POSITIVE LAW, NATURAL LAW, AND NATURAL RIGHTS
by Jedi Pauly
(Sept. 28, 2010) — I just wanted to teach everyone the true meaning of ‘natural born Citizen’ because I am astounded at the level of incompetence and ignorance that exists surrounding this issue.
First, let me say that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ from Article II is NOT an undefined legal term. It is perfectly self-evident and defined within the context of Article II and the Declaration of Independence, Natural Law, and the opposite which is Positive Law, and the term just means exactly what it says.
Second, it most definitely DOES NOT require both parents to be citizens, or for the person to be born on U.S. soil, because ‘natural born Citizen’ has absolutely nothing to do with your mom or soil jurisdiction.
Third, the purpose and intent of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ is to preserve our Constitutional Republic form of government to be under NATURAL LAW by protecting our sovereignty from foreign royalty so that we will not become a MONARCHY form of government like England or Europe, which is what the founders feared most and were trying to separate themselves from.
It is declared in the Declaration of Independence that it is a SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH that all MEN are CREATED equal and that governments are instituted among MEN. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about women’s political rights! Women are not the source of sovereign political authority, MEN are. What is being declared is that in nature, under Natural Law, that all men INHERIT a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY EQUAL TO A KING as a natural inalienable right and it is not just for the privileged few families of royalty that existed in Europe at the time, and still exists today. The Declaration specifically lists LIBERTY as one of the inherited inalienable natural rights. Liberty is just a fancy way of saying that one possesses a sovereign political authority. The person with the most liberty (freedom) is the king who is a sovereign authority. Under Natural Law, sovereign political authority is inherited from males, not females or soil. Women do not have natural political sovereignty. That is why we have to have a 19th Amendment to the Constitution in order to extend the legal PRIVILEGE of Positive Law to extend political rights (voting rights) to women. Men and women’s political rights are not equal under natural law due to a man’s natural superiority in physical strength. It is a self-evident truth that men fight the wars and defend the tribe, and negotiate the peace, and institute governments, and make and enforce the rules. Men do this as a function on nature, not women. The political authority of any clan is passed on with the surname inherited from the father. Even a queen can not be queen without a statutory law (privilege) put in place from the males from whom her authority comes from (her father because there are no male heirs).
Natural Law gives one Natural Rights which is an endowment from Nature or the Creator depending on your religious point of view. Even an atheist can accept Natural Law because the Laws of Nature (Declaration of Independence) are a scientific objective subject that one can just observe and realize independent of a Creator or God concept. The legal opposite of Natural Law is called Positive Law. The term Positive Law comes from the Latin root ‘posit’ which means that which is declared and agreed to. Positive Law is statutory man made law that gives you ‘Legal Rights’ which are PRIVILEGES of government and they are the opposite of Natural Rights which are NOT privileges.
Now, let us examine the self-evident meaning of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and prove that it is not an undefined legal term. First, just look at the part ‘natural born’. This is meant to convey that we are talking about being CREATED under Natural Law and not the opposite which is Positive Law legal privileges. This eliminates soil jurisdiction from any consideration because you only get legal privileges from soil jurisdiction. Soil does not give you natural inherited inalienable rights. Next, and here is what everyone is missing, let us apply the simple rules of English grammar to ‘Citizen’ and notice that ‘Citizen’ is capitalized. The word citizen is a noun, and when you capitalize a noun in a sentence that makes the noun a PROPER noun. A proper noun means a specific instance or special TYPE of citizen. What special TYPE is being referred to? The answer is they are referring to a SOVEREIGN U.S. Citizen. You can not have a sovereign nation if there are no sovereign citizens. Furthermore, you can not have any sovereign citizens without sovereign fathers to create them! A sovereign citizen is one who inherits a sovereign political authority as a natural inalienable right as declared in the Declaration of Independence. Since you only inherit a sovereign political authority from males under natural law, this eliminates your mom from consideration since she is a female and you only get ‘legal privileges’ from positive law due to your mom, not the natural inherited political sovereign authority which only comes from males. Simply put, ‘natural born Citizen’ just means that one must INHERIT their right to be President from their citizen father as a natural right and not a legal privilege, and we have just proven that your mom and soil jurisdiction are irrelevant and that ‘natural born Citizen’ is perfectly defined within the context of Article II, Natural Law, Positive Law and the Declaration of Independence.
Now let’s examine from the point of view of the purpose and intent of Article II ‘natural born Citizen’, which is to prevent a monarchy form of government and protect U.S. sovereignty from foreign royalty, in order that we may further prove that soil jurisdiction and your mom are totally irrelevant. Lets suppose for a moment that you could somehow inherit a sovereign political authority from just the soil or your mom. Then any foreign king could impregnate an American woman or have his child born on U.S. soil and that child could qualify for President due to an inherited sovereign political authority from mom or the soil, and at the same time would be a prince or king of a foreign country inherited as a sovereign political right from his foreign royal father. Oops! There goes the Republic! Now you have foreign royalty in power and you have a monarchy again. Clearly the founders prevented this by realizing that you only get legal privileges of positive law from your mom or soil jurisdiction and if you are created (natural born) by a citizen father from whom you inherit a sovereign political authority from (all MEN are created equal) then this would protect American sovereignty from foreign royal influence. I have settled the issue. the term ‘natural born Citizen’ just means inherited from a citizen father. Mom and soil are irrelevant. Obama is not qualified because he was not created by a U.S. citizen father.
Here endeth the lesson!
Is the argument of Natural born citizen as clearly stated and defined for POTUS AND VP ONLY in the Constitution from ignorance or choice?
In his majority opinion stated: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).
This judge is incompetent in understanding the meaning of Article II. In fact, Article II does spell it out, it just requires enough knowledge of Law to realize that the meaning is IMPLIED. By logical construct, and by context of the Declaration of Independence, (all MEN CREATED equal and inheriting Liberty which means a sovereign political authority as a natural inalienable right), and by Natural Law, and by the definition of Sovereign, and by English grammar (proper noun Citizen), ‘natural born Citizen’ means one must be created by a U.S. citizen father in order to inherit a sovereign political authority as a Sovereign U.S. citizen and not just become a citizen by a statutory privilege. Your mom and soil are irrelevant because you do not inherit sovereign authority from women or soil as a matter of Natural Law. This judge is ignorant.
I think this does correct a misconception, and it clears up why Winston Churchill once told FDR that had his FATHER been a U. S. citizen and his mother a British citizen, instead of the other way around, that he might himself have become President of the United States. Thank you. That statement by him was confusing to me until your explanation. Clear as day now. Thank you.
Churchill was wrong.
You are welcome. Thank you for that little piece of historical knowledge that I did not know or forgot because it confirms the correctness of my knowledge and reasoning. Thanks!
We have to give Jedi Pauly (named after the space-knights?!) credit for being absolutely 100% purely correct about the key point of all this: to be a natural born Citizen one has to have an American father, which BO himself admits he does not have. This preeminent fact alone should have long ago removed Obama from office, but since it has not proved sufficient we also discuss BO’s birthplace, the age of his too-young mother, the possibility of Indonesian citizenship and foreign-student status, passport questions, etc.
For this national tragedy we have the Democratic Party to thank. Obama is the Dem’s creation and they are standing by him. Never mind the Constitution, they say. Or to paraphrase Senator Claire McCaskill’s letter to me, let me be clear: BO was born in Hawaii and is therefore a natural born citizen. Period. See, only crazy birther fringe morons care that the Constitution requires the president to have an American father. Of course, Sen. McCaskill co-sponsored the Senate resolution declaring McCain to be NBC precisely because he had American parents. This is typical two-faced Democrat skulduggery.
We have to give Jedi Pauly (named after the space-knights?!) credit for being absolutely 100% purely correct about the key point of all this: to be a natural born Citizen one has to have an American father, which BO himself admits he does not have.
I disagree. We don’t have to give Jedi Pauley or anyone else credit for being “absolutely 100% purely correct” because the part(s) he got correct serve our purposes for today. Let’s get it right and be right because we are right. Period. Saul Alinsky taught that the ends justify the means and Progressives today still work (read: scheme and scam) under that belief. This is where we should maintain the high road: being in the right to do what’s right instead (as opposed to being “nice” when dealing with the uncivilized animals on the left, which is a whole ‘nother topic).
that is why we need the BC. WHOS UR DADDY?
I was not talking about 1961.
Of course black Americans had rights in 1961 (just as white women Americans did in 1961).
I’m referring to when the US Constitution was written and also when the Declaration of Independence was written. Black Americans DID NOT HAVE RIGHTS at that point.
The US Constitution was not written for Black Americans (male or female), nor was it written for White American women. It was written for white males.
I think that everyone here has misunderstood my question to the writer of this article.
I was using a very accurate (100% accurate) analogy to ask the writer of this article a questions.
I’m still waiting for an answer.
Again, I was not talking about 1961. And it very obvious that I was not talking about 1961 in my first question.
Thank you.
Amen! Enough said! Bring in the military, escort his happy butt out of the US. Turn back the hands of time – erase all this total mess that has been installed. Arrest fruadulent money hoarder Soro’s too! Take the NWO, Global nutjobs, Clinton’s, Bush’s, Gores, CFR’s, TriLaterals, Committee 300, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, etc. too many to list them all – Hell get rid of all the EVIL. http://www.augustreview.com and/or http://www.americanthinker.com
And, thank you LT. COL. Lakin for putting your life on the line too! God Bless Everyone involved trying to wake the masses up and clean up the corruption in America.
Declaration of Independence: adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776
“That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”
This means that human beings are imbued with unalienable rights which cannot be altered by law whereas inalienable rights are subject to remaking or revocation in accordance with man-made law. Inalienable rights are subject to changes in the law of man…
US Constitution signed September 17, 1787
There are VII Articles defining formation of government
Article II, Section 1.The executive power Natural Born Citizen
The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights.
Both parents (2) being citizens arose in the 111th Congress whereby vetting John McCain. It has been researched that the founders intended the president to be the 2nd generation citizen with parents being citizens of the United States at the time of the birth. History defines that the Father determines Citizen of the child. England defined soldiers fighting in a foreign country that fathered a child, that child would be a British citizen. Many aspects defined right of inheritance. The President and Commander in Chief can not have dual citizenship, or split allegiance defined by Webster the fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government. If the Mother was a citizen of one country and the father a citizen of another country the child would have dual citizenship, if the father prevails is not factored in. Either way Obama does not qualify for Presidency as a dual citizen under this theory. The mother may determine citizen of a child, born to her, IF the father is unknown and unnamed and not determined. Further problems for Obama is Soetoro, especially if he was adopted by Soetoro. Adoption law ends the parental rights. If Obama’s name was changed in Indonesia, then what is his legal name? Indonesia further causes problems for Obama Barry Soetoro. If he claimed foreign student, again more complications for Obama. What name were his passports in. In the Mother’s pass port she used the name Soebarkah as her son. The founders intended the President to be a true blooded, born, raised American. The many mistakes Obama makes does not indicate he was born and raised an American. The words Natural Born distinctively exist in Article 2, not in the 14th Amendment.
In a case where a Mother determines the citizenship when a father is not known,the citizenship is not “Natural-Born” but can only rise to naturalized status, since to be classified as “Natural-born” requires knowledge of the father’s status as a citizen of the country or not.
While the founders used the word “Un”[alienable] the word “In”[alienable] has,essentially,the same meaning. Rights that cannot be abrogated by law.Not capable of being abrogated.
See Miranda v. Arizona,SCOTUS:
“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved,ther can be NO rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them”
From Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s latest post:
“Jay recommended the additional adjective be added before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels”, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (as it was translated to English in the 1797 edition) that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.”
If you do not accept this definition, please provide an explanation as well as your credentials on the subject. Otherwise, I will stand by the definition resulting from Mario’s extensive research.
Mario’s interpretation is quite correct. One must have two parents,BOTH of whom are Americans at the time of one’s birth AND be born on US Soil,to be President or anyone else in the line of succession should the president become unable to continue in office by reason of death or incapacity.
Obama committed Federal Election fraud and treason when he and Nancy Pelosi,along with his attorneys acted to conciously “Evade” the constitution. Indeed,Clarence Thomas admitted to Congress that SCOTUS is likewise “Evading that issue”:
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA
http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6507-4049
Your and Mario’s explanation falls down by the simple fact that Article II is talking about a Sovereign citizen and not just a native or a citizen created by statutory privilege. Since you do not inherit a sovereign political authority as a sovereign citizen from soil or women, the only part of Vattel that applies and proves my case is the part where Vattel says that the children follow the political condition of their fathers, and that the soil jurisdiction is just your place of birth and not your country. That is what clued me in that the soil and mom are irrelevant.
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:08-cv-02234-RJL 09/28/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Surreply.
???
I assume that these “men” were white because back then black Americans (just as white women Americans) had no rights.
So would you also argue that if even Barack Obama senior was a US citizen that his son, Barack Obama junior, would still not be a natural born citizen?
Please let me know what your answer is, and please explain the answer effectively.
Thank you.
There’s not much to explain. If BO Sr. was a US Citizen on the day Obama 2 was born, then Obama 2 would be a natural born Citizen. There is nothing “racist” about it.
Until we see the original BC no one can even be sure that Barack Obama,Sr. WAS Obama’s father:
http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-son-of
In addition,Obama is prohibited from being President for reasons other then his status at birth. Obama is a traitor. Public Law prohibits him from holding “Any offfice under the US”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4
http://americangrandjury.org/public/
18USC,Part1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381
Clinton v. Jones,USSCt,(1997)
Women of every race and men of every race HAD rights due to the fact that “all men are created equal”. Those rights were being denied illegally.
Hypothetically speaking, had Obama, Sr. been an American citizen married to an American wife at the time of Obama’s birth and Obama was born in the US, Obama would be “Natural-Born” American. In 1961, Blacks were considered full persons.
However, Obama,Sr. was NOT an American and Obama’s Mother failed to meet requirements that would have allowed her to naturalize Junior. Thusly, Obama,Jr. could not even be naturalized to BE an American. He was indisputably British.
There are other issues. Obama, Sr. was a bigamist,still married in Kenya when he “married” Obama’s mother. Obama,Jr. is the illegitimate son of a british citizen and an underage american mother who could not naturalize him,during a time when many states had laws on the books against inter-racial marriages between whites and blacks.
Of course if Barack Obama sr. was a U.S. citizen then Jr. would qualify as nbC. All men created equal does not imply or say anything about skin color. Black males are men so they are included. Keep in mind that the Constitution is the Ideal, but in reality, we must all live up to the ideal or else we have inequities in the law and injustice. Look at our situation now as an example. Because no one will live up to the ideal MANDATED by Article II we have an illegal usurper who knows darn well he is not qualified, lording it over all of us. It is ironic because legally, everyone is now a slave including white men and all women and it has been done to us by a black man and his puppet masters.
I stand by the requirement that BOTH parents of a President are required to have been American citizens at the time of his/her birth AND that he/she MUST have been born on US Soil. The requirements are placed solely on one individual. He or she who would be President of the United States of America. That is why the Vice-President must also be “natural-born”. We are a nation of law. Precedents are given high priority. The Law of Nations was merely translated by Vattel from Latin into French with Vattel intejecting some of his thoughts. The law of Nations was not written by Vattel. This treatise was written and used during the ancient Roman Empire.The requirement to be a “Natural-Born” citizen requires that BOTH parents of that NBC be citizens of a country at the time of the child’s birth AND that he or she be born in the respective country. Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis are BOTH required for a person to become President of the United States.
You have not taught anything to me Jedi. I agree that the term “Natural-born citizen is not…undefined”. It,however,is not defined in the terms that you outlined. Natural law IS “God’s law,laws of nature that are universally accepted in all societies. Positive law is law that is made by Human beings.
In our constitution,the founders enacted requirements to be President. When laws are enacted,it is common practice to look at the legislative history of the law enacted in order to interpret the original intention of said law. It was the intention of the founders to have a FULLY American citizen occupy the highest office of the land. No foreigners,especially not a Brit.
Obama was born a Brit. Technically,for THAT REASON ALONE,he is disqualified on it’s face.That no Brit should be President is undisputable.
Jedi,your statement that Natural -Born citizen status “has absolutely nothing to do with”…one’s “mom or soil jurisdiction” is simply obtuse. One example would be if one’s mother was a foreign citizen AND the father was also a foreign citizen. The child would NOT be NBC but would have to be naturalized,,if born in the US. If the Mother was American and the father not american (as in Obama’s case) the citizenship of the child would be determined by the father’s citizenship. This is positive law. The congress shall have the power to “establish a uniform code of naturalization” (Art.1,Sec.8,USConst). The positive law is that to be President one must be “Natural-Born” American. In Obama’s case,he is NOT an NBC and never can be. However,not for the reasons you proffered Jedi. You stated that “Obama is not qualified because he was not created by a US Citizen father”. First of all,let me point out that Obama was NOT “Created” by his earthly father (whoever that is,since the issue is stilll unresolved).Obama was “Created” by God as were “All men”. The term “men” (Homo in Latin)
means both genders,since there are both female and males in the species that “ALL men” (and women) belong to,Homo Sapiens. Any disparate treatment of women or devalument of their “Unalienable Rights” was a result of culture and not natural law. Those inconsistencies were corrected,or attempted to be reconciled,by the “Women’s lib” movement.
It is interesting to note hear that currently there are women in the US who are taking a stand with muslim women by wearing the hajib (Scarf). The effect of such actions is not to help them gain rights but to perpetuate their devaluation in Islamic society. I am anti-islam (But I will leave that for another editorial). Getting back to Obama. He was not even able to be naturalized when he was born. Congress enacted a law that required Stanley Dunham,Obama’s “mom” to have been a citizen for ten years/five of which were after the age of 16,just in order to be able to Naturalize Obama. She did NOT meet that requirement. For all intents and purposes Obama was born into the British fold. Obam was a Brit under the British Nationality Act of 1948. The US recognizes foreign law through treaties and international law. Obama WAS a British Citizen at birth. The requirement to be President is that one must be a Natural Born American AT BIRTH. Jedi,you say that the purpose of Article II is to preserve our republic “to be under natural law”. Nothing can be done by any human to remove anyone or anything from being “under natural law”. That is controlled by God and God only. That we are a Constitutional Democratic Republic,by positive law,protects the nation from EVER being a “Monarchy” again. The rationale for requiring that a President be natural-born is so that he/she would not have divided loyalties and obligations,as Obama does.Obama is the sort of person that the constitution requirement was directed at,as well as Chester Arthur,who was also a Brit. You say that women are not the source of “sovereign authority”. Men aren’t either. God “Created” man and endowed him with the rights we have. Ignore God at your peril. All men are NOT “Kings”. There is ONE “King” and that is God. “In God we trust”. In fact,it is expressly forbidden in the Constitution for any titles of royalty to be used and any acceptance of gifts or offices from foreign states.Obama has illegally accepted the Office of Chairman of the UN Security Force and “Lady”,as in first “Lady” is royal nomenclature. A “First Lady” is NOT a Queen nor is it an elected office. A first lady (or a “first dude” for that matter) are merely the spouses of our presidents.There are NO people in the US who enjoy greater “Liberty” then others. ALL enjoy equal liberty and are equal in the eyes of the law. One’s liberty may be effected by due process but liberty is uniform for everyone. Rights are NOT “Inherited”. Rights are endowed to everyone by God.Rights are not the same as “Priviledges”. You are simply incorrect in having asserted that “men and women’s political rights are not equal…man’s superiority”. Men are not superior to women.
Women and men are endowed with equal rights. Indeed,women have great strength (the endurance of childbirth is a prime example).We also have women in combat roles,so don’t proffer the mysogynistic and ludicrous statement that women are inferior or should be relegated to a lower status in society. A women can become a “Queen” simply by marrying the “King”.
You stated that rights are endowed by “nature OR the Creator”.There is no such thing as rights being bestowed upon one by “Nature”. Those rights are bestowed by the Creator. The Declaration of Independence is a positive law document which outlines the relevancy of Natural Law in the establishment of the USA. It is NOT a document that can be interpreted absent the providence of God. God is NOT a “Concept”. God is the Creator upon whom we entrusted our lives and liberty to ,who gave us our blessings of Liberty. Furthermore,it is NOT Positive law that “gives you ‘legal rights'”.
Legal rights surround all persons (and YES,unborn babies ARE “persons” with all inherent blessings of liberty,ibcluding the right to life). The Constitution, a positive law,merely enshrined those rights in a legal document. Would you read your circular statement again that “positive law is…man made law that give you legal rights which are priviledges…which are opposite of natural rights which are not priviledges”? In addition, a foreign monarch who inpregnates an american woman must still have the child of that union Naturalized. The child could never be president. He would be a foreign prince and those are disqualified to be President due to the dual citizenship and dual loyalties. The issue was “settled” before you decided to tap out your uneducated treatise.Obama has never been President of the USA. You ended “no lesson” other then to illustrate that your interpretation of what being a “Natural-Born” citizen entails is sorely lacking.
All men”. The term “men” (Homo in Latin) means both genders,since there are both female and males in the species that “ALL men” (and women) belong to,Homo Sapiens. Any disparate treatment of women or devalument of their “Unalienable Rights” was a result of culture and not natural law. Those inconsistencies were corrected,or attempted to be reconciled,by the “Women’s lib” movement.
The Equal Rights Amendment (to the Constitution) never came to pass because it was determined by the SCOTUS justices (at that time) that “All men are created equal…” meant all men and women, just as you’ve stated here.
Just so you know, according to Jewish law, religion is inherited from one’s mother. In other words, if your mother is Jewish, then you are Jewish.
And finally, if I ever run into Jedi Pauley in the mall, I’ll insist that he carry my purse for me because it’s just too heavy for my poor, weak, womanly arms. ;)
You are confused. There are no loyalty issues by having a foreign mom or being born on foreign soil because you do not inherit a sovereign political authority from mom or soil as a function of Natural Law, so you do not owe any political allegiance to anyone but your dad.
That is what is meant by keeping the Republic under Natural Law. This also keeps foreign royalty (kings) from the office of President by breeding with American women or having children on U.S. soil which could then become President and would turn us into a monarchy of foreign royals. That is why your mom and soil are irrelevant. Sorry but you are wrong.
Jedi Pauley says “all men INHERIT a SOVEREIGN POLITICAL AUTHORITY …The Declaration specifically lists LIBERTY as one of the inherited inalienable natural rights. Liberty is just a fancy way of saying that one possesses a sovereign political authority…Under Natural Law, sovereign political authority is inherited from males”
The DOI says “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”
We don’t inherit liberty from males. We are endowed with it by our Creator.
I don’t know for sure, but I would guess that the founders used the term “men” to refer to human beings, not just the male of the species. I know feminism and womens’ rights are a modern phenomena and our founders saw things very differently than we do today, but would they not think that women had the right to life or the right to liberty or the right to pursue happiness?
So…..are you saying that you were not created by your father? Then who created you? Are you an immaculate conception?
I don’t know about you, but I was definitely created by my father and I think most people are, otherwise I would be the second coming. That is what it means in the Declaration of Independence because God the Creator creates the Laws of Nature and then your dad creates you and passes along a sovereign political authority (FULL Liberty) to males only.
That is why it says in the Declaration of Independence that it is a self-evident truth that all MEN are created equal. Females do not inherit sovereign political authority from their fathers as a Natural Right and their political liberties must be spelled out in positive law statutes like the 19th Amendment that extends the legal privilege of political rights to women.
It is a fact of nature and reality that men and women are not created equal with the same freedoms. Men are born with more natural liberty (freedom) than women due to their physical superiority in strength. This is why you inherit your last name from your father in order to create clans to protect women from the fact that males are stronger, and to force males to take responsibility for the offspring that they create, which protects women from men of other clans. The creation of male clans (your last name) gives men natural political rights as a function of nature that women do not have, hence …all men Created equal… in the Declaration of Independence. You are confused.
Seems to me Jedi may be partially correct! As I interpret the following section of Vattel. I believe it’s saying, “yes” you can be born in a foreign country and still be considered natural born as in § 212, as long as your father is only temporarily in that foreign country and did not move their to become a citizen of that country! But the bottom line still remains the same, you gain your allegiance to your country thru your father and Obama’s was a citizen of Great Britian!
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Vattel’s Para 215 refers to citizens not natural born citizens. Para 217 dealing with children of citizens serving out of the country in the armies of the states is the only exception in Vattel. However, there is no clear authority in the Constitution stating that this exception applies.
I believe “born in the country of parents who are citizens” is clearly the operative definition, and that the Supreme Court would have to clarify the applicability of the sole exception mentioned by Vattel in para 215.
Your confusion is solved by the realization that Article II is talking about a Sovereign citizen so soil and mom are irrelevant and the part of Vattel that is relevant is the part that says children follow the political conditions of their father and the soil is only the place of your birth and not your country.
09/28/2010 MINUTE ORDER granting 43 Motion for Leave to File Surreply. It is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard J. Leon on 9/28/10. (lcrjl2) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
OK, let’s consider a situation with that guy, Al Maliki, American citizen. He goes back to, say, Yemen, marries 4 wives who bear him 16 children. Then, he returns to the US with one of the children who grows up and runs for the presidency. According to this analysis, he is fully eligible to become a US president, but does it really make sense? I doubt it.
For the sake of simplicity and less rhetoric of the issue at hand, the historical evidence of lineage to carry the “seed” of geneaology has been the male progenitor. Before Vattel’s work, the notion of precedent was more than natural law it came from Biblical writings. For those that do study the language of the ancient Scriptures, the fact is, that as far back as Abraham for receiving covenant promises the word in Hebrew for “seed” transferring lineage is sperma. The established norm throughout history has the “father” (male) concept as the namesake.
Notwithstanding, this does not negate the role or importance of women in the continuing genealogy of a family line. It merely establishes the order of it. For example, the wife at marriage takes on the husband’s “NAME”. You will not find in the history of civilizations the opposite of that order. It does not depict worth or value, simply the order of things historically. So, the cultures that abuse or devalue the female gender do not understand the nature and role that women play from creation. In summary, the father of barry soetero never a citizen of the USA has conveyed by natural law the citizenship of Kenya (a British colony) to his son and thus, violates the Constitution of this United States Republic.
The place of birth is another issue. That question looms large to many since there is no documentation to confirm a birth on US soil. The prominent fact by barry’s own admission (books probably written by Ayers) is his father was never a US citizen. Why the cover up continues is escalating by the day for both political parties. Fraud against the American people is rampant.
At the time of the writing or The Constitution, a woman automatically took on the nationality of her husband from the moment that they were married. If the husband subsequently took on a different nationality by naturalization, then his wife’s nationality followed automatically. Therefore, at the time of a child’s birth, as long as his parents were married, and his Father was a Citizen of The USA at the time of the child’s birth, then his Mother was also a Citizen of The USA.
Some of Jedi Pauly’s arguments above would undoubtedly have been used in The Supreme Court in the case of a potential POTUS, whose parents were unmarried at the time of the birth.
In my opinion, the ‘ORIGINAL INTENT’ of The Framers, was to ensure that the POTUS and Commander in Chief, had sole allegiance to The USA, and therefore, in the case of unmarried parents, the Mother and the Father would each, independently, have to be established as US Citizens at the time of the birth.
Of course, modern Constitutional jurisprudence allows, rightly, for a wife to have a different Citizenship to that of her husband. So, in my opinion, at the present time, in the case of married parents of a potential POTUS, the Mother and the Father would each, independently, have to be established as US Citizens at the time of the birth.
Birth on foreign soil would cast doubt as to the sole allegiance to The USA of a potential POTUS and so I believe that The Framers of The Constitution, would have been satisfied that the term ‘natural born Citizen’, that they used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of The Constitution, covered ‘jus soli’ as well as ‘jus sanguinis’.
The founders of The USA had just fought a long and bloody war to establish their independence from foreign rule. Anyone who thinks that The Framers of The Constitution, would have jeopardized that hard-won freedom by allowing a POTUS and Commander in Chief to have any risk of a foreign allegiance, must be totally muddle-headed. The Framers of The Constitution understood the term ‘natural born Citizen’ of The USA to mean ‘born on US soil to US Citizen parents’ – ‘jus soli’ AND ‘jus sanguinis’.
If ‘natural born Citizen’ had meant only ‘jus sanguinis’, in 1897, then The Framers would have added a separate ‘jus solis’, ‘born on US soil’, provision into Article II of The Constitution.
If ‘natural born Citizen’ had meant only ‘jus solis’, in 1897, then The Framers would have added a separate ‘jus sanguins’, ‘born to US Citizen parents’, provision into Article II of The Constitution.
The Constitution was The Framers’ conceptual baby – they would not have allowed any risk of their ‘baby’ being handed over to an unvetted stranger with alien allegiances.
Would The Framers have allowed the British subject, Barack Hussein Obama, son of a British Kenyan, to be President of The USA? – HELL NO!!!!!!!!!
Well said. Although I think you have a typo in your dates. I think you meant 1787 and not 1897.
Thanks Texoma! Yes, 1787. I need new glasses and my keypad is worn. BTW, do you live near Lake Texoma? I had a great vacation there a long time ago.
Your analysis is wrong. You do not have any loyalty issues from your mom or soil because you do not inherit natural sovereign political rights from females or soil so you do not owe them political allegiance. You only inherit sovereign political rights from your dad so you only owe political allegiance to your father, the one who creates your clan name.
Over the last two years I have occasionally heard it said that the citizenship of the father….alone, determined natural born citizenship. I wasn’t sure then if that was correct, and I am still not sure. I am sure, however, that a “native born” citizen and a “natural born” cifizen are not the same thing, in spite of Congress and the media’s efforts to make it so. Obama misses the boat on natural born citizen any way you slice it.
Technically and legally, ‘native-born citizenship’ would be the same as ‘natural-born citizenship as defined by the Supreme Court (and Vattel), in that you still have to be born of citizen parents to be considered a ‘native.’
Justice Waite wrote in Minor v. Happersett, “… all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” The 14th amendment created a constitutional category of jus soli birth that changes the children of domiciled aliens and foreigners into citizens at birth, but technically they would not be native-born citizens.
Article II means something more due to the proper noun Citizen. It actually means a natural born Sovereign citizen and not just native born or natural born citizen. Once you realize that fact of the proper noun ‘Citizen’ in Article II, it can only mean you must have a citizen father, and soil and women (mom) are irrelevant.
Very interesting opinion. Credentials woud be appreciated, as well as source references.
I do not understand why any credentials are needed.
Thank You! My arguments and logic make it clear if you just think about it.
This is not my ‘opinion’. It is a self-evident truth that I discovered not invented. It is a naturally inescapable objective result of logic and reason that anyone can come to and prove if they just apply the correct Law, and definitions, and rules of Grammar (proper noun Citizen), and the context of the Declaration of Independence.
and.. I have already provided the references and sources just look them up online and figure it out with logic and reason. Once again, the references and sources are, the Declaration of Independence, the meaning of Natural Law and the meaning of its opposite which is Positive Law, the definition of Sovereign, Article II, the rules of English grammar. What more do you need? The rest you must provide in the form of thinking skills. Just look up these terms on line at Wikipedia.
To clarify my earlier comment, soil DOES matter in American citizenship, in contrast to British practice. When I wrote “everything depends on the father’s citizenship,” it was in reference to Obama’s mama’s citizenship. The Democrats/”progressives” etc. turn natural law upside down by saying everything depends on the mother’s citizenship. That is the view I oppose.
Obama has staked his presidency on his mother’s citizenship and on a possibly forged secondary birth document from Hawaii, which had very lax birth registration practices. Obama pretends his father’s alien status does not matter, but the opposite is true. By the way, when Kenyans have claimed Obama II as a “son of the soil,” it was Kenyan soil they meant.
The law of the US was to make wives citizens upon marraige to a citizen father until the 1930s, so this analysis is moot as to the patriarchal inheritance. The gray area is the case of a child born to a US citizen unwed mother on US soil, which was answered by Hon. J. Story as being a natural born Citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1795, and the resulting erasure of the words “natural born” from NA 1790 proves that birth upon the soil of the US was indeed part of the equation. This was due to the widespread practice of granting soil birthright citizenship of many nations, which would endow children of military US Citizens on foreign soil with dual allegiance. Presently not many countries use this practice, so there may be a gray area where a child of US citizen parents give birth to a child in a foreign country that does not give birthright citizenship.
So Vattel is meaningless? Sorry – I can’t buy that.
Have you read Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s extensive writings on the subject?
What are your qualifications?
The last thihg we need is another definition of NBC to further confuse the issue.
Yeah. What David F LaRocque said.
Why does the writer need any qualifications? Her logic is clear and self contained.
I’d be convinced if not for Vattel and the other writings from the time (such as Ramsey sp?).
No. Vattel is very important, but only part of Vattel is relevant. The part of Vattel that is relevant is where he says that the children follow the political condition of their fathers and that the soil is just the place they are born but not their country. This proves, that for a sovereign citizen, which is what Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ with a capitol ‘C’ is talking about, soil and mom are irrelevant and children only owe a political allegiance to their clans (father).
Point taken, JP. I raised the primacy of fatherhood in this matter back when Leo Donofrio’s blog was interactive–about a year ago– and Leo’s response was that a wife’s citizenship used to always follow that of her husband, so it was assumed that both parents would be citizens if the father was. Leo may have fudged on this, but I yielded to his legal expertise. As I said then, though, it is the father whose citizenship is key. British law used to specify that citizenship depended on the father, so it is certain that our CINC was born British if his father is the one he claims. Until a genuine, verifiable birth certificate is authenticated, we really don’t know without a doubt who Barack Obama’s father is.
In this age of equal rights it is not popular or politically correct to say that Obama’s mama’s citizenship doesn’t matter, but in determining natural born Citizenship, everything depends on the father’s citizenship. We know Barack Obama’s purported father was an alien who, under natural law, would pass alien citizenship to Obama II at birth. So unless Obama’s name and alleged father are entirely specious, we have an alien Commander-in-Chief.
Shame be forever on the (Socialist) Democratic Party.
It does not make any difference as to the real parentage of Obama, because Obama Senior claimed him as a product of the marriage. In the time of our Founding Fathers, all that was necessary was for the father of record to claim he was the father in actuality, which Obama Senior did in the divorce papers. In the time of our Founding Fathers there was no way to test (such as with DNA) for paternity. If a man claimed to be the father of a son, then that was good enough for all legal purposes of identity, passing on of inheritance, land grants, and especially citizenship.
Thank You Harry.
Leo is probably missing the fact that ‘Citizen’ is a proper noun, meaning a Sovereign citizen. The sovereignty issue is what all the attorneys are missing and it makes all the difference in the world.
While all these conclusions do appear well conceived and may well be
true, I personally believe they are overly analytical.
I am sure I am not as well read and educated as this author but I still
believe our founding father idea and definition of ” Natural Born Citizen ”
came directly from thier familiarity with Emmerich de Vattel and his book,
” The Law of Nations “.
You are right. Vattel is very important but only part of it is relevant and used by the framers. The part that is relevant is the part that says that children follow the political condition of their fathers and that the soil is only the place of birth and not necessarily your country. This is what applies with the case of a Sovereign citizen which is a special type of citizen because ‘sovereign citizen’ conveys a citizen who has a particular political condition and is not just a native or natural born citizen subject, like under English common Law.
I think it is simpler than that. Natural Born Citizens, can claim no other sovereign, and no other sovereign can claim them. When you were born, there was never a dispute upon whose jurisdiction you fell under. The point, the founding fathers weren’t worried just about monarchs. They were also concerned that some idiot could damage the country, then later claim he was a citizen of another country protected by different laws, and not be accountable.
Pete
Nonsense….The only thing stated here is another OPINION and a far reaching one at that….Where is the source material?
Yes, natural born citizen has been defined alright….It can be found in print within “The Law of Nations” which is a natural law text that was used by our founding fathers as a resource guide when drafting our constitution…The Law of Nations was also used as a guide by many other countries around the world at that time….The term natural born citizen is defined as being born on the soil to two citizens of that soil….Under that birth circumstance it can be argued by no man, under natural law, that the person born is anything but a “natural born citizen”.
One more thing: You may want to go back through the above written piece and correct all of the mistakes…..Everywhere that the word “inalienable” is written should be changed to “unalienable”….There is a HUGE difference.
The DOI speaks of unalienable rights – not inalienable.
Check it out.
GOOD study unalienable. I agree with you.