ALLEGIANCE TO THE U.S. PRESENT AT BIRTH
by thinkwell, ©2015
(Apr. 24, 2015) — I would like to present what is perhaps a new and unique logical and legal argument in support of the strict founding definition of the meaning of natural born Citizen. It is based on simple interpretation of the phrase itself (words mean things) coupled with an examination of the commitment inherent in naturalization. I hope this idea might be of use to those who are defending our Constitution in the various ongoing judicial challenges (as well as helping my fellow conservative denizens of the internet). The argument is as follows:
There is only one type of citizenship as all citizens are equally sovereign, none with natural rights higher than any other, yet the Constitution stipulates that a citizen must meet three requirements in order to serve as president, being: 14+ years a resident, 35+ years of age and a natural born Citizen. These are simply the minimum job requirements to become president and do not delineate differing types of citizenship.
Just as it is a false dichotomy to split citizens into types by age (those who are under 35 years of age versus those who are 35+ years of age), so is it false to assert that naturalized and natural born citizens are different types. All citizens in good standing have equal rights.
A former alien may become the equal of a natural born Citizen through the process of naturalization, but with two key characteristic differences:
1) a natural Citizen requires no process (legal or man made) to become a citizen, and
2) a born Citizen obviously becomes a citizen at the moment of birth.
So a natural born Citizen must possess all the characteristics of a naturalized citizen, but do so naturally and from birth on. One must only combine the two above characteristics with those bestowed by naturalization in order to understand the essence of a natural born Citizen.
And just what are the requirements of naturalization? In short, it is to pledge complete and exclusive fealty to our Constitution and one’s fellow citizens. That is, per the oath of citizenship, all of the following:
1) Allegiance to the United States Constitution;
2) Renunciation of all prior allegiances to foreign country/ies;
3) Defense of the Constitution against enemies “foreign and domestic”;
4) Promise to serve in the United States Armed Forces when required by law;
5) Promise to perform civilian duties of “national importance” when required by law.
The naturalization process excludes all conflicting allegiances. A natural born Citizen clearly must possess these same acquired traits, except that he or she must possess them naturally and from the moment of birth on. Split or dual allegiance at any time in one’s life is clearly an anathema to natural born Citizenship and is in conflict with its very essence.
Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley and other such hybrid citizens all who either now possess or have at one time possessed split allegiance (dual citizenship) are simply not eligible to serve their fellow citizens in the presidency.
“All citizens in good standing” do NOT “have equal rights”. A naturalized citizen does NOT have the “Right” to be President. An NBC does if he/she meets all criteria for becoming same. An alien can NEVER become a “Natural-Born” Citizen. A naturalized citizen can never change the circumstances of being born outside of the USA or to Parents who were not BOTH Americans at the time of said person’s birth IN the USA. An NBC possesses a higher standard of American citizenship than a Naturalized citizen. NBC “Simplified” you say? “Simpl[e]” is saying that if you weren’t born in the USA to Parents who were both Americans at the time of your birth YOU can’t be President. That’s simply put and that’s the standard.
Robert, no citizen has the “right” to be president. Certain citizens may present themselves to serve if they qualify. The minimum job qualifications are to be a natural born Citizen, 35+ years of age and 14+ years a resident of the USA. Beyond that they have to win the majority of the electors’ votes.
I think we all need to go back to Emmerich De Vattel to read “The Law Of Nations” and Natural Law/Common Law and other areas, then study what JB Williams has written over the last two years on the subject. All the grammar is wonderful but the fact still remains that we have a “dual citizen” POTUS falsified by Pelosi and Biden in the 2008 DNC Vetting Papers who has been protected by DNC Operatives by illegally blocking Criminal Presentments from reaching Discovery in every U.S. Court for over 6 years. 6 American Veterans have been illegally arrested and imprisoned on false charges with two still in prison and denied their citizen rights with no main stream media coverage to keep their mouths shut and away from the American Public. None of the new entitlement stars have mentioned anything about the criminal arrests but we only hear how much their going to do for everyone when we may all be treated to another self serve POTUS who eagerly serves himself. People in Washington are confused as they think they are there to serve themselves as time goes on forgetting the oath they took to serve the people. We need new people/parties and arrests to take place in DC to clean out the entitlement scum and stop hurting and destroying lives in America as we listen to more promises and worn out phrases- 95 million people are unemployed or underemployed. When national anarchy has reached it’s near boiling point it may be time to listen and remove those in DC that usurped their power. Treason, Perjury, Election Fraud, Identity Fraud, Murder, Theft Of Taxpayer Monies, Entering POTUS By Deceipt/Deception/Identity Fraud is a crime punishable by death for that person and ALL criminal assistants that have assisted that coup.
Ask any business person, a contract is only as good as the people signing it.
The contract can be ironclad; every ‘t’ crossed and every ‘i’ dotted, but if the people who are on the other side of the contract are crooks, shysters, deceivers, con-artist, flimflams, untrustworthy, then you’ll spend the rest of your life fighting them in court.
Same with our contract with our government. The contract limits the powers of the government over the people, but if the government doesn’t honor the contract (Constitution) because they are crooks, shysters, deceivers, and so on, then we rely on the courts to set the record straight.
So we end-up in court, like I did, petitioning the Court to require the de facto president to show his legal and true BIRTH CERTIFICATE. The ruling(s) in EVERY court was exactly the same: OPOVV, as a Natural Born Citizen presidential candidate in the 2012 election, has NO STANDING.
The short of it is that the contract (Constitution) between the people of America and the government has been rendered worthless, thanks to the likes of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, de facto president Obama, et al, who have taken control of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Legislative branch of government. Forget Congress.
If Obama is ever declared an usurper, and therefore ineligible, then everything he signed while the de facto president will automatically be ruled null and void.
No more Obamacare, the gateway to Socialism for America.
It is, therefore, imperative that those who are running for president who are NOT Natural Born Citizens be exposed and their candidacy erased from the ballot ASAP:
“For to accept non-Natural Born Citizens on the ballot for the 2016 presidential election will automatically endorse the ineligible presidency of Obama as having been legitimate.”
I agree wholeheartedly with you: expose them all and follow our Constitution, to the letter, as it was written.
There is NO “jus soli” right to U.S. Citizenship … zero,zip, nada….
There WAS / IS “naturalization” in the 1st instant.
….. all of the existing State Citizens were MADE U.S. Citizens by the required effects of the Constitution once Ratified.
.. in March of 1790 the Congress passed the “an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization” which CODIFIED the Doctrine of Birthright Citizenship, i.e.;
” .. Once a person IS a U.S. Citizen, then so too are there children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world”
…… in so many words by the EFFECTS that the words require,
… the provision providing for a “foreign born U.S. natural born Citizen in the 1790 Act was “repealed and replaced” by the 1795 Act and thereafter limiting the PLACE that a U.S. natural born Citizen could be born to “within the limits of the U.S.”
… the 14th Amendment’s “declaratory born Citizen provision” was / IS a “collective naturalization provision” that was devised, intended and did provide U.S. Citizenship to those who were made “Stateless”, insofar as national political character was concerned those who had been “emancipated”.
…. the U.S. Code acknowledges the “collective naturalization” effect –
8 U.S. Code Chapter 12, Subchapter III – NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION – Part I—Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization (§§ 1401–1409) .
……….. The 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship Act, abrogated the doctrine of coverture that had been practised and applied to all women upon marriage and making them the same Citizenship as their husbands. Thereafter women, wives, mothers are responsible for their own citizenship status.
WHAT most people fail to comprehend is that the ANCIENT and HISTORICAL meaning of the term of words “natural born citizen” is a DESCRIPTION of CIRCUMSTANCES that are attendant at the birth of a child and specifically those circumstances that were observed as being the most natural and most abundant within any given society .
… i.e., a child born to the acknowledged wife of a father who is known member of the society ..
From March of 1790 to January of 1795 UNDER the duly enacted Law authorized at A1S8C4 of the ENUMERATED POWERS SECTION of the COTUS a U.S. natural born Citizen was a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father ANYWHERE in the world,
…then after and SINCE the repeal and replace provision of the 1795 Act and reconciling the effects of the 1922 Cable Act a U.S. natural born Citizen was / is a child born to a U.S. Citizen woman and the acknowledged U.S. Citizen father within the limits of the U.S. , …. and not otherwise.
slcraig, I find your writing style a little obtuse and difficult to follow, so please forgive me if I have misinterpreted your meaning.
The 1790 Naturalization Act controlled the rules of naturalization and nothing more. The meaning of natural born Citizen in a Constitutional sense is immutable and not subject to change by any act of congress, especially one limited in scope strictly to naturalization.
By designating children born overseas to citizen parents to be “considered as natural born” had the effect only to automatically naturalize them upon birth, but without the need for any supporting paperwork or explicit naturalization process. However, no act of congress (especially one limited only to naturalization) could make them actual natural born Citizens in a Constitutional sense.
In fact, not even an actual Constitutional amendment could change the Constitutional meaning of the phrase. An amendment could only remove the requirement and perhaps replace it with something else.
That is why Congress REPEALED the law that considered children of Americans born abroad as NBCs. They aren’t NBCs unless they are born IN the US of Parents who are both Americans themselves.
Thinkwell;
1st; where in the “enumerated powers section” of the COTUS does it say that the words used in the provisions are to be taken in their most limited sense….???
The word “naturalization” does not arise whole-cloth without there first being a political determination to name its members, decide who it’s members may be, by what means of processes, all of the who,where why and whens they may be made and too, what of the members children later born…?
“Naturalization” is a political concept that encompases the political determination and processes of “making citizens”, and, as implied by the words of A1S8C4, an uniform Rule can be made of it and established.
The “language and vernacular” of which the Framers were familiar was that in which the Constitution was written, as noted by Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison, i.e., “Statutory Construction”.
When the 276 words of the 1790 Act are construed under the rules of statutory interpretation the combined effects of its provisions, written so as to ‘establish (institute) an uniform Rule (common-law {throughout the U.S.}) of (U.S. Citizenship {implicit} naturalization (noun sense), can be characterized as providing … ” Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world”, in their general applications, subject to exceptions and provisos as may be found appropriate and for cause from time to time.
The FACT that the Article II term of words, “natural born Citizen” was used for cause within the Act should NOT be dismissed as an error or an affront to the “nature” of the circumstances that produce them.
Obtuse …??? umphh
No matter what one thinks of their politics, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are NOT constitutionally eligible. And the two major political party lawyers Katyal and Clement can spin and put out disinformation to lend support to constitutionally ineligible people in both major parties, but they cannot change the original intent, meaning, and understanding of who is a “natural born Citizen” which comes from Natural Law and not man-made laws or acts of Congress. A “natural born Citizen” is a person born in the country to parents who are both Citizens of the country when their child is born. Dual citizens at birth due to one or more of the parents not being a U.S. Citizen when their child is born are not natural born Citizens and thus are not constitutionally eligible to be President and CincC of our military. Both major political parties are out to dilute and abrogate the original intent, meaning, and understanding of the term “natural born Citizen” in Article II of our Constitution and why it was put there. Being simply ‘born a Citizen’ was proposed and not accepted. The founders and framers added the adjective “natural”. And that adjective comes from Natural Law. Adjectives mean something. Look up the meaning of the adjective “natural” when it comes to legal meaning in front of a noun. A “natural born Citizen” gains their citizenship from the Laws of Nature, not any man-made action of Congress. Natural born Citizens don’t need an act of Congress to point to be recognized as U.S. Citizens. See section 212 of this legal treatise on the Principles of Natural Law which was written in 1758 Vattel, the 1775 edition which was edited and published by Dumas and was much used by the founders and framers: http://lonang.com/library/reference/vattel-law-of-nations/vatt-119/ Read: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html and http://jimsjustsayin.blogspot.com/2015/03/ina-post-on-harvard-law-review-forum.html and http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html CDR Kerchner (Ret) – ProtectOurLiberty.org
But a former born alien can NEVER become equal to a natural born Citizen, to state that there is a possibility translates that there’s a possibility. Way too many supposed “Constitutional scholars” think that Naturalization or Citizen at birth is equal to Natural Born and it’s not. Natural Born is the purest form as no government was involved, born to US Parents (plural, not just one parent) and on US Soil.
Then we have those that believe Obama wasn’t eligible for the very same reasons are NOW on the Support Cruz ship! There is no difference, both had a foreign father, thus disqualifying them from NBC but only granted them Citizenship via statute!
Some will ask “what difference does it make?” (not to use Hillary’s phrase) but it does make a difference and we MUST NOT allow that precedent to keep going further, otherwise, we could have ANY foreign influence as our potus and that is EXACTLY what our Framers did NOT want!
Princess Stephanie of Monaco – born 2 one US parent on foreign soil (she’d be eligible). Or a member of ISIS coming here, marrying a US citizen woman and giving birth to a child – that child could be potus!
Neither is Obama. Minor vs. Happersett 1875 SCOTUS
Progressive has nothing to do with progress: Liberal has nothing to do with liberality. So why should natural-born have anything to do with natural?
A Child who is born IN the U.S. of two American Parents can be nothing else BUT a 100% American by Jus Soli and by Jus Sanquinis. That is the Standard that MUST BE MET in order to be President of our AMERICAN Republic.
I think you need to make this public for ALL to see! I tweeted it several times, but forgot people aren’t going to be able to see it…
David Letterman is soon retiring from his show. Last night he made a joke about “Obama waving his KENYAN birth certificate around”.