“WE SIMPLY NEED MORE LOGIC”
by Ron Smith, ©2016
(Feb. 13, 2016) — You’ve heard that sometimes it’s not what is said, but instead, it’s what isn’t said that actually matters, right?
And rarely have those words been more true than with the recent debate over the meaning of the term “natural born Citizen” as it appears in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. That clause defines the requirements for president, and it hasn’t changed since it was signed 229 years ago.
Today, however, modern-day fistfights — or what we now refer to as ‘unfriending’ on Facebook — are breaking out all over the country as people on both sides of the issue are burning up Google and slinging article links at each other like a bad food fight. Each side is 100% sure they’re right, and each side is equally sure the other side is a bunch of amoral lunatics with peanut butter for brains, and a mother who surely must wear army boots.
How We Got Here
As a brief background, in case you actually have a life outside of politics, the fight can basically be broken down into two camps this time around–Cruz supporters who think he’s eligible to be president despite his mixed-brew of nationalities stemming from his Canadian birth to an American mother and a Cuban father, and the Trump supporters who think Cruz is the devil himself, hell-bent on sneaking into the Oval Office and trying to be the next usurper out to destroy the republic.
While there is no shortage of ammo for the food fight, one particularly lethal-looking weapon on the surface that the Cruz side relies on early and often is the Naturalization Act of 1790. Without getting too technical here, the Act, written three years after the signing of the Constitution, stipulated, among other things, that children born abroad to U.S. citizens ‘shall be considered as natural born citizens’. So, the Cruz folks say, “There you have it, you dirty, rotten Trumpians!” Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen, and therefore he’s a ‘natural born citizen,’ and that, my friend, is the E.N.D. of the story. In fact, Mark Levin and some other talking heads incredulously ask why we’re even having the discussion because it’s ‘settled law..
Well, in that sense, they’re right…it is settled law, but not in the way they think.
Let me explain.
Setting aside for now the fact that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED just five years later, and the new law, written by the father of Constitution himself, James Madison, deleted the reference to ‘natural born’ to describe those same children — specifically children born abroad to U.S. citizens — the new Act of 1795 simply refers to those children as ‘citizens.’
So, “Aah-ha,” say the Trumpians…proof positive that the 1790 Act was never meant to apply to the office of president in the first place, and definitely proof that the Cruz people are both smoking something AND inhaling (which in full disclosure is my point of view, but I digress). I mean, since it was repealed, how much more evidence do you need that it was never meant as a definition of the term in the first place??
Hiding in plain sight
But, maybe there’s a better answer to this question, and one that was hiding in plain sight all along. And before I share that answer, I have to give a hat tip to Atty. Mario Apuzzo for alerting me to the truth, and for Constitutional scholar Bruce Tanis confirming what I thought I was reading.
So here’s the big reveal, broken down in plain English…
Under our system of government, the Constitution stipulates the specific powers that are granted to Congress. One of those powers can be found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, the relevant part of which says that Congress has the authority “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.”
Seems simple enough so far, but what the heck does Naturalization mean anyway?
From Merriam-Webster:
naturalize
verb | nat·u·ral·ize | \ˈna-chə-rə-ˌlīz, ˈnach-rə-\
1. to allow (someone who was born in a different country) to become a new citizen
Ok? So follow me along here…
1. Congress has the sole power and authority to make somebody who’s NOT ALREADY born a citizen (a.k.a. an alien) to be a citizen, thereby granting that person all the ‘rights and privileges’ that any other citizen would have.
2. From other parts of the law and the Constitution, we also know that it’s only through the Amendment process that Congress can change the Constitution, specifically the meaning of what it says.
3. In other words, ‘Acts of Congress’ can’t change the meaning of words or concepts enunciated in the document.
4. Since the First Congress specifically said that children born abroad of U.S. citizens ‘shall be CONSIDERED AS natural born citizens,’ then by definition and simple logic, the First Congress also said WITHOUT SAYING IT that those children were NOT PART of the original meaning of the term as found in Article II, Section 1.
5. Note also that Congress DID NOT say those children born abroad ‘ARE’ natural born citizens, but instead said they shall be ‘considered as’ natural born citizens. I can ‘consider you as’ my brother, but a DNA test would prove otherwise.
Applying Simple Logic
Put simply, if those children were, Constitutionally speaking, ‘natural born citizens’ from the start and were a subset of who the Founders meant by the phrase, then Congress would NOT have needed in the first place to establish a law in 1790 that specified HOW those children BECAME citizens.
If they were actually ‘natural born Citizens’ per the Constitution, then why would Congress have then turned around three years later in the 1790 Act and said, “Ok, let’s get this straight…the kids born abroad to U.S. citizens should have also been included in the meaning of natural born, so we’ll just say it here instead.” By definition, that would be unconstitutional because Congress would be admitting that it was changing the understanding and intent of the words codified in the Constitution itself.
Conversely, and as convincing evidence, Congress did NOT — and has not ever — passed a law that said children born WITHIN the borders of the United States to U.S. citizens are also ‘considered as natural born citizens’ because it didn’t need to create a law for something that was already granted by virtue of the Constitution itself.
Conclusion:
Just because Jesus turned water into wine does not mean that Congress can change a ‘citizen’ into a ‘natural born Citizen.’
What Congress actually said in 1790, as is plainly evident from the logic above, is that if you’re born outside the country to U.S. citizens, then you’re NOT a natural born Citizen per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, and that’s WHY we need a law to make you a ‘mere’ citizen.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has picked up where the First Congress left off on this issue with language that if the First Congress had a ‘do-over’ on this, they probably would have liked.
In Schneider V. Rusk, (1964), the Court said:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”
That actually sounds a lot like ‘children born abroad to U.S. Citizens, shall be ‘considered as’ natural born citizens,’ doesn’t it?
The bottom line is that it would be unconstitutional for Congress to use the power of law to insert a class of citizens into a term that wasn’t designed to apply to them in the Founding document.
Therefore, while Congress gave Senator Cruz the right to be a U.S. citizen, the Constitution did NOT make him a natural born citizen. Since no law can change that simple fact, he is NOT eligible to be president of the United States of America.
In my opinion, we don’t need more laws to tell us what the Founders meant 229 years ago.
Instead, we simply need more logic.
Let the food fight begin.
I am, Zane Grey, and I did submit the Quo Warranto action against Obama as well as the most recent one against Biden and Harris (2021). It is currently in action at teamlaw.net and aschooloflaw.com. Irrefutable evidence from several reliable, credible, well accepted sources that only the psychopaths (democrats and globalists) try to smear and redefine in the face of fact. The definition of Natural Born Citizen has been the same for thousands of years as indicated in the first Quo Warranto action of 2012. In fact, the definition was so well understood by the Founders and people of that time that defining it in the Constitution was redundant to say the least. Natural Born Citizen and money are not defined in the Constitution, except for Article 1, section 10 regarding money and the States. God’s money is gold and silver and so is the Republic’s money. This Republic is founded upon Biblical principles of the Bible (Public Law 97-280).
Ignorance of history and definitions do not overrule them, democrats and globalists. It merely let’s everyone know your level of ignorance.
These actions are special remedial writs for the People to use to expel those they elect (it works on CEO’s too) when they fail to do that which is required of them, for violating the laws or for obtaining the office illegally. Period. They usually are not going to take action to fire themselves! It comes from the 12 th Amendment and the 9th Amendment and is aimed at the office of the US Attorney General’s when dealing with the President. It is a very simple procedure. However, it takes participation from enough People to overcome the suppression, aspersions and “sweeping under the rug” from the political parties it targets.
One person from each voting jurisdiction willing to take action in concert with the others from their jurisdictions simultaneously would oust ALL of the Congressmen who illegally seated the offender(s). They are mandatorily ousted from any future office as well and no pay afterwards from their “service” if they cannot show the Quo Warranto doesn’t apply. Even the Judge (Supreme Court) cannot deviate from the oustal from office.
One person from one jurisdiction completing his action would serve no justice as that State’s Governor would simply appoint his two Senators to replace them instantaneously. It must be done all at once from every jurisdiction to have the desired effect which is a clean sweep of the swamp called DC.
Liberty Steel is also me in this thread. It was the handle I used on social media platforms.
It doesn’t matter where the person in question was born. They could have been born on the moon and if their parents were Citizens then they are a natural born Citizen.
Senate Resolution 511 is a testament to this fact.
If your parents were immigrants and you were born here, you are a native citizen, not a natural born Citizen.
Natural born Citizens are those born of parents who were born in America, not immigrants.
The whole purpose of this clause, Article 2, section 1, clause 5, is to ensure no foreigner rules over this nation.
You get your Natural Born Citizenship from your father mainly, preferably both parents but, from your mother if your father is unknown. If your father was born elsewhere then, that is YOUR natural born Citizenship as well. You CANNOT be the President here,
Get over it already.
Obama was/is not and, can never be, a Natural Born Citizen. This issue was quite revealed in Zane Grey’s Demand For Action in the nature of Quo Warranto, December 22, 2012, which was swept under the rug by then USAG, Eric Holder, due to the lack of participation by the People, which was only due to lack of time to properly raise awareness to the issue of Obama’s ineligibility.
There was nothing Zane could due to get the Action into the Supreme Court without the People raising sufficient complaint by following his Action ( about 4,000 participated). The only way the Action could move forward, in D.C., is by the approval of the USAG. In any other jurisdiction, Zane would have had full authority of the AG’s office to bring the Action as a special prosecutor after the time expired for the Ag to contest or take up the Action.
D.C changed their rules for Quo Warranto actions.
Mitt Romney should have taken Zane’s Action from there but, he has proven since then to be a complete loser in office. Like most all of those in D.C. Except Trump, who is NO politician.
He wasn’t going to approve as he would have lost his job! Such a selfish, oligarchical reason to deny justice for the People. A tactic the democrats have become well known for.
All the other cases raising the issue were in the wrong court, at the wrong time, raising the wrong issues and through the wrong authority. They were brought by agents of the Obama administration to make it appear as though there was nothing that could be done about the imposter, Barack Hussein Obama, jr.
By law that Presidency is null and void for all intents and purposes and I believe Trump will bring that truth to light in the next four years because it is very important to this Nations security for future generations.
Once the global elite have destroyed the American economy, the rest of the nations will fall as well then, they can implement their one world order of one money, one court, one law and one man’s government for the world. How horrible is that?
It’s ‘broken record’ time again, as in a spinning, repetitively cycling, vinyl disk. Time to regurgitate Senate Resolution (SR) 511.
Caveat to next paragraph: I understand that putative president Chester Arthur was a usurper too, but I believe that he was a lone wolf and possibly only he and his close associates were privy on the usurpation deception.
When the U.S. Senate blatantly, but coyly, passed SR 511 during the month of April 2008, with a 99-member “YEA” vote, they set into motion the Original Sin of the usurpation of the office of the presidency of the U.S.A. The Senate portion of the U.S. Congress dug a hole and they keep digging, because there is no other way to avoid the dilemma that they are in. This Resolution resulted in the Obama usurper lawlessness, the H. Clinton security violation lawlessness, the spying on Donald Trump lawlessness before and after the 2016 general election, and the Mueller Probe lawlessness – and many more lawlessness actions that would consume too much space in this comment.
SR 511 resulted in a rogue unconstitutional government and the U.S. Senate knows it. Simultaneously, the U.S. House of Representatives knows this too, based on the the fact that they have been lying to their constituents on a 24/7-basis about Obama’s presidential legitimacy both before and after the 2008 and 2012 elections.
Previous attempts to eliminate the NBC requirement for the presidency met with resistance, obfuscation, and confusion by and from both chambers of Congress. See World Net Daily (WND) article in the below reference by Bob Unruh that summarizes these attempts. This WND article also reminds his readers of the double-standard Constitutionally-eligible wording of the 2008 Democratic National Committee nomination affidavits for aka Obama that were sent to different States of the union. Mr. Unruh also reminds his readers of the 2008 putative president-elect aka Obama’s suspicious ‘visit’ to eight of the nine U.S. Supreme Court members shortly after his 2008 election. Reference: https://www.wnd.com/2011/07/317705/
The embedded D.C. swamp, aka the UniParty, realized this change to the U.S. Constitution was unattainable through the Constitutional Amendment process, so the UniParty commenced to distort the meaning of NBC by using that same phrase, “natural born Citizen”, as found in the U.S.A.’s first naturalization law as the feel good momentum to promote SR 511. This ruse had a two-fold purpose: (1). to covertly define NBC contrary to the Founding Fathers’ understanding, which is born in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizen parents and (2). to convince their constituents that they were focusing on McCain’s eligibility, but in slight-of-hand confidence were using SR 511 to aka Obama’s advantage.
Because this bi-partisan SR 511 was designed with false transparency, the process was kept as low-key as possible to reduce suspicion by their constituents. The only thing transparent in this effort was the act of going through the technical procedural motions of a Senate Resolution. The actual votes rendered for SR 511 attained 99 Yea votes from the UniParty. Only U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, did not vote for SR 511. His recusal helped with the ‘integrity’ deception.
Details: On April 10, 2008, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D) MO, introduced a simple resolution that stated: “S.Res. 511 — 110th Congress: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.” A handful of other U.S. Senators joined-in on the resolution that same day. Those co-sponsors were: Hillary Clinton, [D-NY], Thomas Coburn [R-OK], Patrick Leahy [D-VT], aka Barack HUSSEIN Obama [D-IL], and Jim Webb [D-VA]. According to U.S. Senate protocol, SR 511 then progressed to the “Ordered Reported” status on April 24, 2008, that indicates that the committee has voted to issue a report to the full chamber recommending that the bill be considered further. Only about 1 in 4 bills are reported out of committee. Finally, on April 30, 2008, the SR 511 bill was advanced to the “Agreed To” status where SR 511 resolution was passed in a 99 Yea vote in the U.S. Senate.
Audacity: It’s insulting to intelligent constituents for Congress to promote the idea that either political Party in either chamber would initiate any resolute action item or memorandum of understanding that would politically favor or financially benefit an opposition candidate, as this SR 511 appeared to be on its face value. This SR 511 bill created a phony bi-partisan endeavor by having select members on both sides of the aisle show their support for it, both in the “Introduced” phase and then again in the final “Agreed To” phase with a near-unanimous 99 Yea vote. There had to be a reason why, all of a sudden, the U.S. Senate chamber became so cooperative on this – or any – issue. This is the UniParty in action.
Results: Corporate managers endeavor to hire ‘results-oriented’ individuals. Well, the desired results of this SR 511 bill were achieved by the UniParty who nefariously defined the meaning of an NBC as either any person who is born in the U.S.A. without regard to the citizenship of the person’s parents or any person born overseas to at least one U.S. citizen parent. The UniParty spent the time and energy to focus on McCain’s presidential eligibility – which he isn’t – to distract from aka Obama’s own presidential ineligibility. As cited from the repealed Naturalization Act (1790): “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: ……”. The key word that is under scrutiny is “considered”. Alternately, aka Obama should have been scrutinized and vetted as an ineligible candidate for the POTUS, but he was deceptively overlooked.
Because aka Obama’s two birth documents have been forensically proven to be forgeries, the true birthplace of aka Obama has not been positively proven nor verified. This behind-the-scenes incorrect definition of an NBC as anyone born in the U.S.A. or anyone born overseas to at least one U.S. citizen parent was instilled into the documentation database used by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). This incorrect NBC definition found in the CRS documentation database was then used by all of the Congressional Members as a canned deflective response to their gullible constituents if questioned about aka Obama’s own NBC status and presidential eligibility.
SR 511 Text Obfuscation: SR 511 stated, in-part: “Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’ own statute (stop right there on “statute” and let that sink in for a moment) defining the term natural born Citizen;” The ineptness of the U.S. Senate was confirmed when they cited an immigration law (statute) to confirm McCain’s status as a natural born Citizen. An immigration statute cannot make nor declare anyone an NBC. SR 511 was not designed to focus on the two parent factor for McCain; rather, it focused on the born overseas factor to a minimum one U.S. citizen parent.
Obfuscation by Omission: One hundred U.S. Senators definitely misled the electorate in 2008. Among other things, they did not consider telling the electorate that the first Naturalization Act (1790) was effectively nullified by the following corrective text found in the follow-on Naturalization Act (1795) that repealed the 1790 Act. The Naturalization Act (1795) now stated: [Excerpt] “…… and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:….” Naturalization Act (1795) further stated: [Excerpt] “SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.”
It’s the Law: Congress cannot make any person an NBC through any law; that is why SR 511 was a sham. Actually, previous immigration law declared John S. McCain, III, a statutory U.S. citizen at birth by enacting a law that states that certain persons born outside the limits of the U.S.A. are indeed, U.S. citizens, but not natural born Citizens. See 8 U.S. Code § 1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, Reference: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1403
Yes, John S. McCain, III, was declared a U.S. citizen, but John S. McCain’s parents also were required by law to document his U.S. citizenship upon his first entry into the continental U.S. If it takes a law to document someone a U.S. citizen, they are not an NBC. Instead they are a statutory U.S. citizen under the laws of immigration. I have a nephew who was born in England to two U.S. citizen parents. My nephew’s father was an enlisted member of the USAF. Their son also needed immigration documentation to complete and validate his U.S. citizenship upon his entry into the U.S.A.
Constitutional Crisis: Immigration and citizenship laws are made to proclaim and lawfully make a person a U.S. citizen through positive law. No immigration law can make anyone an NBC. It is my opinion that everyone that voted either for McCain or for aka Obama during the 2008 election and again for aka Obama in 2012, voted for an ineligible presidential candidate.
Summary: People are an NBC by the act of nature, otherwise known as natural law i.e., born in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizen parents. These two parents can be either all natural born Citizens, all statutory U.S. citizens, or a combination of those two types of citizens. Congress can only grant statutory (positive laws) U.S. citizenship. Repeated: Only those persons born in the U.S.A. to two U.S. citizen parents are natural born Citizens; all others who do not meet the NBC specification are statutory U.S. citizens and are only eligible for the U.S. Congress or for the U.S. Supreme Court. The authors and signers of SR 511 positively misled their constituents through political trickery.
All’s Quiet on the D.C. Front: Notice the eerie silence from all Members of Congress on any more attempts to eliminate the NBC requirement for the presidency? There is no need to seek this goal through a Constitutional Amendment anymore, because Congress succeeded to eliminate the real NBC requirement for the presidency by other means. SR 511 not only allowed an unconstitutional aka Obama and McCain to run for the office of the POTUS in 2008, but also emboldened the following individuals to run for the presidency during the 2016 election: Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal. This deceitful SR 511 has spawned three unconstitutional candidates for the upcoming 2020 presidential election – Harris, Gabbard, and Yang. Our two-tier justice system is on full display, every day in Washington D.C. What really is the penalty for citizens lying to Congress and what really is the penalty for Congress lying to We The People?
Yes, the full 110th Congress U.S. Senate rushed on over to the General Store and they each purchased a digging shovel with SR 511 stamped on the handle. They will keep digging to avoid treason charges, because they know they messed with the U.S. Constitution.
Good article, but my only objection to it is that nowhere does it say that even children born on U.S. soil are not necessarily “natural born citizens”. They may be “citizens” through birth on U.S. soil, but only children who are born on U.S. soil whose parents are both U.S. citizens, are “natural born citizens”! Birth on U.S. soil + citizen father + citizen mother = natural born citizen, period! If even one of the parents is not a citizen at the time their child is born, then the child IS a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen”. They are born as citizens of both the U.S. and the nation the non-citizen parent is a citizen of. Dual citizenship at birth is not allowed for the presidency or vp.
That is why Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, though born in the U.S, are “citizens” but they are not “natural born citizens” because their parents were not citizens at the time their sons were born. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, they would not have been citizens at all. “Citizen at birth” is not the same thing as “natural born citizen”.
Not true. Children born to Americans are natural born citizens no matter where they are born to those Americans.
No I don’t agree with you convoluted assessment. It raises more questions than it solves. Considered can be used or treated like a natural born. Again adding a new class of people to the narrower meaning. If the congress wanted to simply clarify they would have included a definition they choose not to because they knew the definition and was attempting to add another group. Madison rewrote the act to include citizen. Not natural born citizen. Forever seperating the two.
I’ve been doing some personal research and this article is really helpfull. It is clear to me that the Cruz people haven’t been entirely honest when citing the Naturalization Act of 1790. They fail to mention that its language was repealed just 5 years later and written by James Madison himself. Cruz is a citizen at birth, not a natural born citizen. Congress affirms his citizenship but has no power to grant “natural born” status.
“Since the First Congress specifically said that children born abroad of U.S. citizens ‘shall be CONSIDERED AS natural born citizens,’ then by definition and simple logic, the First Congress also said WITHOUT SAYING IT that those children were NOT PART of the original meaning of the term as found in Article II, Section 1.”
Not necessarily. And that is not simple logic. They were simply trying to clarify a term that had not been clearly defined since the Constitution does not provide a definition. Your argument only works IF THE CONSTITUTION HAD ALREADY PROVIDED A CLEAR DEFINITION !!!!
The taking apart of the word “consider” is nonsense. Congress is the law making body. When a law says “considered a Natural Born Citizen” it means the same as “is a Natural Born Citizen.” Therefore, the analogy, “I consider you my brother” is nonsense and a false analogy. I can’t make you my brother.
“Congress did NOT — and has not ever — passed a law that said children born WITHIN the borders of the United States to U.S. citizens are also ‘considered as natural born citizens’ because it didn’t need to create a law for something that was already granted by virtue of the Constitution itself.”
Congress did not need to clarify what was already clear. But, people at the time may have been asking “Does that include children born overseas?” After all, when you put a term like Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution and don’t define it, people have questions.
The problem simply boils down to this: the Constitution did not specifically define what a Natural Born Citizen is. No law is granting Natural Born Citizen status to children born overseas, just clarifying that they are by virtue of being born to citizen parent(s). Had we the bureaucracy in 1790 that we have today, that clarification would have been done through a Federal agency.
Wrong. The Law of Nations, by Emmerich D. Vittel, 1758, was used extensively by the Framers to draft the Constitution entirely. Natural Born Citizen was taken directly from that source by the framers. There is no definition in the Constitution because – WHY WOULD THERE BE? Everyone since ancient Rome and even Hebrew Israel ALL have the same rule regarding it. It os THOUSANDS of years old.
It is only the ignorance of today that is confused.
Money was not defined as well because well, same thing, everyone knows that money in the USA is GOLD AND SILVER COIN, like it states in US vs. Butler, US Supreme Court as well as in Article 1, section 10.