Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President

Why did American women for so long fail to vote-in a constitutional amendment barring voter discrimination based on gender. Why didn’t they vote for the 19th Amendment much earlier?
Because they were not allowed to vote at all for a century in most of the States.
They didn’t have any constitutional right to vote because voting, like citizenship, was strictly a State matter. They were second-class citizens, -or only quasi-citizens similar to children but with greater rights, -but not greater civic rights. In that regard they were essentially in the same category as children.
Why were they treated fundamentally different? Because of their weaker bodily strength, and maternal role in life, they were under no duty or obligation to fight and possibly die for their country. They were exempt, protected, shielded from the ugly side of life, which included both war and politics.

Their citizenship was not full citizenship because their responsibilities were not full responsibilities. So they were, if born of American parents, natural born citizens and yet not eligible to do what the Constitution allowed only for natural born citizens, -which was to serve as the U.S. President.

So we see a class of citizens who not only were citizens but were natural born citizens and yet still forbidden to serve as President. They were forbidden because they were female-born citizens, i.e., born as females.
They had civic counter-parts, namely the common law alien-born citizens.

They were discriminated against just like the female-born citizens… -and the black-born citizens, -and Indian-born Americans. U.S. black-born citizens did not even exist (although perhaps a state or two allowed blacks to have State citizenship) because they also were objects of restriction and discrimination.

So when the framers of the Constitution wrote that: “No person, except a natural born citizen… shall be eligible to the office of the President;” that term did NOT include anyone born female, of alien parentage, or black.

All children of aliens were aliens also under federal law because they did not become Americans under federal law until their father did via the oath of Renunciation and Allegiance. In the Federal view, if one was born of an alien then one was an alien also just like the father and family head that was the source of his children’s life and nationality.

Here is the society result of the words that the framers choose which at that time carried these connotations:
No person, except a white born citizen,..shall be eligible…
No person, except a male born citizen,..shall be eligible…
No person, except a natural born citizen,..shall be eligible…

But in addition the framers allowed all male, white, alien-born persons who became a citizen before the Constitution was adopted to also serve when they reached 35 years of age and had lived in the colonies or states for 14 years.

But no female or black citizens were allowed to serve as President, period, -while all white-&-male-&-alien born citizens who fulfilled any residency requirements could serve in every other office in America.

Still, under the Constitution as written and never amendment, no female or black or Native American or alien-born citizen is allowed to serve as President.

It is imbecilic to assume that the 13th Amendment which prohibited slavery granted blacks the right to serve as President. Hell, it failed to even outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude. It allowed both under the condition of “punishment for crime of which the party shall have been duly convicted.”
Otherwise both were allowed “within the united STATES or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

Gee, that fails to even mention federal land… which means that both were still legal without restriction in D.C. and on all federal property. See the problem with loose language? All sorts of wiggle room results.

Well, one term that has no wiggle room is “natural…born…citizen”, aka ~a natural citizen by birth to citizens~ (a born natural citizen).  Nothing more! …and nothing less.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bookfiend75 wrote: “…a debate that goes to the “heart” of what we think this country was founded on: are we a country of immigrants who take the best of what the world has to offer and mold it into something unique and powerful; or are we a country of WASPS who need to keep this country from falling into the wrong hands? For myself, most strangers in the world are, as my children put it, friends we haven’t met yet.”

I can agree with your sentiments, but you, like everyone else, fail to grasp the context of the problem. It is not one of what is sociologically preferable but what is grounded in the Rule of Law.

Either you support the rule of law or you support doing what is “best” and ignoring the law. THAT is anti-American because we are founded on the rule of law and not men.

So what was “the law” when the Constitution was written? It was not what it is today. The difference is illuminated by the case of Virginia Minor and the high court’s discussion regarding her case.

Today’s Luciferians who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” (repeatedly, since they have no other hope of legitimizing their socialist messiah) fail to grasp that per the observation of the court, being a citizen does not confer all the rights of certain other citizens (males).

Even though Virginia was a natural born citizen she still had no right to vote, nor any right to be President. Why not? Because that was the way that society was structured.

To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the constitutional right to vote and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors.
It thus can be argued that women have no constitutional right to serve as President since no amendment has been passed to allow that. That is a literal constitutional fact.

The amendment that gave them the right to vote gave them no other civic rights, including serving in elected offices in the federal government, or serving as Sheriff, or Marshall, or General or Admiral or Commander-in-Chief.

In the same vein, being a “citizen” does not mean that one has the right of a natural born citizen to be President.
Thus in 1875 when the Minor v Happersett opinion was written:
1. “Citizen” did not equal the right to vote.
2. “Natural born citizen” did not equal the right to be President.
3. “Citizen-at-birth” did not equal the right to be Commander-in-Chief, not then, not now.

Let’s engage in a little Q&A thought exercise:

Q.  Were foreign women allowed to serve in the American military?
A.  No, no women, even American, were allowed to serve in the military or attend any military college or officer training course.

Q.  So no woman could lead men in combat regardless of being a natural born citizen?
A.  Definitely not.  They had no constitutional right to participate in a such strictly male sphere.

Q.  So no women could be appointed as General of the Army or Admiral of the Navy?
A.  You can’t appoint someone who does not exist.

Q.  Well how about Secretary of War?
A.  The secretary position was by appointment of the chief executive of the nation, the President, and women not only could not be allowed to direct or lead men in matters of war, they could not lead or direct men in any federal office or position.

Q.  So natural born American females could not serve in the role of  Commander-in-Chief either?
A.  Absolutely not!  That was totally unthinkable.

Q.  How about alien-born American women?  Could they lead all of the military of the United States?
A.  Neither they, nor their alien-born male counterparts, were eligible or had any right to serve as Commander-in-Chief.  That position was reserved solely for free, mature, white-born, male-born, natural born Americans who had lived in America for at least 14 years.

That was the sociological reality, and by strict constitutional construction, which is mandatory, the word “natural” still has constitutional significance which cannot be ignored or denied, and as a result no alien-born “citizen at birth” is a natural born citizen, and so neither they nor female citizens have yet been given the privilege to serve as President.
We need another constitutional amendment to allow that, as well as to allow the non-white to serve as President.

How about this new wording: “No person except a born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.”? That would work to allow all “citizens at birth”, including the alien-born, to serve. It would be fair and reasonable as long as they were raised in the United States as Americans.

But alas, that is not yet written nor ratified, so we are left with the restriction against the alien-born foreign-stock citizens. That is too bad because it sadly has implications for the legitimacy of the the current President as well as possible future Presidents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Slartibartfast: “It doesn’t matter what you think or Canada thinks or your sky daddy thinks or Rafael thinks or his papa thinks or the SCOTUS thinks or any other stupid condition you’ve made up out of whole cloth, it just matters WHAT CUBA THINKS.
If Cuba thought daddy Cruz was their citizen, then he was. “

Wow! You’ve dug a really deep hole with that one and then buried yourself in it. It surely does not matter what you think, or what SCOTUS thinks [What? You really said that? Heresy! All Hail SCOTUS!]

The Cuban Constitution reveals that they have adopted entirely the American position of voluntary self-expatriation as an unalienable right. That is their embrace of the principle of freedom of identity and national association.
So in your opium hallucinations, how do you misconstrue the Cruz application for asylum in the U.S. as anything other than a clear expression of self-expatriation?

But even aside from that, if you had more than three brain cells you would be cognizant of the fact that you cannot be “claimed” by any country in the world and have that claim recognized by the law of nations without a legitimate basis for it.

Can North Korea claim your children as citizens if they happened to visit their soil? Is what they think all that matters?

By the law of nations Cruz senior was a man without citizenship because his Cuban citizenship ceased when his government and the nation that it formed vanished.

A similar thing happened three thousand years ago when the volcanic island of Santorini exploded. The nation living on it, Thera, ceased to exist, physically. It’s citizens who survived while away were no longer its citizens because it didn’t exist. They were stateless.

If your non-existent wife vanished into thin air, could someone say you are still married to her? There is no more “her”. She no longer exists. Your marriage is over. You are single again. See that? That is what reality looks like. Same with nationality.

That is the story regarding the Batista Cuba. Its replacement had no authority over either father or son because Sr.’s non-Cuban status pre-dated the existence of the Castro Communist government and its constitution.

I’ll make it even clearer for you. Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait. The nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait. Did all of those former Kuwaiti citizens become citizens of the new Iraqi Kuwait?

Since Cruz Sr. was not subject to a government that no longer existed, nor to one that came into being after he had fled, and to which he had no connection, obedience, loyalty, or allegiance, he was in fact a stateless person living in the U.S. as an asylum recipient.

He therefore had no citizenship to contribute to his son when he was born, -unless he was already a naturalized Canadian citizen.  Otherwise, their son only inherited the national membership of the mother by his blood connection to her as the only parent with a nationality that could naturally descend to their child.

So instead of being a natural born citizen via two parents, he may have been one via only one, -just as if his father was deceased or unknown when he was born.  Being stateless is effectively no different because no second nationality was inherited by the child.

Birth location, and any gift of citizenship resulting from it, is and was irrelevant to natural national membership.  Common law (native-birth) citizenship is an artificial, border-determined national connection rooted in nothing more an a transient time-&-place event which no child in history has ever been capable of remembering or treasuring.  It was just a remnant of a discarded system established for the benefit of British royal despots.

by Adrien Nash  March 2015  obama–nation.com

Here are a few additional facts regarding the amendment process and the presidency.  The 15th Amendment was passed in 1870 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on race.
The 19th Amendment was passed in 1920 and prohibited discrimination based on sex.  The 26th Amendment was passed in 1971 and prohibited discrimination in voting based on age for those of 18 to 20 years of age.

The facts we can extrapolate from those dates are that:  for 50 years after poor black ex-slave males were granted it, American natural born citizens who were female were not enfranchised with the constitutional protection of the civic right to vote.

That meant that 11 First Ladies of the United States who held their position during and after 1870 were not provided with any constitutional right to vote, -as was adjudicated in the Minor v. Happersett holding of the Supreme Court.

That was along a similar line to the Dred Scot Supreme Court holding which found that African-Americans had no constitutional right to be treated as citizens.  And, a white American women born in 1850, two decades before Blacks were given the right to vote, did not herself possess a constitutional right to vote, (even though her freed male slave could) until she was 70 years old!!!

So as written, intended, adopted and followed:
1.  No female had a constitutional right to vote.
2. No Black  person had a constitutional right to vote.  And…
3. 2. No person under 21 had a constitutional right to vote.

Amendments were required for all three classes of “citizens”.
That inspires the question:  Where did the Constitution grant any of those first two unrecognized groups the privilege to serve as Commander-in-Chief?
Where are the amendments allowing that?

To be constitutionally recognized as United States citizens, African-Americans needed the passage of the 14th Amendment.  Blacks needed the passage of the 15th Amendment to proclaim and protect their right to vote.  American women needed the passage of the 19th Amendment, -while quasi-minors needed the 26th.
That is because all of their situations needed the consent of We, the People since they involved a gross nation-wide significant change to society (just as with Prohibition).

Ask yourself this question: Does Congress have the authority to pass a law making it legal for aliens to vote in national elections?
The answer is obviously not because that would require amending the Constitution due to such a right not existing under it.

Well, as written, intended, ratified, and implemented, no female or Black was acceptable as a candidate qualified to lead men in battle, to direct them in war in any capacity, nor to command them from the highest office of the military.  That precluded them from the office of the President since that office was imbued with the authority of the Command-in-Chief of the U.S. Military.
Free while male natural born citizens had no tolerance for such an allowance, and that is why an amendment is still needed to make that allowance constitutional.  That was especially true in the South where gender and racial supremacy was very strong.

And speaking of the South, under natural law and social law in the South, as well as under constitutional law, (theirs being essentially indistinguishable from the original) did a Black transgender homosexual, or a Black butch lesbian have a right to serve as Commander of the Army? How about as President of the Confederacy?
If you answer “no”, then you need to figure out whether or not the same was true of the United States and its Command-in-Chief position, and its presidency -which existed under an almost identical constitution and in a society similar to the South (except in regard to slavery).
Did either constitution even imply that such a right existed, or was it well understood by all that such a thing was totally taboo and disallowed? Has the Law of the Land magically changed since it was written? Or does its lack of any such rights still mean that no such constitutional right exists today? How can they exist when they never came into law via amending the Constitution to make them protected rights?
Remember, being President is not a right but is a restricted privilege. The restrictions have never been altered. Not those that were written nor those that were unwritten. So constitutional rights cannot exist if they are not constitutionally protected, -which means in writing.

African-Americans and free white American women had or obtained the constitutional right to citizenship and voting, and equal protection of the law, but not to serve as commanders of white American military men,  Under the constitution, that was unthinkable.

Yet in our politically correct era, everyone simply assumes that amendments are no longer required in order to legalize major societal changes since passing the ERA failed.  After that the Constitution was locked up and shoved deep into the basement, -out of sight, out of mind, obsolete, passe’, unneeded,… irrelevant.  We have become a nation under men instead of a nation under law.  We are adrift not only without a pair of binoculars, but with a blindfold on.  How can this possibly end well?

 In two-column 5-page PDF format: Why No Female, Black, or Alien-born Citizen is Eligible to be President
[ https://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/why-no-female-black-or-alien-born-citizen-is-eligible-to-be-president4.pdf ]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 84 other followers