Presidential Eligibility and Citizenship by Natural Right

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–

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.


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”.

One Response to Presidential Eligibility and Citizenship by Natural Right

  1. slcraignbc says:

    An “Apologetic” on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen

    The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”.i.e., ” … 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 President;..”

    The “definition”, or the means to identify a “natural born Citizen”, is currently ASSUMED to be “ambiguous”, and that ambiguity creates a “legal-loop-hole” that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship. [excluding naturalized citizens]

    The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence of the assumption is astounding given that immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress, in March of 1790, expressed the “attendant circumstances” required to be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth within the Constitutionally mandated plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization at A1S8C4.

    [Nash notes that the congressional authority to write a uniform rule of naturalization for the States to universally adopt was not in regard to “U.S. Citizenship” but State citizenship which made one a member of the nation also due to the union of the States and Article IV, Section 1 (Full faith and credit).]

    Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of “citizenship” requires a primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship can be identified.

    ALL “citizens” are “made” in the 1st instant, without which there can be no “natural” perpetuation of citizenship. (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II). [Nash notes: All citizens are NOT “made” since made implies manufactured by man rather than by natural inheritance. And Aristotle is irrelevant to nationality determination in the United States.]

    In order for “natural perpetuation” to occur its acknowledgement must be provided for within the particular society, whether by “doctrine” or “private law decrees”.

    The “attendant circumstances” of the acquisition of citizenship must be identifiable for notable legal purposes.

    Now, let’s see how this plays out under the Constitution in regard to the acknowledgement of U.S. natural born Citizens.

    The Preamble to the Constitution says, in parts pertinent to the subject, ;

    ” … We the people of the United States, in order to … secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” …

    … which implies that those persons, being existing citizens of the various States, then considered themselves as being the “Citizens” referred to within the document establishing this new nation among the nations of the world, ergo, the Ratification served to “collectively naturalize” those Founding Generation State Citizens as U.S. Citizens for all Constitutional purposes and intents.

    (Or it could be said that the Preamble was an “oath” given as a “self-naturalizing” ceremony called the Ratification”)
    [NASH notes: You have no concept of what the term “naturalization” even means or implies. That is why you err in your understanding of the subject. Your warped view claims that they naturalized themselves into new natural citizens of the new nation. THAT IS FALSE. There was no requirement AT ALL that they be natural citizens of the new nation. They could not avoid being that which they were born as, which was natural citizens of their own colony, -which later became a sovereign independent nation. They were natural born citizens by birth to citizens of the colonies, so all talk about being natural born citizens of “The United States” is pure unnecessary fantasy. Their national citizenship was essentially irrelevant unless they traveled abroad and required Travel Papers from the American Foreign Ministry.]

    Within the COTUS, at A1S8C4 of the ENUMERATED POWERS sections, it says; … ” …. The Congress shall have power … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States; ”
    [That is a false quote. The last clause is not connected at all to the first clause but only to the second clause (laws on bankruptcy).]

    As noted above the 1st instant U.S. Citizens were “made” upon Ratification, so this provision is meant to deal with the perpetuation of citizenship, at birth, ( aka, our posterity), or otherwise, ( aka, naturalization).

    Before looking into the 1st Act of Congress under this Clause it is necessary to consider the additional requirement placed on the Congress by the Article II Section I Clause V which REQUIRES the existence of U.S. natural born Citizens [THAT IS A LIE! “U.S.” IS NOT A PART OF THAT CLAUSE, -which requires NOTHING of Congress] and to be identifiable beyond the Founding Generation of the body politic of the newly formed U.S.A. and that they MUST be identifiable as being distinct from a “(U.S.) citizen”

    By this Constitutional provision such a form of Citizenship, therein identified as a natural born Citizen, MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied, ergo, the Congress is obligated to provide for their existence within any uniform Rule the Congress might devise.

    [Nash notes: THAT IS WICKEDLY FALSE! YOU ARE A MORON TO CONFLATE NATURAL CITIZENS WITH NATURALIZED FOREIGNERS! No natural citizen has any connection to naturalization or a uniform rule regarding it unless one fathers a child born abroad who needs his right to serve as President protected, which the first naturalization act did provide.]

    In March of 1790 the Congress did establish an uniform rule of naturalization as applied within the processes of naturalizing foreign persons.

    That established “uniform Rule” can be characterized as being; “Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.” (slc) as construed from the three pertinent parts of the 276 word Act, numbered here for ease of analysis;

    [ Nash notes: that wording is incorrect since children of naturalized men were NOT considered US citizens unless they were “dwelling within the United States”.]

    (1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

    (2) And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:

    (3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

    The MOST important of the three (3) provisions is the third (3rd) which ESTABLISHES the “right of Citizenship” as a “doctrine” being attached to any and all persons who ARE U.S. Citizens, at birth or otherwise.
    [Nash notes: that is patently false as written because it includes adults who are naturalized. They have no RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP, -only their children have that right because of what he deliberately avoided including in the quote, which is the word “descend”. The RIGHT to Citizenship ONLY “descends” to children of American citizens; NOT to anyone else. No one has a right of citizenship except those have inherited it from their citizen father, or in today’s world, father and mother.]

    The 1st provision makes the Right of Citizenship” effective at the moment that a person becomes a U.S. Citizenship and affects the minor children of that new U.S. Citizen, naturalizing them concurrent with the father.
    [Nash notes: that is incorrect. The children are a natural reflection and continuation of the father, being members of whatever group he is a member of. They are not “naturalized” in the philosophical sense since they automatically are/ were, what he was, and if he was an American, then so were they because they could not be anything other than what he was.]

    In the 1st provision above, the existing “minor children present” are “naturalized” concurrent with the parent (father), regardless of their status at birth.

    In the 2nd provision a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father is born as a U.S. natural born Citizen anywhere in the world.

    Although many will say that the provision ONLY addresses those children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. I suggest that it takes a specious interpretation to say that while children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. that the children born within the limits of the U.S. are not also being born as U.S. natural born Citizens.

    Consider a moment the newly naturalized Father takes his wife’s hand, who is now also “considered as” a U.S. Citizen under the matrimonial doctrine of coverture, and walks directly to the midwife’s house where the wife immediately gives birth to a child. That child is born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S.. Is THAT child NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen?

    So the 2nd provision needs to be looked at a bit closer in order to see if clarity can be found in it’s existing language.

    To be entirely clear and legally precise on this point consider, within the statutory construction of the “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision the words “considered as” are used. That term of words, identified in the rules of grammatical syntax, is known as a “comparative adjective”, which then requires a “counter part” by which to compare the “subject” that is being addressed. Under the specific attendant circumstances the only counter part available would be those children born anywhere except “out of the limits of the U.S.”, which leaves the only other “place” of birth to be “within the limits of the U.S.”


    The words “considered as” are, in that combination, known as a “comparative adjective” under the rules of grammatical syntax, which requires that a counter part to the subject must exist, that is comparable within the context, purpose and intent of the provision, in order for the subject to be compared to something other than its-self.
    [NASH notes: the wording contains NO COMPARISON AT ALL. It simply states the national membership type that all officers of all governments in America related to presidential eligibility must consider the foreign-born to possess, the type being natural citizenship by birth and from birth.]

    The subject of the provision is the “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen, therefore the only plausible “counterpart” in light of the “right of Citizenship” and its self actuating function, would be the children born to U.S. Citizen parents “within the limits” of the U.S..

    This interpretation of the statutory construction of the 1790 Act is vindicated by the 1795 Act which repealed and replaced the 1790 “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen Provision and thereafter LIMITING where a U.S. natural born Citizen may be born, i.e., within the limits of the U.S.

    [NASH notes: THAT IS A BRAIN-DEAD LIE! It limited NOTHING! If the Secretary of the Navy speaks of a Navy Seal in one article but in the next speaks of him as a sailor, or member of the Navy, does that make the person no longer a Navy Seal? How stupid do you have to be to think that being a “citizen of the United States means that one is therefore definitely not a natural born citizen??? But adding stupidity to falsity, it is a lie that Congress was endowed with any authority to make or unmake natural citizens. They are not made by Congress and cannot be unmade by it. They are NATURAL Americans and Congress is irrelevant to that status.]

    Therefore, those “foreign born” “considered as” were in FACT the “counterparts” to those who were being born “within the limits of the U.S.” unambiguously born as U.S. natural born Citizens.

    The perpetuation of U.S. natural born Citizens continued uninterrupted under those attendant circumstances, being born to the legal wife of a U.S. Citizen father within the limits of the U.S., until the passage of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship Retention Act.

    This Act abrogated the ancient matrimonial doctrine of coverture” completely under U.S. Law, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned. (Any residual effects of the doctrine of coverture are confined to the concerns of probate and or “parental rights”)

    The effect of the Act was to establish a new form of U.S. Citizenship that could not previously exist, that is, “dual-citizenship at birth”.

    Prior to the Act a woman was considered as the SAME Citizenship as the husband from the moment that the marriage became “legal”, regardless of her previous citizenship status.

    After the Act the woman RETAINS her own Citizenship regardless of what her new husband’s Citizenship is,

    Under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation AND Judicial reconciliation of conflicting laws, it is required to preserve the desired effects of each law and to impose the least destructive reconciliation in the process.

    In this instant, where the Constitution REQUIRES the existence of natural born Citizens in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied and where U.S. natural born Citizens are acknowledged as being the result of a specific set of attendant circumstances, the lest destructive reconciliation to impose in light of the intents of the 1922 Cable Act is to require that BOTH parents be U.S. Citizens INDEPENDENT of each other’s citizenship in order to produce the effect of giving birth to a natural born Citizen.

    This then IS all that needs be known, insofar as the LAW is concerned, on the subject of an American natural born Citizen, and all other considerations only add to the AMBIGUITY which this proposition of Constitutional Law seeks to undo.

    {* Apologetic:adj.; of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious / political doctrine.}

    edited for accuracy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: