But you do not hear when I explain the authority that the People gave to the Congress; [YOU DO NOT HEAR WHAT THE CONSTITUTION GAVE TO THE CONGRESS, WHICH WAS NO AUTHORITY OVER THE CITIZENSHIP OF THE CITIZENS OF THE NATION. NATURALIZATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CITIZENS AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH FOREIGNERS. YOU HIDE FROM ACKNOWLEDGING THAT.]

    you do listen when I explain that the Laws that the Congress wrote on the subject of U.S. Citizenship conforms with and is consistent with your “strict interpretation” of Vattels discourse, and you seem unwilling to LEARN that in order to ENFORCE the “(U.S.) natural born Citizen” provision within the STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION of A2S1C5 it must be CONSTRUED from the STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION of the Constitution and ITS Laws made in pursuance thereof.

    [IT’S WRONG TO REFER TO LAWS MADE IN PURSUANCE OF A2S1C5 SINCE NONE EXIST. IT’S ALSO WRONG TO REFER TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE NBC CLAUSE WHEN NO SUCH ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM EXISTS. YOU SAY U.S. LAWS HAVE BEEN CONSISTENT WITH VATTEL AND YET YOU FAIL TO SAY WHAT VATTEL MEANT. APUZZO SAYS THAT SAME SORT OF WEASEL-LIKE THING, EXTOLLING VATTEL WHILE IGNORING WHAT HE WROTE. IF FEAR YOU ARE A CLOSET APUZZO DOING THE SAME THING SINCE YOU HAVE FAILED TO PRESENT WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND VATTEL TO HAVE SAID.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: