Why All the Experts Misconstrue “natural born citizen”
January 15, 2016 1 Comment
The subject of the definition of the Constitution’s term “natural born citizen” (which is in regard to who is allowed to be President) is one that puts people in one of two camps. One is the camp of the knowing, the convinced, the certain, while the other is the camp of the confused, confounded, uninformed and misinformed,- in which terms are conflated and concepts lack coherent principles. Obviously those in that camp need to work their way into the other camp. But the fact is that that is not the solution to fixing the problem of wide-spread misconceptions and failure to discover the truth.
The other camp has the same need but in reverse (its certainty and knowledge are misguided certainty and false knowledge) and that is because everyone (essentially) in that camp holds to opinions that are inherently erroneous. All of them contain major fallacies and forms of philosophical treason to the principles of American Organic Law. That is the case due to:
conflating things that should not be conflated, (“citizen” with “natural born citizen”; “natural-born subject” with “natural born citizen”; immigrant with non-immigrant, legal immigrant with illegal immigrant, etc.)
-due to factual errors and conceptual errors; aka, false doctrines,
-due to the failure to maintain inerrant, flawless logic,
-due to personal bias that goes unrecognized and unacknowledged,
-due to ambiguity and choosing the wrong view of two very different views, one of which is completely overlooked while the one embraced is invisibly treasonous,
-and due to “drinking the Kool-Aid” of respected but ignorant authorities of the present and the past, including the distant past, who made the very same sorts of errors because of their training in British law (virtually indoctrination in British concepts of nationality, along with its impact on and presence in State law, -which was opposed to national law and federal government principles of nationality.
The honest researchers’ understanding of the meaning of “natural born citizen” truly is reflective of the same mentally perplexing situation as that created by international Communism under the Soviet Union -which Churchill described as “a mystery wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma”, and that situation is due to the reasons stated above. It is riddled with invisible error, false logic, erroneous presumption, and personal bias.
Once I awakened in the morning and heard a faint hum. I listened to make sure I was hearing it, and sure enough it was very real. I wondered what was turned on and making that hum. I realized that nothing was turned on and making the hum. So I plugged my ears with my fingers and still heard the hum. I then knew that what I heard was coming from inside my own head.
People who express total certainty about the meaning of “natural born citizen” are hearing a clear “truth”; they know they are hearing it loud and clear, it’s very real to them, but what they are hearing is inside their own head. It is not a real truth that exists outside of their own dogmatic thought process. It is internal “truth” and not actual truth. But they have no comprehension that that is even possible. Like Mark Twain said: “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”
Anyone and everyone who boldly asserts that Barack Obama, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindhal definitely are or are not natural born citizens has revealed that they, like everyone else, are still ignorant of the principle involved in determining who is and who is not a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be President of the United States.
As big a factor in their erroneous understanding as is their lack of real-world historical insight are the absorbed errors promulgated by self-appointed experts who have credentials or titles after their name but who are, or were, incapable of avoiding unrecognized erroneous presumptions. Presumptions may not necessarily lead to error, but in this matter, they definitely do and definitely have.
That is because they have misconceived the nature of the term, as well as the significance of the words that comprise it. As all are aware, if there is more than one explanation and understanding of both, then someone is misconstruing something and thus arriving at the wrong explanation. What you need to bear in mind is the very real possibility that not only can all but one of the offered views be wrong, but also all views in the public discussion can be wrong. And unfortunately, that is exactly the case.
It is just like a party of campers who have left the trail and become lost. There may be multiple opinions as to which direction will lead back to their camp, but all of them could be wrong, and that can happen when they have advanced a long way from the trail. The trail represents the way to the origin of their journey.
They knew exactly where they were when they were on it, but their knowledge and certainty of where they were after leaving it became, as time passed, more and more likely to be erroneous. And that is exactly what has happened with the American understanding of citizenship. Those who have “learned the truth” from “expert” pundits and legal scholars believe one of five things about the term (none of which can be found anywhere in any law or final legal opinion of the high court):
- it means one born in the United States,
- one born in the United States having parents who are legally present in the country, whether citizen or legal immigrant
- it means one born in the United States of parents who are both Americans,
- it means one born having at least one American parent who has lived in the U.S.
- it means one born in the United States or born abroad having at least one American parent who has lived in the U.S.
What none of them acknowledge is that their view might be wrong, or that they all might be wrong, or that any other possible views even exist, or that any statesmen of the past might have held an erroneous view. But they did, and some of them had great influence, so great in fact that they set their belief as the official policy of the United States government.
Then, once an error has become institutionalized by the government, (and consequently in the minds of Americans as well) it is as if it were written in stone and is perceived as “the law of the land” when it is merely the presumption of the land, -the policy of the land, and is based on nothing more than an “interpretation” of an appointed official, -in this case, the Attorney General of the United States in 1898 (“birthright citizenship”).
But in addition to that there is also the flawed logic and biased view of Leo Donofrio and Mario Apuzzo, -a view which has become a sort of Golden Truth extracted from an ancient cave of wisdom, -one so appealing that I myself was its disciple for around two full years.
What all of the “experts” have in common is that they fail to ask a simple question: “what is the nature of the term? Is it like everything else that everyone says everyday? Is it like: “My natural born son is a natural born leader.”? Is it simply based on the meaning of words (the English language), or is it based on an obscure, arcane legal fiction found only in a sub-basement closet of ancient British common law?” And a second question of a similar nature: “why can’t the words of the term mean what the words mean instead of not meaning what they mean?”; or: “why can’t the word “natural” have its natural meaning in relationship to the noun: ‘citizen’?”
Another thing that everyone with an opinion has in common is the belief, the certainty, that their belief is fact and not theory, -not simply an opinion. They present their “knowledge” as though it is settled by the particular elements of history that they have embraced as being determinative, and dismiss opposing opinions as not factual because of the omission of something or addition of something.
Why do the minds of men make such inflexible judgements that can’t be shaken? Because of two things; the mind likes short-cuts, keeping things simple, -taking the shortest path to a conclusion. . We are more inclined to say “the artic” or “antartica” than to say “the arctic” or “antarctica”; febuary instead of february, or libary instead of library. And we don’t easily adapt to strange foreign words and names, such as Medvedev. We have a natural inclination and it does not favor complexity.
Also, we tend to jump right to a conclusion, -bridging a gap via making a “logical leap” of presumption. Human egos think, and like to think, that their judgements are almost always right so therefore they can rely on them almost all of the time, and thus they do, including their judgement of the meaning of the term “natural born citizen”.
The honest mind is simply looking for the truth, the actual truth, not its doppelganger. The non-honest mind is looking for verification of its embraced belief, or for the simplest explanation, or for the “wisdom” and “knowledge” of a respectable “authority figure” (even while an equal figure debunks the first one’s “facts” as being nothing but bad opinion).
Not long ago a fascinating psychological study was conducted. It found that of all of the groups in society, the one with the most dogmatic mind-set was not the simpleton but the scientist. The scientist absolutely “knew” with inflexible certainty whatever it was that he “knew”, even in the face of absolute opposition.
Well, second to them must be doctors and lawyers, but especially lawyers since law does not involve things like microbiology and all that is unknown about “life”. Lawyers are the sources of all of the nbc errors, and can you guess what realm they live in? That’s right. The legal realm, -exclusively.
The non-honest mind, not formed with an unswerving compass needle always pointing toward the truth, -whatever it might be and nothing else, is not seeking the truth but seeking certainty. That defect is because of flawed human nature, -a nature seeking simplicity due to the inability to process complexity, or seeking a preferred “truth” which includes desired elements or excludes undesired elements.
That attitude results in “confirmation bias” regarding what is desired, and bias blindness regarding what is objectionable. You can’t get a biased mind to accept what it rejects but it will embrace what pleases it without regard to its truthfulness. And so O.J. Simpson is found “not guilty”.
The only way to find one’s way back to the original real-world, principle-based truth is either by reading the many expositions that have resulted from my long, confounding, universally opposed, and intellectually arduous journey back to the origins of many branches of one great river, or to read the dissertation of Dr. David Ramsay, a founding father and historian I discovered after finally arriving at the full truth myself, who spelled out the facts and truth about American citizenship like no one else has ever done, -nor could do since they would not have had his real-world perspective.
It can be found here: The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-david-ramsay-dissertation-revelation/ (repeated at bottom)
The many errors (that have marred understanding of the meaning of what a natural born citizen truthfully is) all sound pretty good, quite reasonable, even very patriotic, and yet none of them can hold up to the scrutiny of fact and logic. They all crumble and fall due to inherent flaws and misconceptions that are very, very slight in size but very gigantic in importance.
They seem minuscule, but the import of what they convey can result in the saving or destroying of the nation in a worse-case scenario. So let’s examine and dissect the errors in order to reveal the simple, but potentially complicated, truth.
All of the pundits begin with not comprehending that the meanings of the words themselves determine the nature of the aggregate term. That results in two unseen but huge conceptual errors which immediately lead one away from the path to the truth.
They are: 1. the false assumption that the words in aggregate do not mean what they say but (2.) are instead an Americanized version of a British-born term of legal artifice, an invented term created to define all persons who were full subjects of the Crown of Great Britain.
They claim that the American term is the off-spring of the British term, with both being a “term of art”, but the reason that the British term (natural-born subject) must be accepted as “a term of art” is because that is what it was born as under the bastardization of British nationality principles that had to occur in order to bring into the sphere of British law a nation of people who were not English. They were the Scots. They had something that the British at the time lacked, and that was a monarch.
The queen had died without an heir so England was leaderless and needed to find a royal monarch to rule them. They choose the king of Scotland. But the Scots found they had a distinct disadvantage as English law forbade all foreigners from inheriting English property, so the question arose in England as to whether the Scots, their new brethren, were subject to that prohibition or not.
The wise judgement of the court in the case (the “Calvin case, 1608”) was to claim that although they were foreigners in reality, they were also subjects of the British king, who happened to be their king first, so as his subjects they were covered by the laws of his kingdoms, and could therefore inherit British property even though they were not British born (which they “naturally” were only if born after his ascension to the British throne).
In order to make all subjects of the two crowns of one single and equal designation and derivation, the new term “natural-born subject” was coined and it meant those who were actual natural Englishman-fathered subjects, as well as those who were foreigner-fathered (whether by Scotsmen or Frenchmen or whoever) but were native-born subjects; -and eventually it was also applied to those who were naturalized by Parliament and those born of British parents abroad. [note: it was abandoned altogether a long time ago]
So, since in the case of Britain it covered four distinctly different situations, the term definitely was a legal “term of art” meaning legal artifice (an artificiality) or legal fiction. But that was not the case in the colonies after they had become 13 independent nations and formed a new central government under the instrument of the U.S. Constitution.
Since the new nation had no royal human sovereign there was no desire, willingness or acceptance among the newly-elected national leaders of making the native-born children of aliens into American citizens at birth while their father, the head of the family, remained an alien tied by allegiance to a foreign royal dictator, meaning, in other words, most likely either a “natural-born subject” of the British king or a natural subject of the French king.
The founders utterly rejected Americans having citizenship in another nation as such children would have under the British system, and in fact that was even impossible because the term citizen could not define the people of any other nationality on Earth since they were all subjects of monarchs.
One could not be a full-blooded American and also, as a subject, owe allegiance to a despised and possibly hostile European King. One could not be both an American and something else; not as an adult and not as a baby or minor child of a foreign father.
So those who devised the liberty-principles of the revolution and independence declaration (and latter crafted a new national government) adopted the term “citizen” in the context of what being an American meant; and they employed “natural born citizen” in the context of who they would allow to command all the power of the American Army and Navy.
No one with split, dual, divided allegiance, and possible foreign devotion, could be handed the reins of ultimate power. That was deemed to not be wise, and indeed to even be unwise. So it was prohibited via the language of the eligibility clause: “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;” …(+ 35 years of age and 14 years a resident)
Allow me to re-order the elements of that clause in order to emphasize a vital point: “NO PERSON shall be eligible to the office of the President… EXCEPT… a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution…or a natural born citizen.”
Why present that re-order of the clause? Because of what is in the minds of way too many people. I heard Rush Limbaugh today exasperated at the assertion that Ted Cruz is not an American citizen and therefore is not eligible to be President since he was foreign-born. “HE IS A CITIZEN!!!” he exclaimed in vexation. Then he proceeded to conflate without differentiation the term “citizen” with the actual questioning about Ted Cruz which was whether or not he is a natural born citizen. As if there is no difference at all.
Well, reading the re-ordered version of the eligibility clause, one can see that in order for a “citizen” to be President he had to have been alive at the time the Constitution was adopted. (in May of 1788) That tells us plainly that no “citizen” shall be eligible today. So what is a citizen as apposed to a natural born citizen?
A citizen of “the united STATES of America” (see the original hand-written version of the Declaration of Independence) was a member of any of the States of the future nation, -a member who had citizenship but was not “a natural born citizen” of his State nor the confederation of which his State was a member, -meaning one who was born of foreigners and not of Americans.
In the eyes of the central government established under the Constitution, the children of foreign fathers, (whether foreign-born or native-born) -like their foreign immigrant fathers, were born of foreigners and thus were foreigners also just like their fathers regardless of the States conferring State citizenship upon all of their immigrants’ native-born children. Those alien-born American children grew up totally equal to the Americans’ citizen-born children, (the natural citizens of each of the 13 countries of America).
So we have two different terms and two different types of citizens; -those who were natural citizens by birth and those who were not but instead were State citizens from birth by State law. But in the fog of confusion and ignorance that followed having two separate but equal jurisdictions over citizenship (State and Federal) as well as two separate concepts of the term used to limit access to the presidency, two different spellings were used which carried very different meanings. I speak of the presence or absence of a hyphen.
That factor by itself reveals that we are dealing with two entirely different concepts and they are of such importance that they must be understood in order to not become lost in a parallel legal conceptualization that does not reflect the meaning and intent in the minds of the founders & framers.
The difference is seen in a few terms that illuminate the situation: natural-born noble, natural-born infant, natural-born leader, and natural-born subject. The latter is distinctly different from the first three because it describes four different types of origins of subjects resulting from four different circumstances. The first three describe only one thing, not two or more.
A “natural-born noble” is one who was born of noble parents, not made into a noble by decree of the king. “Natural-born” in such cases is like a self-reinforcing redundant Siamese-twin adjective pairing. Both words refer to the same circumstance; the process of pro-creation and birth, while “a natural-born infant” refers to a baby born naturally and not by Cesarean section.
A national Lamaze organization might produce a national campaign featuring an adorable baby as the face of the movement, and require that applicants for that role must have delivered “a natural-born infant” without resort to a spinal pain-killer or surgery.
In such instances as those, the hyphen links the two adjectives together, and together they mean only one thing, unlike the British term which meant four things, making it literally a term of legal artifice. It’s individual adjectives; “natural” and “born”, did not carry their individual meaning.
To fully understand the difference between “citizen”, “natural-born citizen”, and “natural born citizen” (sans hyphen) we need to illuminate the significance of each of the three words that determine eligibility by discovering the simple and related meanings to each of its words.
It is folly and ignorance to conflate the term “subject” with the term “citizen” because they are very different, just as are “natural-born subject” and “natural born citizen” (sans hyphen).
A “subject” is a person who is not self-governed via the establishment of a democracy or democratic republican form of government, but instead is royalty-ruled or dictator-ruled and possibly owned.
The founders borrowed the term “citizen” from the ancients, the Greeks and Romans, –not from the British. The only “citizens” that existed under the European monarchs were the inhabitants of cities who had voting rights for choosing their local leaders and how their municipality would be governed.
But none existed at the national level since no one had the right to vote on who would be king. The King was king by royal blood and ruled “legitimately” by the principles of “the Divine Right of Kings”, with such “rights” claimed to be almost unlimited.
That system was totally trashed with the evolution in American thinking about the nature of their national identity. That ended their subservient assigned role of servants of the British government and King. That brought into being their status as free, self-governing human beings as they had essentially been from the founding of each colony, but which was stomped on by the power of the British government when the colonists rebelled at taxation without representation, (and many other grievous insults) as was their right as human beings and British subjects.
All that is illuminating but inadequate to understand what a citizen truly is. We tend to think of citizenship as something real. Almost like it is tangible, but it is in fact purely conceptual. And what concept is it based on? Only one: membership.
A wise American statesmen once said that citizenship is nothing other than membership in a nation, so to understand that, we need to understand the nature of membership.
The Honorable Chief Justice Waite, in one citizenship case, delivered the opinion of the Court, writing:
‘Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights.’
On what model is the nature of our membership based? The answer is very simple since it is based on the most fundamental model in existence: the family. We all come into the world as a member of a family (if our parents followed the ancient foundation of all societies and took sacred vows of fidelity to each other before clergy or clerk).
As we are natural members of our own family by blood, so also we are natural members of our nation by blood, and that is because of intrinsic relatedness. We are a member of our family and our family is a part of our community, it is a family-member of a larger family, just as our community is a part of our State, (an even larger family) which is a part of our nation, the largest family grouping of all. Together we are all singled out as members of our nation, Americans, by the other peoples of the world. We are Americans no matter what we look like individually.
So our American citizenship is nothing other than national membership in a national family, and for 97% of us that membership’s origin is based on our blood relationship to American parents through whom we entered the world as members of their national family because all Americans are born with the right of citizenship by descent, and are not dependent on obligatory government permission dispensed according to its own criteria (such as birth place).
That is the truth for 97% of us, but is not the truth for the rest. Their national membership is 100% dependent on the permission of government policy, statutory law, or the 14th Amendment.
The problem is that all four forms of membership are called citizenship, and citizens via two of them go by the same designation: “born citizen”, or citizen at birth, -two completely different origins of citizenship but with one term to describe them, -a situation identical to British-born children receiving the same label (“natural-born subject”) as alien-born native children.
That is not a problem because… they are indistinguishable throughout all of American life so there is no need to differentiate between them, -until… someone from one of the two groups runs for President. Then, and only then, differentiation becomes mandatory. A fine hair must then be split, but in fact it is a very fat hair and is easily split.
One group of born citizens is those born of aliens, foreigners, non-Americans, (“the Foreign stock”) while the other is born of citizens, Americans, members of the nation. The former group obtained the blessing of citizenship by the permission of the 14th Amendment, while the latter group did not obtain citizenship at all. How so?
They were born being citizens by nature because they inherited no other national identity. They are the natural members of the nation and are citizens by right, not by permission, not by law, not by the policy of the government nor the opinions of justices of the Supreme Court. Their forefathers were the ones who founded the nation of which they are the natural members, -or their forefathers were later immigrants who became new natural citizens via natural-ization.
Natural-ization is an ancient concept inherited from the British, who may have inherited it from the Romans, and so on. It means to make a foreigner into a new natural member of the national group as a form of legal fiction, in order to guarantee the new citizen full and equal rights with all of the natural citizens who were born of citizens, aka, citizen-born or citizen-fathered, rather than alien-born or alien-fathered.
Now here’s where things get really dicey and form an irreconcilable controversy: just as foreigners who natural-ize are not true natural citizens but are considered such only by legal fiction, so also the children born of foreigners (non-citizens / aliens) are also “natural citizens” by legal fiction, –not by birth.
To repeat; just as those who become new “natural citizens” via the solemn natural-izing oath of Renunciation & Allegiance are not natural citizens by birth, so also the native-born children of alien immigrants (who are not natural-ized) are not natural citizens either since they are not the product of American parents.
Where they are born is only relevant to whether or not they are deemed to be “citizens” by the permission of U.S. law, with native-birth being requisite per common law and the 14th Amendment. It is not relevant to whether or not they are true natural citizens since they are purely fictional natural citizens although born within U.S. sovereignty.
The Constitution does not require merely that one must not only be a “citizen” but must also be a citizen born with citizenship, (an ambiguous “born citizen”) and it altogether avoids creating the “born citizen” ambiguity by avoiding the use of both the term “born citizen” and the term “native-born”.
The framers deliberately avoided stating that “No person except a native-born citizen shall be eligible…”) because they wanted to reject it and the ambiguity of requiring merely “a born citizen” or “citizen from birth”.
But the facts didn’t sink in to those raised in and stuck in the common law environment of the Colonies, -all of which allowed native-birth citizenship for the off-spring of their valued immigrants. So the thinking of many such men, even when they were placed in the central government arena, was still saddled with the old discarded concept that native-birth conveyed some sort of special privilege, with that privilege being presidential eligibility. But in fact, it only conveyed citizenship under State law, but not under federal policy.
To the national government, if you were born of a foreigner, then you were what your father was; foreign. A dog cannot give birth to kittens. The off-spring are of the same nature (and national group) as the parents, i.e., the father.
So one’s native-birth was of supreme importance to one way of thinking but to another way, -the national government way, it was insignificant, and not only did not produce one eligible to be President, but did not produce one even considered to be a citizen.(!) The latter took over 100 years to be settled, while the former has never been settled.
It’s at this point that so many are possessed of a false doctrine or two. Some, in order to cling to their dogma, must assert that natural citizenship does not exist; that all citizenship is determined by government; that government is god over the membership of all members of the nation (a natural right for most), regardless of their ancestors being Americans for 10 generations or whatever.
In other words, government makes citizens, citizens don’t make government. Under that view, all citizens are in fact subjects of the government and it is sovereign and they are not. THAT is the form of treason that I mentioned earlier. It seems innocent enough when not seen for what it actually is. When seen in its true light, it is recognized as extremely dangerous.
It is the manifestation of taking American law that applies only to the 3% or so of the population who were born of foreigners and applying it to the 97% who were born of Americans, born as Americans, whether or not born in America.
[I’ve come to the conclusion that people who cling to that view, -by embracing whole-heartedly their iron-clad security of having been born in America, are either childless souls, and perhaps never married, or have a negative view of and childhood experience with their parents whom they do not want to credit in any way, including as being the source of their national membership. To reject natural citizenship by descent serves to reject their parents also. Talk about complicating things with psychological issues…]
The President was not required to be born with citizenship (with “birth” being an arbitrary point in time which could have been one year from birth, or ten years from birth as in other countries), but he was required to be one born as a citizen, -just as one born of royalty is not born with royalty, but is born as a royal… a natural born royal by nature and not by gift or permission of law.
The same principle applies to your own life. You were not born “with” government sanctioned membership in your family. You were born as a member, …by nature and not by permission. But you needed permission of your parents and government if you were adopted.
Those who were naturalized, as well as those born of aliens, i.e., born of immigrants, (such as my dear grandmother) are adopted into the American family and are not its natural members because they are the natural members of their foreign parents’ nation.
Although my dear grandmother was born in America, making her America-born, perhaps she was not born of Americans. I have no idea if or when my great-grandparents became American citizens, before her birth? or after?, or never?; but it would have made no difference to her own self identity because it was not formed by such ethereal thinking. It was formed by real life growing up in America as an American among Americans. But her devotion to her parents and their lives led her to become a Francophile as a retired, widowed adult, intrigued with her French roots.
But if her father had not yet become an American citizen when she was born, then she was born not as an American by blood connection but by the permission of law granted in the 14th Amendment for all those born of immigrants in America or born of slaves. As such, she would not have been constitutionally eligible to serve as President, ever.
THAT was what the framers were intending because they could not trust that no foreign potentate would ever have a son born in America, but raised by him in his own country, only to emigrate to America as an adult and one day became Commander-in-Chief of the American Military.
Such a scenario does not look pretty when you realize that any and all of the horrible dictators of the world in American history might have accomplish or attempted such a thing if they had had a charismatic enough son and mere native-birth made him eligible to one day become President.
The way by which that was avoided was by adding an additional adjective qualifier; the word “natural”. Everyone understands that the phrases: natural born leader, or natural born musical genius are not legal terms of art, yet those who promulgate the highfalutin idea that the American term is what the British term was (while it was still being used) absolutely refuse to acknowledge that “natural born citizen” is also just a natural term of normal English language construction.
There is no such term as “natural-born” in British or American law. It was searched for in several very vintage, authoritative law dictionaries (centuries old), and not found in any of them. It should not exist since it would be innately redundant.
What is a born leader? It is a natural leader. What is a natural leader? It is a born leader. See the redundancy? You can’t have one without the other since they both describe the same thing.
Don’t waste your time trying to parse the meaning of “natural-born” because it has no meaning at all. Your natural born child is your natural child by birth, -as apposed to your [adopted] “natural child” by law (as so stated by the usual lying adoption birth certificate which has replaced the original).
But with the term of the eligibility clause, there is no redundancy since both qualifiers are needed due to both having dissimilar alternates. There are two types of born citizens just as there are two types of “natural” citizens. There are those born as citizens by law (the 3%, + or -) and those born as citizens by blood connection, by right, by natural inheritance.
Similarly, there are those who are “natural citizens” by legal fiction, and those who are actual natural citizens, -by birth, -born as natural citizens and not re-made into fictional natural citizens. They are the natural born citizens. Or as John Jay (future Supreme Court Chief Justice) wrote to George Washington in regard to what the Constitution would require of the Commander-in-Chief: “a natural born citizen” (with underline). They alone are the ones who are constitutionally eligible to serve as President.
But bear in mind that in America, unlike other nations which were rife with royals, nobles, aristocrats, and titles bestowed by kings, all American citizens were and are deemed natural citizens possessing totally equal rights, (with all titles and nobility forbidden) -except when it comes to the office of COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the United States military.
But that one exception is unacceptable to all of the children (and their foreign or naturalized parents) who were born in America of foreign parents. They do not like being excluded from the dream of being eligible to serve in the highest capacity in the nation, and there are many, many millions of them. Some have even dared run for President.
It’s like having the right to enter a prestigious pageant; no one wants to feel excluded from the group of people who are eligible to enter. That would make one feel like an outsider (“you belong to the ugly group, -not the beautiful group”). And even if born of outsiders, (-and born as natural outsiders) such children are not raised as outsiders but as insiders. No one wants to tell them, “I’m sorry, but you are not actually a real member of our group. You were an outsider by birth. You must withdraw your application to be a candidate for President.”
So either the words of the Constitution legitimately have a foreign meaning sort of identical to “natural-born subject” (a claim for which there is no basis whatsoever, anywhere) or they are plain language words used to differentiate between two classes of citizens, and disambiguate the dual meanings of two terms (“natural citizen” and “born citizen”).
In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796) we find how we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context. @240 we read:
“When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it “interpretation” to collect the intention of the writer from thence. The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use.”
“…This principle is recognized by the Constitution….”
“The expression ‘citizen of the United States’ occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives and Senators, but not for President. In the latter, the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
Now let’s look at another wide-spread fallacy of the self-appointed experts. You just read the constitutional plain-language term “citizen of the United States”. Is that a “legal term of art” as many “experts” claim that its counter-part (natural born citizen) is? Obviously not.
Neither is a term of legal artifice. They are plain English, but the logic fallacy isn’t in what was written, (but misconstrued), -isn’t in either of those two terms, but in what was not written but which is assumed to be written or meant. I speak of the non-existent term that they use in their elaborate parsing of it, namely: “natural born citizen of the United States”.
They erroneously borrow “of the United States” from the term that uses it, namely the one preceded by; “citizen”, and add it to the term that does not use it, namely: “natural born citizen”. You may be wondering where this is going and what sense it can possibly make. The answer has not been realized by any of the pundits, but it is deduced by simply taking the words and applying them to the situation of the founders.
What situation was that? They were all born as natural-born subjects of the crown, but in addition, they were also born as natural born citizens of their colony. The colonies were not established by the Crown nor Parliament. They were established by people looking for freedom of religion since it was not universally available in Europe. That means that they were founded without a royal government ruling over them, with they themselves being the citizens of their own self-governing entity.
When those colonies became free quasi-sovereign nations, they were then its “citizens”, -its natural born citizens, born of colonial-citizen parents, and no longer subjects of the Crown. But running with the belief that the President must be a “natural born citizen of the United States” the “experts” not only expand the actual term, but also alter the meaning of the title of the union.
That appellation has about a half dozen different distinct meanings and they apply the wrong one to their distorted, expanded term in an effort to explain that which does not even exist; which is “of the United States”.
The doctrine I’m referring to is called “the grandfather clause”. It says that since none of the founders was born “in the United States”, none of them could serve if only natural born citizens (of the United States) were eligible, so as an afterthought, the framers inserted a special allowance for themselves and their foreign-born compatriots who fought the war with them. That second exception to the “No person” prohibition was “a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”.
By adding that, they supposedly would be including themselves as eligible to be candidates, but the “experts” and researchers misunderstand that the founders were not required to be “citizens of the United States“. They also misunderstand the actually meaning of “the United States” in the usage of the era .
They overlook the fact that although the founders could not be “natural born citizens of the United States” (since the nation did not exist when they were born), they also could not be “citizens of the United States” for the very same reason.
How do they get around such a clear problem? Simple, they claim that everyone was “mass naturalized” by the Constitution’s adoption so they were all citizens of “the United States”. But that is contrary to the Constitution’s scenario of being a citizen of the united STATES “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”. Unfortunately for their dogma, the Constitution does not offer a basis for their “mass naturalization” claim, which they are forced to resort to because they do not know and understand history.
The misunderstanding is in what “the United States” meant as used. It did not refer to what we all have been raised to assume, and that is that the term refers to the nation under the Constitution, but before and during the writing of the Constitution, the nation did not exist at all. So the meaning to them was the meaning found in the Declaration of Independence, which referred to a union of allied nations, sort of like the European Union only even less centralized.
There was no equivalent to the central administration in Belgium because there was no central government. There was only the united STATES of America, which in plain words also meant “the confederated Nations of America.
That meant that a citizen “of the United States” was a citizen of any one of the allied States of the union under the Articles of Confederation. So just as “citizen” was related to State citizenship, not national citizenship, so also “natural born citizen” was related to State citizenship also. So that means that there was no grandfather clause since the founders, with an exception or two, were natural born citizens of Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Georgia, etc.
The point of sharing this point is to make folks aware that if an “expert” can get wrong something so fundamental and historically indisputable, they can get other even more important things wrong as well, and they have. So beware of everyone’s Kool-Aid. It may be 99 % pure harmless beverage, but the 1% poison will poison your concepts about presidential eligibility, and that might help serve to elect someone who should not be elected or to bar someone who should.
by Adrien Nash January 2016 obama–nation.com
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Don’t forget to read this amazing and revealing transcription and commentary (by myself) titled : The David Ramsay Dissertation Revelation https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-david-ramsay-dissertation-revelation/