Delusional Citizenship Views of the Left & Right

PDF version Here: The Delusional Citizenship Views of the Left and Right

The Constitution requires that the President be no person who is not born as a natural citizen, -who is not “a natural born citizen”. The dishonest defenders of Obama’s presidency falsely assert that the meaning of the word “natural” is irrelevant to the meaning of the phrase and can simply be ignored, while their opponents, the neo-nativists, indirectly ascribe imperial powers to Congress with their insistence that he not only must be a natural citizen by birth but must also be a native-born citizen. Thus they distort what the Constitution says by claiming that what it means is that he must be a natural, native-born citizen.

That belief has two quite dramatic collateral consequences. One is that significant numbers of children of foreigners, -native-born common law citizens from birth, are ineligible to ever serve as President, including Obama. That also meant, in the distant past, that no native-born son of immigrants (who would become Americans as soon as allowed) who was a citizen of the State of his birth, would have been eligible either.

The other consequence is one that they refuse to examine and consider because they simply don’t care about it enough to let its ramifications register in their conscious mind. That consequence is the resulting lack of any defining of the political nature of American children not born within American territory.

The British faced a similar puzzlement in 1350, and finally recognized that their common law rule that “all souls born on English land are English from birth, regardless of birth to aliens” was unaccompanied by any statute on the nature of English children not born on English soil. So Parliament passed an act titled: “de Nativis Ultra Mare” (of Birth Beyond the Sea) which declared the children of Englishmen to also be English though born out of the sovereignty of the monarch. In effect, they were deemed to be inheritors of the father’s nationality regardless of where they were born.
The British never again had a problem with understanding that British parents give birth to British children by the natural law of belonging. Children belong to their parents, -their parents belong to their own people, their own society and country, as do also the flesh of their flesh, -future adult subjects born of them and comprising the next generation of subjects to one day replace their aging parents.
Their children, being blood of their blood, inherit not only their biological and physical character but also their cultural and political or national character, as has been the case of all children of all natural groups that have ever existed.
But the neo-nativists say it isn’t so. They return to the confused pre-1350 world when the British statutory law failed to recognize English born children as being English, -by overlooking them completely since they were so rare. It was only the increase of commerce, and English merchants establishing bases abroad where they might live for years at a time, that the situation arose of English children not being born on English soil.

A foreign birth place was one thing, and an insignificant thing at that, but what was not insignificant was when a child was also raised in a foreign land and reached adulthood there. That was a completely difference matter since such a child was not English by acculturation nor, quite likely, by self-identity either. The sovereign of that foreign land then had primary claim to his obedience as a member of his society.

But the issue of merely being born beyond national territory is the issue that remains a subject of delusion that goes completely unrecognized. Many embrace a falsehood that seems in their convinced minds as being essentially a certainty, and yet it is based on two horrible things.

One is the gross distortion of words written in one context, and then dishonestly turned around backwards and reapplied as if they have not been turned around backwards with a big twist of distortion of fact and logic as the result. I speak of the words of Vattel and the famous quote from Minor v. Happersett which echoes his words, both of which are authoritatively quoted in a reverse context as if that were not the case, and yet it is, and their logic crumbles as a result when it is reversed back to its original context.

No authority in written history was more emphatic than Vattel that the children follow the membership of the father, -that citizen fathers retain the right of their children to succeed them in their national membership, in effect as their future replacement, -and that it does not matter where a man’s child is born because that is not a natural factor in national membership, -regardless of it being a legal factor in numerous nations that are former colonies of empires, which included Britain itself. It was, in effect, colonized by the Normans who conquered England in 1066-1068.

Now, between the two prominent opposing dogmas, one allows alien-born common law citizens to be President, while the other dictates that only native-born children of citizens be considered to be eligible, with those dual requirements being their definition of “natural born citizen.”
But either one side is right and the other is wrong, or they are both simply wrong. If one side is capable of resorting to biased, distorted, illogical thinking, then why could not the other side also? There is no reason whatsoever to prevent it since both side come at the puzzle with biased viewpoints favoring their preferred definition of what it really means to be a American.

One side is overly loose when it comes to the issue of national security and the possibilities of an alien-born commander of all of America’s military and nuclear power, while the other is overly anal-retentive when it comes to defining what a true natural American citizen is.

The excess of their view is two-fold. The first fallacy is that the President must be born within American borders, adhering to the inane idea that the event of exiting the womb in a particular place (nation) imparts some form of indelible foreignness stain into the child’s psychology make-up, -or… if that explanation doesn’t fly, then it potentially imparts an invisible mind-control loyalty and subjection to that foreign power due to its “claim” of citizenship which it bestows as a gift to the native-born, -under the reasonable assumption that they are born of immigrants, -not transients, and will grow up there to be fellow citizens.

But the truth that everyone knows is that birth imparts nothing, and nations exert no jurisdiction over minors since they remain under their parents’ jurisdiction until adulthood. So what does that leave as a motive for requiring that the President be native-born? It leaves only two things, and they are sentiment and certainty.
Their sentiment inflates their sense of certainty because they want to believe it and even more, they want to believe it with certainty. They want to be able to point to a definition that is presumptively in writing and Supreme Court approved, but nothing ever written by any Supreme Court has set a definition, -an actual definition, that excludes all but the native-born.

No such definition has ever been established and may never be in the future because it would entail either ruling against all of the millions of Americans born of alien immigrants or it would entail ruling against the natural rights of all American citizens. And it is that angle that needs to be examined since it has an enormous collateral implication that their unexamined dogma fails to contemplate.
That implication is subservience to Congressional power. That view of America supports two falsehoods. One is that Congress was given power that it was never given by the Constitution’s authors, and the other is that they would have surrendered their natural right over their children to the preference of Congress.

Think about this similar possibility: would you, if you were one of them, have surrendered to men of government the right to pass your property and possessions to your children either at death or even before? Would you, upon fashioning a new form of government, have thought is expedient to give it the authority to block your unalienable right to do with your own property whatever you chose?

Well, membership is a possession of sorts, and one that men have passed on to their progeny for thousands of years. In what cracked universe is government involved in bestowing or blocking such a universal right? Would the founders of a new nation have taken their unalienable right to include their own flesh and blood within the national membership that they owned, and (instead of following all of nature and humanity) assigned to government the authority to block their children from being born under the national umbrella that they, their wives, and their native-born children lived under?

Why would they, or you assign to government the authority to cut-off your foreign-born child from its birthright membership in your family-unit’s uniform nationality? Why would you surrender to government a right which would allow it to do what the neo-nativist claim that Congress can do, -which is to declare your own flesh and blood to be an alien by nature (and forever ineligible to serve as President)?

Let’s look at the consequences of both dogmas under a magnifying glass. Imagine this stark hypothetical: In the long history of America before the 1920’s, all foreign women who married Americans were immediately deemed to be American citizens also, naturalized by matrimony, and all wives of a foreign man who became an American by taking the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation, -thereby also became U.S. citizens, -derivatively through their husband.

Suppose you had an immigrant foreign couple with the wife pregnant with twins. One was born one evening near the Canadian border but the second was not born at the same time. The next day the father takes the oath and becomes an American. Later that day he and his wife cross the Canadian border to be with the wife’s parents. They, both being new American citizens, become parents again when their second child is born in the mother’s Canadian childhood home. Both children, sons, upon reaching adulthood, are drafted into the Army to fight in World War I. They are both excellent, patriotic American soldiers who perform valiantly, and as heroes are awarded important medals of valor.
Years later, they both seek to serve their political party and nation by entering politics. They both rise to positions of prominence, one as a Senator, and the other as a governor, and eventually are considered as excellent candidates for the office of President. What is their constitutional status in regard to that office?

They are both eligible according to the dogma of the Left, while according the dogma of the Right, they are both ineligible. The one born first was born as a 14th Amendment common law citizen since his parents were permanent-resident immigrants, while the second was born as an American child born of American citizens, -not aliens, -but neither side will acknowledge that he was born as a natural American citizen.

Instead, they both promulgate their doctrine that he was, or was not qualified based solely on their contrived definitions of what constitutes a natural born citizen. The Left claims that since he was born with citizenship he therefore fits the false handed-down British doctrine that the alien-born were also natural British subjects, -with “natural” meaning whatever one wants it to mean, or nothing at all.
While the Right claims that lacking native-birth, he is, in essence, a possible threat to national security according to their warped illogical fantasy of what comprises foreign alienage.

But don’t try to get them to pin-point exactly what it is about him that is unAmerican and deserving of being disenfranchised of the right of all of his American peers, as well as his younger brothers born in America. In other words, don’t ask them to explain the logic of their view because it contains no logic since it is not based solely on jus soli citizenship (by right of soil) nor on jus sanguinis citizenship (by right of blood) but is instead a Frankenstein Siamese twin monster that requires both American blood and American soil.

Just how bad is such a dogma in the real world? It is so bad that no nation on Earth, including the United States, has ever embraced such a definition of what a natural citizen is, since by nature, all that exists is blood and its relationships, -not borders nor government policies, laws or doctrines.
So if the founders and framers of the Constitution decided that they would surrender (to the Congress that they would create) their universal right to pass their national membership on to their children, when and where and how did they do so, -and why?

There is no such surrender to found anywhere in the Constitution, nor in any naturalization act, nor could Congress have had the authority to usurp that right of American citizens, -a right that it had no authority over. Its social equivalent would have been for Congress to have claimed the authority to declare your natural born children to be only adopted children and therefore ineligible to receive any inheritance from you except by permission of its statutes.
One situation is on a micro-level while the other is on a macro-level but they both are just different aspects of the same policy, -a policy involving the assumption of an authority that no sane person, much less the founding fathers, would have surrendered to men of government.
The 9th and 10th Amendments were written to prevent the very sort of thinking that the neo-nativists embrace and espouse, -an anti-American doctrine, -all while they are believing that it is an ultra pro-American doctrine. But in fact it makes The People subservient to the Congress that they created, -ascribing to it unlimited power over the national membership of natural American children, characterizing them as foreigners in need of naturalization, and does so by throwing out a fundamental right of all Americans, -the right to belong to their parents’ country as fellow natural members, and to serve their nation in every capacity possible. That was a right that real Americans would never have surrendered, especially after they fought a long and costly war to secure their natural rights.

The War of Independence, -waged to be free of unlawful and unnatural government intrusion into their lives, was the end result of the American revolution. This is how John Adams once put his view of the American Revolution:
But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.

Chief of the rights they fought for was self-ownership (versus imperial ownership), and their ownership of themselves extended to their children who were the natural inheritors of their parents’ position in society. And that position was the basis of their membership in their country (the colony or State of their birth and / or residence). Their membership in their native country or land of domicile was the basis of their membership in the aggregate nation of which their home country was a part, a member of a union of sovereign American republics.
Would American parents have surrendered to the will of government the right of their children to be members of their own family? Or their own clan? Or their own town or society? Then why would they have surrendered their right to membership in their own nation? They wouldn’t have, and they didn’t.

The naturalization acts of Congress express in clear terms when mentioning American children born abroad: “the right of descent”. That is the opposite of “the membership granted by permission, based on native-birth” or naturalization at birth. The US government expressly states that they are not citizens by naturalization, -meaning by permission of government statute. So… if they are not citizens by common law native-birth, nor by naturalization, then they are the only thing that is left; and that is:
Natural born citizens.

by Adrien Nash August 2014 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”.

9 Responses to Delusional Citizenship Views of the Left & Right

  1. slcraignbc says:

    Why do you NOT consider the Constitution and the Acts made in pursuance thereof to answer the questions regarding U.S. Citizenship….???

    [ANSWER: The Constitution did not address the issue of citizenship because that was a State issue. They continued on as sovereign over citizenship, and co-sovereign over naturalization and immigration for well over a century, and even until 1929 there was still no uniform official national-wide oath of naturalization.

    Each State or court of record could have its own oath. Also, the naturalization acts were not made in pursuance of the Constitution because it did not require that they be written. It only empowered Congress to do so if it chose to do so. That is evident in the language of the Constitution: “Congress shall have the power…” instead of “Congress must do a-z”.]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    One of the most significant errors that ALL sides of the issue make is to consider the historical understandings and definitions of a ” natural born Citizen” and fail to add the QUALIFIER of “United States” as in a “United States natural born Citizen” .
    That then requires to consider what is the United States…?

    [REPLY: It requires nothing because your supposition is false and without basis in reality. The term natural born citizen is 100% tied to the sovereign republics of America. All of their citizens born of citizens were natural born citizens. No one at all thought in terms of a national natural citizenship.

    The Constitution could have required that all Senators must be natural born citizens also, and if it had done so it would be indisputable that it required that they be natural born citizens of the State that picked them to represent it. All Presidents until Arthur were natural born State citizens. Washington, Jefferson, and Madison were natural born Virginian citizens. None of them thought of themselves and their life-long citizenship as being directly tied to an aggregate nation that they had eventually created. They thought of it in terms of the citizenship with which they were born and raised. That being their home country, -the colony of their birth and upbringing.]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Is it truly a Constitutional Republic, i.e., Rule of Law under the terms of the Constitution…??
    A second significant error is the “notion” that such a creature as a natural born “citizen” even exists in a “natural state”.
    A “citizen” by definition, is a “creature” of a “POLITICAL SOCIETY”, so if a child is born into “membership” of the Political Society it is by virtue of the Society allowing it; historically under the POLITICAL doctrines of Jus Soli and or Jus Sanguinis, separately or in some politically determined combinations addressing differing circumstances.

    [REPLY: Societies do not “allow” their own children to be or not to be members of their own family, -whether that family be at the individual family level or at the national family level. Their membership is automatic. It always has been and always will be. That is because it is natural membership and not legal membership by allowance.
    It cannot be barred, ignored, nullified nor regulated because its nature supersedes the authority of all governments that recognize Natural Rights.
    Jus Sanguinis is not a doctrine but jus soli is. Jus sanguinis is a right of all sentient beings to be members of the family which gave them birth. Its translations of “by Right of Blood” truly reflects an immutable human right, but jus soli’s translation of “by right of soil” does not reflect a natural right but a legal right by permission of the natives of the nation through their laws.]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The 3rd significant error that is made by those “rationalizing” their understanding of a U.S. natural born Citizen is failing to comprehend the significance of determining when and how the 1st U.S. Citizens BECAME U.S. Citizens under the COTUS. It is one of those “it goes without saying” events that has a significant EFFECT on the Acts regarding U.S. Citizenship that follows that were made in pursuance of the COTUS.
    In the late summer of 1789 the 9th State, N.H., returned the States Certificate of Ratification to the Constitutional Congress and the COTUS was “considered as” Ratified. On that date all those persons who were at that time recognized as a Citizen of any of the several States BECAME Citizens of the United States in a “collective naturalization” fashion as REQUIRED by the EFFECTS of the words and provisions of the COTUS.
    Once that FACT is acknowledged then it becomes much easier to “RECONCILE”, as opposed to “rationalize”, the Acts and EFFECTS of the Acts that the Congress made under the AUTHORITY of A1S8C4; ” The Congress shall have the power to: establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship: implicit ) naturalization.”

    The word “naturalization is NOT used in the “verb” sense in the provision in any construction of statutory interpretation given that the provision REQUIRES that “an uniform Rule” be made of it and then “instituted” across ALL of the land and peoples that falls under the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

    I will leave the “RECONCILING” to your abilities, should you accept the mission, with the admonishment of Sir Blackstone to his students in the introduction of his commentaries of the English Common Law when he paraphrased Cicero and I paraphrase both ; ” Learn the Laws of one’s own Country 1st, then work the “common-law system” into it where it is appropriate.”

    [REPLY: You are still imagining phantom words where they do NOT exist. A sane person will not accept your “implicit” insertion of the concept of a national citizenship rule for three great reasons:
    1. Congress was not “REQUIRED” but merely allowed the authority to write a uniform rule for the States to adopt in their naturalization process, -one by which foreigners would become new State and national citizens in State Courts of Record, by State magistrates authorized to administer oaths and record the proceedings in an official manner. (Federal courts, when established) were also so authorized)
    2. Congress was NOT allowed any authority over the citizenship of the States’ own natural citizens. It had no connection to it whatsoever. It remained a sovereign State matter.

    3. The concept of “collective naturalization” is 100% bogus. Naturalization is to make natural the membership of outsiders who wish to fully legally join the society of the natives or insiders. The citizens of the States were never foreigners or outsiders to the Union that they forged. They were its natural members, its natives. They did not need to be “made natural” like the natural members of the new nation because they were the natural members already.
    So your “collective naturalization” -as REQUIRED by the EFFECTS of the words and provisions of the COTUS” is pure fictional thinking since neither the words nor their effects relate at all to any persons except foreigners, -immigrants from Europe.]

    • David Farrar says:

      But if all the citizens of the 13 states became US citizens on June, 1788, how then could the provisions of Article 1, §2 & 3, Clause 1, be accomplished by March 4, 1789? (i.e., being seven years a United States citizen for House Reps., and nine years for the Senate?)

      • slcraignbc says:

        June 21, 1788 • New Hampshire becomes the ninth state to ratify the Constitution (57–47).

        Being 2/3rds Ratified the Constitution WAS effectively RATIFIED

        May 29, 1790 Rhode Island becomes the thirteenth and final state to ratify the Constitution (34–32).

        Read a relatively correct TIMELINE at Wiki;

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_drafting_and_ratification_of_the_United_States_Constitution#1789

        The various “Delegates” from the various States sorted their selves out in regard to positions they filled in the immediate needs of forming the General Government and I’m sure there are many interesting political stories across the several States.

        But what is IMPORTANT to understand is that insofar as the proponents of the Constitution was concerned, ONCE RATIFIED, all efforts were turned to ESTABLISHING the various Offices of the NEW Federal Government as a fait accompli.

        The EFFECT of the words and provisions of the COTUS REQUIRED that ALL persons who were then State Citizens would then be RECOGNIZED as BEING United States Citizens ALSO.

        However, once the Congress enacted the 1790 “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship) naturalization those persons that may thereafter be made a State Citizen under State Laws were NOT necessarily ALSO U.S. Citizens. That point was CLARIFIED by the 1795 Act in its 1st PROVISION; (in pertinent part);

        ” … SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, (reconciled) person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: — (see Talbot v Janson, the U.S. v Villato & Collett v Collett.

        When you are ready we can visit the 1790 Act and begin to understand the nature of a U.S. Citizen as being a COMPACT by CONSENT.

      • arnash says:

        The answer to your question is hidden in plain sight. It is found in the over-zealous use of capitalization when writing the word: “united”. The Congressmen did not need to be 7/9 years a citizen of THE UNITED STATES, but merely and naturally a citizen of the united STATES OF AMERICA, -just as is presented quite boldly in the opening of the Declaration of Independence. Examine the original. The word “united” is tiny and uncapitalized, while the word “State” is huge (and all capitals I presume).
        It’s safe to say that four out of five appearances of the term “the united states” the reference is not to the aggregate nation but to the individual States united in a more perfect union under the Constitution, (or the Articles of Confederation).
        All of the representatives and Senators had been citizens of their home colony all of their lives, very likely, being born of natives, but the naturalized foreigners had to have been naturalized during the war in order to be eligible for the first Congress.

        slcraignbc wrote:

        “The EFFECT of the words and provisions of the COTUS REQUIRED that ALL persons who were then State Citizens would then be RECOGNIZED as BEING United States Citizens ALSO.

        That makes sense in theory but has no common counterpart in reality. No one had any relationship to the new national government unless they were engaged in activities like interstate commerce or international commerce or travel. Otherwise the main interface with the national government was via mailing a letter or working for it. All citizenship duties were under State authority except the federal grand or petite jury.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Well, you title of your rant is appropriate; “Delusional Citizenship Views”………. you pluck bits and pieces out of thin air and by some convoluted application of mouth to mouth try to put life into an unborn imagining.

        So, with a final attempt to see if you have any ability to think rationally I’ll ask you to reconcile a single provision;

        ” … SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, (reconciled) person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: – (see Talbot v Janson, the U.S. v Villato & Collett v Collett.)

        Your “view” that not persons who were State Citizens did not BECOME United States Citizens upon Ratification of the COTUS is odd in light of the fact that ALL of the States became MEMBERS of the Union under the General Government that came to be known as the Federal Government.

        Somehow you separate the State Citizens from the State in order to say that they were not United States Citizens by CONSENT expressed in the democratic determination to the Ratifying of the COTUS, thereby becoming “one among many” who were heard reciting;

        ” …. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America….”

  2. arnash says:

    “our “view” that not persons who were State Citizens did not BECOME United States Citizens upon Ratification of the COTUS is odd…”

    That would be an odd view to hold, but nothing I wrote implied that I hold it. I simply corrected your inaccurate use of the word “naturalization”. It did not apply to what the State citizens did. They enlarged the boundary of what constituted their “nation” from including only their own State to including all States that ratified the Constitution. The did NOT naturalize themselves by enlarging the borders of their country via the uniting of the States.
    You seem to hold to an imaginary view of something dynamically new appearing out of nowhere when a new national government was authorized by the citizens of America, -something that did not require their consent regarding their membership because it was automatic through their State’s participation.

    All citizens of all States were citizens of the union which was known as The United States of America, but in their view, life was lived at the village, town, city, country and State levels, and they were thus first and foremost citizens of the united STATES, -with the federal government being an ancillary governmental body that hardly impacted them at all.

    • slcraignbc says:

      You responded with this assessment of the circumstance of the EFFECT of the Ratification of the COTUS ………..

      “……….. You seem to hold to an imaginary view of something dynamically new appearing out of nowhere when a new national government was authorized by the citizens of America, -something that did not require their consent regarding their membership because it was automatic through their State’s participation………….”

      So, you hold that the Ratification of the COTUS which then REQUIRED that the various Branches of the NEW FORM of GOVERNMENT commence in there ESTABLISHMENT by the toils and labors of the Representative servants of the PEOPLE was some how less than dynamic and was somehow Ho-Hum as far as the 7,000 years of recorded history was concerned.

      ……….and even when I show you the STATUTORY PROOF of my position regarding State Citizenship you ignore it altogether……….

      ………so I’ll just have to leave you out in the weeds as you RESORT to “nature” and IGNORE the Law of the REPUBLIC…….

      …..I will leave you with one (1) question though……….”How do you plan on ENFORCING your position under Federal Law in a manner that REMOVES all the AMBIGUITY and replaces it with the CERTAINTY of a Declaratory Judgement so that a Usurpation by the lack of eligibility does not happen again…????”

      [ANSWER: YOU KNOW FULL WELL THAT THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM EVERY MANDATED OR ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS ENTIRELY LEFT UP TO CONGRESS TO REMOVE OR BLOCK AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY. THE SCOTUS WOULD RATHER HAVE 10 ROOT CANALS THAN TACKLE THE ISSUE OF WHAT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS BECAUSE IT WOULD INVOLVE DISENFRANCHISING MILLIONS OF ALIEN-BORN, COMMON LAW, NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS FROM PRESIDENTIAL ELIGIBILITY. THEY DO NOT HAVE THE COURAGE FOR SUCH A TASK.

  3. arnash says:

    ~a comment I left at Apuzzo’s blog:
    Which is worse: to be a liar or to be an ignoramus? I see one heck of a lot of both in comments here. Each side fires their big cannon of truth and then follows it with their smaller cannon of lies.

    “[the Minor court opinion] further added that under that common law, the natural born citizens were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens.”

    That statement is a deliberate falsehood since no such thing was ever conveyed by the court. Perversion of language is accompanied by perversion of logic.

    The court “defined” nothing whatsoever. But it observed an indisputable fact: native-birth plus native parents = natural citizens by birth, NOT the reverse!

    An Analogy: All babies born of your mother’s own womb in her own bed are her children. They are your direct kin, or natural born siblings.

    The Apuzzo Perversion: The definition of your natural born siblings is all babies born of your mother’s womb in your mother’s bed.

    Hmmmmm… -but what about those siblings born in a hospital??? They are not your natural born siblings?

    How can a sane person proffer such a transparently delusional dogma?

    What if the Minor paragraph had instead said: “These were natives or natural citizens,…”?

    It would mean the very same thing but the dogma would evaporate as the golden term lost its sole anchor in a SCOTUS opinion. Poof! goes Mario’s dogma since “natural born citizen” would then not have its vaunted “definition” -which is a backward perversion of what was actually written.

    • slcraignbc says:

      You prefaced your comment by posting a paraphrase of Minor v DICTA where Justice Waite, after consulting the 1790 / 95 /98 Acts expressed his conclusion that;

      “[the Minor court opinion] further added that under that common law, the natural born citizens were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens.” [NO SUCH QUOTE EXISTS!]

      Then you disparage the conclusion by asserting that Justice Waite got it backwards, which, when tracked back to the source of his conclusion places the error on the 1st, 3rd and 5th Congresses for NOT seeing in quite the same perspective as you do.

      [THAT IS A FALSE CONCLUSION. BACKWARDS MEANS THAT THE NEO-NATIVISTS PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THEY PRESUMPTUOUSLY PROCLAIM THE TERM nbc AND ITS SUPPOSED DEFINITION INSTEAD OF QUOTING THE ACTUAL MENTION OF THOSE BORN OF CITIZENS IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY RESULTING IN NEW CITIZENS, WHO ARE NATIVES OR NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. SEE THAT? NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IS LAST, NOT FIRST!

      IT WAS NOT DEFINED, BUT MERELY MENTIONED AS AN ASIDE TO LINGUISTICALLY CLARIFY BY LABELING SUCH CITIZENS WITHOUT DEFINING THEM BY CIRCUMSTANCES OR PRINCIPLES.
      NO EXPLANATION IS GIVEN AS TO WHY THOSE TWO CIRCUMSTANCES TRANSLATE INTO NATURAL BORN CITIZENS. YOU DON’T KNOW WHY THEY DO OR WOULD OR COULD BUT YOU TOTALLY EMBRACE THEM REGARDLESS.
      I DO NOT BECAUSE I’VE LEARNED WHAT THE PRINCIPLE IS AND IT IS NATURAL TRANSMISSION OF NATURAL MEMBERSHIP. CITIZEN PARENTS PRODUCE CITIZEN CHILDREN, NATURAL CITIZENS, (NOT LEGAL CITIZENS) -BORN AS NATURAL CITIZENS.]

      But how about this,…..Just suppose a moment that the 1st, 3rd and 5th Congresses saw in the same manner as you [ARE YOU DAFT? THE FIRST CONGRESS MANDATED THAT AMERICAN CHILDREN BE RECOGNIZED AS NATURAL BORN CITIZENS; THE LATER CONGRESSES DID NOT.] but felt it necessary to express it in a vernacular and nomenclature THEY were familiar with, i.e., in the same form the COTUS is written in, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

      Have you every even READ the 1790 / ’95 Acts and attempted to RECONCILE them with your understanding of Vattle and or Blackstone’s English Common Law interpretations of the Queen Anne Statutes of British Nationality…????

      [YOU WOULD NOT CONCEIVE OF ASKING THAT QUESTION IF YOU HAD READ ONE 10TH OF WHAT I’VE WRITTEN. I’VE READ EVERYTHING AND WRITTEN ABOUT IT ALL, EITHER TO EXPLAIN ITS TRUTH OR TO DEBUNK ITS FALSE CONCEPTS. THERE ARE FEW QUESTIONS FOR WHICH I HAVE NOT YET FOUND ANSWERS. YOU NEED TO LEARN WHAT THOSE ANSWERS ARE. THEY ARE THERE FOR YOUR ENLIGHTENMENT.

      THEY ARE NOT WHAT YOU DEDUCE FROM DOGMATIC BELIEFS BECAUSE THOSE BELIEFS ARE TAINTED WITH THE UNNATURAL DOGMAS OF HUMAN INTERVENTION VIA POLICIES, CUSTOMS, RULES, DICTATES, LAWS, AMENDMENTS, AND SCOTUS OPINIONS, AS WELL AN UNAMERICAN IDEA ABOUT THE POWER AND AUTHORITY OF BIG GOVERNMENT IN CONTRADICTION TO THE LIMITED POWERS ALLOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION.
      YOU DESIRE THE SECURITY OF A POWERFUL NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WHICH EMULATES THE ALL-POWERFUL PARLIAMENT WHICH WAS UNLIMITED BY A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. YOU WISH TO IGNORE THE VERY REAL AND CLEAR LIMITATION PUT ON THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN REGARD TO CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE YOU LOOK DOWN YOUR NOSE AT THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE REPUBLICS AND THEIR RIGHTS OVER MATTERS OF CITIZENSHIP FOR THEIR INHABITANTS.]

      When you do you’ll be pleased to find that the EFFECTS of the various PROVISIONS are ENTIRELY consistent with Vattel and the ancient common law applications save for the UNIQUELY Constitutional substitution of “CONSENT” for both “blood OR soil”.

      “We the People do ordain and establish………” as true an AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT as I know of ……….. and the children of those 1st citizens are NOT BOUND by the subjugation of either blood or soil, born “citizens” by TACIT CONSENT; ” …. ; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion,…”…….

      [“and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”
      YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE TRUE CITIZENS BY BEING BORN OF CITIZENS, FLESH OF THEIR FLESH, BLOOD OF THEIR POLITICAL BLOOD. ALL THAT TIME REVEALS IS WHETHER OR NOT AT ADULTHOOD THEY WISH TO REJECT THE POLITICAL NATURE WITH WHICH THEY WERE BORN AND CHOOSE ANOTHER.
      ONLY THAT DIRE ACTION (SELF-EXPATRIATION) REQUIRES THEIR CONSENT. JUST LIKE REJECTING MEMBERSHIP IN YOUR OWN FAMILY. YOUR CONSENT IS NOT NEEDED TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR NATURAL FAMILY NOR TO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR NATIONAL FAMILY. CONSENT IS ONLY NEEDED TO REJECT THAT WITH WHICH YOU WERE BORN.

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: