The Obama – Rubio – Jindal Violation of the Constitution

The Washington District of Corruption is principally comprised of moneyed compromisers and their compromised servants. The corruption that transpires is either in the arena of rules, regulations, and laws, or in the arena of how money is appropriated, distributed, and spent.
Some of that corruption is constitutional, and some of it is unconstitutional. None of the corrupted could care less about which it is because the compromised and corrupted do not care about fidelity to the spirit or letter of the law, nor even to the rule of law itself, -as apposed to the rule of men.

To do fundamental things there is almost always a constitutional way along with a way that violates the Constitution. Being qualified to be President is one of those fundamental things because it is determined by a mandate written in the Constitution. It reads:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President;
-neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years and been fourteen years a resident of the United States.

In the post-Constitution era, that mandate imposes four requirements.
` 1. The President must have been born as a citizen.
2. The President must have been born as a citizen by natural law, by blood connection, (jus sanguinis or right of blood) , having been born as a natural citizen as apposed to a legal citizen by jus soli (by right of soil), aka; native birth.
3. He must have reached 35 years of age, and
4. Lived in one or more of the States of America for 14 years.
Those are the requirements but only two of the four are known to Americans of today, -and yesterday. American statesmen have been confidently pontificating in ignorance about the presidential eligibility requirements for some 150 years. They did so because of their ignorance of the Constitution and the meaning of its words.
The reason for their confidence has always been common misconceptions held by almost everyone that everyone knew. When a common misconception is never correct or challenged by anyone then one’s mind assumes that it must be correct and factual or else it would be corrected. But that is not the case. Just consider the term “Indian” as used in America and by the US government. Indians are from India and nowhere else, and yet the mistake of Columbus remains as an institutionalized error to this day. Some things are never challenged and corrected, and so it has been in regard to the requirements of presidential eligibility.

The common misconception is that the Constitution only requires this:
“All persons who are native-born citizens and thirty-five years of age shall be eligible to be the President.”

That is what people have thought for a century and a half, but it is wrong. Almost daily one might hear someone say that so-and-so is or is not eligible to be President because they were or were not born in the United States. That view is based on the handed-down misconception that has become almost unquestionable in the minds of most people, but that “understanding” is wrong.
The Constitution does not require that the President be a native-born citizen but that he be a natural born citizen. Anyone who is considered to be a citizen because of native-birth is not a natural born citizen because natural citizens can be born anywhere in the universe.
Their national membership is not determined by arbitrary, artificial, man-made constructs such as political boundaries nor geographical boundaries but by blood-line inheritance. Citizens give birth to citizens, naturally, automatically, not legally since no law was ever needed to state the obvious; a child is identified as being a part of whatever group the parents belong to, having inherited their membership by right of descent.
But those who are not natural citizens but instead are merely legal, jus soli, common law, 14th Amendment citizens…
[All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the JURISDICTION thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”]

must be born within US sovereign jurisdiction, -or if a stricter, realistic criterion is insisted upon, they must be born within any one of the States of the Union; the united STATES of America. Puerto Rico and Guam are not States of America so those born there are not citizens via the 14th Amendment but instead via a congressional statute which Congress had no constitutional authority to pass.
The faint echo of the truth of these facts is seen in the
fact that the Constitution did not state this: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution who has been fourteen years a resident of the United States., shall be eligible to the office of the President;
-neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years.”

Almost no one that you might ask will know that the President is required to have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. To be a representative one must have been a citizen for seven years, and nine years for a Senator but the President must have been a citizen for life, yet the residency requirement was not attached solely to the statement including naturalized foreigners (who may have fought in the war as equals with the natives).

That implies two possibilities, including that all Presidents who had been citizens for life might not have been born in the U.S. Not all American children who were born of Americans in America remained in America but migrated overseas either for their father’s business purposes, family necessity, or his position of representing the U.S. government as a foreign minister or ambassador;
Or they were born of American parents while living or stationed abroad, and grew up there.
Either way, a child might not be raised in the U.S. and yet still be a loyal American instilled with love and respect and admiration for his inherited national homeland, its history and its unique political philosophy of liberty and equality.
A foreign-born son of a highly capable and patriotic ambassador who might one day be President would also have an open path to the presidency himself because the Constitution did not require anything other than maturity, natural citizenship, (not native-birth citizenship) and 14 years residency.

A son who migrated to his natural homeland at 21 years of age (adulthood) would be 35 years old 14 years later, and eligible to be President.
He would not be a citizen of the foreign land of his birth because he, under his father, would be solely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Like father, like son; both Americans. The nation of his birth would not have viewed him as one of its subjects and its monarch could not claim him because nothing could reach across the barrier of U.S. sovereign jurisdiction handed-down from father to son. But if he were not considered to naturally be an American then he would have to be considered to be a stateless person.
Congress possessed no authority to declare American children to be Americans or United States citizens because the only authority that the Constitution gave to Congress was to write a uniform rule of naturalization for the States of the union to adopt so that all of them would be employing the same requirements with the same qualifications (white and free) and residency (five years).
Under the Constitution, the States did not cede their immigration and naturalization authority to a new central government. They continued to control their own immigration from abroad, and the naturalization process in their courts of record just as they had done since the revolution and before.

So the congressional naturalization rule specified the conditions for naturalization of foreign male immigrants who wished to become Americans and renounce all allegiance and obedience to their foreign monarch and/or government. But the uniform naturalization rule did not include any authority to, in effect, declare that natural citizens born abroad were in fact foreigners, aliens, and in need of congressional permission via statute to be allowed to be U.S. citizens.

Natural-ization is a process of political transformation via legal fiction to convert a person from being 100% a foreigner into being 100% a natural American. Those born of Americans cannot be converted into that which they were born as, and conceived as, as well. Americans can only conceive and give birth to Americans. They cannot give birth to aliens.
To believe that they can is a fundamental betrayal and treason to the most elementary right of all sovereign citizens of the United States. That is the right of natural belonging, of natural inheritance, of property rights with children being property of parents and being included in the groups to which they belong.

If a man had a family that included an adopted Negro or Mexican, or Native American child, could some political jurisdiction into which he was moving announced to him that he and his natural family were welcome but he could not bring in the foreign-race child because it was an alien and they would accept no alien-race children.
That could never happen because children were property and a man’s property rights were unchallengeable. He could bring his own property with him wherever he wished to live. No government officer or regulation could declare otherwise or else America would be a dictatorship.

With that being the case, how then could Congress supposedly declare the child of an American Ambassador, or General, or Private, or businessman, or academic, or traveler to be an alien that has no permission to enter the United States unless almighty Congress deigned to grant it permission by bestowing citizenship upon such an alien child? It’s absurd and anti-American, not to mention patently false.

Americans were once sovereign over their government, having created it and controlling it via the ballot box, and that sovereignty did not cede to government any power to determine or reject the national identity of their American children. It was because of the sovereign authority of American citizens over their own children that the first Congress (comprised of many founding fathers and framers of the Constitution) declared in the very first uniform naturalization rule that such children shall be considered (considered by all government officers and departments) to be “natural born citizens”.

That language was intended to erase any doubt that the children of all American fathers were all automatically and naturally American citizens just like their father who gave them life, AND… (the implication is inescapable) therefore eligible to be President one day since they fulfilled the constitutional requirement of being born as a natural citizen.
That was meant to definitely protect the right of sons of all Americans who happened to have been born abroad from the brain-dead assertion that they were not qualified to be President because they were not native-born.
But the numbers of children born to Americans abroad was almost zero, compared to the tens or hundreds of thousands of sons born to immigrants who were not yet naturalized due to the residency requirement which forced them to wait between two and fourteen years.

In the tug-of-war between those two factions, one side had a huge number pulling for it while the other had no one. Guess which side won? Yep, the “native-born is eligible” side won, and the statement that foreign-born Americans were “natural born citizens” was removed five years later, labeling them by the general title of “citizens of the United States”, -and not  to be viewed as foreigners.

Well, the alien-born, foreigner-born, immigrant-born sons were deemed to be U.S. citizens because the States of the union allowed that in their laws, (which was retained British common law practice) but being “a citizen of the United States” did not make one “a natural born citizen”, and yet the issue was so cloudy, undefined, contentious, unsettled and sentimental that no one wanted to touch it because the losing side would suffer great injustice.
One side would lose logically, factually, and linguistically, while either could lose socially and politically. Imagine the life-long stigma if one brother of twins was born on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls while the other was born on the American side, and one was told he could one day be President while the other was told he could never be President?
Or imagine one brother of twins born the day before his father took the oath of Renunciation & Allegiance and became an American citizen while the other was born after? One of the twins would be informed that he absolutely could be President anytime in his life after 35 years of age, while his twin absolutely could never be President because he was born to an alien father.

Where natural philosophy and political reality intersected there was a collision and nature lost, reason lost, and language lost, but it was not a danger to America until the election of one who was anti-American, anti-imperialism, anti-nationalism, anti-American exceptionalism, and anti-Christianity while having a covert affinity for all things foreign, Muslim, Marxist, and homosexual.
The community-organizing citizen of the world sought to fundamentally transform the America given to us by our founding fathers by wrecking what it had always been perceived to be. Not that he was the first to do that.

FDR was far worse, and so the America that evolved following him was kept unaware of what was constitutional government and what was not. We today continue on in that imposed ignorance, but thanks to the internet and certain conservative pundits and analysts, the veils have been lifted and we can see the wreckage that Liberalism has wrought on the nation and its people.

That wreckage includes the audacity of the very patriotic and conservative candidates for the presidency; Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal to run for the office in spite of the clear mandate of the Constitution which they seek to preserve and protect.
How are we to respond to such a development? How has the nation and its governments responded? With total silence and acceptance. Such acquiescence indicates that without our knowing it and without our permission, the rules of presidential eligibility have changed, and native-born now is accepted as meaning natural born regardless of them being unrelated.
Well, if that is the only hand that we’ve been dealt, then that is the how we must now play the game. Rubio and Jindal are eligible!! Who dares dispute that fact? Only crack-pots and crazies. After all, everyone knows that any native-born citizen is eligible to be President


by Adrien Nash Sept. 22, 2015 obama–

In two column PDF format:  The Obama – Rubio – Jindal Violation of the Constitution


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96 other followers