If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

WHO ARE THE “PROUD, TRUE AMERICANS?”

by Hector Maldonado
(Feb. 20, 2012) — To be Commander-in-Chief, one must be a Natural Born Citizen.
Last week as I was testifying at the Missouri Elections Committee, they only wanted to allocate 2-3 minutes of testimony.  Sure enough, as I introduced Vattel’s treatise on  the Law of Nations, I was interrupted by the Chairman of the committee.   The issue with Obama is that he is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and many in power know it.  They failed to block him early and now the work is ours.
Obama will never play by the same set of rules, he only expects everyone else to do so.
We have seen state after state, challenge after challenge, judge after judge and legislator after legislator cave in to political pressures.  In some cases they just lacked the political courage or will to do America’s business. The good news is that we have a great team of Proud True Americans that bring true transparency of government and highlight the real dangers being created by the federal government and by Barrack Obama.
Coming Soon:  www.AmericanRebel.org   (Read Every Bill Entering Legislation)

The Military cannot win this war.  And be not mistaken, Barack Obama has declared war on the American way of life.  Politicians continue to say they just don’t understand why Barack Obama can’t see that his policies are failing.   The problem is he does see the effects.  And for Obama, things are going according to plan.   His plan is to fundamentally transform America and pillage her wealth, destroy her economy and create a dependency of the middle class.  Please join us.  He has called us his enemies.  It’s now our fight.  Godspeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CP3q6fj884Y

Obama Lies, America Dies.

History of the “natural born Citizen” Requirement

Only a “natural-born citizen”! Why is that?

It was the summer of 1787. Most of the colonies had sent representatives to Philadelphia for the purpose of creating a central government strong enough to provide protection for the various states, yet limited enough so as to permit those states to retain their sovereignty. The Constitution created was the result of great deliberation and even greater compromise. However, one thing in particular was so clearly recognized to be “the right thing”, that it was adopted without debate.

That summer, John Jay, while serving as Secretary of Foreign Relations for the Continental Congress, sent a letter to the President of the Constitutional Convention. That letter contained a suggestion for which no man was in a better position to understand than its intended recipient, George Washington.

Jay’s letter, humbly suggested that the position of Commander in Chief of the Army fall upon none other than a natural-born citizen.

You see, George Washington, having served as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy during the Revolutionary War, our War of Independence, had a personal understanding of exactly why Jay’s suggestion should be adopted without question.

By serving as Commander in Chief, George Washington had committed the ultimate national sin. He was the leader who took up arms against the sovereign to which he owed perpetual allegiance. His willingness to engage in battle with England was also a personal choice to commit treason; a crime for which the punishment, if captured, was death.

As Chief Justice Waite opined in the matter of Minor v Happersett (a Missouri case, originating in St. Louis County);

[A]ll 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…”

Some may still question the relevance and importance of the phrase “natural-born citizen”. However, for George Washington, it meant one very important thing. It meant that future Commanders in Chief (as soon as such would be attainable) would no longer have to make the decision of whether or not to commit treason against a foreign sovereign, to which they owe allegiance, while defending the United States of America.

The phrase “natural-born citizen” didn’t originate in England. It’s a term originating in the republics of Rome and Athens. It originated among “freemen”, not those who were subjects of a monarch. It was passed down/inherited among those who governed themselves.

By being born in the country, of parents who were its citizens, no other country could have a rightful claim to that person’s allegiance. The citizenship of that child was exclusive and conclusive.

As the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated in 1893;

“Every person at his birth is presumptively a citizen or subject of the state of his nativity, and where, as in the case at bar, his parents were then both subjects of that state, the presumption is conclusive.”

In support of the Court’s holding, they cited Minor v Happersett, and Vattel’s treatise on the Law of Nations (specifically page 101). Page 101 contains Section 212, which reads;

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Not only would it only be the place of his birth, and not his country; the father’s country (being a foreigner) would have a rightful claim to the child’s allegiance. Taking up arms, in defense of this nation, could also be considered to be a treasonous act against his father’s country.

Though Vattel’s work was not specifically cited by Justice Waite, the Judges of the Eighth Circuit knew the origin, and they had no qualms about identifying it.

We have recently seen some who are willing to consider the Fourteenth Amendment to have altered the natural-born citizen mandate of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Such an alteration is not supported by the text of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor by a review of the congressional debates (legislative intent) leading up to the Amendment’s adoption.

In other words, the attempts to change the text of the Amendment are the result of political expediency, not the result of full consideration of the Amendment or the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution or the subsequent Amendment.

Are we to let political expediency result in practical nullification of the national security measures put in place by the Framers of our Constitution? Are we to play the game without keeping score because we don’t want to acknowledge any differences among us?

Or does there come a time when we take a step back and recognize that we can once again become the strongest nation in the world; respected as much for our strength, as for our dedication to the rule of law?

The qualifications set forth in our state and federal constitutions, and in our legislative acts, were mandated because of thoughtful consideration of what is best for our cities, states and our nation. Sure, we can move forward, but to do so, we should first step back and recognize why we did something in the first place. If the reason we adopted a restriction is no longer necessary, we have the ability to change it. But let’s change it via our laws, not by our emotions. Doing the right thing isn’t always the easiest thing.

—– If it was, everyone could do it.

“DEEDS NOT WORDS”

Hector Maldonado

Oath Keeper

www.americanrebel.org

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. “By being born in the country, of parents who were its citizens, no other country could have a rightful claim to that person’s allegiance. The citizenship of that child was exclusive and conclusive.”

    The same is true if you are just born to a citizen father regardless of your place of birth or the citizenship of your mother. No country has a rightful claim to the allegiance that is superior to the claim of the father and his country. There is no conflict with that of the father. You do not owe any allegiance at birth to a country due to their soil jurisdiction or a mother who is from a different country than that of the father. Every nation from Greek times, to Roman Times, even under English Law, and U.S. law, all recognize the inheritance of membership in the society and allegiance via the father alone. The Unity Theory of Article II nbC is FALSE. Article II nbC simply means an inherited citizenship from a citizen father. The U.S. only recognized inherited citizenship from a citizen father from the time of the adoption of the Constitution clear up until 1934. (See Nguyen v INS transcript around the 39min mark) That is how every country operates. The place of birth and mother’s citizenship are irrelevant.

    1. Jedi Pauly, if only the citizenship of the father mattered, then it would have been unnecessary for Vattel to have used the word “parents”. When a child is born in a country to a father and mother who are both citizens of that country, then that is indeed the condition that will always make the child’s citizenship exclusive and conclusive at birth.

      Vattel may not have known of any country where the mother’s citizenship mattered. But I contend that he nonetheless developed his definition of natural born citizen knowing that a mother’s citizenship could matter somewhere in the world (unbeknownst to him) or that it could come about in the future. Indeed, that is exactly what happened in the US beginning with the Cable Act of 1922.

      It is also important to note that Vattel does not specify that the parents are married. In many societies, the citizenship of a child born to an unmarried couple was that of the mother, and not the father. Hence, the citizenship of the mother does indeed matter when the parents are not married.

      1. If a child is born to a citizen father, then he is a natural born member of his father’s country. Vattel makes it clear that the mother does not matter and neither does the place of birth. Countries all over the world, and the citizenship laws of the U.S. at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, only recognize inherited citizenship of the father, not mother, and soil is not even an inherited citizenship. Every nation recognizes that you inherit your father’s last name, not your mother’s, and so the political rights and membership within the country follow the father according to Natural Law only. It does not go by a country’s positive law powers. Positive law powers cannot create an allegiance claim over that of the father’s naturally-inherited allegiance. Sorry, but the place of birth and mother are both irrelevant and you will discover this when a case finally reaches the Supreme Court and they rule that only the father matters.

      2. You do not understand the use of the word “parents”. Vattel is not defining any requirement. He is stating how Nature produces natural members of society according to Natural Laws only, so that there is no need for the plenary authority of government, called Positive Law, to be necessary to define or create natural members of society which Positive Law cannot create anyway. If you just read on past the second sentence of section 212 and read the rest of 212 and section 215, Vattel goes on to explain that a natural born member of society just follows the father if there is not a unity of parents and soil. Everyone is stuck on the second sentence taking it out of context and misconstruing it based on the false belief that there is some owed allegiance to another country if you are born on their soil jurisdiction or have a mother from another country. There is no recognized inherited allegiance owed to any country other than that of the father, and that is what Vattel relates and everyone is ignoring.

      3. Jedi Pauly, “parents” means a father and a mother. And Vattel does make it clear in his definition that a natural born citizen is a child born in the country to citizen parents (a father and a mother).

        The point you fail to see is the exclusiveness and conclusiveness of the citizenship of a child born in the country to citizen parents. Under this scenario, there can be absolutely no legitimate claim by a foreign country on the citizenship and allegiance of the child at birth.

        However, if less than the above scenario exists, then there can indeed be a legitimate claim from a foreign country. This can happen if the child is born abroad to two citizen parents in a country that bestows citizenship on anyone (excluding the children of diplomats or of enemy aliens) born in their country.

        It could also happen if the child is born in the country to a citizen father and a non-citizen mother of a foreign country that has a law granting citizenship to the child of that mother. It is inconsequential whether or not such a foreign country existed at the time of Vattel or has ever existed since – the point is that a foreign country could exist that would have such a law, and that law would make for a legitimate claim of citizenship and allegiance.

        You did not address my final comment with regard to unmarried parents, where it is indeed not uncommon for the citizenship of the illegitimate child to be that of the mother. Even in this case, there can be dual citizenship, should the child be born in a jus soli country that is not the country of the unmarried mother. Of course, if the unmarried father and mother (the “parents”) are both citizens of the same country, and the child is born in that country, then there is no chance for a foreign claim on citizenship and allegiance.
        ——————–
        Mrs. Rondeau replies: I’ll allow this back-and-forth here, but if you wish to continue the discussion, I can put you in touch with one another privately. Thanks.

  2. This is very well said Mr. Maldonado, but it seems these frauds and cowards know
    one secret the rest of us do not, and that is just how many times a lie must be
    repeated before it should be taken as truth.