October 12, 2015 1 Comment
The Disambiguation of “natural born citizen”
The legitimacy of the authority of the man elected President is dependent on him qualifying under the requirements stated in the Constitution. He must be 35 years of age. He must have been a resident of the nation for 14 years. And he must have been born as a natural citizen.
The exact words of the Constitution make that clear in plain English but those words have been totally clouded by the presence of a term that is very similar to that used by the framers of the Constitution.
That cloudiness is the only reason that Barack Hussein Obama was allowed to be a candidate for the presidency. The similar term was that used by the British to label subjects of the British Crown, namely: natural-born subject.
That was am invented legal term (long since abandoned) and not a natural English language term.
The founders and framers of the Constitution rejected the very basis of British nationality along with the term that labeled it. They returned to the everlasting natural basis of membership, -membership in one’s family, clan, tribe, country and nation. That basis is natural belonging which is due to a blood relationship, -namely between father and child.
It was not due to the relationship between mother and child because mothers were wives, and all wives, while bound by the vow of matrimony, were essentially the property of their husband whom they had sworn to obey per the Judeo-Christian pattern of the man being the head of the family, and the wife being like an extension of him. Sort of a child he bonds with, sort of an appendage of him and his kin. Usually a younger, dependent and subservient partner.
The family was socially known by its head, and that was the husband and father. Wives were loved and respected for their values and virtues and female nature, but they were secondary elements of the man’s family, while he was the primary element. His name and his membership were naturally inherited by his sons, along with his property inheritance upon his demise.
His wife did not inherit the family estate because it traditionally went to the firstborn son who perpetuated the family name and estate through the generations (and possibly centuries). His wife was then cared for by her firstborn with no change in her station in life. That was not mandatory but it was the social pattern.
Children did not belong to their parents based on being born under their roof, nor to their country based on being born within its borders. They belonged because of their blood relationship. That relationship made then the natural children of their parents and the natural citizens of their nation.
Natural children and natural citizens needed no law to allow their natural relationship to exist. It existed in the absence of any law. Any law stating the obvious was never required because it would have merely stated a universally known, accepted, and defended fact. Children belong to their parents and to their parents’ nation. They were born that way and with that relationship. It is immutable, inviolable, incontestable, and unalienable. In other words, it was obvious and it is natural.
Natural relationships do not need to be legislated, regulated, or adjudicated in order to exist. They cannot not exist. That is why one cannot say to their child: “You are no longer my natural child.”
And similarly, that is why a nation such as the United States cannot say to its natural citizens: “You are no longer a citizen.”
All the US government can do, but dares not do, is assert that by the guidelines given by the US Supreme Court, a citizen is no longer recognized as a US citizen because his actions against his nation have been so treasonous or anti-American that his actions are evidence of his deeply held desire to reject his citizenship, a rejection which the government will accept.
Anything short of actions clearly expressing rejection of one’s American national membership cannot be used as a basis of nullifying one’s U.S. citizenship.
Congress, with its inflated sense of unlimited power, thought for four generations that it had the authority to do that anyway, until the Supreme Court slapped it down, along with the State Department and the INS, thereby nullifying the cancellation of the US citizenship of naturalized citizens who failed to maintain U.S. residency.
What the high & mighty of the U.S. Government failed to realize and recognize is the fundamental American principle of citizenship Equality. Without equality of citizenship you will have first-class citizens and second-class citizens, as is the case in other countries.
But there is one constitutional exception to that fundamental American principle, and it is in regard to the office of Command-in-Chief of the United States Military. No citizen is allowed to wield the power of that position except a natural citizen.
What is a natural citizen? It is anyone born of citizens. That statement cannot be altered and still be true. It cannot be changed to “anyone born as a U.S. citizen” Nor can it be altered to “only one born in the US to citizen parents”.
The latter illegitimately added an extraneous unnatural factor or requirement, namely the artificial, man-made factor of birth within invisible political boundaries (along with visible natural boundaries).
The former cannot be stated and be infallibly true because it is innately ambiguous, containing a second possible meaning that is totally false.
It cannot be said that anyone born with US citizenship is eligible to be President because not all persons so born are what the Constitution requires, which is that one be born not only as a citizen but as a natural citizen.
A small percentage of those born with citizenship from birth are not natural citizens but are artificial citizens made citizens by the capricious will of the government of natural citizens. They are citizens by grace, by grant, by gift, and not citizens by RIGHT.
The Constitution does not state: “No person, except a born citizen, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
The Constitution does not state: “No person, except a natural citizen, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
The Constitution does not state: “No person, except a native-born citizen, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
The Constitution does not state: “No person, except a native-born natural citizen, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
Anyone and everyone who claims that any of these statements is what the framers meant is either mistaken, delusional, brain-washed, or lying.
The flaws in those statements are due to ambiguity, legal fiction, or British law misconstrued as American law. What the Constitution actually says is:
“No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.”
To expect simply that one be a born citizen is not what the framers required because they were fully aware that there were two types of born citizens. There were those who were the beneficiaries of the continued British practice of granting national membership to the native-born children of foreign immigrants. They constituted less than three percent of births.
The others were not beneficiaries of any grant or gift of any State constitution or statute in the confederate union because they were naturally members of their father’s society and country (meaning the land of his residence and probably birth, i.e., his “state” or “commonwealth” -meaning his nation, -one of thirteen), as well as the union as a whole.
They were not citizens by allowance of law but by natural RIGHT.
They were citizens by inheritance, by right of descent.
That right did not and does not end at any border otherwise it would not be a right but an allowance of law. A right of belonging is permanent and accompanies one everywhere they go.
[does your natural child lose that relationship by crossing a border? What if your child is born across the border? Does that make him or her an adopted child, -an alien in need of government permission to enter the country and be a citizen like its parents? There are people who believe that it does.]
So the term “born citizen” is ambiguous and in need of disambiguation. That is only accomplished by adding a clarifying additional adjective, which is the word “natural”. One must be a born citizen but not one merely born with citizenship-by-law but one born as a citizen by nature, -meaning by blood relationship.
Also, it cannot be unambiguously stated that one must be a natural citizen because of the legal fiction of natural citizenship obtained by those foreigners who take the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance and are thereby natural-ized by it.
They are, under the American legal fiction, no longer foreigners but are new natural citizens and equal to all true natural citizens in every way, save one, -eligibility to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
By the oath of citizenship, foreigners are re-made, transformed into natural American citizens, because if they are not, then they are not equal to the natural citizens of the nation. They are inferior, as they are in nations like Mexico.
Mexico has a similar process to American naturalization, but it is actually merely citizen-ization since the foreigners granted citizenship are not, and cannot ever be, deemed to be either natural or native-born citizens.
Such administrative citizenship is not natural citizenship because all natural and native-born citizens of Mexico have an unalienable right to serve in the military, to become policemen, mayors, governors, legislators, judges, and President of the republic. But those who are “naturalized” do not have any such right.
But in America, all foreigners transformed into natural American citizens have the equal right to serve in every capacity in the land except that of the Commander-in-Chief. The authority of the chief commander of American power was reserved solely for those who were born as natural citizens, -not merely made into natural citizen by legal fiction.
So what kind of born citizen must the Commander of all United States military forces be? He must be a natural born citizen, or a born natural citizen. But to be perfectly clear, one must understand that being a born citizen had no limitation at all for every office of State government.
One born of foreigners, immigrants not yet naturalized, were citizens automatically by state common law and could one day serve as commander-in-chief of the State Militia by being elected governor, but that was not the case when it came to serving as Commander-in-Chief of all of the militias of the entire nation.
He had to have been born as a natural citizen, -not as a common law citizen. That meant his parents had to have been Americans. That requirement came with the flaw that his father may have become an America the day after his son was born, and therefore his son would have been forever disenfranchised from the privilege to ever serve as or dream of serving as President, even though all of his younger brothers would have been eligible.
See the conundrum created by the constitutional requirement when put into practice?
The framers had no such thought in mind when they wrote and adopted the presidential eligibility requirement, nor did they have in mind the infinitesimally small number of natural citizens who might be born abroad.
But in the first Congress they sought to remedy their lack of clarity by declaring that all children of Americans born abroad shall be considered as natural born citizens. Not just citizens of the United States, but natural born citizens.
That related to nothing connected to merely being a citizen but served to put all ignorant government officers on notice that the era of being a “natural-born subject” was over since it was based purely on one’s birth place being within the King’s dominion, but America rejected that entire system and embraced instead only natural citizenship.
By America I do not mean the States of the Union but the Federal Government which included the Foreign Ministry, which later became the Department of State. It did not recognize native-birth citizenship as did the British and the States. It recognized only natural citizenship, as evident in the first “uniform rule of naturalization” which indicated just that.
It stated that the children of a naturalized father were also considered to be US citizens if dwelling in the United States. It did not say that they were citizens already if born in the United States because it considered them to be natural citizens of their father’s foreign homeland.
That totally avoided the rejected conflict of the despised dual-citizenship, which was accompanied by dual allegiance, dual responsibility, dual loyalty, and required obedience to two governments. That was considered insane and a form of national bigamy.
So the Federal Government rejected it, as did the British but on an entirely different basis.
The first Congress made it clear that the right of foreign-born Americans was not to be infringed or abridged based on non-native birth because they were also natural citizens by the same principle as their native-born brethren, and siblings.
That statement was intended to protect their unalienable natural right to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief since it had no connection to any other matter of citizenship.
But again, a conundrum resulted from that policy and constitutional position. Reality made it very problematic and that is because of naturalization.
Large numbers of foreigners emigrated to America and as soon as they were able, they became American citizens, -citizens who could and did vote. That meant they then had influence over elections and their view mattered to politicians. So let’s do the math.
The number of foreign-born American sons probably could have been counted on one or two hands. The number of native-born foreigner-fathered State citizens who via their State citizenship were considered citizens of the Union, was perhaps ten thousand to one by comparison. So for each father of a foreign-born natural American child there were maybe 10,000 immigrant citizen fathers. Gee, I wonder which group had the greatest political influence?
That influence lead to the Congress of 1795 dropping the recognition of foreign-born American children as being natural born citizens and replacing it with their recognition as being what the children of naturalized fathers were, namely “citizens of the United States”.
They removed the issue of presidential eligibility from the naturalization statute and by removing it, it became possible to ignore what had been written by the first Congress and to instead pretend and imagine and believe that native-born, alien-born children were somehow, someway magically also natural born citizens just like those born of citizens.
That was a major obfuscation of the issue, making it possible to believe whatever one chose to. The result was widespread presumption and disagreement based on one’s presumption. The presumptions were never resolved by any authority since there was never a case that required that they be resolved, and no one had any sense that they needed to be resolved although they were aware of the disparity in views.
And that is why we are where we are still today. Only today it would be almost impossible to legally get to the truth of the matter because nothing that you’ve read in this exposition is known in the legal field because it is not taught since it is not law but merely history. And it is history that is very old, arcane, contrary to modern views, outdated, politically incorrect and almost totally forgotten.
An example of that is the fact that originally, and for over a century, women had no citizenship of their own. [google the title “A Nationality of Her Own” and it will take you to an amazing exposition on the history of how American women came to finally be allowed to retain the citizenship of her fathers and not have it eliminated in favor of the nationality of one’s foreign husband.]
When a foreign woman married an American man, she was thereby considered to also be an American since she was under his wing, a part of him, his property, and they, being one, could not be two nor have two nationalities. She was what he was. Her new name was his name. Politically she became like his shadow. One’s shadow can’t be separate or separated from one’s self.
That long-gone political reality is unknown to the minds of today, as is a whole lot more, especially the knowledge of what natural citizenship is and the fundamental American doctrine following Natural Law and its principle of natural membership, namely, citizenship by unalienable right.
by Adrien Nash Oct. 2015 obama–nation.com
Jan. 1. 2016: an addendum recap:
“Natural born citizen” is a term containing three differentiations, with the first being related to “citizen”. The President must be a citizen (of one of the states of the union) as apposed to being a foreigner.
The next differentiation is that he must not only be a citizen but he must be born with citizenship, a born citizen, as apposed to being a naturalized citizen by the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance.
Thirdly, he must be more than just a born citizen, he must be a particular kind of born citizen, and that kind is “natural“. That means he must be a citizen from birth automatically and without the need of any government permission, i.e., any law, statute, amendment, or constitutional clause. As a natural citizen, one is the off-spring of citizens and is born as the reflection and replacement of one’s American parents.
That form of citizenship is primal, innate, inviolate, a prior, generational, -the product of an unalienable right, -the right of national membership by descent, by blood, by inheritance, by birthright, by natural relationship to citizen parents.
By contrast, the opposite type of born citizen acquires citizenship not by blood connection but by the allowance of law, by permission, by legal custom, by British common law made American statutory law by the States, then made national law in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and in 1868 by the 14th Amendment citizenship clause which was affirmed but not defined by the US Supreme Court in 1898 in the Wong opinion.
Legal citizens are not natural citizens, and natural citizens are not, and never have been, “legal” citizens or citizens by the function of law. Nothing resulting from law is natural. It is all man-made, artificial, contrived, produced, invented, and requiring the permission or allowance of government.
To make the point even more clear, suppose that the Hollywood Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences was due to select a new President. But to make things even simpler, let’s make it the Screen Actors Guild. Their by-laws would require something similar to what the Constitution requires of the U.S. President.
They would require that first he or she be a star, but even athletes can be stars, so it has to be more specific. The candidate must be a movie star. But there’s still a problem with that that needs further differentiation, and that is because there are three movie industries; documentaries, big-screen movies for theaters, and pornography movies for home sales or rentals.
One could be a huge porn movie star but such a movie star is not acceptable, one must be something else, -a big-screen movie star. Similarly, a born citizen is not enough to qualify one to be President, one must be a natural born citizen, or a born natural citizen, similar to a natural born leader, or a born natural leader.
A born leader and a natural leader are one and the same, but not so with “natural citizen” and “born citizen” because there are artificial versions of each, and they are the product of law or legal fiction, -not nature, -not natural membership or inclusion.
They have no natural right to national membership because they were alien-born as foreigners and not as natural Americans, being instead natural members of their parents foreign national group.
The reason that even a “natural citizen” alone can’t be President is because all citizens are deemed to be natural citizens as a fundamental American legal fiction. It follows the inclusiveness and equality of what one becomes via legal fiction when one is natural-ized.