Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President

Why did American women for so long fail to pass a constitutional amendment barring voter discrimination based on gender. Why didn’t they vote for the 19th Amendment much earlier? Because they were not allowed to vote at all for a long time in most of the States. They didn’t have any constitutional right to vote because voting, like citizenship, was strictly a State matter.
~
They were second-class citizens, -or only quasi-citizens similar to children but with greater rights, -but not greater civic rights. In that regard they were essentially in the same category as children. Why were they treated fundamentally different? Because of their weaker bodily strength, and maternal role in life, they were under no duty or obligation to fight and possibly die for their country. They were exempt, protected, shielded from the ugly side of life, which included both war and politics.
~
Their citizenship was not full citizenship because their responsibilities were not full responsibilities. So they were, if born of American parents, natural born citizens and yet not eligible to do what the Constitution allowed only for natural born citizens, -which was to serve as the U.S. President.

So we see a class of citizens who not only were citizens but were natural born citizens and yet still forbidden to serve as President. They were forbidden because they were female-born citizens, i.e., born as females. They had civic counter-parts, namely the common law alien-born citizens. They were discriminated against just like the female-born citizens… -and the black-born citizens, -and Indian-born Americans. U.S. black-born citizens did not even exist (although perhaps a state or two allowed blacks to have State citizenship) because they also were objects of restriction and discrimination.

So when the framers of the Constitution wrote that: “No person, except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;” that term did NOT include anyone born female, of alien parentage, or black. All children of aliens were aliens also under federal law because they did not become Americans under federal law until their father did via the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.

In the Federal view, if one was born of an alien then one was an alien also just like the father and family head that was the source of his children’s life and nationality. Here is the society result of the words that the framers choose, -words which at that time carried these connotations:

No person, except a white born citizen,..shall be eligible…
No person, except a male born citizen,..shall be eligible…
No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible…
But in addition the framers allowed all male, white, alien-born persons who became a citizen before the Constitution was adopted to also serve when they reached 35 years of age and had lived in the colonies or states for 14 years. But no female or black citizens were allowed to serve as President, period, -while all white-&-male-&-alien born citizens who fulfilled any residency requirements could serve in every other office in America.

Still, under the Constitution as written and never amendment, no female or black or Native American or alien-born citizen is allowed to serve as President. It is imbecilic to assume that the 13th Amendment which prohibited slavery granted blacks the right to serve as President. Hell, it failed to even outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude. It allowed both under the condition of “punishment for crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted.” Otherwise both were allowed “within the united STATES or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Gee, that fails to even mention federal land… which means that both were still legal without restriction in D.C. and on all federal property. See the problem with loose language? All sorts of wiggle room results. Well, one term that has no wiggle room is “natural…born…citizen”, aka ~a natural citizen by birth to citizens~ (a born natural citizen).  Nothing more! …and nothing less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bookfiend75 wrote: “…a debate that goes to the “heart” of what we think this country was founded on: are we a country of immigrants who take the best of what the world has to offer and mold it into something unique and powerful; or are we a country of WASPS who need to keep this country from falling into the wrong hands? For myself, most strangers in the world are, as my children put it, friends we haven’t met yet.”

I can agree with your sentiments, but you, like everyone else, fail to grasp the context of the problem. It is not one of what is sociologically preferable but what is grounded in the Rule of Law. Either you support the rule of law or you support doing what is “best” and ignoring the law. THAT is anti-American because we are founded on the rule of law and not men.

So what was “the law” when the Constitution was written? It was not what it is today. The difference is illuminated by the case of Virginia Minor and the high court’s discussion regarding her case. Today’s Luciferians who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” (repeatedly, since they have no other hope of legitimizing their socialist messiah) fail to grasp that per the observation of the court, being a citizen does not confer all the rights of certain other citizens (males).

Even though Virginia was a natural born citizen she still had no constitutional right to vote, nor any right to be President. Why not? Because that was the way that society was structured. That was the fundamental social mores of the age and people that ratified the document forming a tighter union of the sovereign States of America.

To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the constitutional right to vote and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors. It thus can be argued that women have no constitutional right to serve as President since no amendment has been passed to allow that. That is a literal constitutional fact. The amendment that gave them the right to vote gave them no other civic rights, including serving in elected offices in the federal government, or serving as Sheriff, or Marshall, or General or Admiral or Commander-in-Chief.

In the same vein, being a “citizen” does not mean that one has the right of a natural born citizen to be President. Thus in 1875 when the Minor v Happersett opinion was written: 1. “Citizen” did not equal the right to vote.
2. “Natural born citizen” did not equal the right to be President.
3. “Citizen-at-birth” did not equal the right to be Commander-in-Chief, not then, and not now.

Let’s engage in a little Q&A thought exercise:
Q.  Were foreign women allowed to serve in the American military?
A.  No. No women, even American, were allowed to serve in the military or attend any military college or officer training course.

Q.  So no woman could lead men in combat regardless of being a natural born citizen?
A.  Definitely not.  They had no constitutional right to participate in a such strictly male sphere.

Q.  So no women could be appointed as General of the Army or Admiral of the Navy?
A.  You can’t appoint someone who does not exist, and no women existed who was in a position for such a promotion.

Q.  Well how about Secretary of War?
A.  The secretary position was by appointment of the chief executive of the nation, the President, and women not only could not be allowed to direct or lead men in matters of war, they could not lead or direct men in any federal office or position.

Q.  So natural born American females could not serve in the role of Commander-in-Chief either?
A.  Absolutely not!  That was totally unthinkable.

Q.  How about alien-born American women?  Could they lead all of the military of the United States?
A.  Neither they, nor their alien-born male counterparts, were eligible or had any right to serve as Commander-in-Chief.  That position was reserved solely for free, mature, white-born, male-born, natural born Americans who had lived in America for at least 14 years.

That was the sociological reality, and by strict constitutional construction, which is mandatory, the word “natural” still has constitutional significance which cannot be ignored or denied, and as a result no alien-born “citizen at birth” is a natural born citizen, and so neither they nor female citizens (in the context in which the sovereign States agreed to be bound by the Constitution) have yet been given the privilege to serve as President.

We need another constitutional amendment to allow that, as well as to allow the non-white to serve as President.  Society has certainly changed, as has the law and the Constitution regarding who is what and has what rights. Society today would accept just about anyone being President, but that was not the status quo within the separate-but-equal States that comprised the federation of American states when its founding charter was agreed to by three quarters of them.

In that day and age, it was inconceivable that the bastard divorced daughter of a Catholic or Islamic African slave could break every social barrier in existence and be acceptable to the People of the States of the Union as the Commander-in-Chief of free, white, Protestant men during times of war or peace.  It was not even thinkable!  What would be needed to make it thinkable?  The consent of the governed via their ratification of an amendment to the agreement that bound them together.

Today we view people differently, but our egalitarianism does not change the past, and in that past, what we would accept would not have been acceptable at all.  As it slowly became thinkable, to be made officially acceptable it would have required amending the Constitution to plainly state that it has become the law of the land that a new social order will be in effect regarding the eligibility of non-whites and women to serve as Commander-in-Chief and President.  The eligibility clause would need to be rewritten.

How about this new wording: “No person except a born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.”? That would work to allow all “citizens at birth”, including the alien-born, to serve. It would be fair and reasonable as long as they were raised in the United States as Americans. But alas, that is not yet written nor ratified, so we are left with the restriction against the alien-born foreign-stock citizens. That is too bad because it has strong implications for the legitimacy of the the current President, as well as possible future Presidents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are a few additional facts regarding the amendment process and the presidency.  The 15th Amendment was passed in 1870 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on race. The 19th Amendment was passed in 1920 and prohibited discrimination based on sex.  The 26th Amendment was passed in 1971 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on age for those of 18 to 20 years of age.

The facts we can extrapolate from those dates are that:  for 50 years after poor black ex-slave males were granted it, American natural born citizens who were female were not enfranchised with the constitutional protection of the civic right to vote.

That meant that 11 First Ladies of the United States who held their position during and after 1870 were not provided with any constitutional right to vote, -as was adjudicated in the Minor v. Happersett holding of the Supreme Court.

That was along a similar line to the Dred Scot Supreme Court holding which found that African-Americans had no constitutional right to be treated as citizens.  And, a white American woman born in 1850, two decades before Blacks were given the right to vote, did not herself possess a constitutional right to vote, (even when her freed male slave could) until she was 70 years old!!!

So as written, intended, adopted and followed: 1.  No female had a constitutional right to vote. 2. No Black person had a constitutional right to vote.  And… 3.  No person under 21 had a constitutional right to vote.

Amendments were required for all three classes of “citizens”. That inspires the question:  Where did the Constitution grant any of those first two unrecognized groups the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief? Where are the amendments allowing that?

To be constitutionally recognized as United States citizens, African-Americans needed the passage of the 14th Amendment.  Blacks needed the passage of the 15th Amendment to proclaim and protect their right to vote.  American women needed the passage of the 19th Amendment, -while quasi-minors needed the 26th. That is because all of their situations needed the consent of We, the People since they involved a gross nation-wide significant change to society (just as with Prohibition).

Ask yourself this question: Does Congress have the authority to pass a law making it legal for aliens to vote in national elections? The answer is obviously not because it would require amending the Constitution due to such a right not existing under it.

Well, as written, intended, ratified, and implemented, no female or Black was acceptable as a candidate qualified to lead men in battle, to direct them in war in any capacity, nor to command them from the highest office of the military.  That precluded them from the office of the President since that office was imbued with the authority of the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.

Free, white, male, natural born citizens had no tolerance for such an allowance, and that is why an amendment is still needed to make that allowance constitutionally grounded.  That was especially true in the South where gender and racial supremacy was very strong.

And speaking of the South, under natural law and social law in the South, as well as under constitutional law, (theirs being essentially indistinguishable from the original) did a Black transgender homosexual, or a Black butch lesbian have a right to serve as Commander of the Confederate Army? How about as President of the Confederacy? If you answer “no”, then you need to figure out whether or not the same was true of the United States and its Command-in-Chief position, and its presidency -which existed under an almost identical constitution and in a society similar to the South (except in regard to slavery).

Did either constitution even imply that such a right existed, or was it well understood by all that such a thing was totally taboo and disallowed?

Has the Law of the Land magically changed since it was written? Or does its lack of any such rights still mean that no such constitutional rights exist today?

How can they exist when they never came into law via amending the Constitution to make them protected rights? Remember, being President is not a right but is a restricted privilege. The restrictions have never been altered. Not those that were written nor those that were unwritten. So constitutional rights cannot exist if they are not constitutionally protected, -which means in writing.  Natural Rights are above and beyond and under-girding the Constitution and thus are so fundamental that there was no need to put them into writing.  But the right of females to command males and the right of blacks to command whites was never an element of historical American society.  Such a change is a fundamental change, but no corresponding change in the Constitution has accompanied it.

African-Americans and free white American women had or obtained the constitutional right to citizenship and voting, and equal protection of the law, but not to serve as commanders of white American military men.  Under the constitution when ratified, that was unthinkable.

Yet in our politically correct era, everyone simply assumes that amendments are no longer required in order to legalize major societal changes ever since passing the “Equal Rights Amendment” for women failed.

After that the Constitution was locked up and shoved deep into the basement, -out of sight, out of mind, obsolete, passe’, unneeded,… irrelevant.  We have become a nation under men instead of a nation under law.  Congress now totally ignores the Constitution and passes any damn thing it wants.  And the Supreme Court totally ignores the unique powers of Congress and writes law itself directly.

We are adrift not only without a pair of binoculars, but with a blindfold on, and the capricious ideological wishes of men have replaced the iron-clad rule of law.  How can this possibly end well?

by Adrien Nash  March 2015  obama–nation.com

 In two-column 4-page PDF format: Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President [ https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/why-no-female-black-or-alien-born-citizen-is-eligible-to-be-president6.pdf ]

United States Constitution:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enters on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

– See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2012/03/does-constitution-prohibit-women-becoming-president#sthash.zJAbfvV9.dpuf

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”.

13 Responses to Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President

  1. slcraignbc says:

    You failed to acknowledge that women did not “own” their own Citizenship until the passage of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship retention Act.

    The Doctrine of “Coverture”, applied almost universally throughout the histories of human & political societies providing for a woman’s “political” position in any given society to be that of her husbands upon marriage, regardless of what it had previously been.

    That application of the doctrine followed a woman regardless of the number of marriages she may have, however, there were numerous distinctions & differences in the application of the doctrine when the question was not of “political character” but of an “estate & inheritance” , which was the major concern of William III British Nationality Statutes and the later Queen Anne Statutes, both written to maintain the integrity of the National Character while simultaneously making numerous caveats so as to not allow the diminishing of the assets owing to the Crown.

    Also, the residual effect of the Cable Act, insofar as contemporary U.S. political interests are concerned, is that the Act incidentally provided for a theretofore legally unacknowledged form of U.S. Citizenship under U.S. Law now known as “dual-citizenship” and “dual-citizenship at birth”

    The FACT that dual-citizenship, although possible in occurrence, was not recognized for any legal purpose under U.S. Laws and that no Laws on U.S. Citizenship provided for the circumstances recognition, the form of citizenship, dual-citizen and dual-citizen at birth can be considered as ALIEN to the nature and intent of the usage of (U.S.) natural born Citizen, a term set out in the COTUS and construed under federal law.

  2. arnash says:

    You were right on the money until that final statement. “Natural born citizen” has NOT been and cannot be “construed under federal law”. It supersedes and pre-dates all federal law and opinion. Of course the courts could claim the authority to construe it but that is the last thing that they want to tackle since to do it properly and honestly would require disenfranchising millions of alien-born citizens such as many of the current presidential possibilities.

    • slcraignbc says:

      Justice Marshal declared that the COTUS IS Statutory in its construction, ergo, the use of the term of words, (State {implicit}) natural born Citizen, for a Constitutional purpose and intent, then was MADE a Constitutional STATUTORY REQUIREMENT.

      2nd, if the usage within the COTUS its self is not enough then the usage of the term of words, (State {implicit}) natural born Citizen, within the 1790 Act for the purpose of defending U.S. Citizenship for the children of U.S. Citizens born while abroad under the terms of the newly established uniform Rule of naturalization which provides that “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world”, then established the Constitutional Statutory nature of the term of words, (State {implicit}) “natural born citizen”, insofar as the enforcement of the Constitution is concerned.

      edited for accuracy.

      • slcraignbc says:

        Whoever edited for accuracy edited incorrectly;

        “(State {implicit}) ” should read (U.S. {implicit}) : Just as I do with A1S8C4; ” the Congress shall have the power to …. establish an uniform Rule of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit}) naturalization so as to reinforce the FACT that by the Statutory nature of the COTUS and ITS Laws made in pursuance thereof are separate and distinct from any historical or international Law unless and except when noted otherwise.

        The States had NO U.S. natural born Citizens as the condition did NOT exist for any specific State purpose, cause or intent prior to the Ratification of the COTUS other than under various State PROBATE Laws of which the COTUS has no voice.

  3. arnash says:

    Notification: I’ve just expanded this exposition by about a third, with additional facts and insights. The addition follows the previous ending. Next I’ll redo the pdf version.

  4. arnash says:

    You can’t grasp the truth about the union of sovereign STATES because you are infected with a Statist mind-set. Congress was authorized to write a rule of naturalization that would make State naturalization uniform across all of the individual states, thereby producing new State citizens by the same requirements and procedures.
    National citizenship essentially did not even exist unless one left the United States. Otherwise one was a natural born or naturalized citizen of the State of one’s birth or residence.

    I’m going to only say this once more, and any opposite claim will be deleted: the eligibility clause was written by and about the founders and framers, with naturalized foreign war veterans admitted out of respect and curtesy.
    The founders’ generation of State citizens from 13 semi-sovereign jurisdictions were the natural born members of those jurisdictions, i.e., STATES.
    Being a human is a “condition”? Being a natural State member is a “condition”? Being a natural State citizen by birth is a “condition”? But if there is no legal need to be a human then one is not a human? How delusional can you be?
    Some 98% of the population was composed of natural State citizens by birth, aka, born natural citizens; aka, natural born citizens.
    If you continue with the falsehood that the words of the eligibility clause are a legal term of artifice and not common English words then you will find even more of your falsehoods erased.

    • slcraignbc says:

      That is just silly……..the 1790 Act, et seq, were the ONLY means of becoming a U.S. Citizen in the 1st instant post its passage; see U.S. v Villatto, Talbot v Janson, Collet v Collet, ALL Original Jurisdiction SCOTUS Cases that made it clear, … where any State Law was in conflict with the Act of Congress on the subject of naturalization then Federal Law was controlling.

      That is, the States had every right to say who were its Citizens, but those same State Citizens were NOT U.S. Citizens unless they were naturalized under the terms of the Federal Acts.

      You argue against U.S. Law by asserting that extra-constitutional sources supersede U.S. Law which has not, does not and will not prevail in a U.S. Court of Law.

      Learn the Law and Obey it, along with supporting, protecting and defending it.

      edited for accuracy.

  5. arnash says:

    Until you read and accept THE DAVID RAMSAY DISSERTATION REVELATION you will be stuck in a Matix of false citizenship concepts. You think you understand reality but the reality that you understand is a false reality. Is that too far outside of your box for you to investigate or verify or invalidate by real facts?
    I won’t bother getting the link for you because it is very clear that you read nothing of the posts to which you pretend to be responding. Otherwise your world would have been seriously rocked by now.

    • slcraignbc says:

      I’ve read Ramsey backwards and forward and find nothing in his work that conflicts with the interpretations of the ACTUAL U.S. Laws on the subjects of U.S. Citizenship and a U.S. natural born Citizen specifically………………

      …… but show me SPECIFICALLY where you think I depart from Ramsey, Vattel or the actual U.. Laws and their intended application…………….

      ……..show me specifically, but for Gods sake quite with all the generalizations and disparagements without any SPECIFIC objection …………

      • arnash says:

        I did not say to read David Ramsay. You need to read The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation or else your bias blindness will prevent your mind from comprehending what you’ve read. I have heavily annoted his work with explanatory commentary of a nature that does not naturally come to your mind. You have no grasp of how much fundamental truth you are unaware of.

        Also, I do not argue against US law. I simply point out that unlike you imagine, it is very finite and limited, while you take a Parliamentarian view of government power and authority, all the while remaining oblivious to fundamental American organic law principles of individual rights and liberties.

      • slcraignbc says:

        You use more words to say nothing than anyone I’ve ever encountered.

        Ramsey’s Dissertation was written in 1789, prior to the Ratification of the COTUS, ergo, spoke of the Citizens of the Confederation of States in perpetual Union

        [MISTAKE # 1: YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE ABOUT CITIZENSHIP IS EASILY PERCEIVED AS SUCH BY EVEN A CHILD. RAMSAY SPOKE OF CITIZENSHIP IN A COUNTRY COMPRISED OF 13 SOVEREIGN NATIONS ALLIED AS A SINGLE PEOPLE ON THE WORLD STAGE, WITH EACH OF THOSE NATIONS HAVING ITS OWN INDEPENDENT CITIZENSHIP, AND ALL OF THOSE CITIZENS BEING VIEWED BY THE WORLD AS AMERICAN CITIZENS, -NOT “UNITED STATES” citizens, but as:
        ~citizens of the united STATES OF AMERICA.
        Your perversion of historical truth is amazing. How can one not see what is as plain as day?]

        ..and made no reference to the enumerated power at A1S8C4of the Congress under the COTUS, not to mention the Constitutional requirement that U.S. natural born Citizens must exist among the Citizen population by the requirement of A2S1C5.

        [FOLKS, WHAT THIS BONEHEAD IS SAYING IS THAT NATURAL NATIVE CITIZENS OF AMERICA DID NOT EVEN EXIST UNTIL THE ALL POWERFUL CONGRESS PASSED A RULE TO MAKE THE STATE NATURALIZATION LAWS ALL UNIFORM FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOT HAVING STATES ENGAGE IN A RACE TO THE BOTTOM IN SEEKING TO ATTRACT IMMIGRANTS BY TRUMPING THE SHORTNESS OF THEIR NEIGHBORING STATE’S MANDATORY RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT.

        THE RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT HAD TO BE UNIFORM NATION-WIDE, ALONG WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BECOME A NATURALIZED CITIZEN AFTER HAVING BEEN BORN AND RAISED AS A FOREIGNER IN EUROPE.
        SO WHAT HE IS SAYING WITHOUT OPENLY SAYING IT, IS THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FOREIGNERS AND THEIR ALIEN-BORN CHILDREN, AND AMERICANS AND THEIR CITIZEN-BORN CHILDREN EXCEPT THE BENEFICENT ALLOWANCE OF A CONGRESS THAT HAD NO AUTHORITY OVER NATURAL CITIZENS, NOR OVER FOREIGNERS SINCE IMMIGRATION REMAINED A MATTER OF THE STATES, -THE CONSTITUTION NOT EVEN MENTIONING IT, WITH NATURALIZATION CONTINUING TO BE ADMINISTERED BY STATE COURTS OF RECORD AS STATED IN THE UNIFORM RULE THAT CONGRESS WROTE.]

        However, comparing Ramsey to my position on the Constitutional Laws on the subject I find him much more aligned with me than others, such as yourself. [YOU FIND?? WHAT YOU FIND IS ONLY FOUND IN YOUR IMAGINATION.]

        Take #1 in his list of the means of acquiring ‘pre-COTUS Citizenship”. If Ramsey viewed the Declaration of Independence as a collective naturalization event would he not also see the Ratification of the COTUS in the same manner insofar as the NATIONAL CHARACTER of Citizenship becoming codified by its passage is concerned.

        Also, unlike so many others, including you, Ramsey did NOT confine the word Naturalization to a strictly ‘verb sense” as shown by making a list of five (5) distinct methods (means) of acquiring Citizenship, which when combined make up the “Ramsey Doctrine of Naturalization” [THAT IS A TERM OF YOUR OWN INVENTION!] which requires the word “naturalization” to be taken in the Noun sense. [OR NOT! DEPENDING ON HOW DETACHED FROM REAL-WORLD REALITY ONE IS.]

      • slcraignbc says:

        Just to put a fine point on your inability to know of what you speak, please re-read the narrative describing the circumstances of item 1 (one), of Ramsey’s Doctrine of Naturalization at the bottom of page four (4) into page five (5) and note the passage;

        ” As this was done by the Representatives of the people of this country, and in their name, and on their behalf, all that had concurred in investing Congress with power, acquired Citizenship, by being parties to this solemn act…”

        Parliamentarians being collectively naturalized as described by David Ramsey…………mmm,mmmm,mmmm

      • arnash says:

        David Ramsay Dissertation on Citizenship, redux PDF https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/david-ramsay-dissertation-on-citizenship-redux1.pdf

        YOU PRETEND THAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING WHAT I’VE POINTED YOU TOWARD AND YET YOU HAVE NOT READ IT AT ALL. YOU WON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT UNTIL YOU READ IT. UNTIL THEN, YOU WILL REMAIN COMFY IN YOUR SELF-CONSTRUCTED IMAGINARY WORLD MADE-UP OF IVORY TOWER CONCEPTUALIZATIONS. DO YOU REALLY WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT SMASHES THE FOUNDATION OF YOUR CONFIDENTLY HELD FAITH IN THE POWER OF ALL-MIGHTY CONGRESS.
        DON’T GET BACK TO ME UNTIL YOU’RE ACTUALLY READ THE REVELATION, WHICH WILL DEFINITELY BE A REVELATION FOR YOU.

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: