Monthly Archives: March 2011

Why “ALL STATES” Need to Adopt Presidential “Eligibility Credential” Election Laws

Let me set the stage with “Propaganda: A Primer by Mark Levin”  (1 min 8 sec)

While the rest of the lame stream media & blogoshere have been trotting out Donald Trump and his birth certificate, they have failed/purposefully glossed over the immediate Constitutional issue . . . “natural born citizen”. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that Trump has elevated this issue into the lame stream alphabet media, however that media is still pulling one over you.

Rewind to last Saturday night.  Mike Huckabee formally discloses, with a rather flippant attitude, the fact that neither the DNC, GOP, the US Congress or any of the states currently require that a presidential candidate must provide proof of “natural born citizenship”. Or for that matter, any citizenship at all. 

The only aspect of a presidential candidate’s life they are required to disclose is their financial history. WHAT? FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE? WHERE IS THAT REQUIREMENT IN ARTICLE II, SEC I OF THE CONSTITUTION?

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.

Arizona has the best legislation thus far  for determing the citizenship of all candidates. It requires everything needed for the AZ SOS to determine the eligibility of the candidate. It also contains protection for each & every registered voting AZ citizen to challenge a candidates eligibility within a reasonable period of time. The pertinent points are as follows:

16-507.01.  Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications; enforcement

B.  The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1.  A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate’s mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

D.  A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”

Today, Leo Donofrio published his latest research. In that research is reference to a 1968 US Supreme Court 14th Amendment case that clarifies what authority the states have in regards to interpreting the US Constitution and passing laws to ensure that the US Constitution is being upheld. The specific part of Justice Black’s concurring opinion of Justice White’s deciding opinion states:

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

I have read the opinions and it is very clear that the states do have constitutional authority to interpret the term “natural born” as it was defined by Bingham & Trumbull who were the authors who submitted the amendment in their respective chambers of Congress. Bingham in the House & Trumbull in the Senate. According to the US Constitution, it is the states who are the sole protectors of the ballot. Therefore, any laws that are in compliance with the US Constitution are themselves constitutional. Including laws governing eligibility credentials.

How sad is it, that today we live in such a morally corrupt era, one can not trust that any given candidate is going to have the integrity & honor of former generations. The kind of integrity & honor that this great nation was built upon. But not only the candidates, we can not even trust our own state elected officials to do their job to ensure the integrity of our ballots.

click on photo for a larger view

I have already reported how former SOS Chris Nelson accepted & certified the nomination of Obama & Biden without any shred of evidence they were even eligible. Neither the State or National DNC, in which Nelson relied upon by faith not fact, certified that the persons they nominated were eligible under the provisions of Article II, Sec I of the United States Constitution. However in 2000 & in 2004, the DNC certification of nomination did contain the required language.

2000/2004/2008 HI Democratic Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates (funny business going on in Hawaii)

WHY THE CHANGE? WHY THE REMOVAL OF THE QUALIFICATION LANGUAGE? WHY THE SAME LANGUAGE FOR ALL 50 STATES IN 2000 & 2004, BUT NOT IN 2008?

Is this the new kind of integrity level for state elected officials, both public & party?

 2012 is going to be upon us very soon. What are you going to do to protect your state’s ballot from ineligible candidates? In 2008  Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party), was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, VT, NJ, NY & Minnesota. 

2008 Governor of Minnesota & 2012 presidential hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, thinks presidential qualifications are a “DISTRACTION”.  And he also thinks that already debunked CNN reports are the almighty gospel truth:

So, just how reliable is Pawlenty’s CNN?

UPI NEWS: CNN Chief: Obama birth story ‘dead’; Published: July 24, 2009 @ 8:02 PM

NEW YORK, July 24 (UPI) — CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” the controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead story.”

Klein wrote in an e-mail to staffers Thursday that CNN researchers had determined Hawaiian officials discarded paper birth documents in 2001. Thus, he said, Obama’s long-form birth certificate no longer exists, and a shorter certificate that is public is the official record. 

Umm, I thought I just heard Pawlenty say that he heard on CNN that they had actually saw the original long form document? Let me check? Yep, he sure did. Now since Klein wrote his staff in a ‘super secret’ e-mail that the original long form had been destroyed in 2001(how convenient), how could they have actually seen it? Does Jon Klein & the CNN research staff have some ‘futuristic-super-dooper’ telepathy that allows them to see documents that were supposedly destroyed 10 years ago?

The truth is, Hawaii still maintains all the archived documents from 1961. If Obama’s original long form exists, it would take but a 5 minute call to have it released. The truth is, per order from Klein, the CNN staff of “propagandists” have been lying to the American public since the eligibility questions all began in 2007. But it’s not just CNN having all their fun at our expense, NPR has been at it for years now too. I ask you, is this how our tax dollars are suppose to work? NPR”S astonishing admission comes at 1:38 into the video:

 
FYI to NPR: It was “Hillary” supporters who began the investigations into Obama’s birth back in 2007, not conservative commentators & their followers
 
It is now 2011 and Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah-Obama has yet to prove his eligibility because Secretaries of State across the nation failed to do their job which is to protect the integrity of our ballots.
 
Stop and ask yourself one question: “Are you willing to risk going into 2012 relying purely on political blind faith in an age where each & every day politicians, as well as failing alphabet media “propagandists” prove how morally bankrupt they are?”
 

Live Commenting Now Open

The comment feature has now been reopened to the public. Comments will be posted without moderation, however they are still subject to deletion if inappropriate. This is a Christian conservative site, so please keep the language clean and the comments on topic. Thanks, Linda

“Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways UPDATED with 2 Official Proclamations From The US Administration of 1859

Since the SD legislature has refused to address the birthright citizernship issue, I decided to give it another go with Sen. Thune on a national level.  As that “IS” the level of government in which it rightly should be addressed.

In my call to his office today I inquired:

Can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically separating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.

From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them separately?

The 1995 Supreme Court case of  Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 concluded that:

[562] The Act’s structure and § 12’s language reinforce this view. In addition, since the primary innovation of the Act was the creation of federal duties-for the most part registration and disclosure obligations-in connection with public offerings, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability provisions were designed primarily to provide remedies for violations of these obligations rather than to conclude that § 12(2) creates vast additional liabilities that are quite independent of them. Congress would have been specific had it intended “prospectus” to have a different meaning in § 12. Pp. 570-573 . . . [563] The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that Congress contemplated that § 12(2) would apply only to public offerings by an issuer or controlling shareholder, and nothing in that history suggests that Congress intended to create a formal prospectus required to comply with both §§ 10 and 12, and a second, less formal prospectus, to which only § 12 would be applicable. Pp. 578-584.

In other words, when a “term” or “phrase” of the law pertains to two different subject matter, unless otherwise stated in the statute by congress, the “term” or “phrase” shall be interpreted as to not repudiate itself.

The 14th Amendment is a prime example of this rule of law, i. e. birth & naturalization. According to Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. on the rules pertaining to interpretation of laws, we can now surmise that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment shall have the exact same meaning for the one as it does for the other unless otherwise stated specifically by Congress in subsequent legislation or in the definitions of the “terms” & “phrases” of that law that is written in the US code .

Furthermore, according to Justice Kennedy the corresponding legislation to the 14th, the Expatriation Act of 1868 being that subsequent legislation, shall also have no affect on the law as to create any redundancy or repudiation of the 14th & the 1866 Civil Rights Act which held the verbiage of the codified law until it was changed in 1940 when the 14th & the 1866 Acts were consolidated into one.

Constitutional & legislative interpretation was written centuries ago and after the revolution there was but a couple of law schools in the US. It wasn’t until 1833 that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law school, wrote in his commentaries about constitutional interpretation that is still cited to this day. Chapter 5 titled “Rules of Interpretation”, Section 188 & 194 of his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

§ 188.  IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred.  By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility.  Of course we do not mean, that the words for this purpose are to be strained beyond their common and natural sense; but keeping within that limit, the exposition is to have a fair and just latitude, so as on the one hand to avoid obvious mischief, and on the other hand to promote the public good.

§ 194.  VIII. No construction of a given power is to be allowed, which plainly defeats, or impairs its avowed objects.  If, therefore, the words are fairly susceptible of two interpretations, according to their common sense and use, the one of which would defeat one, or all of the objects, for which it was obviously given, and the other of which would preserve and promote all, the former interpretation ought to be rejected, and the latter be held the true interpretation.  This rule results from the dictates of mere common sense; for every instrument ought to be so construed, ut magis valeat, quam pereat (the interpretation that makes a contract valid rather than the one that makes it invalid; law.nyu.edu).

And this brings us to the power granted to Congress regarding citizenship. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Congress was afforded the power to naturalize citizens, but only nature could provide for the “natural born”. Naturalized citizens are required by law to formally renounce, in front of a judge, any and all allegiances they may have to any foreign sovereign, potentate or nation & relinquish any and all titles of nobility to or of the same. They must declare that they personally & individually consent to hold but one citizenship, that of the United States. Therefore, the term “subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to one & ONLY ONE nation which is also currently noted in the historical archives of the Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization (1840-1950 when women, under law, were formally granted the right to keep a separate citizenship than that of their husband thereby adding to the destruction of the unified family under the laws of Nature & Nature’s God).

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

The one thing I have yet to find is a US law which specifically repealed the law of nations doctrine of transference of citizenship to children born in wedlock in a country where the father is a foreigner. All the citizenship treaties between the US and foreign nations were written based on the laws of nature & nations. I have yet to find in the international laws, reference that a child who is born in wedlock to parents who are citizens of different nations receives the nationality of both parents. As far as I can find, the doctrine described above from the Library of Congress pertaining to children born in these cases, is still on the books but hidden rather good in the extensive codes that are hard to manuever through. Common sense tells us that at some point these children will have to make a formal declaration as to which country they want to be a citizen of as an adult and it would require a formal renunciation of one of those citizenships they supposedly acquired. In my mind & from my understanding of the law, these children are really citizens of neither. They merely partake in the rights of their parents, the benefits & rights of which ever parent best suits their needs on any given particular day without having to show a complete and absolute allegiance to either nation.

The naturalization laws from 1790- reflected what was already required of those born in the United States from July 4, 1776, that they be born to parents who did not owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. Rep Bingham, framer of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment & the subsequent legislation of the 1868 Expatriation Act:

 “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 March 9, 1866 )

And later after the passing of the 14th & the Expatriation Act we find Bingham once again on the floor of Congress in 1872 debating legislation pertaining to a US citizen jailed in Cuba:

As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is no room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. by Leo Donofrio, Esq.)

Mr Speaker, the next point in the issue is as to expatriation. Expatriation is one of the most imprescribtible right of men. To assert it the American government waged war against Great Britain, in what is known in our history as the “second war for independence,” for three years. The right of expatriation is one of the fundamental principles of American government. (Cong. Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session page 2791)

First, the “second war for independence” that Rep Bingham is referring to is of course the “War of 1812” in which Great Britain was not acknowledging the rights of former British subjects who had become naturalized in the United States as well as children born on American soil to former founding British subjects who had adhered to the American revolution. The British government was clinging bitterly to their feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance, once a Brit always a Brit, that the founders had cast off to adopt the laws of Nature & Nature’s God. Secondly, if the nationality of the parents at the time of the child’s birth was immaterial to gaining US citizenship, Bingham would have merely stated that “Dr. Houard is a natural born citizen because he was born in the jurisdiction of the United States“. 

Now previous to Bingham’s statements on the floor of Congress from 1862 to 1872 which was never disputed, we find an even earlier reference that was also not disputed regarding allegiance & citizenship and how children of foreigners born on US soil gain citizenship:

28th Congress, 2nd Session page 129 

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts…provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States: 

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children…who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United State (April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155)

There is no ambiguity here. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to ONLY the Unites States, either at birth or by naturalization. Children of foreigners, whether born here or abroad do not gain citizenship as a child until the parents themselves become citizens. This is the doctrine of citizenship through tacit consent that goes back to the time of Adam & Eve. Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation. 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. (Law of Nations Bk1, Chap 19, Sec. 212)

Native refers to soil, Natural refers to blood. To this there is no dispute in the laws of God, of Nature & of man. (Webster’s Dictionary for the US Constitution (1828) Vol 1 and Vol 2 per request by the US Congress). And although according to Title 8 of the US Code, natives may be Nationals, not all Nationals are US citizens and they certainly are not natural born citizens because under the color of the law, one can not pass naturally to their minor child by the law of tacit consent that which they themselves first do not possess.

So No, You Can’t Have It Both Ways!

UPDATES:  NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US Govt Administration  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US AG

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

  

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

H/T to Leo Donofrio, Esq. @ Natural Born Citizen & his citizens researchers and my many fellow citizen researchers at Free Republic

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

Birthright “Jus soli” Citizenship Only Applied to State Citizenship Prior to March 26, 1790

There has been much hubbub in and around the lame-stream media airwaves as well as bloggers of all political affiliations regarding birthright citizen aka anchor babies. Now while much of it is coming from hosts that I respect; they just happen to not quite be the true constitutional conservatives they claim to be.  None the less, we are all entitled to our own opinions, however as the old saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”. Especially when one can not substantiate one’s own facts with evidence that can be corroborated by independent researchers. 

One of the 1st pieces of evidence that was brought to my attention nearly 3 years ago and hundreds of hours of research since was the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins in which Justice Gray stated in the deciding opinion of the court.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Gray is merely reiterating the deciding opinion written by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons” born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction” are.

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…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

And the 14th Amendment is merely the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ratified as a constitutional amendment with the 1866 Act itself remaining in tact and acting as the chief language used to enforce the citizenship laws until 1940 when Congress finally consolidated the two laws into one. We’ll touch more on this in a bit,  but until then make a note that  Title 8 of the US Code defining persons who were born citizens read as follows in the highlighted opening of the 1866 Act until 1940.

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

Thus, the Slaughter-House dicta was adopted in the holding of the opinion in the Elk case.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

And this is where most of the pundits derail themselves in reference to children born to aliens on US soil. They claim that only children born to ambassadors or diplomats are not “subject to the jurisdiction”. It is very clear here that the Supreme Court justices, including those who held dissenting opinions, determined unanimously that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” did not pertain to children born on US soil to aliens regardless of thei parents political duty to their country of allegiance.

Yes, prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, citizenship & immigration was controlled wholly by the individual states and the laws were as vast as there were states. While some held fast to the old English custom of feudal doctrine, many did not and they adopted the natural law, “jus sanguinis” in accordance with the Declaration of Independence which was also the law adopted by the US Constitution & the US Naturalization laws.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them

Case in point, the 1779 citizenship laws of Virginia.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Already in 1779, even before the “Treaty of Paris” (1783) we see that the state of Virginia had cast off the feudal doctrine of birthright “jus soli” allegiance and children born in Virgina to aliens not yet naturalized were themselves aliens born. Thomas Jefferson was Governor of Virginia at the time and the drafting of this law is attributed to him. He also was the Secretary of State under Washington until he resigned in 1793. Jefferson was a stickler for detail in order that there would be absolutely no obfuscation of the intent of the laws and he carried it with him into the Presidency in 1801. In 1802 the US Congress revised the Naturalization laws, repealing the Alien & Sedition Acts put in place by Adams as well as clarifying important aspects of the Naturalization law.

In my most recent research of the Congressional Globe (H/T to bushpilot1 at Free Republic for directing me specifically to the 28th Congressional debates) I finally found specific reference to the much important Naturalization Act of 1802.

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

That last part intrigued me as I had read the 1802 Act several times but had never latched onto the pertinent part of the Act which states:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

Under the Article of Confederation, the states & their citizenship & naturalization laws were independent of each other; each acting separately & wholly for the benefit of the individual state as if it was an independent nation in & of itself under the Laws of Nations. Birthright “jus soli” citizenship only pertained to state citizenship proffered to children born to aliens within the states that kept the feudal law in place prior to the adoption of the US Constitution & prior to the passing of the 1790 Naturalization Act. Therefore, children born to aliens on US soil prior to AND after the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not become US citizens until their parents, themselves finalized their immigration process & became US citizens as US citizenship did not exist until the ratification of the US Constitution.

According to Black’s Law, laws are to be specific and not made to create “Repugnancy” (Black’s Law 1171 5th Ed) Rule of Civil Proc. 8 ) if they refer to similar subject matter as did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the 14th Amendment that remained in place at the same time for 72 years. When the 1866 Civil Rights Act was consolidated with the 14th Amendment in 1940, it was a matter of common sense jurisprudence that a formal change in the verbiage of Title 8, from “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction”, needed to be made to reflect the verbiage of the law still in place. Not because the Civil Rights Act was repugnant, but because Congress finally made the decision that since the 1866 Act was constitutionalized by the amendment process, the law no longer needed to remain in place as the other aspects of the Act had been formally transferred to different sections of the US Code pertaining specifically to other civil rights. Also, parts such as expatriation had also been transferred & reflected in Title 22 under foreign affairs while some parts of the expatriation act still remain under Title 8.

Title 8> Chapter 1> §§ 1-18. Repealed or Omitted

These sections, relating to citizenship, were affected by the Nationality Act of 1940, former section 501 et seq. of this title.

That act was passed on Oct. 14, 1940, to consolidate and restate the laws of the United States regarding citizenship, naturalization, and expatriation, and, in addition to certain specific repeals thereby, all acts or parts of acts in conflict with its provisions were repealed by former section 904 of this title. See the notes below for history of individual sections.

Section 1, relating to citizenship of persons born in the United States, was repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, § 504, 54 Stat. 1172. It was from R.S. § 1992, which was revised from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27. Similar provisions were contained in former section 601 (a) of this title. See section 1401 of this title. [emphasis mine]

And that is where I will close, with the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” approved by Congress on July 27, 1868 that denounces any claim, notion or concept that the United States does or ever did adopt & recognize any form of dual nationality & that the Law of Nations as adopted by the United States government is the common law of the national government as it is the only law that remains constant when dealing with independent & sovereign states under a Republican form of government.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Therefore, the 14th Amendment along with its sister act, “The Expatriation Act of 1868, any “claims” that there was anything such as dual citizenship was finally & formally declared to be inconsistent with the principles of our Republican form of government; and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” as ratified by the states has always meant “owing allegiance exclusively to the United States”. Birth on US soil & US citizenship are not naturally inclusive terms unless born to parent(S) (plural) who do not owe allegiance to any foreign nation. All others fall under the naturalization clauses of Title 8 and are citizens by statute, not by nature, thus they can never claim to be “natural born” US citizens. At most, they are naturalized citizens per old English feudal law as shown in Sec 214 of the law of nations. At the least, they are foreigners permitted to settle & stay in the country under Sec 213 of the law of nations. These persons may be citizens of their local community; but still owing direct allegiance to their home country, they & their children therefore are not US citizens for constitutional purposes.

Law of Nations Bk 1

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

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.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted at other blogs without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.

Jeremiah 5:5-6

So I will go to the leaders
and speak to them;
surely they know the way of the LORD,
the requirements of their God.”
But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
and torn off the bonds.
Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them,
a wolf from the desert will ravage them,
a leopard will lie in wait near their towns
to tear to pieces any who venture out,
for their rebellion is great
and their backslidings many.