Truth Medicine Dispensed for Sick Citizenship Assumptions
October 10, 2014 1 Comment
The meaning of the words “natural born citizen” have no dependency on any opinion, any law, any dictionary, any exposition, nor on the Constitution. Rather, the Constitution is dependent on the meaning of the words themselves in order for the anal-retentive legally-minded “interpreter” to understand that they DO NOT NEED INTERPRETING! They mean what they mean in plain English, and that was how they were written.
There is no authority that anyone can turn to or point to that declares that those three words do NOT mean what they mean but instead mean something different, something artificial, as a term of legal artifice as words that say one thing but mean another.
Who exactly made such an authoritative “definition” that all must bow to? What is the identity of the authority that ascribed an artificial meaning to the framers’ words? I’d like to know his name. I’d like to see his authoritative statement quoted. No judge in America had any such authority because they were at the most only supreme judges of individual colonies or states.
Only a judge of the British High Court, being a national judge, could make such a statement comparing a natural-born subject to a natural born citizen, but would have no purpose on earth to pontificate regarding the comparison between the meaning of a British term-of-art and the meaning of the plain English words written in the Constitution regarding the leader of the United States.
He would have had no possible time-frame to write such a statement since writing it before the Constitution was written would have been impossible since the term in American law did not yet exist, and writing it afterward would be meaningless since he would have no authority to be the definer of a term that had already come into use and been ratified in the new charter of the nation. In that case, the framers could not have relied on a “definition” that had not yet even been written.
The neo-nativists are attempting to usurp the given and plainly understood meaning of simple words and pervert them to mean what their desired dogma supports. Instead of working to eliminate ambiguity by shining a spotlight on the truth, they seek to exploit the ambiguity in order to support their embraced doctrine of requiring birth within the bosom of mother America, -birth into membership in our blessed country via being a native-born child of sacred American soil.
All parents who think like that are fools! -fools who reject their own God-given unalienable natural right to pass their national membership on to their own children, children who will replace them as citizens when they are gone.
They ignorantly embrace the “good fortune” that their mother happened to not be across the border when something happened a long time ago, which they cannot possibly remember, but which supposedly makes one a full-blooded American, namely; they exited their mother’s womb somewhere, which they were told, was within U.S. borders.
Thank God! -otherwise they would have been born as an untrustworthy foreigner!
They are not alone in that delusion. We were all raised with it and it was all that we knew. But now some of us know better because we have traced the stream of our citizenship to its source, and it is not soil but blood.
If you had been born over the border, and were thus not an American “by birth”, that would mean that you would be among the outsiders on the inside of U.S. citizenship because you would thus be prohibited for life from eligibility to be President. God forbid!
So you can thank your lucky stars that you are not among the outside-insiders but are a member of the inside-insiders. The others are not allowed into the club of which you are a member, and that’s just their tough luck, -even if one of them is your very own identical-twin brother who joined the world before your mother could get through border traffic and to an American hospital.
All who think like that are fools!
They ascribe foolish and deranged thinking to the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution. But those men were not the ones who were fools, -as they showed in the 1790 Naturalization Act when they labeled , in effect, all children born of Americans as natural born citizens by BLOOD! -by DESCENT! -by Natural INHERITANCE, -by Natural RIGHT of BIRTH regardless of the insignificant location their mother occupied during her delivery.
If they have so damn much confidence in their fantasy doctrine, then surely they can explain why the founders in the first Congress were so dumb (according to their modern-day, superior understanding and insight) as to give up their natural right, -their right as Americans, -their right as humans, -their right as fathers, and their right as head of their own family. Which of them will attempt to explain why the founding generation would give away that right? Here, I’ll begin their explanation for them: “The Founding Fathers and Framers of the U.S. Constitution -in rejecting their own natural right, were flat-out stupid because…” All they have to do is complete the sentence.
Since their doctrine has all of the answers, it shouldn’t be a problem for them. But even Mario Apuzzo, (legal sage on the issue) will just brush off the question like it doesn’t even exist. Heaven knows, he’s done it about a hundred times before, literally.
“while the debates and discussions went on for years in the people’s house regarding “citizenship” and the 14th Amendment, not a single Congressman disagreed with the primary architect’s multiple statements on who is a natural born Citizen per the Constitution.”
THAT CAN’T BE PRESUMED. Just because one does not verbalize their disagreement openly is not evidence of agreement. There are multiple reasons for not objecting to what one believes to be wrong. First is that it would do no good since at their stage in life, no one was going to change anyone else’s mind, and 2nd, any attempt to do so would be a source of unwanted discord, 3rd, nothing hinged on the outcome anyway, and 4th, the language of the amendment was so ambiguously vague and undefined that it would definitely end up as it did with a few men in black robes deciding what Congress “really” meant according to what they themselves really wanted it to mean. THAT is the real context, -NOT presumed universal agreement.
One of the authors of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment said : “all other persons born of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens…”
There is no authority on Earth that can or will declare that statement to be false, and explain why it could be false. That is because it is a true statement, -it just isn’t framed with the context of domestic birth. It avoids the added extra, unnecessary baggage of “born…in the Republic“. Where is native-birth included in that statement? Nowhere!
Birth location is irrelevant to natural citizenship. Birth location recognition is a human contrived criterion having nothing whatsoever to do with anything natural. It is 100% artificial and legal.
A natural citizen is the opposite of a naturalized citizen. If one is born of citizen parents, then one is a natural citizen and not a foreigner nor a naturalized citizen. That is and always has been American law and policy. All natural citizens are eligible to be President, -meaning those born in America and those born elsewhere. It is not soil that makes one a natural citizen but it is American blood alone. Not American law, policy, court opinion, or constitutional amendment. It is blood and blood only. Nothing else produces a natural member of any group that ever existed.
As always, Mario Apuzzo’s false foundational premises produce false deductions and a false definition.
If the primary assumptions are false, then most of what follows will be also.
Per Vattel, a child’s nationality follows that of the father regardless of where the child is born. THAT is the natural order that he emphasized, and everyone knows it.
That means that a natural citizen is one born of citizens.
In all that Mario has ever written, he has never explained, and will never explain, why a natural citizen is not a natural born citizen.
Hell, he can’t even admit that such a thing as natural citizenship even exists, -and that is why he omits it from everything he has ever written.
And that shows that he really is in a well constructed semi-logical La-La-Land. Half right but half wrong, and unable to explain the gaping holes where logic should be found and isn’t.
All children born of American citizens are American citizens. They are natural American citizens. They are what the framers referred to as natural born citizens, and that is why they sought to protect their right in the future to serve as President by mandating that they be recognized as such in the 1790 Naturalization Act.
That was written to clarify and remedy the lack of any reference to them in the Constitution.
But that meant, on the other hand, that no loyal, proud, dedicated American patriot whose father had not yet had enough residency to become a citizen when he was born, was thereby defined as NOT being a natural born citizen since he was born of an alien father.
POOF! -away went any hope or dream or chance or right of ever aspiring to the office of President.
And there were thousands of such Americans. Probably tens of thousands.
They got their conceivable shot at the Presidency back when the words “natural born” were removed by the third Congress.
That is the historical reality and Mario has no hint of an explanation for why the wise and widely-knowledgeable founders and framers and members of the first Congress would have declared that children of Americans are to be considered to be natural born citizens even though born beyond America’s borders.
He has never given any explanation and never will give any that makes any sense. And that is why the eligibility movement has a massive hole in its foundation, -a hole where a logical explanation should exist but does not exist because it cannot exist since none is possible. There is no connection between any creature’s or any person’s or any citizen’s nature and the place where they were born because their nature is determined only by those who gave their off-spring life, -whether referring to biological, genetic life or to inherited political nature.
Let it not be said that ours was a generation of locusts that consumed not only the wealth we inherited from our fathers and mothers, but also stripped bare the future of our sons and daughters.
Diana Forthe Constitution wrote:
The first paragraph below is from the now debunked Jack Maskell CRS. The following paragraphs are in rebuttal, from The Daily Pen. It speaks to the Obama case, but touches every candidate’s eligibility/vetting.
“Concerning the production or release of an original birth certificate, it should be noted that there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation. Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to return.”
Clearly, Mr. Maskell overlooked the words of the 20th Amendment, which reads in part, “If a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified…”
When members of Congress swear that they will “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and that they will “bear true faith and allegiance to the same… so help me God,” they take upon themselves, by direct implication, the obligation to rule on the qualifications of those who emerge from the Electoral College as President and Vice President-elect… in spite of what Jack Maskell’s opinion might be.
Under the U.S. system for selecting our president and vice president, there are three distinct vetting opportunities. The first occurs when the political parties certify their candidates to the state election boards so that ballots can be printed. And although it is customary for the parties to certify the eligibility of their candidates under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the Democratic Party made that certification in 2008 only to the State of Hawaii, which has a statutory requirement that such certification be made. The remaining 49 states received no such certification in support of the eligibility of Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The second vetting opportunity occurs when the members of the Electoral College meet on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December. It is the obligation of all members of the Electoral College to cast their votes for individuals who are qualified, under Article II, Section 1. However, in spite of the clear knowledge that Obama had been born in 1961 with dual US-British citizenship, Democratic electors in December 2008 ignored that solemn responsibility.
The third and final vetting opportunity occurs during the first week in January following a presidential election when the Congress meets in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. It is the third and final fail-safe vetting opportunity.
So the question arises, can the Congress simply ignore its obligation to fully vet those selected as president and vice president-elect by the Electoral College? The answer to that question, in spite of Jack Maskell’s advice to Congress, is a resounding “no.”
As Edwin Viera, Jr., Ph.D., J.D., a leading authority on the Constitution, argues, “… the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient… Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be ‘a natural born citizen,’ by simply assuming that he is such…”
But what if the members of Congress, on the advice of CRS counsel, fail in that responsibility? Dr. Viera argues that, if no objection is made on the basis that Obama is not a “natural born” citizen… “the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a ‘constitutional sufficiency’ (emphasis added),” because Congress has no power to simply waive the eligibility requirement… Maskell memorandum or no Maskell memorandum.
Nash responds: I love the insight that the oath of office for those elected to Congress, as well as to the presidency, binds them to faithfully execute and support the provisions of the Constitution. They cannot just swear to support “the laws” and perform their duties, -they must swear fidelity first and foremost to defense of the provisions of the Constitution, including the presidential eligibility clause. So they are bound by their oath to vet the presidents qualification for office.
There are three other checks against an unconstitutional president-elect, and they are the Supreme Court which could declare that it will not recognize anything not signed by a natural born citizen sitting as President, or the sitting President saying that it is his duty to remain in power until a constitutional candidate is selected to replace him, or no judge in America being willing to administer the oath of office. What I wouldn’t give to see actions such as those in this bastardized age…
Christopher Newport wrote:
I think it is silly to even say the Constitution does not say what a NBC is. It is like saying no one knows what a natural citizen is. When over 90% of babies born in the US are born of moms and dads that are citizens, what else would you call them? That’s right, a natural citizen. Anything that is not natural is then suspect. A child born under any other circumstance is not a natural citizen.
The Constitution only gives us two possibilities for a president.
1) natural citizen
2) citizen (this one expired when the first generation patriots died)
So today only a natural citizen can be president. A citizen can not.
Nash adds: All who are born as natural citizens are eligible to be President, -but not all who are “deemed” to be natural citizens are eligible. That is because some who are “deemed” to be natural citizens were born as foreigners or born of a foreign parent. No one is deemed to be “a naturalized citizen” since the purpose of natural-ization is to make non-citizens into new natural citizens via a fundamental fiction of law. That makes them equal in every way to those born as natural citizens.
No such equality or fiction exists in many other countries, including Mexico where naturalized citizens are inferior citizens without many civic rights, -including the right to serve as a policeman, a soldier, a mayor, governor, judge, national representative or President. They do not have equal rights because they are not “deemed” to be natural citizens since Mexico does not embrace a fundamental policy of equality of citizenship as does the United States.
In America all citizens are equal under the law but not under the Constitution because it has one little ignored requirement that an American must be more than just a citizen but must be a natural born citizen, meaning: -born of American parents and not foreign parents or an American-foreign combo, in order to be President. The President must be fully American, only American, always American and that is only possible via birth to Americans. He must not be a political hybrid, chimera, half-breed, Siamese-twin type of citizen. He must be a real natural citizen, and nothing natural can be produced by parents of different origins, ever.
But in Obama’s case, the situation is somewhat different because he is not a real U.S. citizen by actual U.S. law but is merely “deemed” to be one based on a century old policy put in place by the U.S. Attorney General in 1898-99. Absent that erroneous policy, (a distortion and perversion and expansion of the Supreme Court opinion in Wong Kim Ark) and its universal pervasiveness in the American legal consciousness, no one would have any basis at all to consider BAIR-ek o-BAM-uh, aka Barry Soetoro, to be a United States citizen.
As a person and as a President, he is a fake. Fake pronunciation of his given name, fake place of birth, fake presumption of citizenship, fake Hawaiian birth certificate, fake Selective Service registration card, fake presumed scholastic competence, fake college attendance, fake presumed completion of required course work, fake worthiness of a graduation diploma, fake Christian conversion, fake non-devotion to Islam, fake non-devotion to Marxism, and fake fidelity to the Constitution.
Obama is the greatest fake the world has ever seen. It is impossible to top him. He reigns supreme as the greatest charlatan of all time. In infamy he should be known as “Obama the Great”. But what is worse? He or the tens of millions of minions who are too stupid or too gullible or too ideological or too dependent to see through his fakeness, and don’t want to even hear the truth because it destroys their blissful fake concept of reality? They are even more dangerous than he is because they are allowed to vote, -often multiple times even.
But don’t get overly exercised about Obama’s nonfeasance,and misfeasance because they are small potatoes compared to the horrendous damage inflicted on our nation by the crypto-marxists in both political parties and houses of Congress who have dug a fiscal hole so deep that soon the sunlight will barely reach the bottom. We once had a solution to a similar problem and it was to go off of the gold standard and base the value of the U.S. Dollar on nothing. But now that we are approaching a far worse situation we can’t simple move to a different system because there is no alternative. All that remains is simply creating more “money” out of thin air, and “borrowing” it in every increasing quantities. But that can’t go on forever because trees don’t grow to the sky, and the golden eggs (fiat currency) that our Federal Reserve goose is laying are in fact “fool’s gold”.
by Adrien Nash October, 2014 obama–nation.com