Citizenship from God vs Citizenship from Government

Natural Citizenship vs Cinderella Citizenship

Every member of the human race can be placed somewhere within the spectrum of belief regarding origins.  At one end are those who look at the perfection that is the universe and can’t escape the conclusion that it is all just too perfect to be the result of infinitely long odds, -or they are simple primitives, modern or “caveman”, who believe in the supernatural and two great competing forces in the universe: good and evil.

For the modern thinking person, the question of Deity, of Theism vs Atheism, is rooted in the origination of everything.  Darwin opened a Pandora’s Box of ideas that have gripped the minds of those opposed to personal religion and it’s concept of a creator.  The belief in the random origin of life only takes the non-theist so far back in time and no further because facts, and even fact-based theories, don’t exist to explain how it all began.

The word of the book of Genesis uses language which a segment of the Judeo-Christian community have taken as literally accurate, and this is the use of the word “day”.  They declare it to mean a twenty-four hour day and nothing else.  Others, in deference to modern knowledge of the age of many things, reject such dogmatic simplicity and opt instead for allowing the imaginative language of the story of creation to mean distinct epochs that could last perhaps a billion years before the next one began.  That entails common sense and reason allowing that no one has any idea of how long it took for the earth to rotate on its axis long before it cooled and became a semi-stable planet, nor how long it took after it was smacked by a massive body that is believed to have resulted in the formation of the moon.

But what both sides can agree on is the fundamentals of origin; -that some things cannot be explained without any explanation of causation.  The list of things to explain is not very long but is very profound, beginning with the creation of Matter & Energy, accompanied by the pre-existance of the Laws of Physics, along with the essential perfection and precision of Mathematics.  A universe of matter and energy eventually came to include something totally unexplainable, -which is Life.  Then Life came to include something equally unexplainable; sentient life.  Then sentient life came to include something most unexplainable of all; Intelligent sentient life.  Where did it come from?

Those who believe in the biblical account of creation in Genesis have an answer, whereas those who do not believe do not have an answer.  They are deficient in their ability to explain the origin of the things that make up the universe, but believers can point to a supernatural power beyond human comprehension, and they can confidently assert that we humans ourselves were his highest creation since he created us in his own likeness, -having a free will and the means to exercise it.  But something more; the Right to exercise it because he endowed us with an unlimited freedom to do what we want, -a freedom which proved to be extremely risky.  Like a drug addict with unlimited access to drugs… the human race devolved into depravity according to Genesis, and the only remedy for the creator was a great flood to wipe almost all of the human race from the face of the earth.

But free Will continued to exist and man could exercise and defend his rights, his God-given rights which no one and no authority had any right to infringe, and prominent among them was the right of belonging.  No man on the face of the earth could rightfully claim that another man’s children or wife belonged to him and he had the right to take them.  Nor could any government claim such a thing for itself because the right of belonging and ownership was an innate primal sense felt by every feeling mother and father and child.

Of course the world was full of selfish, arrogant, ambitious, prideful, aggressive, totalitarian men who claimed the lives of others via war and slavery, -converting humans into property, as knowledge of a moral Deity and his laws and the rights given to his creation were absent.  But in the 18th century they were rediscovered openly via the writings of men such as John Locke.  An age of “rights enlightenment” thus was born, and our founding fathers were its children.

They understood the nature and origin of natural rights as being that which the creator had ordained for and in the very nature of his creation.  The rights of Man and human Free Will were seen as central to life itself, -at it’s very core.   That was very different from European philosophies of “Natural Law” which were subject to loyalty to royalty and the Divine Right of Kings doctrine.  Americans, in time and suffering, came to totally abandon and reject the monarchist and atheist versions of Natural Law, and embraced instead a biblically based understanding of the nature of the origins of human rights.

Those rights began with the right to life, to liberty, and property, -all of which were required for the pursuit of happiness.  The one right that was universally embraced by all civilized people and thus did not even need stating was the right to belong to others and for others to belong to those who pro-created them.  The Right of Belonging and the Right of Ownship are inextricably linked via a blood relationship; parent-child, child-parent, sibling-sibling.

Atheist philosophies of government to not believe in the unalienable right to belong because if the family is the hub of human existence then The State cannot fill that role (which is the role at the heart of their God-less view of human life and civilization).  The State has the parental right of owning, -and all souls should be linked evermore directly to it in every way as they grow older.  So in a sense, they believe in the right of belonging, only it is not to the family into which one is born, but to the State into which one was born and raised.

That seems like similar views of the same subject, but in fact it is not since The State believes the individual does not have individual rights because The State controls the belonging of its members according to its almighty wishes and permissions, -not according to the unalienable God-given right of the individual.

I speak of the right of belonging to The State itself and the society that makes up its membership.  With which side does a natural right exist?  Does the individual have a natural right to belong to his own family and clan and country, -or does The State have the sole right to decide who belongs and who does not?  It has to be one or the other at the fundamental level even though at a management level dealing with foreigners the People endow the government with the authority to regulate the process of allowing outsiders to become insiders; i.e., Citizens.

Inclusion in every sort of entity goes by the description of “membership” with the exception of membership in a political entity.  Such membership goes by the name of citizenship, having been adopted from the Medieval name for permanent members of cities.  They had certain rights that outsiders did not possess, along with responsibilities towards each other and the governance of the city.

It is no doubt safe to say that they were people who owned their own homes and property and so they had a significant stake in the survival and success of their limited jurisdiction.  Part of that stake was in regard to defense against conquest, fire, disease, and criminality.  Outsiders did not have as much stake because they were not permanent members domiciled perhaps for life in that locality.  They were not city-zens, aka; denizens on a permanent basis since their roots and ancestral home were somewhere else, but the citizens could trace their ancestry back perhaps a dozen generations.  They were born as citizens because they were born of the denizens of the city just like their ancestors.

They, unlike outsiders, aka immigrants, were automatically members of the city not just from birth but by birth, -i.e., by birth to citizens.  They had a right to be accepted as natural members of the city since they were born of members.  Members had an unquestionable right for their children to belong to that which they belonged, -from their ancestral family lineage to their own family and ethnic or religious group, -as well as to their parents’ trade group or guild.

Guild membership was passed from father to son from generation to generation, along with city membership or citizenship.  Their inclusion in all of the entities of which they were a part was never a thing that anyone could question because it was an absolute unquestionable right, -in other words, an unalienable right.

City membership, or citizenship, extended outward to include inclusion in the province in which their city was located, and ultimately to the nation in which the province was located.  They all had one king, one language, one Church, one governor within their region, and one local government, to all of which they owed loyalty because they were members or citizens of all of the entities to which they belonged.  Or not… because outside of local governance, they had no say in government since they were all just “subjects” of the King and his authority.

That was the way of mankind except in Britain where Parliament existed, and whose House of Commons was comprised of persons popularly elected.  Democracy and citizen duties and responsibilities, and, chiefest of all, citizen rights had been established following dark eras of horrible despotic kings ruling for their own avarice and pride and not for the good of their people.  Such kings believed and were taught that the nation existed solely for their own personal benefit because they were almost an equivalent to a demigod being as their authority supposedly came directly from Heaven itself.

But rebellion and revolt put such despots in their place and compelled them to sign agreements acknowledging the civic rights of Englishmen based on the equality of all natural members of the nation and certain unalienable rights of property and justice.  So in Great Britain, it could be said that its members were not only subjects of the Crown but also citizens of the nation.  But in America, upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Crown was banished from American civic life and was replaced by the sovereignty of We the People.  Instead of The Divine Right of Kings there was something new on the Earth, -the unalienable rights of Man, one of which was the right to belong to one’s own people.

That right was innate in every American man.  He owned it.  It was like his property which he could pass on to his children.  The government that he would create with the other members, and the laws that it would pass, would not touch in any way that fundamental right.  It was as fundamental as any and every other God-given right because without it there would be no true freedom since it would then have to be a matter of the power and authority of government, bureaucrats, politicians, governors, and judges instead of a matter of natural right that could not be questioned or infringed in any way.

If the individual owns his own membership and it is not owned by government or under its control, then it is something that he can pass (just like everything else that he owns) to his own children who are blood of his blood and flesh of his flesh.  Such a right is primal and preexists all government and law.  It comes before all of the legal trappings of civilization.  It pre-dates all government and all law because it is a right with which Mankind was created.

The right to belong is inviolable when it is based on a blood relationship.  It is not something that is given by government nor something that it can infringe or abrogate since it is a natural right.  Why do you never hear of someone being stripped of their citizenship?  It is because no one wants to go there, -no politician or judge wants to assume such a god-like authority because it touches on the hallowed center of human life, -the right to belong.  Treading on that ground is treading on sacred ground and few feel worthy of such action because of their knowledge of their own corruption, back room dealing, under-the-table gratuities, reciprocal voting, lying, cheating, and treasonous assaults against the Constitution.  They do not feel worthy because they are not worthy.

That was not always the case.  For about 80 years the Congress felt it had the right to treat naturalized Americans in a second-class manner, (the so-called Bancroft Treaties) putting restrictions on them that did not exist for natural Americans.  No one even conceived of questioning the almighty authority of the Great and Powerful Congress, until a naturalized citizen was stripped of his citizenship by law because he returned to his home country and lived there for two years. He did something that no one had done in eighty years or so, he sued the government on constitutional grounds, and the stupid government lost in the Supreme Court because it had failed for all of that time to revere and adhere to fundamental American principles of Equality.

Either Americans are all equal or they are not.  Either all citizenship is equal or it is unequal.  Either all Americans are natural citizens or they are various classes of citizens.  You cannot have equality as well as legal classification simultaneously in one nation, because it must be the one or the other.  Just as in Islam, you cannot have equality as well as classification of citizens into Muslims and subject infidels with limited rights, or subject women with almost no rights.  It is either equality or inequality.  It can never be both.

The Supreme Court ruled that inequality is unAmerican an unconstitutional, and so the government had to drop it stance of classifying naturalized citizens as being a group with inferior rights.  By our fundamental American doctrine and fiction of law, all citizens are equal because all citizens are natural citizens possessing God-given rights of belonging, including to their own natural or adopted nation.

Once naturalization has taken place, the new citizens enter the pool of the 97% of citizens who are natural citizens, and our fiction is that they are one of us.  They are not adopted or Cinderella citizens.  They are NATURAL CITIZENS also.  Other nations, such as Mexico, do have Cinderella citizens who are forbidden many of the opportunities of the natural citizens of the nation.  In Mexico, naturalized citizens cannot be policemen, mayors, governors, legislators, or President, -nor serve in the military.

Can you imagine an America in which naturalized citizens were forbidden such roles?  It is unthinkable.  Why?  Because of our fundamental fiction of law that all citizens are EQUAL since they are ALL natural citizens.  Are all of your children equal as members of your family?  Or are some superior and some inferior?  If they are all of your blood then differentiation is ridiculous and impossible, but if they are adopted then it is not.  But if you truly believe is total equality then all adopted children assume the status of being your own natural child and can never be treated differently.

And so it is in the foundation of American law and political doctrine.  We do NOT have second-class citizens and we do not have subjection to the will of government when it comes to our right to belong to our own people and society and country and nation.  Our rights, including our right of inclusion or belonging precede and supersede the authority given to politicians, unelected federal officers and judges, except as we have allowed differently due to the human right of Justice.  Crimes are punished by rescinding fundamental freedoms such as liberty, property, and life itself.

What or where are the limits on our natural right to belong, -to national membership?  The answer has never been established, and hopefully will never need to be, but all agree that the extremist example of the end of that right is when an American commits acts of treason, thereby making evident a willingness to reject one’s U.S. citizenship in favor of another alien allegiance.  Yet even in such cases, like Anwar al Awlaki, or Hamdi, no one (including on the Supreme Court) mentions a word about canceling their American citizenship because there is no precedent for doing so and thus no one has a clue as to how it should be done.  It is terra incognita, -unknown territory and so no one speaks up to proceed in that direction.

It is essentially like it is presumed that the right to citizenship is greater than the right to life, as was the case with Awlaki (who, like Hamdi, was actually not an American citizen by American law but merely erroneously presumed to be because of an institutionalized error that is over a century old).  So  he, as a presumed U.S. citizen who remained one regardless of his treason, was killed by a drone missile.  Did the government have the right to do such a thing to an American citizen?  Does a military officer have a right to warn a would-be deserter that he must stop in his tracts or be shot?  If desertion in combat is grounds for the use of lethal force to prevent or punish it, then certainly treason against the entire nation is grounds for execution in times of war.

Just ask yourself; if you were President Lincoln, and a Major Hassan had executed 13 of your soldiers while they were eating dinner, do you think that he would not have faced a firing squad before the sun set on that day?  There would be no basis whatsoever to delay justice.  It was witnessed by all, it was not contested by the killer, it was outside of the expansive parameters of civilian justice since it was done under military command.  Clearly, justice would have have been prompt and final.  (There is only one conceivable reason for the unending delay in bringing a mass murder to justice and that is the fact that he is a Muslim, like his Islam sympathizing Commander-in-Chief.)

Americans have rights, and among them are the right to belong to their own.  That right is inherent in them provided they are born and live as Americans and not as foreigners.  If you were born of  Americans who were born and raised abroad, and who never lived in the United States, that right would not pass to you from them because you would be a citizen of the land of your and your parents’ birth and membership.  That fact is the stated limits of natural belonging, and has been a part of every naturalization act since the first one.

The actual first one was in Britain and was incorporated into America’s regulation of naturalization.  But that limitation had no authority over the children of native or naturalized Americans because their right of belonging did not vanish anywhere on Earth, -not at the border or the water’s edge.  It was an innate right that the children of American couples would inherit their membership in all that they belonged to, including their nation because they were the sovereigns of the nation, not the government.  All rights belonged to them except to the extent to which they assigned them to the government.  The nationality of American children was never assigned to government limitation at any time in any way under any circumstances except in the scenario mentioned above.

Where people get confused is in the matter of parentage.  What I’ve illuminated as the truth does not apply to individual Americans but solely to American couples (although it was originally purely a matter of patrilineal inheritance since the mother was absorbed into her husband’s nationality along with his name and family).

As in all of nature, there is no off-spring without the union of two of a kind.  Two of a different kind will, if even possible, produce off-spring of a different kind from both of the parents, and thus not be a natural member of either of their two groups, but be instead a hybrid.  Mules, tigons, ligers, zeedonks and such are members of their mother’s group but not natural members since their nature is outside of that of the parents.  They are different.  So parents of the same kind (i.e., nationality) are needed to produce natural members of a nation.  If one of the parents is a foreigner, then the off-spring will not be natural members of either nation by blood because they were born of mixed blood, -political cross-breeds.

With those two facts in mind, when one reads about the laws regarding children of Americans born abroad, one will realize that if a delineation is not drawn between children born of American couples and children born “of Americans” as a general class of possible parents, then ambiguity is absolutely unavoidable and thus confusion will reign.  One will erroneously presume that laws that were specifically written to deal with children of mixed-nationality couples must also apply to all couples include American couples.

But that is an outright falsehood because there are no laws prescribing how natural children of American couples must be naturalized in order for them to have the same American citizenship as their parents.  In fact, the government’s own statement on their status says emphatically that such children ARE NOT NATURALIZED regardless of the irrelevant location of their birth.

All that is required of citizen parents is that they establish by various forms of proof that the child is indeed their own biological child (not adopted).  That is necessary because there is no presumption of citizenship via native birth nor any state birth certificate to prove it, so proof of birth is necessary since adopted foreign children have no natural right to American citizenship since it is inherited from the American couple who produced the child.

The natural requirement of parents of the same nature for producing natural off-spring of the same nature and group membership can be best illustrated by the analogy of a safe deposit box.  The box is analogous to a child.  It is singular in nature, but in order for it to be available requires the presence of not just one master key but two.  One, representing say the father, is held by the bank, while the other is held by the patron of the bank.  One key alone is insufficient to open the box.  It requires both, just as natural citizenship requires that both parent contributors to the nature of the child be of the same group.  They both must have a key from the same bank just as they must have citizenship in the same nation.

If they are not both Americans then their children will not be born as natural citizens of their nation but will be legal citizens only.  That could mean that they were born of a father who was naturalized and a mother who was not, or born of immigrant parents, or born abroad having a foreign parent, or born in the U.S. with a foreign parent.  Regardless of the circumstances, the children that make up that tiny sliver of the population are not natural citizens of the United States.

There is no down side to that fact unless they are the one in three hundred million who is elected to be President or Vice-President.  For that office alone, no legal citizen is allow.  One must have been born as a natural citizen of American parents.  No one born of a foreign subject of a foreign monarch is constitutionally allowed to be President.

But there are few monarchs ruling in this world anymore.  Does that change the Constitution?  Not in the least.  Today it would be said that no subject or citizen of a foreign power, democracy or dictatorship, is eligible to serve as President because the President of the United States must have been born as a natural citizen via birth to citizen parents.  That prohibition would have been a great defense against the unnatural presidency of one Barry Soetoro, aka BAIR-ek o-BAM-uh or Barry for short , but it is also a prohibition against even those who are strong defenders of the Constitution such as Ted Cruz.

In this day and age, his ineligibility is a constitutional technicality that not only does not serve the nation, nor the purpose of the founders and framers of the Constitution, but is actually an enemy of what is best for America’s future.  What “conservative” Constitution-honoring American would face the choice of the presidential candidacy of Jed Bush or Mitt Romney, (instigator of Romneycare) or John (accommodationist) McCain and gladly vote for them over a Ted Cruz?  Which one offers some hope for the future and the restoration of some semblance of Constitutional fidelity?  Which one offers resistance to unconstitutional insolvent government?  Which one stands up for the God-given rights of the individual and not just the security and benefit of the wealthy and ruling class?

If there was a law written to protect families from the dangers of guns, and it prohibited ammunition from being stored at home with one’s weapon, and you lived in a crime-filled neighborhood, would you follow the rule of law for the sake of the rule of law or would you do what was necessary to protect your family?

Now just substitute your nation for your family and the Constitution for the law against ammunition.  It’s purpose was for the security of the family/ nation, but its effect might be just the opposite.  Which do you defend?  Your family/ nation or the law designed to do so but with undesirable side-effects?  The future may require that you, and millions of others, make a choice.  I hope that choice is a wise one because the future and survival of our nation may depend on it.

by Adrien Nash  Dec. 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”.

28 Responses to Citizenship from God vs Citizenship from Government

  1. davidfarrar says:

    I just received my copy of: “THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP –1608-1870”

    By James H. Kettner is assistant professor of history, University of California, Berkeley.

    Herein is Mr. Kettner’s description of his work.

    “The concept of citizenship that achieved full legal form and force in mid nineteenth-century America had English roots in the sense that it was the product of a theoretical and legal development that extended over three hundred years. This prize-winning volume describes and explains the process by which the circumstances of life in the New World transformed the quasi- medieval ideas of seventeenth-century English jurists about subjectship, community, sovereignty, and allegiance into a wholly new doctrine of “volitional allegiance.”

    “The central British idea was that subjectship involved a personal relationship with the king, a relationship based upon the laws of nature and hence perpetual and immutable. The conceptual analogue of the subject-king relationship was the natural bond between parent and child.

    “Across the Atlantic divergent ideas were taking hold. Colonial societies adopted naturalization policies that were suited to practical needs, regardless of doctrinal consistency. Americans continued to value their status as subjects and to affirm their allegiance to the king, but they also moved toward a new understanding of the ties that bind individuals to the community. English judges of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries assumed that the essential purpose of naturalization was to make the alien legally the same as a native, that is, to make his allegiance natural, personal, and perpetual. In the colonies this reasoning was being reversed. Americans took the model of naturalization as their starting point for defining all political allegiance as the result of a legal contract resting on consent.

    “This as yet barely articulated difference between the American and English definition of citizenship was formulated with precision in the course of the American Revolution. Amidst the conflict and confusion of that time Americans sought ‘to define principles of membership that adequately encompassed their ideals of individual liberty and community security. The idea that all obligation rested on individual volition and consent shaped their response to the claims of Parliament and king, legitimized their withdrawal from the British empire, controlled their reaction to the loyalists, and underwrote their creation of independent governments.

    “This new concept of citizenship left many questions unanswered, however. The newly emergent principles clashed with deep—seated prejudices, including the traditional exclusion of Indians and Negroes from membership in the sovereign community. It was only the triumph of the Union in the Civil War that allowed Congress to affirm the equality of native and naturalized citizens, to state unequivocally the primacy of national over state citizenship, to write black citizenship into the Constitution, and to recognize the volitional character of the status of citizen by formally adopting the principle of expatriation.”

    James H. Kettner

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

  2. You are both so wrong about the nature of U.S. Citizenship and the nature of citizenship in general that it is impossible to know where to begin correcting…………. oh, how about at the beginning with the “Father of Western Civilization”;

    350 B.C., Aristotle: Politics; Book III Part II
    [and then he goes on to highlight his vast knowledge of ancient philosophers and history by citing quotes that have no connection to any major point that was made in the exposition which precedes its. thanks for nothing, genius. He is right about one thing, he has no clue about how to go about “correcting” the facts that he emotionally insists are in some unexplained way not the real way things are.]

    “But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question:

    How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen?

    Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said-

    ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’

    Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens.

    This is a better definition than the other.

    For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. … ” …

  3. arnash says:

    Who one votes for is always and ever a contest between the lesser of two imperfect choices. If all things are equal between candidates, then vote for the one that is legal. If things are horrible wrong with one candidate that has no respect for the Constitution or rule of law then vote for his opponent who does respect the Constitution, even if he is not fully qualified to run. You need to put the welfare and survival of the nation ahead of prohibitions intended to guarantee them but can’t. Only men can serve in government, not rules. Rules need to be set for the benefit of the nation, but they do not supersede the benefit of the nation that they are intended to secure. Remember, speeding laws are intended to protect lives, but if your wife is having a baby or your child has been injured, is the law then on your side or against you? What will you do? Stick to the letter of the law or ignore it and follow the spirit of the law instead?

  4. arnash says:

    “The idea that all obligation rested on individual volition and consent…” That statement goes off the deep end because of the use of the word “all”. Obligation is rooted in family connection. Parents do not have a natural choice to choose to be good parents or to be horrible parents. They have a moral obligation toward their young, just as do all animal parents. It is a natural obligation. Such an obligation extends to the clan and village or town and country that sustains, educates, protects, and provides for them in their civil society. They have a moral obligation to be part and parcel of their own world and its survival. But they also have a right to reject their world and choose another. That is where volition comes in, and nowhere else. If they are not willing to take that step, then their obligation to their own society is fundamental and legal, and they will be prosecuted and imprisoned for shirking it. I speak of the obligation to bear arms, true faith and allegiance for the Constitution and the United States. The actual view of our government is that unless you are prepared to expatriate yourself and renounce your U.S.citizenship, then your obligations are NOT volitional but are both moral and legal.

    • davidfarrar says:

      I suspect this sentence was meant to restrict itself to ‘allegiances’ undertaken by the individual to the body polity. But your point is well taken. Once the decision is made, you have a moral obligation to uphold your part of the contract between the individual and the state.

      Thanks you for your observation. I have just started reading this work to get a better understanding of that period in our history. We few who fully realize ascriptive allegiance (jus solis) is antithetical to the American ethos of consent and individual natural rights (jus sanguinis) must also face the question of how, and why, our courts have arrived at ascriptive allegiance in the face of that history?

      The answer I suspect lies with the Dred Scott decision and the reconstruction area of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. But this gives rise to another paradox. At virtually the same time Congress was replacing volitional allegiance with ascriptive allegiance, it was passing the Expatriation Act of 1887.

      ex animo
      davidfarrar

      • The requirement for U.S. Citizenship is NOT allegiance in the 1st instant, but rather CONSENT, be it affirmative by the father or TACIT by the fathers newborn son.

        Justice Rutledge opined in Talbot v Jansen Aug, 1795;

        … ” … From the feudal system, sprung the law of allegiance; which pursuing the nature of its origin, rests on lands; for, when lands were all held of the Crown, then the oath of allegiance became appropriate: It was the tenure of the tenant, or vassal. Blac. Com. 366. The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140.

        Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance. The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry.

        Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance. When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms.

        But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.

        Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.

        Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.

        Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.

        Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.

        Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality;

        allegiance is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional;

        allegiance is personal. Citizenship is freedom;

        allegiance is servitude. Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.

        Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.

        With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. … “

      • arnash says:

        One of my expositions is titled something like: Allegiance; Bastard Child of Royal Despots, or something similar. It examines the dichotomy between allegiance and natural obligation or duty. One semi-error in the comparisons of Justice Rutledge was in labeling citizenship as constitutional. It did not have any place in the Constitution until 1868 and the fraudulent passage of the 14th Amendment. That statement of national truth was irrelevant to the 97% of the population who were natural citizens as they were in no need of government to be such. Only those with foreign fathers or fathers and mothers needed a federal statement that they were national citizens and not just jus soli common law state citizens.

      • There is NO SUCH THING as a “natural citizens” absent a POLITICAL DETERMINATION to MAKE THEM.

        REPLY: That is a totally anti-American philosophical statement. Americans have rights that are inviolable and unalienable, and one of them is the inheritance of their natural parents’ national membership, -making then natural citizens by natural political inheritance. You suffer from the damnable doctrine of the “term of art” fiction promulgated by Mario Apuzzo and others. It is a giant falsehood that the words “natural” and “born” and “citizen” when combined form a legal term of artifice. That is a major delusion that prevents an otherwise reasonable mind from grasping the simple truth. The words are purely natural usage of English words that are used in the very same manner as “wise old man”. Wise is an adjective that modifies the noun “man”, just as “natural” is an adjective that modifies the noun “citizen”. There are natural citizens and there are born citizens and there are natural born citizens and born natural citizens (same thing). Not all born citizens are natural because they were made “natural” via automatic natural-ization. Thus not all natural citizens qualify as being born citizens because they were not born as citizens but were instead made natural by natural-ization. To be President one must have been born as a natural citizen. No human authority can make one that which only nature can make one because one is a natural family member or a natural national member by blood only. Law has no power to alter Nature or Natural Law.
        Your treasonous claim that political power can make natural citizens is absurd in the highest. That makes government God and strips the sovereigns of the nation (We, the People) of their God-given natural right to be recognized as that which they are by nature; natural national members.

        You say there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL usage of Citizenship in the COTUS…??? [NO, I DID NOT SAY THAT]

        A1S8C4 and A2S1C5 seem to be the subject of the entire inquiry, are they NOT….????

        [THEY DO NOT ELUCIDATE ANYTHING REGARDING THE BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP (JUS SOLI OR JUS SANGUINIS) MY POINT WAS THAT THE CONSTITUTION, CONTRARY TO YOUR STATEMENT, DOES NOT DEALVE INTO THE PRINCIPLE OF CITIZENSHIP BUT ONLY MENTIONS IT AS A PRE-EXISTING REALITY. WELL WHAT IS THAT REALITY BASED ON? BRITISH COMMON LAW, PARLIAMENTARY LAW, OR ROYAL LAW? NONE OF THE ABOVE. IT WAS BASED ON NATURAL LAW AND STATE LAW WHICH ALLOWED COMMON LAW CITIZENSHIP FOR THE NATIVE-BORN OF IMMIGRANTS.]

  5. davidfarrar says:

    Right you are. The only reason anchor babies are American citizens at birth is because, in truth, we are no longer “citizens” by consent and individual natural rights, but by ascriptive allegiance, graciously bestowed upon our heads a birth by the state, just like any subject to a sovereign king, and for the same reason.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    • arnash says:

      I would say that the only time that consent was an issue in citizenship was following the Declaration of Independence and the southern secession. Otherwise one was born with the blessing of membership in their parents’ nation (the only free one on Earth) and the only one to openly declare that mankind possessed the unalienable right to reject the nationality of their father and their own birth and choose another. The word “consent” implies the option or need to make a choice when in fact there was no such need or option. The RIGHT of free men was in throwing-off that which was enslavement to them and replace it with another national membership that was to their liking… namely American.
      But there is some truth to the concept that the government has the authority to ascriptively bestow citizenship on any that it chooses to but that is not always the case because such authority comes with major limitations. The State Dept can’t ascribe US citizenship to foreign visitors and then conscript them into the US military. Rules must be followed or rights would be violated. The chief rule is that the parents’ must not be subject to their foreign homeland since the result is that any child born to them will then also be subject to it via natural transmission of nationality to one’s children (jus sanguinis). Such subjection to one’s foreign country blocks the subjection to US jurisdiction that is required for common law citizenship via the 14th amendment.

      • A “child’s” consent is “tacit” and may choose to expatriate when he / they grow to the age of majority.

        But if the father had instilled affection for the country of the fathers choosing into the child it would be the more natural for the child to choose the same. (see Vattel)

        “Consent” was/is expressed at every turn and assemblies of the Continental Congress, Constitutional Convention, Ratification and then EVERY two (2) years thereafter and since.

        Every time you send in a check to the IRS/U.S. Treasury you express consent just as those who receive SSI retirement/disability or welfare payments are doing.

        Your Citizens of the World no borders view is a form of myopic navel gazing that has NEVER existed in the physical realm.

        Reply: You are hallucinating. You pulled “Citizens of the World” out of your ass because it is something that I’ve only used to describe the glorious leader Obumer. As for “the physical realm”, there is no such thing as citizenship in the physical realm because citizenship is purely conceptual, not material. It is membership by blood or by law, with most souls having natural membership or citizenship while a very small percentage have legal citizenship only. I’ve explained that fact a thousand times and yet you are too dense to grasp very simple things.

        No child gives “tacit consent” because they are minors and have no rights. Adults also do not give active consent in any way by merely obeying the laws that they are under. Their non-rejection of their national membership is their tacit consent that they accept it along with the responsibilities that come with it.
        You need to come out of the fog of ivory tower concepts and begin to understand the real world. People have obligations in life, and they extend from their own family to their own nation. People have rights and nations have rights, and the duties of citizenship are obligations that nations can rightfully expect members to fulfill when the call or demand is made, such as the call to military service.

  6. davidfarrar says:

    To paraphrase Steve:

    US citizenship is purely conceptual, not material or territorial. It is natural membership by blood or naturalized by law.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Well, apparently you’ve forgotten your “Vattel 101″………………

      ” … § 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. 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….”

      Now, where I depart, in part, is the ACTUAL source of U.S. Citizenship, and that is from the “AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT” in the 1st instant to a person to who it is offered and or provided for by and in the COTUS.

      Consider accepting that the Preamble to the COTUS served, in part, as a “collective naturalization Oath” by all those who were then State Citizens, having agreed to abide by the majority Will to the Ratification and with that event became the 1st U.S. Citizens as provided for in the COTUS.

      The Preamble also served to indicate intent, and insofar as citizenship was concerned it appears they anticipated being U.S. Citizens themselves and anticipated that their children would be also.

      ” … We the people of the United States, in order to … secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…” (truncated for pertinent point)

      But as far as “Tacit Consent” being more akin to the feudal system, well, that’s just incorrect given that all Citizens possess the RIGHT to expatriate, (at the age of majority), whereas “subject-hood”, i.e., “feudal allegiance” is PERPETUAL. (see War of 1812 “impressment of U.S. Citizens that had been born “subjects”)

      As for my considering “Citizenship” as being “conceptual”, well, what else can it be since ALL Citizens are members of a POLITICAL SOCIETY who follow their own CONCEPTS of what “good government” is.

      I know of no elephants called citizens, or wolves, lions or zebra’s, so “citizenship” is a concept born in the minds of men, NOT nature. The explanation of that is clearly on display in the original titles of both Aristotle’s work and Vattel’s, i.e., “Politics” in three books 350 BC, and “of the Laws of nature and natures God and their affects on the conduct and affairs of men and nations” 1753.

      • davidfarrar says:

        ENOUGH!!! of your dribble. To begin with, you are using the wrong predicate. The correct title of ” … § 212. Citizens (not natives) but naturals…§ 212. Citizens and naturals.

        “… but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.”…First Chief Justice John Jay’s observations in dicta in the 1789, Chisholm v. Georgia case.

        Jay’s opinion here pretty well sums it up for me as well. “Sovereign consent” by the applicant, “renunciation” of being subject to any foreign power must come first at the request of the state, before “consent” can be given or accepted

      • slcraignbc says:

        The Vattel chapter I copy and pasted was from “FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY

        JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law 1883.” as is the following……

        ” … CHAP. I. OF NATIONS OR SOVEREIGN STATES.

        § 1. Of the state, and of sovereignty

        A NATION or a state is, as has been said at the beginning of this work, a body politic, or a society of men united together for the purpose of promoting their mutual safety and advantage by their combined strength.

        From the very design that induces a number of men to form a society which has its common interests, and which is to act in concert, it is necessary that there should be established a Public Authority, to order and direct what is to be done by each in relation to the end of the association. This political authority is the Sovereignty; and he or they who are invested with it are the Sovereign. (10)

        § 2. Authority of the body politic over the members.

        It is evident, that, by the very act of the civil or political association, each citizen subjects himself to the authority of the entire body, in every thing that relates to the common welfare. The authority of all over each member, therefore, essentially belongs to the body politic, or state; but the exercise of that authority may be placed in different hands, according as the society may have ordained. … ”

        But I am a bit confused as to what you find offensive in my proposition of Constitutional Law regarding U.S. Citizenship generally and the specific circumstances provided for to be acknowledged as a U.S. natural born Citizen specifically.

        So, answer me this, … Do you agree that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise …” as construed from the 1790, et seq, Acts and characterized as the “established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship & naturalization.” ….. ???

      • davidfarrar says:

        @ slcraignbc says:

        Q. “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise …” as construed from the 1790, et seq, Acts and characterized as the “established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship & naturalization.”

        A, Yes, but not by tacit consent. Tacit consent is fine if we are talking about de vattel and natural law, and natural born citizenship. But we are not talking about “natural born citizenship”, we are talking about natural born US citizenship, which requires “renunciation”, first, before consent can be accepted by the body polity. This is a fallacy of the Wong Kim Ark case. Wong Kim Ark was born a subject of China; there is no dispute over this point, and yet, many courts see Wong Kim Ark as a natural born US citizen, somehow by tacit consent.

      • slcraignbc says:

        OK, I think I understand the premise of your objection of “tacit consent”, but in fact the “person” who “tacit consent” applies is in fact a “child” who has no means of “consenting” to anything.

        The ‘father”, (parents), desires that his child follows in the footsteps of the political character he has CHOSEN and CONSENTED TO.

        The 1790 Act accepts and provides for the fathers wishes and accepts the child’s tacit consent based on and joins with the fathers wishes in hopes that the child will grow to love his country, or, upon reaching the age of majority, chooses another.

        As for your linkage to WKA, lil’ Wong had reached the age of majority and was asserting affirmative consent.

        But before deconstructing ALL of the errors that Justice penumbra zone Gray made in the case just look at the Title of the Part of the 8 USC where 1401 resides;

        “8 U.S. Code Part I – Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization”

        That the “declaratory born citizen provision” of the 14th Amendment MUST be a “Collective naturalization provision” is obvious when you consider WHO the provision was intended to “make” U.S. Citizens concurrent with the Amendments Ratification. The emancipated and otherwise freed slaves, having been recognized as 5 / 5ths PERSONS nevertheless remained STATELESS insofar as “National political character” was concerned after the 1866 Civil Rights Act and its reiteration in the 13th Amendment.

        The “collective naturalization declaratory born citizen provision” was, and is, intended to cure the circumstance of STATELESSNESS, at birth or otherwise.

        The ONLY children that the provision is applied to, (by policy, not law), are the children of alien foreign nationals, present legally or otherwise, given that the “established uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship & naturalization” provides for the U.S. Citizenship of a child with at least one (1) U.S. Citizen parent.

  7. davidfarrar says:

    However, this is something that I, at present, do not accept: “Their non-rejection of their national membership is their tacit consent that they accept it along with the responsibilities that come with it.”

    While tacit consent is required of “subjects”, born without consent; sovereigns have no need of it.

  8. slcraignbc says:

    CONSENT plays absolutely no part in the feudal system of ALLEGIANCE …..Allegiance is OWED to the Lords / Prince / King-Queen / Crown unto death.

    Talbot v Janson 3 US133 Justice Rutledge

    ” … But the abstract right of individuals to withdraw from the society of which they are members, is recognized by an uncommon coincidence of opinion;–by every writer, ancient and modern; by the civilian as well as by the common-law lawyer; by the philosopher, as well as the poet. It is the law of nature, and of nature’s god, pointing to “the wide world before us, where to chuse our place of rest, and Providence our guide.” 2 Bynk. 125. Wickefort, b. 1. c. 2. p. 116. Grot. b. 2. 5. s.24. par. 2. 3. Dig. de cap. ex post. Law. 12. 8. 9. Wick. b. 1. 8. 11. p. 244. Puff. b. 8. 1. c. 11. s.3. p. 862. 1 Fred. Code. 34. 5. 2. vol. 10. 1 Gill. Hist. Greece.

    With this law, however, human institutions have often been at variance; and no institutions more than the feudal system, which made the tyranny of arms, the basis of society; chained men to the soil on which they were born; and converted the bulk of mankind into the villeins, or slaves of a lord, or superior.

    From the feudal system, sprung the law of allegiance; which pursuing the nature of its origin, rests on lands; for, when lands were all held of the Crown, then the oath of allegiance became appropriate: It was the tenure of the tenant, or vassal. Blac. Com. 366. The oath of fealty, and the ancient oath of allegiance, were, almost the same; both resting on lands; both designating the person to whom service should be rendered; though the one makes an exception as to the superior lord, while the other is an obligation of fidelity against all men. 2 Bl. Com. 53. Pal. 140.

    Service, therefore, was also an inseparable concomitant of fealty, as well as of allegiance.

    The oath of fealty could not be violated without loss of lands; and as all lands were held mediately, or immediately, of the sovereign, a violation of the oath of allegiance, was, in fact a voluntary submission to a state of outlawry.

    Hence arose the doctrine of perpetual and universal allegiance. When, however, the light of reason was shed upon the human mind, the intercourse of man became more general and more liberal: the military was gradually changed for the commercial state; and the laws were found a better protection for persons and property, than arms. But [p141] even while the practical administration of government was thus reformed, some portion of the ancient theory was preserved; and among other things, the doctrine of perpetual allegiance remained, with the fictitious tenure of all lands from the Crown to support it.

    Yet, it is to be remembered, and that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial state, allegiance, as well as fealty, rests upon lands, and it is due to persons.

    Not so, with respect to Citizenship, which has arisen from the dissolution of the feudal system and is a substitute for allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things.

    Allegiance and citizenship, differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic.

    Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of power and necessity.

    Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a territorial tenure.

    Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance is a badge of inferiority.

    Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance is personal.

    Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude.

    Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive.

    Citizenship may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual.

    With such essential differences, the doctrine of allegiance is inapplicable to a system of citizenship; which it can neither serve to controul, nor to elucidate. ….”

    On the 22nd of August, 1795, the Judges delivered their opinions seriatim.

  9. davidfarrar says:

    @ slimdick says;

    “CONSENT plays absolutely no part in the feudal system of ALLEGIANCE …..Allegiance is OWED to the Lords / Prince / King-Queen / Crown unto death.”

    Sovereign consent to become subjects to the sovereignty of We the People.

  10. slcraignbc says:

    Try “affirmative consent & tacit consent”, which requires an “affirmative consent” in the 1st instant, such as an “affirmative vote” for the Ratification of the COTUS as expressed in the Preamble, or when acquiring U.S. Citizenship under the authority of A1S8C4 by the 1st provision of the 1790 Act by “taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States,…” with “tacit consent” being reserved for the progeny of U.S. Citizens, may they be taught well.

    • davidfarrar says:

      Let’s get on the same page here; we are not talking about “tacit consent” being reserved for the progeny of U.S. Citizens, we are talking about “tacit consent” being used to justify US citizenship simply by observing the law of the land. The only way the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country can gain birthright US citizenship is by the theory of tacit consent. It’s wrong.

  11. davidfarrar says:

    @slcraignbc says:
    February 19, 2015 at 8:01 AM

    So whose “consent” do the offspring of illegal aliens born in this country tacitly attack too if the father is an illegal alien?

    If, indeed, lil’ Wong reached the age of majority and was asserting affirmative consent, he cannot be an Art. II, §I, Cl. 5 natural born Citizen

    • slcraignbc says:

      OK, your conceptualization of what U.S. Citizenship is draws on far to much baggage, both ‘natural law of the Law of Nations and Common Law interpretations of ancient natural law and then the Queen Ann Statutes on British Nationality that Justice penumbra zone Gray relied on.

      The COTUS refers to “citizen (s)” 22 times, not including the singular “establishment” of the hyphenated form of U.S. Citizen known as a (U.S.) natural born Citizen. So to understand the nature of a U.S. Citizen close scrutiny of the references to them in the COTUS is called for.

      However, it is also helpful to read and construe what Aristotle says on the subject in Book III Politics.

      ” … (end Part I;

      He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration of any state is said by us to be a citizens of that state; and, speaking generally, a state is a body of citizens sufficing for the purposes of life.

      Part II

      But in practice a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens; others insist on going further back; say to two or three or more ancestors. This is a short and practical definition but there are some who raise the further question:

      How this third or fourth ancestor came to be a citizen? Gorgias of Leontini, partly because he was in a difficulty, partly in irony, said- ‘Mortars are what is made by the mortar-makers, and the citizens of Larissa are those who are made by the magistrates; for it is their trade to make Larissaeans.’

      Yet the question is really simple, for, if according to the definition just given they shared in the government, they were citizens. This is a better definition than the other.

      For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state. …”

      So, “For the words, ‘born of a father or mother who is a citizen,’ cannot possibly apply to the first inhabitants or founders of a state.” implies that the Founding Generation is in the greatest need of “conforming to the nature of a citizen of the state they establish” in order to perpetuate ‘citizenship’ within the natural order of things.

      ……………………

      However, speaking specifically of Citizenship Laws under the COTUS, there are Acts & statutes in place as to what has been done;

      1st it must be accepted that the Preamble to the COTUS serves as sufficient Oath of Naturalization so that those persons eligible as State Citizens were collectively naturalized by the Ratification of the COTUS. This solves the problem that Aristotle observed at Part II Bk III Politics.

      2nd, it must be accepted that the mandate of A1S8C4 gave plenary power to the Congress of the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization under an UNIFORM RULE.

      3rd, it must be acknowledged that A2S1C5 makes an exclusionary distinction between a U.S. Citizen and a U.S. natural born Citizens for a purpose that resides within the Executive Articles defining the Executive Branch.

      4th, it must be accepted that the Congress DID establish an uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship naturalization that conforms an alien into the nature of a U.S. Citizen. The characterized uniform Rule construed form the words of the provisions and what those words and provisions then require can be said to be expressed as:

      ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise…”

      5th, regarding children born “considered as” U.S. natural born Citizens the qualifier of :considered as” serves two (2) purposes; (1) so as to provide cause to scrutinize any such person who may aspire to the Office of POTUS when they become of age; (2) more pertinent is the proof of their counter parts existence, i.e., the U.S. natural born Citizens that were / are being born within the limits of the U.S. under the same circumstance as the “foreign born counter-part” except for the circumstance of “PLACE”.

      6th, t must be acknowledged that the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act ended the use of the doctrine of Coverture to determine a woman’s / wife’s/ mother’s citizenship and provides legal acknowledgement of a hyphenated form of citizenship that had no legal standing theretofore, i.e., “dual-citizenship at birth”.

      7th, it must be acknowledged that there has been NO Amendment that has affected of had effect upon the “term of words” that resides in the Executive Articles at A2S1C5, ergo, the circumstances that produced a U.S. natural born Citizen post the collective naturalization of the Founding Generation are the same circumstances that produce a U.S. natural born Citizen today, except for the reconciliations for the repeal of the short-lived foreign born U,S. natural born Citizen provision limiting place to within the limits of the U.S. to parents who are BOTH independently U.S. Citizens at the time of birth.

      (Genesis and Generations of U.S. Citizenship)

      Justice penumbra zone Gray did NOT construe the Acts and Laws of the U.S. on the question of U.S. Citizenship, but rather construed the interpretations of Lord Coke’s and Sir Blackstone s interpretations of the English common law cases where the Queen Ann Statutes of British Nationality were interpreted in any given case and Justice penumbra zone Gray did so as if he were a Probate Judge presiding over a Probate Case under a State’s Laws that retained the English Statutes regarding Probates, given that the COTUS does not have interest in a States System of Probate adjudication.

      • davidfarrar says:

        Except for #5, which I couldn’t follow; I would agree. Justice Gray should not have used Lord Coke’s and Sir Blackstone’s interpretations of the English common law on subjectship. He should have used the Declaration of Independence, and the “consent of the governed” clause.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Again, the errors & faults with the WKA Opinion is a case study in Judicial Malfeasance …. Justice penumbra zone Gray swept aside every ACTUAL U.S. Law that had sway on the subject of alien foreign nationals and legislated new meanings to words in order to arrive at making the lil’china boy a “Citizen”, (not a U.S. natural born Citizen).

        The greatest distraction and most destructive is failing to acknowledge the the “declaratory born citizen provision” was intended to and did “collectively naturalized” the STATELESS freed blacks, concurrent with the Ratification of the Amendment.

        As for # 5, … I agree it is difficult to follow as worded, and I’m working on it. But it is the most important as far as the “legal circumstances provided for under U.S. Law for the birth and acknowledgement of a U.S. natural born Citizen.

        The Act provides for a married U.S. Citizen father traveling abroad with a pregnant wife to be assured that the child will be “considered as” a U.S. natural born Citizen.

        “Considered as” is a “qualifier” as grammatically used. On the one hand it suggests that should evidence surface that alters the circumstances the child may not be a “natural born” Citizen.

        But more prescient is to read the qualifier as saying “considered as IF” born within the limits of the U.S., since one thing is “considered as” if another thing, the other thing must exist under other circumstances. The only pertinent circumstance subject to change is the place of birth and the only other place beyond the limits is within the limits

        So the words “considered as” requires that U.S. natural born Citizens were / are being born within the limits of the U.S. at the same time as they may have been being born under the provisions of the 1790 Act, given that the “established uniform Rule” provides for such effects.

  12. arnash says:

    Tacit consent only relates to dual-citizens, not natural born nor naturalized citizens. When a dual-citizen son of foreigners reached adulthood, he had the option to accept or reject American citizenship which had been attached through his father or through native birth. But by not embracing his father’s homeland and its government authority, he showed tacit acceptance of the US citizenship acquired via their father or his native-birth.
    Natural citizens have no foreign homeland as an alternative to America so there is no tacit consent involved in their being an American for life. They were not born “with” US citizenship. They were born as Americans by nature.

    They cannot change what they are except by the same sort of action that a wife must take to change her last name and social character of being a man’s wife; she must divorce him, just as a natural born citizen must divorce his country via renunciation of his citizenship, along with the adoption of another.

    slcraignbc said:
    1st it must be accepted that the Preamble to the COTUS serves as sufficient Oath of Naturalization so that those persons eligible as State Citizens were collectively naturalized by the Ratification of the COTUS”.

    “it must be accepted”??? Like hell. Ivory tower conceptualizing like that is disconnected from reality. NOTHING is an oath EXCEPT an oath. Nothing “serves” as a substitute. No oath was needed and no naturalization was possible because natural-ization is a fiction of law which converts foreigners into natural citizens so that they become the same as everyone else and thus are recognized as being equal.

    Understand this: the newly formed federal government was not “the United States of America. The citizens of the Union of the States were the United States of America. Without them, it did not exist. They were not adopted into a new nation by means of being magically remade into members of the new political entity. THEY were the new political entity, i.e., the new nation.

    The government that they formed was an alliance under law. If they ever traveled beyond its borders, then to members of other nations they were understood to be citizens of that new American nation. If they never left its soil, then they remained known as citizens of their own State of residence.

    slcraignbc said:
    “The Act provides for a married U.S. Citizen father traveling abroad with a pregnant wife to be assured that the child will be “considered as” a U.S. natural born Citizen.”

    As I’ve repeated over and over; that is false! The statement that a foreign born American child is to be considered a natural born citizen was not aimed at his father and his desire for some undefined “assurance”.
    It was intended to remain a part of the naturalization law in perpetuity to correct a deficiency in the Constitution which failed to mention foreign-born natural citizens.

    It was aimed for 35 years in the future when the first foreign-born American son might run for the presidency but find himself running into brick walls with State election officials who were unaware that the basis of natural citizenship in America was by the principle of nature, which is jus sanguinis, blood lineage, or right of descent from an American father.
    Many were still under the lifelong brainwashing of British common law, including many, or most, lawyers and politicians. They needed to be set straight that birth place is irrelevant to natural citizenship.

    slcraignbc said:
    5th, “regarding children born “considered as” U.S. natural born Citizens the qualifier of :considered as” serves two (2) purposes; (1) so as to provide cause to scrutinize any such person who may aspire to the Office of POTUS when they become of age;”

    Contrary-wise, it was just the opposite. It was intended to prevent any “scrutiny” based on birth location, because such scrutiny might result in the false idea that a foreign-born son of Americans was not eligible to be placed on the ballot. Requiring all State election officials to consider all such sons as natural born citizens was a clear statement that they ARE natural born citizens.

    It is a huge error to not grasp that the same language (considered as…) was also used to declare that a naturalized foreign man is an American after taking the oath. He was not something like an American citizen, he WAS an actual American citizen, and his children as well.
    Similarly, a foreign-born son of Americans was an actual natural born citizen through them. That is what jus sanguinis means, -it follows the law of natural membership which is membership by blood relationship, -NOT by law or borders or executive order or judicial opinion. BY BLOOD! Just like with race, and ethnicity, -like royalty and nobility, and ordinary family lineage.

    slcraignbc said:
    “(2) more pertinent is the proof of their counter-part’s existence,”

    I’d like to be able to put this politely but it’s impossible. That is ABSURD. That is like saying that they intended to use esoteric logic to prove their own existence. They were the 98% who were the natural citizens of their states and their nation. No proof of their existence was needed for any purpose whatsoever.
    And maybe it’s just me, but I think they already knew that they existed.
    But hey… within the confines of your logical misconception, it did all make sense, so I’ll give you that.
    But your misconception is due to your faulty understanding of the nature of citizenship and the limits of the authority of Congress. It had no legislative authority over the children of American citizens; -only over the children of aliens and naturalized citizens.

    You fail to grasp that the inclusion of natural born American children in a naturalization act was NOT to provide them citizenship but to NOT provide citizenship to foreign-born-and-raised children of foreign-born-and-raised Americans who never lived in America.
    PLUS, to guarantee their recognition in the distant future as being that which they already were by the law of nature. So the act provided nothing to any child of Americans. Nature provided their national membership via their blood relationship, -not Congress.

    If you continue to post the anti-American nationality heresy that you have in your head, it will be flagged as such.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Your contrarian propositions of patchwork philosophies, ideologies and political doctrines [ALL GARBAGE!!! NATURE IS NOT AN IDEOLOGY, NOR A DOCTRINE. IT IS THE LAW OF LIFE. ALL OFF-SPRING ARE FROM THE SAME MOLD AS THE PARENTS AND REPLICATE THEIR NATURE BOTH IN THE NATURAL REALM AND THE POLITICAL REALM. NOTHING ELSE IS NATURAL. IT IS ALL MAN-MADE.] puts in mind of Karl Marx sitting in the London library making it up as he finds bits and pieces of history that conformed with his peculiar world view and NOT at all what was forged and wrought within the furnace of debate and profound understanding of world history and the state of the world as it was while holding firmly to the Hand of Providence that they might not wander from the task at hand, establishing a New Nation among the Nations of the World, of the People, by the People and for the People. [NICE FLOWERY GARBAGE THAT SUBSTANTIATES NOTHING]

      My proposition of Constitutional Law on the subject of U.S. Citizenship in general and regarding a U.S. natural born Citizen specifically conforms with the provisions of the COTUS and the Acts made in pursuance thereof, adding nothing new except a more contemporary characterization of what already is written in statutory form and acknowledging the effects that the statutory construction requires and or prohibits.
      [THAT IS PURELY AN IVORY-TOWER INSPIRED DEFENSE OF A TREASONOUS VIEW OF CITIZENSHIP. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU COUCH YOUR BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN CITIZEN SOVEREIGNTY, IT IS STILL TREASONOUS TO AMERICAN LIBERTY AND THE SUPREMACY OF NATURAL RIGHTS.]

      The word “naturalization” found in A1S8C4 MUST be taken in its NOUN sense, if not in the 1st instant, [INSTANCE] then certainly in the 2nd instant when “an uniform Rule” is required of it.

      In the 1st instant the noun word naturalization speaks to the POLITICAL CONCEPT of conforming a person to the nature of a member of any given political society. In the 2nd instant the additional requirement that an uniform Rule bind all members as one once established makes the A1S8C4 Clause a mandate to establish the U.S. common-law of U.S. Citizenship THROUGHOUT the United States.

      The existing STATE CITIZENS were conformed to the nature of a Constitutional Citizen of the United States, not the reverse, upon the RATIFICATION of the COTUS.

      [YOU ARE WILLFULLY INSANE, IGNORANT, AND TRAITOROUS. IT IS A GIANT LIE TO CLAIM THAT A RULE OF NATURALIZATION WHICH PERTAINED TO NONE BUT FOREIGNERS AND THEIR CHILDREN SERVED TO BIND ANYONE BUT THEM TO THEIR NEW NATION VIA THEIR SOLEMN OATH. ALL NATUAL MEMBERS OF ALL 13 SOVEREIGN NATIONS OF AMERICA WERE ALREADY BOUND TO THEIR STATE AND IT WAS BOUND TO THE OTHER STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION.

      AS FOR YOUR “Constitutional Citizen of the United States” -THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU PULLED OUT OF YOUR ASS. IT DID NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL THE WONG COURT CREATED IT OVER A CENTURY LATER. ALL CITIZENSHIP WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WAS STATE CITIZENSHIP UNLESS ONE WAS BORN ON FEDERAL LAND OR NATURALIZED. ONLY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP OUTSIDE OF THE NEW NATION WAS RECOGNIZED AS NATIONAL IN NATURE.

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: