National Survival and Questions about the Presidency
March 19, 2015 5 Comments
revised & expanded March 28, 2015
The future survival of the United States (as we have always known it) will be determined by the person who is elected to be President. That makes the choice of the electorate crucial to insuring that the present and future are what they want them to be and need them to be.
So up-front in their determination, before even examining the politics of the candidates, is the issue of their qualification. Are they physically qualified, and psychologically qualified, morally qualified, and last but first, are they constitutionally qualified?
That is the first question that needs to be asked and answered. So what does the Constitution require? Second and third it requires an age of 35 years and U.S. residency of 14 years, but first it requires that “no person except a natural born citizen” be allowed to serve as President.
Okay, so he must be a natural born citizen. So what does that mean? That seems like a legitimate question, right? But in fact it is not a legitimate question. The correct question is “What did that mean when it was written?”
To ask what it means in the present age is to be totally vulnerable to being mislead, and that is because no one today has any authority to say what it meant when it was written. What was in the minds of those who wrote it and adopted and ratified it is not known for certain, and so everyone is left to speculate.
The problem is that the speculation of some cannot be confirmed by anything or anyone and yet they will use all of the power of their self-achieved authority to bamboozle everyone with lesser authority into accepting the view that suits them and their politics.
And how do they arrive at the view that suits them or appeals to their simplistic modern-day thinking? They do what all quacks do, they point to the authority of others who are even more authoritative than themselves. And what did those authorities do? They pointed to even older authorities of the past who did the same thing. So you end up with a pile of opinions piled on top of even older opinions while never being able to ascertain if any of them were once the actual truth, -and more; (the whole truth).
Appealing to authority would be a legitimate exercise in validation if it were based on contemporary opinions or elucidations from the authorities of the founders’ era, but only one exists and it is rarely, if ever, referenced by the “authorities”. So much for authoritative sources. Ignoring him, a founder and historian, and lacking anything else that’s authoritative or to their liking to base their modern-day opinion on, they are forced to turn to later era’s “authorities”.
Some of them expressed a definite opinion which was clearly nothing more than an opinion, while others merely speculated, while others ignored the issue since it never concerned them nor any court case, even though the subject of mere citizenship itself did concern them and needed to be decided.
What those with a dishonest bias have done with all of that is to pretend that mere opinions regarding what a natural born citizen must be considered to be were in fact facts, and therefore, based on those pontificated “facts” the definition must be exactly what they want it to be.
Their counterpart, even more dishonest, asserts that the mere authoritative mention of “citizen” is somehow indicative of actually meaning “natural born citizen”, in which case every alien-born baby declared to be “a citizen” by the British custom of common law-provided “subjectship” somehow mysteriously translates into the words of the Constitution.
To defend that preferred view, they cite the “authority” of judges and justices who choose to believe and support the falsehood that a “natural-born subject” was essentially identical to a “natural born citizen” regardless of their roles and rights and responsibilities being markedly different. They can and do take that view because it supports the presidential eligibility of the alien-born and the hybrid-born -which they support.
They do not have to adequately explain the legitimacy of their logic because they are judges and answerable to no one, but when they attempt to present an explanation they dishonestly fall back on the “authority” of those who pontificated generations before them and place their shallow thoughts on the high and holy alter of inherited ancient truth.
[The Roman Church did the same thing for centuries, perpetuating beliefs that were utterly false but promulgated by unquestionable “authorities”.]
In other words; they stood, and still stand, on the presumption that the meaning of the words is not found in the words themselves but solely in the legal tradition of Great Britain.
The problem with that stance is that there is absolutely nothing at all to support it. It is entirely a baseless presumption of later-day “authorities” who can now be pointed to with great reverence as “obviously” being correct because they were, after all, “authorities”.
But they were not authorities to the founding fathers, nor contemporaries of their generation. What they “decided” was “true” was nothing more than an uncontemplated superficial opinion based on farming their thinking out to the earlier assumptions of others.
Well, then what is and was the alternative? The alternative was to take the words as one always takes the words in the Constitution, -as is required and taught and once directed by the founders and scholars who illuminated the subject of constitutional interpretation, -as plain English easily understood by the common man in common language. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the “mischief rule” and the “golden rule.”
The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. In other words, a statute is to be read word for word and is to be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise or unless the result would be cruel or absurd.
Ordinary words are given their ordinary meaning, technical terms are given their technical meaning, and local, cultural terms are recognized as applicable. ~it is the mechanism that underlines textualism and, to a certain extent, originalism.
Thomas Jefferson: – letter to Justice William Johnson, 1823
“Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure.”
So they take the unsupported stance that the words must mean something other than their plain English meaning, -namely the British term of legal artifice, or legal fiction, which was used to equalize the nationality equality of the British-born and the alien-born. By it, the son of a British aristocrat and the son of a poor Egyptian born in Britain were essentially equal before the law.
But reality was something quite different. One person was English or British-born while the other was foreign and alien-born and had no natural right to be considered to be British. A mere legal right was elevated to a quasi-natural right as a fiction of the law by the use of the same term to describe them both: a natural-born subject.
The national leaders who came together in America to draft a new constitution of government had rejected the entire British model of defining who were the life-long subjects of the royal dictator King George III. They returned to the natural model of natural citizenship and used the natural term to define who was a natural American by birth. How can that be proven?
I would be inclined to say that it can’t, anymore than its opposite can be proven, but in fact there actually is proof in the writing of one contemporary of the founders; David Ramsay who brightly illuminated the subject of citizenship in his dissertation on the subject [see The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-david-ramsay-dissertation-revelation/] -as well as in the first congressional rule of naturalization.
Written in 1790 in the first Congress, it mandated that foreign-born American children were to “be considered as natural born citizens”, and that was because that is what they would be by the simple straight-forward natural law of belonging, aka; jus sanguinis or “by right of blood”.
The children of Americans were naturally the same as the parents that gave them life, -same species and same nationality. That was written to protect their natural right to grow up and serve their country even as its president. That was needed to protect their natural right of equal citizenship which was nowhere protected in the Constitution itself.
Certain “authorities” who favor eligibility for the alien-born assert that if one is a citizen “at birth” then one was not a naturalized citizen. Then they make the baseless claim that if one is not a naturalized citizen then one must be a natural born citizen but their logic error is easily seen in the use of the word “at” (birth).
“At” implies only one thing, and that is timing. It means that at birth one becomes a citizen, but that thought is a fog of confusion that equates “at birth” (a born citizen) with “natural” (natural born citizen) as if the significant word “natural” has no meaning whatsoever.
And yet it has a hugely significant meaning and that was why it was added. It means that citizenship by timing is not citizenship by nature. By timing determined by law one might not become a citizen until age one, or age ten, -as in one country whose constitution I read (Mexico or Cuba), -or at adulthood.
Timing of citizenship-bestowed-by-Law is unrelated to citizenship determined by origin. Membership dependent on the timing of a law has no connection to membership by natural origin, meaning by blood, by inheritance, by birthright flowing from one’s American parents and the right of children to share the same nationality as those who produced them, being born into the membership of their parents.
So which meaning did the words have in the minds of those who employed them in 1788? Did they carry a fictional legal-artifice meaning as did the British term, which came with life-long subjugation to the authority of the Crown and the Anglican Church, and notably fewer constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, or did they simply refer to one born as a natural citizen?
Today’s “experts” will only recognize the former as being a possibility and fail to even acknowledge the later. No one, besides yours truly, ever even speaks or writes the words “natural citizen” any more, and as a result, fully half of the field of origin possibilities is out of sight, out of mind, like it doesn’t even exist.
That goes to show just how totally infected the entire establishment consensus hive-mind has become with the virus of purely legal thinking. They simply must assign some fictional legal meaning to those words because they have a natural aversion to defining them by their English language meaning.
Its meaning is not as expansive and inclusionary as the embraced British counterpart.
Well guess what? The existence of both terms was due to priorities that were of an opposite nature.
The British were seeking to adopt an equalizing term of inclusion which would bring together members of two separate nations which had come to be ruled by one king that they shared. That was very tricky and legally complicated unless a common ground could be created, -and it therefore was.
Instead of defining national members as the children of members of the nation, (a son of England by birth to an Englishman) they switched to defining everyone by where they were born; -not by the former separate borders but by the full reach of the sovereign authority of the ruler of both kingdoms.
If born under his reign, you were a “natural-born subject” of his kingdom even though you were not a natural born subject of the companion nation and its history, custom, and law. Get the picture? Inclusion of everyone was needed in order to promote equality for all.
But to protect the new nation of “The United STATES of AMERICA”, the aim was just the opposite. Equality and inclusion applied to every other office in the land, but it did not apply to the position of Command-in-Chief of the American military forces, which was an authority bestowed on the President.
That office had to have a security greater than that of all other offices because none of them carried the grave authority that could command life and death decision-making. Such supreme authority could determine the survival of the nation. So, it was written to be exclusionary. That was the opposite of the purpose for the British term “natural-born subject”, so how can anyone logically equate the two?
One was from the legal realm, concocted as a fictional concept to assure equality, while the other was a natural term employed to assure inequality.
The British term was invented to join the natural born with the alien-born, while the American term was simple English which separated the natural citizens by right of blood from the common law alien-born citizens-at-birth.
Opposite intents with opposite effects.
What supports that conclusion? History, British law, American law, the English language and indisputable logic. They all support only one conclusion and that is that no son of a foreign-citizen father was eligible to be the President. That highest of offices was reserved solely for Americans born of Americans, not sons of foreigners who might harbor secret allegiance to a foreign sovereign.
That means it was deliberately discriminatory, but it was discriminatory in more ways than just that. In fact it was discriminatory regarding age also, and residency, but those were just areas that were put into writing. There were others that were not. In fact there were 14 huddles that a candidate had to get past before he could be elected President.
He had to be: 1. mature, 2. free, 3. white, 4. male, 5. educated, 6. accomplished, 7. moral, (no felon, no adulterer, no divorced person, no dishonest person, etc.) 8. heterosexual, 9. married, 10. Protestant, 11. sober, 12. possessing a good reputation, 13. a resident for 14 years, and 14. a natural citizen by birth.
Does that seem like the framers & founders and the American public were all that concerned about discrimination when it came to the power of the office of President and Command-in-Chief of the United States Army and Navy? Socio-political reality excluded over 95% of the population by consensus choice!
So when the framers settled on allowing “No person but a natural born citizen” to serve, it was as a defense against what was the unlikely but all too real possibility that otherwise a European noble couple might stay in America for a time, have a son who would be a common law citizen in the state of his birth, (and thereby a citizen of the nation) return to Europe or Britain, raise their child in their homeland to be a loyal subject of their monarch, and one day return him to America where eventually he would run for the office of President, and when in office serve their purposes.
It was a wise choice to prevent such a thing but it came with an unintended collateral side-effect. That effect was that it not only blocked the eligibility of those born to foreigners who never intended to surrender their obedience and allegiance to their King and renounce him by name, but it also excluded those who wanted nothing in their social life more than to become American citizens like their fellow countrymen.
So there were two extremes: those who wanted nothing to do with U.S. citizenship but who might have a child while in the United States, and those who wanted nothing more than having U.S. citizenship, and might have a child who would precede them in becoming an American.
The exceedingly simple term of “natural born citizen” did not distinguish between the polar-opposite foreigners with the effect that by excluding the sons of the elitist unwilling statist monarchists, they also excluded the sons of the highly willing and very patriotic immigrants who forswore all loyalty and obedience to their former monarch. So they got the bad with the good.
Good men could not serve their country as its leader if their parents gave them birth before the father was allowed to take the naturalization oath. So no matter how valiant the father and son were in defending the nation in war or serving it in peacetime, the son was branded for life as not having been born as a natural citizen because 35, or 45, or 55 years ago when he was born, his father was still some months or years away from being allowed to become an American.
So the bottom line is this:
natural-born subject; inclusive for the alien-born;
natural born citizen; exclusive against the alien-born.
by Adrien Nash March 2015 obama–nation.com
In Adobe PDF 3-page, 2 column format for printing and sharing: National Survival and Questions about the Presidency https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/national-survival-and-questions-about-thec2a0presidency3.pdf