Incurable Incapacity


by Steven L. Craig, ©2014

(Feb. 5, 2014) — This inquiry is an attempt to open the eyes of those who have already opened their ears and heard, opened their minds and learned and wish to pursue the question to its ultimate conclusion under the Constitutional Rule of Law.

The Constitutional question considered, among others:

“Does the lack of “eligibility” in the 1st instant constitute an “incurable incapacity” that falls under the LAWS written in the 25th Amendment provide for the “removal” of a POTUS …?…”

The question of POTUS “eligibility” is a 1st instant Constitutional question that ultimately relies on the Federal Laws as enacted post adoption of the Constitution for resolution.

A “stipulated and adjudicative FACT” is acknowledged herein, i.e.;

“Currently there is no uniformly acknowledged “legal” (enforceable) definition or identification of circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the intended Constitutional usage of the term of words (U.S.), “natural born Citizen.”

The Preamble says, in abbreviation highlighting the parts pertinent to this subject; … “ … We the people of the United States, in order to  …  secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. … “

Although it may seem to be a statement that “goes without saying,” it was said; … “ … to ourselves and our posterity … “

Hold that thought and then go to Article I Section VII Clause IV, the “enumerated powers” section of the Legislative Branch; …

“ … The Congress shall have power; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; … “

I will footnote an inquiry into the “legal” distinctions between “Rule and Laws” but will express now that in this instant and context I take the expression “to establish an uniform Rule … “ to mean to establish an uniform “principle” upon which all subsequent laws on the subject are based and suggest that “Rule, principle and/or doctrine” are synonymous for the purpose of effecting the intended results of the subject portion of the Clause.

Then to the heart of the debate I consider the subject Clause of A2S1C5 and its statutory construction which translates as an “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirements provision” that defines the “eligibly requirements” of a POTUS, to which the rules of statutory interpretations must be applied.

“ … No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of 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 within the United States. … “

Justice Waite, in Minor vs Happersett, remarked that;  …

“ … 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. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. …[pg 168]”

The Swiss philosopher Emmerich de Vattel wrote “The Law of Nations,” which was heavily referenced by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution

{When reading Vattel in proper context we find that “natives” refers to those members of the political society that are born of “citizens” themselves: (see Vattel at Chap I at 121 & Chap. II at 212)}

In the text of A2S1C5 the provision its-self distinguished between “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen” and then Justice Waite confirmed that whatever else a “natural born Citizen” may be there is no doubt that they are children of “Citizens.”

So to recap to this point we see that the Founders provided for themselves and their posterity with “posterity” including not only their own children and future generations but those others that may be added from time to times under A1S8C4.

Here we must turn to the Act & Acts of the U.S. Congress to fully define the “exclusionary” circumstances that by their effects define who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen.

I suggest that to “resort” elsewhere is a “fool’s errand” and is an errant errand that I fully participated in.

But at the end of the globe-trotting pursuits of interpreting foreign laws and time traveling investigations of ancient doctrines and reviewing the works of political philosophizers seeking fundamental truths on the subject I come to realize, and accept, that upon its adoption the Constitution became the Supreme Law of THIS land and that the Congress was given by MANDATE the “plenary power” on the subjects of Citizenship, Nationality and naturalization, each being one in the same in the 1st instant context of establishing a new Nation among the Nations of the World.

So, in order to “define” who is or is not a “ U.S. natural born Citizen” it requires identifying the circumstances by which such a Constitutional Creature may be made under the Federal Laws, as suggested by Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; as he recently found in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

“… ANALYSIS    .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “


“…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case.  Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial …”[pg 6/7/8]

“Construed under federal law” being THE requisite condition in order to be Constitutional, legal and enforceable.

To those who continue to suggest that English Common Law interpretations of the Queen Anne, et seq., Statutes on British Nationality or provisions found in the theoretical political writings of Vattel can be cited as “controlling legal authority” on this subject I would suggest, as Blackstone had in the Introduction to his Commentaries on the English Common Law, to 1st look at our own Laws and then, where appropriate, construe those laws under the common law system.

The Act of the 1st Congress on the subject in March of 1790 honored its mandate at A1S8C4 with the title of “ an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization” and then set out in its 278 words of a succinct single paragraph the circumstances by which the Founders posterity and new citizens would be recognized and made in the exercise of their plenary power and establishing the “uniform Rule”*; “Once a Citizen, then so too are the children of Citizens.”

Although the Act does not say “Jus Sanguinis” or “birth-right citizenship,” the EFFECTS of the words REQUIRE IT, that being the essence of Statutory Construction and Interpretation.

Thereafter, when the Rule* as expressed is agreed upon and stipulated to and then combined with the historical fact that women, not mentioned in any circumstance of the Act, were assumed as being the same political character as the husband requires that both parents be assumed to be U.S. Citizen parents in any instance that a child is said to be “born Citizen.”

The Cable Act of 1922 on the heels of the Suffrage Amendment did away with the “assumption” of political character of women but could not effect, by simple legislation, the historical Constitutional circumstances required to be identified as being a U.S. natural born Citizen noting that “marriage” became a moot consideration.

So we are left with the circumstances requisite to be identified as being a U.S. natural born Citizen limited to being born of U.S. Citizen parents anywhere in the world between March 1790 and January 1795 and thereafter limited to being born to said parents within any of the several States.

These circumstances being in full conformity to the 1st instant expressions by the Queen Anne Statutes born of historical English common laws that were derived from the ancient Roman and Greek doctrines as rendered by the likes of Cicero and Aristotle that also informed the works of Vattel.

So now to the point of this inquiry, i.e., considering the aftermath of the legal confirmation of the TRUE nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen and the effect it would have on a person occupying the Office of POTUS that might be found lacking in eligibility.

I assert the proposition that Impeachment is NOT the correct Constitutional process to cure the act of usurpation of the office of POTUS by an ineligible person.

Impeachment concerns offensive acts, large and small as construed through the lenses of accumulated political will, whereas the 25th Amendment provides for the “REMOVAL” of a POTUS for “incapacity” as an Operation of Law.

“Ineligibility” being a 1st instant Constitutional deficiency is therefore an “incurable incapacity” that is NOT subject to determination through the lenses of political will but rather the correct interpretation of existing Federal Laws.


In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President….”

This Section considers the REMOVAL of a POTUS WITHOUT specifying the “cause or mechanism” by which the REMOVAL is facilitated.

Moving to Sec. 3 it is found that it requires a Justice Marshall interpretation as noted in Marbury v Madison;

“ … Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it. {p.175] …”


Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President….”

Applying the Marshall rule it can be posited that a published “finding” of POTUS “ineligibility” is then taken as a “transmission” by that subject person of his inability to discharge his duties under the terms of the Constitutional effect of A2S1C5 and that the lacking of ability to cure the state of ineligibility forecloses the ability to transmit a declaration to the contrary.

Articles of REMOVAL “would then be required to be written in the House and sent to the Senate in the form of a “Petition for Writ of Execution of the Order of Removal,” being advised then by the presiding SCOTUS Chief Justice on the Law and Operation of Law.

The 1790 “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization (citizenship).” The ONLY Act of Congress that expresses the “term of words” set out in the Constitution and then establishes the “federal legal basis” by which to construe the term of words under U.S. Federal Law.

One Response to "Incurable Incapacity"

  1. Stephen Hiller   Thursday, February 6, 2014 at 9:08 AM

    Obama is first and foremost NOT a natural-born citizen, but is first and foremost a natural-born traitor to this country in “time of war” and should be charged as such, found guilty, and face a firing squad. PERIOD !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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