Citizen By Natural Law
An Insight into Natural Born Citizenship OK
The legitimacy of the Presidency of Barack Obama rests on the flimsy premise that since he was born in Hawaii he is therefore a US citizen, and since he is a citizen he is therefore also “a natural born citizen” and thus eligible for the Presidency. But the reasoning behind this view is flawed because the meaning of “natural born citizen” is, and has been, misunderstood and over simplified.
To say that the president must be a natural born citizen is the same as saying that the President must be born a natural citizen. A natural citizen is not the same as a “native-born” citizen because there is a fundamental difference between the two. The essence of the difference is the fact that one relates to geography, while the other relates to parentage.
“Native born” relates to one’s place of birth, native soil, land of one’s ancestors, governmental jurisdiction and national boundaries.
“Natural born” relates to one’s blood, one’s genealogy, one’s genetics, one’s parentage.
What is conveyed by one’s place of birth is nothing that’s real and tangible, but rather, it’s merely something that is assigned. Namely, citizenship -if the law grants it.
Whereas what is conveyed by virtue of being “natural born” is something non-dependent on the will, wishes, assignment, or laws of others, but is intrinsic, unchangeable, unerasable, unloseable, inalienable, and permanent because it is part and parcel of ones very nature. It is conveyed from the parents to the off-spring -like one’s race or genetic attributes. To be, for example, a “natural born African” is to be born black, born of African parents, even though their location might be on a plantation in the South That’s something that no one, -and no government, had the ability to change because it is natural, by nature, rather than by geography .
To be a natural born American is to be born to American parents, regardless of the geography, whether it be on the land, on (or above) an ocean, on (or above) Antarctic ice, or in outer space. The framers of the Constitution used the term not as an official legal term, but as a “common law” term.
An excellent illustration of this point can be made by expanding the phrase “native born” to read “native born Eskimo”. What is a “native born Eskimo”? The phrase is nonsense since any attempt to link the Eskimo (Inuit) people to geography or political boundary is folly because they lived on the polar ice of the frozen Arctic sea. But one could refer to “a natural born Eskimo” -which would simply mean that said person was born of Eskimo parents.
The same relationship exists between the terms used to classify citizenship. “Natural born” refers solely to people born to American parents, whereas “native born” could pertain to people born of foreigners, slaves, and American Indians, (who were excluded from the presidency, along with women, even though it wasn’t spelled out in the Constitution, -it didn’t need to be stated because it was a given).
The framers of The Constitution thought about two important issues in regard to the qualifications for the presidency. Aside from the obvious need for someone of maturity who was a resident of the country for a considerable length of time, they thought about the issues of; (a) “who can be trusted?” and (b); “who can not be trusted?”. With those two issues foremost in their minds, they required that the president be “a natural born citizen” (i.e. that he be born a citizen, -naturally so, by virtue of being the off-spring of American citizens). The purpose of such a limitation was to insure that the citizenship of the president was not a result of geography, but of nature. That would prevent any loyalist English subject from having a son on American soil, who, if he were to be considered a U.S. citizen, might nevertheless be raised in England to be loyal to the Crown, a believer in the right of Kings, and later return to the U.S. to eventually run for and win the office of the President. Such a person could do enormous damage to the country.
To put it in a modern context, imagine, that during the Muriel boat-lift exodus from Cuba, that Castro’s pregnant wife traveled to the US, gave birth to a son here, then returned to Cuba to raise her American-born child with his father Fidel. He is raised and educated to believe in the superiority of Marxism. When he turns 21 he returns to the land of his birth to fulfill his secret dream of bringing Marxism to America. Fourteen years later he runs for president and wins. Is such a situation really something that the founding fathers meant to endorse? No! Rather, it would be the kind of thing they wished to prevent.
The framers of the Constitution were not stupid nor ignorant. They were aware of such a possibility because they knew that spies and traitors could be hiding in plain sight, and no doubt were. That’s a lesson experienced the hard way not long ago, when following the end of WWII it was discovered that numerous British “Manhattan Project” scientists were also Soviet spies who gave the Russians the secrets to the Atomic and Hydrogen bombs.
While in this day and age it would be politically correct to think that US citizenship could be conveyed to off-spring that were born to an American woman and a foreign man, it was not the case in that day because the male, the husband, the father had all the legal rights and the woman/wife had very few, being, in effect, a type of property, so his citizenship would be the primary citizenship for their child. But it is possible, if not probable, that a foreign father and American mother could convey dual-citizenship to their off-spring. The wording that the framers used in the Constitution was deliberate, and meant to prevent such off-spring from occupying the office of the president because his loyalty solely to the United States could not be assumed. And the stakes were too high to place such enormous trust in a person who might be loyal to a foreign power, namely, England, the oppressor and attacker of the American colonies. The founders had learned a bitter lesson about betrayal and shifting loyalties thanks to the trusted but traitorous General Benedict Arnold. They didn’t want there to be any possibility of someone with a secret foreign allegiance or divided loyalty to occupy that office because such a person could do far more damage to the country than Arnold did.
So while an American with dual citizenship would have all the rights and protections of U.S. citizenship, he would not be eligible for the Presidency -even though he was a “native born” citizen, because he would not have been born a natural American citizen since his father was not an American. *
Is Obama ineligible to be president? The Constitution doesn’t require that he be born in the U.S., it requires that he be born to U.S. citizens, that he be a natural citizen by reason of birth to citizens. Anyone who is more than a citizen, i.e. -a hyphenated citizen, -a dual-citizen, is prohibited because their citizenship is passed from father to son, and a foreign father is a subject of a foreign power, along with his off-spring. Obama senior was a subject of the British Empire, as was his off-spring who is thereby eliminated from eligibility for the presidency, (though he can serve in any and every other capacity, even Supreme Court Chief Justice, but he cannot serve as Commander-In-Chief). If it becomes known that his dual-citizenship at birth disqualifies him from the Presidency, he will not be certifiable by the certifying committees of the Democratic Party in each of the 50 states and will have to withdraw from the race, being replaced perhaps by Hillary Clinton. He could serve as her Vice-President though. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Natural Law and Unnatural Duality
The use of the word “natural” in the Presidential eligibility clause has its derivation in natural law. Natural Law has its origin in the the account of creation in the book of Genesis where it’s stated that each species reproduces after its own kind. That means each species is a world unto itself and only mates with its own kind, forever perpetuating its own unique nature. That is possible by and because of the principle of UNIFORMITY. Uniformity is the principle behind natural law as it relates to reproduction, i.e. birth. Birth that is natural is birth that follows the principle of uniformity. Whenever duality (dualformity) occurs, the result is unnatural. Consider the Nectarine. It’s a hybrid of a peach and a plum. It is in no way inferior to them but it is in no way natural since it’s man-made. It embodies the principle of duality instead of uniformity. It’s a hybrid, a “half-breed”, a mixture of disparate natures. Seedless watermelons are similar. How can you grow them if there are no seeds to grow them with? Cross-polination I assume, which is unnatural.
In animal husbandry, an equivalent would be a donkey or an ass, which are cross-bred horse-and-mule hybrids. They are as healthy as horses and mules but they are not natural because of the violation of the principle of uniformity. As a result, they are sterile.
In the human realm, an analogy would be inter-racial reproduction, -not in a genetic sense (though that was widely assumed before DNA revealed that all humans descended from about 1,000 individuals of 70,000 years ago), but in an esthetic sense that is principally only skin deep. When a white woman gives birth to a dark negro child, or vice versa, it doesn’t appear natural to the mind. The principle of duality has displaced the principle of uniformity, resulting in something that is not normal. Racial bigotry has historically attached the idea of inferiority to abnormality due to prejudice and ignorance, (but inferiority is not necessarily a result of abnormality).
Abnormality that results from duality is different from what is normal, and what is normal is essentially the description of what is natural. That which is natural is the norm. That which is unnatural is not the norm.
In the citizenship realm, Uniformity is the norm and is what is inescapeably described as that which is natural. Anything outside of uniformity is therefore not natural. Hence duality of citizenship is a condition that is not normal, and thus not natural. Without uniformity of citizenship carried by the parents, the resulting off-spring will not be a product of uniformity, but of duality, and therefore will be outside the realm of what is normal and natural regarding his citizenship. A citizen is a “natural” citizen by birth only if both of his parents are of the same kind, and not a combination of disparate citizenships. Duality in parental citizenship results is a hybrid citizen with dual citizenship, which is not normal, and hence not natural because it violates the uniformity principle.
Since Barack Obama is the off-spring of such a union, he is outside the description of what a natural born citizen is. It is on that basis that his eligibility for the office of President is found to be lacking.
“The child is born out of wedlock which is a stateless condition only when the father officially abandons the family. ” I believe there’s a logic error in that statement. One can’t abandon a relationship that never existed, and I have no idea how one who had a relationship could “officially” abandon it. Any thing “official” is kind of oxymoronic to the character of abandonment.
“…the law of the time Article II was written. It is that law we must harken back to in interpreting Article II.” That makes perfect sense, but the fly in the ointment is that the commonly accepted description of “natural born citizen” was never written in stone. If one disputes the possibility of very real legitimate exceptions to the general rule, then how does one argue against this one:
A decorated US soldier by the name of George Washington, namesake of his ancestor (the man most responsible for the existence of the United States) meets and marries a female veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, who’s ancestors arrived on the Mayflower. She becomes pregnant, but the day before her baby is born, he husband is killed sacrificing himself to save his fellow soldiers.
“If born in the U.S. to a U.S. mother, the child has no alienage, i.e., is under U.S. jurisdiction, and is born a citizen, but without a U.S. citizen father he is not a natural born citizen. ”
The baby has no American male parent at birth. Thus it doesn’t fit the general description of a n-b-c. 36 years later the child wants to run for President but is told that’s prohibited because of the lack of a male US parent at birth. Who in their right mind is going to make such an argument against him? What judge would rule that he is correct because of the GENERAL description of a natural born citizen being born to citizen parents (plural) in their own land. Common sense would argue that it is not an absolute rule that a n-b-c MUST be born on native soil, rather it is merely a description of fact that 99.999% are. Similarly, it is not an absolute rule that a n-b-c MUST have a LIVING American legal male parent (meaning being married to the mother and not simply being the biological father). No Supreme Court judge doesn’t want to avoid ever having to rule against the legitimacy of the exceptions to the general description and thus would have to choose between what the general description implied (about there being a LIVING American male parent ) and what that implied meaning didn’t take into account regarding possible variations to the general description, such as a case like I’ve described.
In the end it comes down to a case of whether or not Obama’s parents were married or not. If they were married, then their son is not by any description of a natural born citizen eligible to be President. But if they were unmarried -in every sense, and never cohabited, then nothing about the father (who would have never been a parent) has any impact on the woman that bore a child by him, nor her off-spring. Thus there would be no dual-citizenship to deal with. The nationality of an irrelevant father is irrelevant, whether he be domestic or foreign. That is the reality of today and would weigh very heavily in deciding whether or not the off-spring of a single/widowed American woman is legally definable as a natural born citizen.
The Nature of being Natural Born
Native birth refers to place of birth, land of birth, geography and borders. Natural birth refers to biology, the biology of ones parentage and what that conveys to the off-spring in terms of culture, religion, personal values, loyalties, and political values. It has absolutely nothing to do with geography. The phrase “natural born citizen” is an adaptation from natural science. Natural born citizenship is something conveyed in the legal realm that is the human-law equivalent of that which is conveyed in the biological realm. A natural citizen is one born to citizens, as creatures are naturally born of like creatures. Tigers give birth to tigers. Baby tigers are natural born tigers. But if a male lion mates with a female tiger it does not result in a natural born tiger, but in a liger. Also, if a male tiger mates with a female lion they do not produce a natural born lion, but a tigon. If a horse mates with a mule, it does not produce a natural born horse or mule, but a donkey -which is not natural, and is sterile and unable to reproduce. So it is with race and nationality. A black father and Caucasian mother do not produce an natural born Caucasian, nor a natural born African or black, they produce a hybrid, because of the duality of their genetics. A Russian father and Chinese mother do not produce a natural born Russian, nor Chinese, child. Russians give birth to Russians, Germans give birth to Germans, Eskimos gave birth to Eskimos, and Vikings gave birth to Vikings, regardless of where they found themselves.
Similarly, a native citizen and a foreign citizen do not produce a natural born native nor a natural born foreigner but a combination, resulting in dual citizenship (and divided loyalty) if the circumstances don’t counter it (such as abandonment or death). Natural born citizenship is automatically or naturally conveyed to the off-spring regardless of location, although for the vast majority of people their birth location is the land of their parents’ citizenship. Those who are born to citizens are citizens by birth. Those who are born to foreigners are foreigners by birth, and those who are off-spring of both are neither, but rather they’re both, (making them dual citizens) But with humans loyalty can be ingrained not only from ones parents and group, but also from the land that one is raised on and the nation that inhabits that land. Dual-citizens are no more natural born citizens than ligers are natural born lions or tigers. Therefore to doubly insure loyalty to the United States, the founders went with the conventional meaning of natural birth which was a native citizen born to American citizen parents.
There are 5 categories of citizens: 1. Natural Born 2 . Foreign born and Naturalized 3. Natives born to Naturalized parents, or to legal-resident aliens, 4. Natives born to non-resident aliens ( foreign visitors or diplomats) 5. Natural born, but abroad.
And in the last brain-dead century one has to include a 6th class: native born of illegal alien parents, -this being because of a very liberal and erroneous interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Forgive me for splitting hairs but I’d like to expound on something said; “the Founders and Framers looked to natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This is true but not in a literal sense. They didn’t look to anything because they didn’t really “look” at all. They KNEW what the phrase meant, not that it had a formal definition, but it had a definite description and that description is what they referred to. It was a description derived from natural law and the law of nations and their use of the word natural instead of native implied a transfer by nature from parent to child, not assignment in law or statute based on the political borders that a child was born within. There is nothing natural about ones citizenship assigned due to borders (rather than blood). Just as eagles give birth to eagles, so Americans give birth to Americans. That’s natural law. Land does not give birth to citizens, citizens do. AN
CONTINUED on Page TWO