Truth vs Error; NBC Delusions Dispelled; Claims Refuted
February 4, 2015 9 Comments
In response to a massive compendium of erroneous opinions and various blog comments expressed by US “authorities” regarding the meaning of “natural born citizen” and presidential eligibility, I wrote the following:
Wow! I’ve never seen such a broad compendium of shear ignorance and idiocy as Ballentine has assembled and shared. Every conclusion stated is framed as an opinion and nothing more… because that is what they all are. Ignorant assumptions of men “informed” by ignorant instructors and “authorities” who were instructed by ignorant men before them, and on back for generations and generations.
It does not matter how long an erroneous opinion is held. It is wrong regardless, so the juvenile resort to the authority of “authorities” is nothing more than a great way to find yourself believing that bleeding George Washington with leeches is the best medical treatment possible. Opinions are irrelevant to what the facts actually are. Truth stands alone, even in the dark. Facts are not dependent on human awareness or acceptance. They are acknowledged only when light is shined on them. Otherwise they are missed, and good-sounding falsehood is substituted.
“The Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen” focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.” Professor Akhil Reed Amar, Slate, February 4, 2008
More ignorance. It is not focused on where or when, but how. How did one become a citizen? By natural membership or by legal allowance? Is their membership natural or artificial? Is it man-made via policy, legal mandate, court opinion, or consensus view? -or is it by natural *inheritance* of one’s political nature?
Parents give birth to beings just like themselves, -same species, race, ethnic and political membership. That is what “natural” means and has always and only meant. It means nothing else. All of the lofty authoritative quotes should have the word “natural” removed from them and then they would make sense as regards the treasure that is American Citizenship -which is not synonymous with *natural* citizenship.
“~which normal person would insist that “Only children whose parents are members of the club may use the swimming pool” means that BOTH parents must be club members? No one.”
That logic is indefensible. Here’s a more approriate quote: “Only children who are natural members of the club may have access to the key to the entire facility.”
Only a statement like that is analogous to natural citizenship. A natural member of the club could hypothetically be the off-spring of parents that purchased an everlasting family membership that could be passed along to subsequent generations.
The swimming pool is open to ALL members, but the Presidency is not, -otherwise it would read like the 14th Amendment: “All persons born in the United States… are eligible to the office of the President.” But instead, it reads just the opposite: NO PERSON,…EXCEPT… -except what? a citizen?, a born citizen? NO. a “natural” born citizen.
That means they are citizens by nature, -not by birth place nor birth time. They are citizens by the membership derived from their blood relationship to citizen parents. They are those predestined to be citizens from conception because of the innate and unalienable right of American sovereign citizens to pass their national membership on to their progeny.
Either we possess that right and are the sovereigns of our government or the government is sovereign and we are its subjects. Both views are wide-spread, but only one of them is the American view. The other is a totalitarian statist view. But people don’t realize that fact and thus hold it without thinking. It’s about time people started to think deeper than the superficial opinions of ignorant authorities.
People need to start rethinking some of their most fundamental assumptions about the origin of nationality.
Law vs Nature. Legal vs Natural. Blood vs Borders. Natural vs Artificial. Both determine citizenship, even *from* birth, but only one is the origin of citizenship BY birth. Those who are citizens by birth comprise about 96% of the population. Only they are eligible to lead the American nation.
~on supporting the ineligible Ted Cruz:
Those who support Cruz are putting the republic itself above everything else, including perfect fidelity to the letter of the Constitution. What good is the Constitution if the republic that it is meant to preserve is lost to the Marxists? It is already almost totally ignored. Ignoring it again would be noticed by no one in Washington or its press corps, nor by the vast bulk of the American people.
Bottom line: bring a damn machine gun to a gun fight, -not a pocket knife. Only Cruz could come close to being that machine gun. Hard choices need to be made, not easy ones. Strategic thinking is the kind of thinking that needs to be engaged in, -not simplistic thinking. All of World War II was waged under the mind-set of strategic thinking, -not conventional thinking. That is why we won and our enemies lost. AN
the problem is that none of those “vital record” facts have any connection to actual “foreign influence” of the type that needs to be defended against as envisioned by the founders. His father was not a loyal royal noble aristocrat supporter nor a Muslim or Marxism supporter. In fact he was more anti-Marxist than most Americans after having suffered persecution under their boot. So it is completely off-the-mark to label the son who grew up to be a totally patriotic American conservative with the label of nefarious foreign allegiance or foreign plots of domination of American power via the office of the President.
One must be totally realistic and not totally theoretical and oriented toward a threat of foreign influence that all but vanished as Western Civilization took most of their governance tips from the American experience. What sane person would view Canada as a dangerous foreign-source of threat to the American political system when they support it in every way?
Supporting the Constitutional requirement should not include greatly distorting the real-world situation of one born of parents over which they had no control. Distorting the truth is no less unacceptable as violating a constitutional requirement intended to protect the nation from very real threats, not non-existent threats. AN
The distortion is only from the implication that a fellow patriot could represent a threat to our republic due to not being constitutionally eligible. In today’s bastardized situation, no one but the vigilant even notice the issue of citizenship as pertaining to the presidency so no threat to the Constitution is presented since the Constitution itself is practically invisible and thus irrelevant to most people who have no clue about what it says.
It can’t be said that a Cruz election would change a thing since Obama’s swearing in already set the precedent that the Constitution doesn’t matter. All things being equal, it would be preferable to support someone who is the equal of Cruz as a conservative but also eligible, but there may be no such candidate. So if he is the best thing around for slashing the monstrous leviathan that is Washington, then it can’t be wise to shoot our own best hope because of a reason that was intended to be what is best for the country, -not a roadblock to its salvation.
The more one has been indoctrinated in law schools the more deceived one becomes about the principles of natural membership.
Your brain-dead logic comes with the implication that all of the law school drones think with one hive-mind, and all judicial opinions are thus in perfect agreement, when just the opposite is the case.
You know what opinions are like. Everyone has one. But facts are not opinions, yet all you care about are opinions, and the facts be damned. The facts are not dependent on opinions but on fundamental bedrock truth, truth found only in natural principles regarding all natural groups. You are oblivious to what that truth is, and will willingly remain contented in your ignorance because it suits your bias.
@patmcguinness @NatSovParty @Dave B. @PeterLettkeman
“Your ignorance is monumental. ” armchair lawyering by folks – who don’t even grasp the “1+1=2” concept regarding what ‘natural-born citizen’ means -“
Let me see… I’ve written well over a quarter million words or so illuminating the meaning of those three simple common English words but you have still not even come to the starting line. It is this: There is no such term as “natural-born”.
No one has any standing to use such a term except in the context of British natural-born subjects, of which there were two types. One was those who were natural subjects by birth, and the other was those who were deemed equal to and considered as (by legal fiction) to also be natural subjects AT or FROM birth, not BY birth. I swear, I’ve written a hundred thousand words explaining this one simple reality. Using words that one does not really comprehend is easy for the legal minded, but understanding them is another matter.
“In short: Anyone who is a US citizen at birth is a “natural-born citizen”.
“In short” has nothing to do with “in fact”. Here’s the actual truth: anyone who is a citizen “at birth” is a born citizen by common law. They are not a natural citizen by descent from citizens who own an everlasting portion of the sovereignty of We, the People, and as free people who own their own government and national membership have the unalienable right to pass it to their progeny.
A natural citizen is not one who possesses a “status” but has an inborn political nature of being an American. They don’t *have* citizenship. They have natural membership because they *are* natural members by birth to members.
You claim there are only two types of citizens. That is patently false. I once wrote an exposition explaining about 10 types of citizenship.
Also, only those who take the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation are natural-ized, i.e., remade into natural citizens by legal fiction. All of the rest are statutory or common law citizens.
You have ignorantly presented your # 2 category which conflates the native-born with the natural born; the citizen *at* or *from* birth (a point in time) with a citizen *BY* birth, unrelated to time since it is related solely to blood.
@patmcguinness @teddlybar @GerryNance
” The plan thus adopted by Congress with respect to a person of this classification was to *bestow* citizenship at birth but to take it away upon the person’s failure to comply.”
That characterization is unfounded. It cannot be claimed that citizenship was “bestowed” by the language of the statute. It describes provisional citizenship which is not permanent citizenship, and thus is not being “taken away” by failure to comply. That which is not really owned outright cannot be taken away from the owner, anymore than a repossessed car is taken away from the actual owner.
Citizenship which is owned by the citizen cannot be taken away by government unless one’s actions are judged as being evidence of self-expatriation with intent.
“and since a US citizen at birth is a ‘natural-born citizen’,” …and there we have the heart of the treasonous policy of false natural citizenship.
Just make a BIG LIE statement supported by nothing in United States law, or principles, and the ignorant and gullible will swallow it down if it’s laced with the sugar of lawyerly authority.
That dreamland fantasy statement is the mount Everest that you have NOT climbed. You have not and cannot attach any validity to such a mentally defective leap of presumption.
“the court ruled that citizenship granted statutorily could be taken away as such” That is irrelevant since it has been superseded by the post-Afroim v Rush rulings that government has no authority to take back that which it no longer owns. Citizenship once given becomes equal citizenship, “natural” citizenship, (as a fundamental American fiction). The 14th Amendment was seen to require equal treatment of all citizens.
“those born abroad to US citizens and acquiring citizenship in that manner “shall be considered as natural born citizens” ie THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS. Ergo, Ted Cruz is a natural-born US citizen.”
Ergo nothing! You must have failed Logic 101. “born to US citizens” means born to US citizens. Citizens is plural because no one is born to only one parent. The right of natural citizenship is something that only parents of the same nationality can pass on. One alone cannot and so naturalization statutes are needed. No statutes are needed for children of American couples because their children born abroad cannot be anything other than American by nature.
Try this on: Ergo, Ted Cruz is a statutory citizen. and… The do NOT have the same rights because some are not eligible to be President even though they are citizens because they are not *natural* citizens by birth.
You reveal your true Luciferian nature when you attempt to glibly conflate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” as if they are synonymous just because the US legal system has followed a bastardized A.G. citizenship policy for over a century. The policy does NOT conform with the Wong opinion, and no sane person can find a way to make it conform.
Points to grasp: 1. Not all born in the US are born of parents or fathers fully subject to US jurisdiction, and thus are not born as US citizens if born here.
2. Not all born fully subject are actual natural citizens because they are *naturally* aliens like their parents. That is what natural means. All talk about citizenship is just that… NOT talk about NATURAL citizenship.
“The definitions established in law and practice are what counts.”
I have never disagreed with that. But the two need to be separated. Practice is one thing and it might not be following the law. The accepted view of what the law is may not be following the actual meaning of the law. That is very common because of human bias.
I have never engaged in the contest of disputing what the consensus opinion is because it is irrelevant to what the truth of the matter is. Opinions, in law as in science, do not determine Fact. It stands as the truth whether nor not anybody recognizes it.
What I’ve discovered and pointed out are facts that are completely counter to conventional thinking and status quo concepts. That is why I don’t rely on the opinions of men because they do not determine the meaning of English words. The English language does that, not lawyers.
Sooner or later they always distort the meaning of words in order to serve their selfish clients, and that has been going on forever. All angles of ambiguity are exploited for some party’s benefit, and often the precedent set by such error becomes institutionalized. That is what has happened with concepts of nationality and its origins.
If you blow away all of the smoke of legal thinking and then just look at what is left, what you will see is only natural relationships. Those relationships are the bedrock of natural nations. America was almost such a nation, but had a gigantic unnatural element in its midst which was slavery. Otherwise, the Americans had one language, history, tradition, and law. But they also had thirteen separate governments that were sovereign, -with 13 separate Constitutions, histories, and identities. Thus there were thirteen separate countries to which one could belong as a member, but that fact has been entirely forgotten.
A State citizen was not the same as a national citizen because one could be one without being the other, which was a very unsettled issue that lumbered along confusingly until the Wong opinion which declared the common law of the States to also be the common law of the nation as a whole.
That made the status of the freed slaves clear, as well as that of children born of alien immigrants.
But it did NOT make clear in any way that native-born children of NON-immigrants were also American citizens for some completely unexplainable reason.
Without domicile a foreigner is not fully subject to US jurisdiction and cannot be conscripted into the military nor tried for treason, so children born to him were whatever he was since they inherited his nationality alone.
That is the truth from the standpoint of the principles involved, -not from the legal view of the establishment. It does not follow the actual ruling of the high court, nor the principles it based its opinion on. So as a result, we have alien children who are not truly Americans except by the erroneous consensus viewpoint, and Americans who are not literally *natural* Americans because their citizenship is dependent on a legal relationship and not a natural one, but no one is aware of the difference. Worse still is that no one really knows that they don’t know and so they don’t care. It’s nice to hope that they will, but it seems that would take an unlikely miracle.
“I am not willing to agree that your idiosyncratic opinions have any relevance..” “you are not using anything in the argument that anyone else here sees as valid.”
You used a term that has no meaning (“valid”) since it was thrown in with no context. Valid in what sense? In the legal sense? I do not contest what is legally valid, only what is actually true.
What is factual is not necessarily what is legally valid when no one is aware of what the truth actually is. In the legal realm the truth is not supreme since legal opinion that becomes set in cement is what is supreme, until overthrown by the SCOTUS, -as happened with the long established and accepted Bancroft treaties and their unequal treatment of citizens.
In the legal arena, the truth may be invalid, while in the truth arena what is legally valid may be invalid because it is based on an unrecognized error of logic. The history of scientific and medical discovery is a history of what was not valid replacing entirely all that which previously was viewed as valid.
“but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law.”
Be wary of generalized statements since they omit mention of exceptions. There is nothing in British common law or statutory law that mandates freedom of religion or ownership of weapons, or any number of other things that the Americans embraced and adopted as their fundamental rights.
They went far outside of the box of British law in various areas, principally in the democratic form of government without a monarch and his rights, but also in the area of nationality. Britain held to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance, and submission to the Church of England and its head, (the king) while the Americans dumped that legally valid system and adopted no defined system in its place.
The new constitutions of the States included natural membership as well as common law membership and adoption of foreigners via naturalization. But no principle was delineated as “the” American way or principle. That is why there was State vs Federal conflict and unresolved confusion until the Wong opinion. But Wong gave rise to new confusion.
Instead of being confused about whether or not common law state citizens were also citizens of the national government or nation, the new confusion was about whether or not those born of foreigners in America were common law citizens or foreigners like their fathers. I used the word foreigners instead of aliens to distinguish the difference between those who were totally foreign with their domicile still set in their home country, and those who were a part of American society by permanent domicile in the U.S.
They were less foreign because America was then their home. They were fully subject to the authority or jurisdiction of Washington and could be drafted and tried for treason because they were fellow inhabitants of the country. Foreign visitors were not and could not since they were not co-responsible for its preservation. They remained subject to their home government and that was the view of both governments. So a child born to them in America was not born subject to U.S. jurisdiction and thus was not born as an American by the actual principle involved.
Since that principle went unrecognized by those who administered and interpreted what the law or judicial opinion meant, one of two possibilities was chosen but they chose the wrong one without even recognizing the ambiguity that they were blind to and which lead them astray. Their blindness may have been innocent or it may have been willful. I favor innocent, i.e. in ignorance.
After all, neither they nor any of their legal mentors, nor respected legal authors had ever written about or come across a clear and irrefutable illumination of the principles involved. I have certainly never learned of any besides the dissertation of David Ramsay. [I wrote a lengthy exposition interspersed within my transcription of his dissertation, titled: The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation. It truly is a revelation.]
“Citizenship and nations are the results of arbitrary drawings on maps and arbitrary collections of man-made rules”
“There is nothing “natural” about citizenship or “nations”, it’s a man-made construct.”
That degree of ignorance is frightening. Nothing fundamental about natural nations is man-made. That is totally true once a strong leader has subdued and united all of a common people into one country and kingdom. Natural nations are composed of a single people with a single language, along with a common history, tradition, and probably religion. One thinks of Japan and how singularly uniform its people are. Its borders were not drawn by men. It has almost zero immigration which makes it extremely homogenous. That is what a natural clan, tribe, or country looks like. Why do I have to point out the obvious? Have you never taken a sociological anthropology course?
The bedrock of all primal associations is blood relatedness, followed by language, then culture and religion. A single people will eventually form a single nation. Like Japan, Germany, England, France, Spain, the United States, etc. What their peoples have in common with each other is not law-made or power-made but naturally made or socially made.
Countries are natural unions or assemblages of related peoples. The Hawaiian Islands were once similar to a country since they were populated by a single ethnic group. But in time they became a nation under a single conquering leader who became king.
Nations are man-made; by choice or by force; like Iraq or Yugoslavia, but countries are not. Some such artificial unions eventually dissolve, as have ones that are natural but with deep differences, like the American nation (because of slavery) but the countries that comprise them never dissolve. They only vanish due to genocide or natural catastrophe.
Membership in countries is natural membership as families grow and the population increases. No permission of government is required for new born members to be…. acknowledged, embraced, understood to be members also. When a country becomes a nation under law, then laws are needed for making allowance for outsiders to be accepted as new members.
Being as they were born and raised as outsiders, they have no natural right to membership in a group that is not naturally their own, hence the need for laws to be formulated, and processes adopted to allow them to join and assimilate.
Those laws are not natural laws but are man-made or artificial membership avenues for outsiders to take. But those laws have no bearing on those who are the natural members of the country. They are the ones who are the body of the country and nation, and it is they who give their permission for others to join them, or not, via the laws they make.
But those laws do not pertain to those who made them. Only to outsiders and “half-bloods”.
If you allow guests to stay in your home, you will have rules for them which will include punishment for violation, like kicking them out of the house. But such rules do not pertain to you since, even if you break your own rules, you are not going to kick yourself out of your own home. You are the sovereign, not the guest, so your rules are for them and not yourself. Same with citizenship law. It exists for others, not for us.
That is why Congress has no authority over the citizenship of citizens and their children. It is not the sovereign. We are, and our rights go with us everywhere in our land and outside of our land if a child is born to us beyond our borders. It still belongs to us, and we still belong to America, and thus through us they do also since they are a part of us.
But understand that “us” only means American parentS, not a single American parent alone. The right belongs only to couples since the only alternative results in “unnatural” “half-blood” children who are the off-spring of two cultures and two nations with two governments (and armies) with competing allegiances.
I have never equated the “naturels” of Vattel with “natural-born citizen”, which itself is a term that I’ve explained has no place in constitutional interpretation since it is purely a British term of legal artifice.
The American term has NO HYPHEN because it is a term of natural law as described by common English words which have only a coincidental relationship to the British term. Otherwise I would not have had to author the hundreds of thousands of words and sentences that I have written. My life would be in a whole different place due solely to the presence of a hyphen which in fact does not exist in the constitutional concept expressed in Art. 2, Sec. 1
That would have changed everything, and it does change everything being as it is and always was, absent. Hyphens mean something very real, as I illuminated in an entire exposition some time back. They connect connected words. Normal words are not connected together, nor are two adjectives defining a single noun.
A natural citizen. A born citizen. A wise man. An old man. A wise old man. NOT a wise-old man. There is no such term as wise-old. And in the same vein, there is and never has been such a term as natural-born.
Both adjectives define their noun, NOT each other. Hence the fallacy of using British legal terminology to define an American term based on a natural concept.
I know… everyone in US history has made that “mistake”. It does not make them correct just because so many “authorities” agree to a mistaken impression. Their authority does not translate into infallibility or correctness. Does anyone want to argue that it does?
As for “les naturels ou les indigenes”, I assume that the French had a habit of turning adjectives into nouns as a verbal short-cut. “The naturals” would have to refer to the natural inhabitants or natural members, and “the indigenous” to indigenous people, or natives.
“Natural born citizen” has no connection to Vattel whatsoever. When he wrote in the 1850s, one can assume that there was little or no talk about national citizens since everyone in the world was a national subject. The only citizens were those comprising the recognized membership of cities. Someone like Locke may have been an exception, but I haven’t read his writing since there has been no time.
“Author: Thomas Brown Comment:
Bear in mind, Nash, that proponents of slavery called it “the natural order.” That whites were “naturally” superior to blacks.”
Correct. But if you had read my exposition before the latest one, you would have discovered the war between natural law and natural rights. I shine a lot of light on the subject of the difference. The natural order refers to the order of nature; The strong overpowering and dominating the weak.
Natural rights refers to the order of Man. One’s natural Rights are highly subject to assault under the order of natural law. One is of the animal and demonic realm while the other is of the human and divine realm.
Animals are not a part of the latter order, but aggressors make humans a part of the animal order as a justification for dominating or killing them. They have no spiritual consciousness. Everything is about power and selfishness. Conscience? What’s that? Who needs one? Society can get along with people who have no conscience, right? Visit a country jail or prison and it will disabuse you of that idea.
The War Between the States was a war between the natural order with its superior and inferior stratification, and the Human order with its natural rights bestowed by a creator who did not create humans of different qualities, but as equals since there is only one parental origin of the human race.
Can one sibling be more equal than his twin? Hardly. So everyone’s rights are dependent completely on a source that is immutable and unquestionable, and that would be the concept of equality as a result of creation by “the Almighty”.
There’s no creation? Then there’s no equality since there would be no basis for it. All of the rights that men claim and exercise and hold dear are dependent on their having an unquestionable common origin, even if one does not believe in that origin. Thus it is very dangerous to attack that origin and seek to invalidate it because it is your only philosophical protection against devolving back to the law of the jungle, aka, the natural order in which you end up the slave under a taskmaster with no conscience. That movie “Unbroken” was all about that dynamic. No one would want to end up on the short end of that stick.
RC wrote: “What statutes in existence in 1961 discriminating between father and mother in the matter of transmission of citizenship could Nash cite?
Mr Obama is indeed a natural-born citizen. Do you have any law or statute that would contradict that?”
So far, in all the years that I’ve been sharing the facts with both sides of the issue, no one has attempted to dispute the facts or logic that I’ve presented. They just reject or refute everything outright but without quoting and logically refuting “my facts” and logical conclusions.
That tells me that they have no come-back and no facts to support their views, only the opinions of others like them who happened to have or had a position of authority.
I, unlike Obama, bow to no man’s authority unless it is factual and flawlessly logical. Have you seen me quoting a slew of opinions as do the birthers and obots?
I’d rather ignore everything written after the founders’ generation since it was not present to have any impact on what the eligibility words meant when written.
Those words were words of discrimination, of EXclusion, not INclusion. But that degree of exclusion was not allowed to stand in American law because it disenfranchised probably tens of thousands of Americans who happened to have been born before their fathers were allowed or able to naturalize. That did not seem fair nor acceptable to a large number of people, maybe even the majority in 1795, and so that language in the 1790 act which demonstrated that presidential eligibility was via patrilineal descent had to be excised from public view and public law. That way no one was offended because it left the issue vague and seemingly undecided.
Here’s how you show that your thinking is totally in a fog: “in the matter of transmission of citizenship”. There you have it. “citizenship” is one thing. Natural citizenship is another. To show that one is a citizen from birth is almost unrelated to showing that one is a natural citizen BY birth. If your mind was not so deeply biased and your misconceptions so deeply entrenched you would remember that fact after all of these years of I and others pointing it out to you. But I guess old dogs just can’t learn new things.
Lupin: “What statutes in existence in 1961 discriminating between father and mother in the matter of transmission of citizenship could Nash cite?”
I believe that would be the Naturalization Act of 1952. Under US law, the citizenship of children born of American mothers overseas was dependent on them having lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 14. I can’t recall if it mentions only the mothers or simply the American parent.
What must be considered is the fact that a child of mixed parentage born in the US was not under congressional statute but under the Wong opinion and the A.G. interpretation of it. If born in Hawaii, Obama had no connection to naturalization law, thus the nationality of his mother was not statutorily transmitted to him since he would have automatically been deemed a common law citizen.
If he was not born in Hawaii but in Vancouver, then the statute would have excluded him from citizenship, just as would have the Naturalization Act of 1907 if he had been born 40 years earlier.
In principle, no one whose citizenship was ever the subject of exclusion by American law would have ever been considered to be a natural born citizen, although non-whites and Asians were excluded for long periods of American history .
No law can, nor ever will, exclude natural citizens from citizenship. Their national membership is not dependent on the whims of government which dictate the rules regarding aliens, their children, and children of mixed-nationality couples.
“And here is you basic problem. Law isn’t about truth. Nations can write any law they want. There is no over-riding devine law that supersedes our laws. A nation can define citizenship anyway it wants and such definition will be a fact.”
And here is your basic problem: superficial thinking. You did not in writing nor thinking define the word “want”. I’ve always assumed that the hype of the nuclear danger of the cold war was a fraud because neither the US nor the Soviet Union was psychologically capable of launching a nuclear war. Thus the whole trillion dollar military-industrial complex boondoggle was a complete waste. If you are in a duel with an opponent, using pistols which fire in both directions, you and he may go through the motions leading up to firing your weapons, but you will not be able to pull the trigger because it would be suicidal to do so. Same with the word “want”.
Does it imply “can”? as in “Nations can write any law they can”? They cannot do that because some things could not psycologically be written. Could a nation pass a law requiring the termination of the life of all babies? No, because something is stopping them, and it is compassion, not to mention self-preservation. It is the same with citizenship laws.
No sane nation can write a law that says that all future children will be deemed aliens. You cannot say “well, it’s possible.”, because it is NOT possible because of the way that humans are wired. They cannot go against their own nature en mass.
“There is no over-riding divine law that supersedes our laws”.
Brilliant! argue against an assertion that no one has ever made. The law of natural membership does not supersede US law because US law in built on top of it. It would be stupid to characterize a foundation as superseding the house built on top of it.
The foundation of nations is natural membership. Without it no one has any connection to anyone else. It is so fundamental and primal that there has never been a need to state that fact in any law. It is a given of human life. Is there a law stating that man has a right to breath?
I guess that right does not exist then since it is not codified. The membership of one’s own flesh and blood is in the very same category of what does not need to be written when a child is the product of co-members of a country or co-citizens of a nation.
“A nation can define citizenship anyway it wants and such definition will be a fact.” “A nation…it”. There is no “it” when it comes to the passage of law. There is only human beings, not a national hive-Borg mind. “It” does not have a choice to write laws that no one would support.
Your mistake is thinking that a nation can define citizenship “ANYWAY” it wants. Rather, it is quite limited… by its values and its traditions.
You mean to say that it has the authority to do “whatever”, but you fail to grasp that what is true for absolute dictatorships is not true of democracies. They are limited also by their constitutions or ancient laws. Unlimited power does not exist in democracies, but statists wish it would. ALL POWER TO THE STATE!
“Your other problem is you are incapable of admitting you are wrong no matter how many times you are shown.”
Actually, only one time is sufficient, but your self-blinded idea of what has been “shown” to me is nothing more than a pack of erroneous opinions. Where are the facts? I’m still waiting for something other than opinions and policy based on them. Show me the LAW.
“The amendment doesn’t say “fully subject” but “subject” and even a child knows any visitor to the US is subject to its laws.”
That statement is beneath you. Your thought process must have been in first gear. You know full well what one of the authors said about jurisdiction. It means FULL jurisdiction. Not partial. One must be subject to ALL US laws, not just civil laws which apply to everyone within US borders, including foreign ambassadors and kings. And who is subject to ALL US laws? Ready to go down the rabbit hole? It is only those for whom the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation was written: MALES.
They MUST swear to BEAR ARMS on behalf of their new nation. Women could not take that oath throughout most of US history since it was not written for women being as they were a part of their husband and his nationality. Men were and are the spine of the nation, and only they are subject to ALL of the political laws of the nation.
Citizenship was allowed to children born to men who were subject to the possibility of dying in battle while serving the nation of which they were not yet even citizens. Men who were NOT subject to that risk and obligation were not subject to the jurisdiction of ALL of the laws of the Unites States government, and thus their children were not either since children were subject solely to their father and not directly to government.
It should be becoming clear just how damn ambiguous the simpleton language of the 14th amendment really was and is. “Constitutionally simple and elegant language!” “What does it mean exactly?” “Well, that’s another matter.”
As the famous line in the movie puts it, “You can’t handle the truth!” Or as the great American short story writer Flannery O’Connor once said, “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/truth-in-a-post-christian-west/#Ctog4KUSyEfjUKzK.99
Lupin asked: “Since Mr Obama was born on US soil from an American mother, wouldn’t that then make him even by your exacting standards a natural born citizen?”
Yes, it would make him a born citizen! But just to be clear, -is a citizen synonymous with a born citizen? And also; is a natural citizen synonymous with a born citizen? And lastly, is a citizen synonymous with a natural born citizen?
Lesson: loose terminology results in loose thinking and inaccurate conclusions due to ambiguity. Dissimilar terms should NOT be interchanged as if they mean the same thing.
“…you have failed to demonstrate why Mr. Obama did not fulfill your present Constitutional requirements.”
If you read and comprehended what I wrote then you would inescapably arrive at the same conclusion that I have (which took two or three years), and that is that Obama is not even a US citizen by the principles of actual US law
It is easily shown why he is not a natural citizen but it is much more interesting to show why he is not a citizen at all by actual law. I’ve shown why that is in very plain and easily understood terms. You’ve read them and understand them, and yet pretend that you do not and are even unaware of them. I can’t explain such behavior or tactics. I guess that’s all you’ve got.
As for dual citizenship, it is irrelevant to presidential eligibility if it is not by blood. Dual citizenship by birth place abroad was not recognized by the US Congress as controlling of anything. Only American fathers determined the nationality and eligibility of their sons who might one day be President.
There is one way that Obama could be considered a natural born citizen and it is that his father was unknown or dead before his birth and unmarried to his mother. In that case the statutory residency requirement would not apply to him since his nationality would be determined by his mother, and no one else. Thus with no competing foreign allegiance or citizenship, the only thing left is the status of a natural born citizen (barring the creation of a whole new rare category of citizenship).
by Adrien Nash Feb. 2015