January 6, 2015 18 Comments
(and how it separates the thinkers from the drinkers)
Many fine people throughout history have believed things that were simply not factual, often because them seemed reasonable and credible and preferable. The belief that in order to be born as a natural citizen one’s exit from the womb must have transpired within the confines of the borders claimed by the United States government is one of those sorts of things.
Such a belief is rooted in centuries of unnatural citizenship laws that were enacted by courts in England in order to make native-born children of aliens into British subjects. They were certainly NOT natural British subjects so they needed the intervention of men in order to grant them that status, but that allowance has colored the false impression that the public has about citizenship ever since. The common man conceives that those born in America are citizens, and that citizens born in America are eligible to serve as President.
Both assumptions are false, with a caveat, and both assumptions are true with another caveat. What is missing is the presence of the critical word “some”. Some born in America are legal citizens only, while some born abroad are natural citizens only since the government declares expressly that they are not naturalized. And then there are some who are born within U.S. borders who are not citizens at all.
Now if the President or the Attorney General decides on his own that everyone born within American borders will be treated as a citizen, then a false reality will have been established, -one contrary to actual American law. It’s very regrettable that that is exactly the situation today, -not because of those currently in power, but because of one in power over a century ago.
His choice, or error, has been an entrenched institutionalized error ever since. He blindly, ignorantly, or deliberately misconstrued the opinion of the Supreme Court in the seminal case (Wong Kim Ark, 1898) dealing with citizenship and the 14th Amendment. What the heck did its words mean in the real world?
The court decided what they wanted them to mean and they twisted the truth to make that their official holding, but the travesty against the true and accurate interpretation of American law did not end with them because the Attorney General at the time (one John Griggs) took their bastardized opinion and inflated it beyond recognition.
The court ruled that a native-born child of Chinese immigrants who were permanent U.S. residents engaged in business fit the statement of the 14th Amendment which requires that one be born in America under full subjection to the jurisdiction of the national government. That meant they must be born of members of American society, -members who are or are not citizens but who can be drafted into military service as well as charged with treason against the United States.
That is the fullness of the jurisdiction that is required. It is not mini-subjection but complete subjection, -just like the natural born citizens of the nation. That jurisdiction only extends to those who are natural born citizens, citizens by law, and legal immigrants with official permission to live and work in the U.S. for the rest of their lives during good behavior.
That does not include those who are aliens outside of the U.S., resident aliens without permission to be in the U.S., those who are foreign representatives, or tourists, or visitors, or temporary workers or students, –and those born to any one of those groups. NONE of them are fully subject to American national political authority and thus the highly valued gift of United States Citizenship is not provided to them or their children, -at least not by actual American law. But native-born children are deemed to be citizens regardless of the law, not because of it. And that brain-dead well-entrenched policy is treated as if it were actual U.S. law when in fact it could be changed overnight by the Attorney General.
In fact, he could rule that President Obama is in fact not even an American citizen because of the actual meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment. And his official legal opinion, as chief legal officer of the nation, would have to be adjudicated before the Supreme Court to settle the matter once and for all. Of course that would only happen in a dream, -one hell of a dream at that.
But aside from the common man’s false presumptions about citizenship and presidential eligibility, there is the issue of the false presumption about citizenship held by those who are aware that a natural born citizen must be citizen-born, -the offspring of American parents. They, in large numbers, have been seduced into not leaving the truth there where it ends, -with that simple fact alone, but add to it something of human contrivance, manipulation, imposition, mandate, ancient judicial declaration, and legal conception, and they do so because their minds have been seduced by a very authoritative, rational, legal opinion proffered by “legal experts” whose opinions they respect.
The problem is that their opinion is astonishingly erroneous in its backward reverse-logic. The thinking relied upon is a form of reverse-engineering of an idea, or description of the natives of a country. They have taken a statement by the Swiss political philosopher, observer, and author Emmerich de Vattel. He wrote the Law of Nations, and it was published in 1758 in French. It mentions “Les naturels ou les indigenes” as being those born in a country of parents who are its citizens. It makes no use of the English words or term “natural born citizen”.
So what do we see in his observation? We see that the indigenous population, the natural inhabitants, the natives of a country are the natural citizens of the nation. That observation was echoed by Justice Waite in the women’s voting rights case of Minor v Happerset in 1874. He stated in his remarks for the court that it was never doubted that those born in a country of parents who are its citizens are considered natural born citizens. Where the nativists go completely off the rails in in doing two things:
1. reversing the order of that statement to say that the natural citizens of a nation are the natives born of citizen parents. But… they treat that reversal as a sacred “definition” when neither it nor Vattel’s statement was a definition at all, but was merely a common observation.
2. In Vattel’s statement, in place of “les indigenes” they insert the false equivalency: “a natural born citizen”, when that term was not added until the book was translated into English in 1798 -11 years after the Constitution was written. Why is it an error to make an equivalency between what Waite actually wrote and what they say he meant? The logic of the equivalency is seen to be false without any mental effort at all. If one says something like: “women who have sex get pregnant”, -is such a statement an observation or description of common reality or is it in fact an actual “definition” of something? Does it define women? How about sex? How about pregnancy? None of the above.
But lets get right down to brass tacks. This is one of the main sources of the error, -taken from former attorney Leo Donofrio’s “naturalborncitizen” website:
“MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED. …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident.”
This is the equivalent to his reversal of Waite’s words and its resultant illegitimacy: “All persons who are pregnant and give birth on Earth are women. These are mothers, or natural born women. (as apposed to surgically created women) He took a statement identical to that and produced this sort of conclusion: “Natural born women are pregnant people who give birth on Earth.”
Both combined: Natural born women (natural born citizens) are those who give birth on Earth (those born in a country) to children with whom they were pregnant (to parents who are citizens). There you have it, a definition of natural born women as being people who give birth on earth to babies with which they were pregnant. Can’t be anything wrong with that “definition”, can there?
There is a saying: “If you have to ask the question then you would not understand the answer.” If you can’t see the gigantic logic error in that false equivalency, then there is no hope of ever opening your mind to what is right in front of your face. But just to be clear; “natural born women” are by that definition ONLY those who have given birth on Earth. Those who have not given birth on Earth are not “natural born” women even if they have given birth in an airplane, in outer-space, or have never given birth.
The presumed but false requisite that they must have given birth on Earth is equivalent to the dogma that natural born citizens must have been born within the borders of the United States, -which, by the way, does not include Puerto Rico or Guam, -whose natives are considered in some bizarre contortion of law and logic, as being United States citizens nevertheless. Is it sinking in yet that a whole lot of bastardization has been accomplished regarding the principles of American citizenship?
Just as the nation and government has drifted far afield from the Constitution, so it has also drifted far afield from the facts about citizenship. Even the “experts” are almost always wrong in some way that they fail to recognize because of the pervasiveness of mis-impressions that have been fomented over the centuries. They write and speak and think things that are nothing more than the impressions that they have absorbed during their days in government schools, but they’ve learned them from teachers of whom the same was true, and on back for six generations.
With such pervasiveness of misconceptions, there is no conceivable way out of such an enduring miasmas of false ideas, false equivalency, false dogma, and false certainty. Unless a Supreme Court Justice learns and speaks the truth, no truth will be illuminated in any American public forum. The only exception to that fact would be if a top contender for the presidency were to announce that his candidacy has been stopped dead in its tracks by the discovery that he cannot possibly be considered to be a natural born citizen. That would light the fuse to a string of fireworks that would burn a whole right through the nation, -and through Barry Obama’s unconstitutional presidency.
by Adrien Nash Jan. 2015, obama–nation.com