“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.

Who is Thune’s Armed Services Personnel Staffer, John Costic & What are His Credentials Regarding UCMJ?

I hadn’t posted this as I have been waiting for the Thune staffer, John Costic, responsible for this reply to my request regarding Lt. Col. Terry Lakin. John has had a week to answer my questions regarding the reply he sent on behalf of Thune. I guess he thinks he is really clever. I’ll let you decide. Did Thune actually see the request or did Costic act independently regarding the grave  situtation of Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, a highly decorated  Army officer & battle tested doctor to the brave men & women in harms way?

original request:

Sept. 24, 2010

Dear Sen. Thune,

As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the sub-committee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action.

The Commander in Chief has begun court martial proceedings against Lt Col Terry Lakin. Now Lt Col Lakin is being refused access to documents that are critical to his defense. The most current ruling from the military judge who refused release of Obama’s original vault birth certificate & ALL school & college records stated:

Sept 2, 2010 Fort Meade, Maryland

“The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=5329 

If there is no question as to the location of Obama’s birth, then why for over 2 years now has he been fighting in courts all over the country to keep his original vault records from seeing the light of day. This is “NOT” the actions of an honorable commander of the US military.

In July of this year, in a blatant disregard of orders of a federal judge, the US State Dept. released only partial passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro.

However, after careful study of the files that were released, what the records do conclusively show is that in 1968 Barack-Barry-Hussein-Obama II-Soetoro-Soebarkah was “NOT” a US citizen. 

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/us-state-dept-confirms-obama-not-a-us-citizen-in-1968/

This has gone on far too long & it’s time to put politics & elections aside for the sake of our nation & our national security.

I am trusting, that in light of all this new evidence, you will do the honorable thing and put your country before yourself. Please do the right & moral thing by serving your state & country as an upright public servant of honor & integrity by once & for all putting an end to this abuse of political power currently being displayed by Obama & his administration. I implore you to request the immediate release of all the records requested on behalf of Lt Col Terry Lakin by his defense team.

No one is above the law, especially those public servants who took an oath to protect & defend it.

Respectfully,

Linda Melin

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/

I will be in contact with your office on Monday, Sept. 28, 2010. The day of the next hearing for Lt Col Lakin in his legal defenses efforts to get the vital records for his defense released.

_______________________________________________

Lt Col Terry Lakin Defense @ http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

Reply from John Costic, Thune staffer on Armed Services Personnel Issues:

Correspondence from Senator Thune

correspondence_reply@thune.senate.gov

To: xxxxxxx@unitelsd.com

September 30, 2010

(address redacted by me)

Dear Linda:

Thank you for contacting me about the qualifications necessary to serve as President of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you.

Like you, I believe we must vigorously uphold the provisions of our Constitution. Although all three branches of the federal government must abide by the Constitution, the interpretation and applicability of its terms are usually determined by the judicial branch.

As you may know, Article II of the United States Constitution states the requirements for an individual to be President. A presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, be 35 years of age, and have been a resident within the United States for 14 years.

On December 8, 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States turned down an appeal from Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey man who argued that President Barack Obama is ineligible to serve as president because of the British citizenship of his father. A similar appeal by a Connecticut man, Cort Wrotnowski, was also rejected by the Supreme Court on December 15, 2008.

On July 28, 2009, the Senate passed S. Res. 225 by unanimous consent. This nonbinding resolution, which commemorates the 50th anniversary of the entry of Hawaii into the United States as the 50th State, also states that, “the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.”

Thanks again for contacting me. If you would like additional information on my activities in the Senate, please feel free to visit my website, http://thune.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Kindest regards,

JOHN THUNE

United States Senator

Who is John Costic & what are his credentials regarding the USMCJ  UCMJ? Or for that matter, what is his education background regarding the US Constitution?

First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

Oh how this rings true for today’s times.  We are not far from our founding in years, but oh so far from its founding principles that the chains of oppression are felt daily. Can we make it back? Only God knows. Say a prayer for His will to be done.

US State Dept Confirms: Obama “NOT” a US Citizen Prior to & in 1968; UPDATE: Important historical find

ALL UPDATES WILL APPEAR AFTER THE INTIAL ARTICLE

Not that our elected officials who refused to do their job in the fall of 2008 before the election and everyday since then will do anything, but these official documents from Obama’s mothers passport files are proof positive that Obama was “NOT” a US citizen prior to & in 1968. Even after an order from a federal judge, the US State Dept is still withholding all of Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records prior to this 1968 renewal she submitted at the Jakarta, Indonesia consular’s office. So the question begs to be answered…

Where is the affidavit of Obama’s foreign citiznship that was submitted with this application & when did Obama or his mother formally renounce this foreign citizenship that has now been verified by the US State Dept? Where are those records?

 [photo by SvenMagnussen, member of Free Republic]

Barack-Barry-Hussein-Obama II-Soetoro-Soebarkah?

Will we ever know which combination of the above is the official name of the pResident? 

It’s time to release the RECORDS!

 

Support Lt Col Terry Lakin

September 28th is the next hearing date for discovery. Thus far it has been denied because it just might “embarrass” Obama.  Read all about the Obama administrations abuse of this highly decorated active military doctor who has served in 2 wars & is still packed & ready to go if only the commander in thief would pony up his papers. Just as every other member of the military has to do prior to each & every deployment.

March 30, 2010

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

For more than seventeen years, I have had the privilege of serving my country as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces, including overseas assignments in imminent danger/combat areas in Bosnia and Afghanistan.

The United States is an example to the rest of the world of a stable, civilized democratic government where all men are created equal and the rule of law is cherished and obeyed. The U.S. military teaches and promotes the rule of law and civilian control of the military to many other nations and militaries around the world. Every soldier learns what constitutes a lawful order and is encouraged to stand up and object to unlawful orders. My officer’s oath of office requires that I swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I recently received deployment orders for a second deployment to Afghanistan. My orders included a requirement to bring copies of my birth certificate. I will provide a certified copy of my original birth certificate with common, standard identifiers, including the name of an attending physician and a hospital. Every day in transactions across the country, American citizens are required to prove their identity, and standards for identification have become even stricter since the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

Since the fall of 2008, I have been troubled by reports that your original birth certificate remains concealed from public view along with many other records which, if released, would quickly end questions surrounding your place of birth and “natural born” status. Many people mistake the online Certification of Live Birth for an original birth certificate. Until the summer of 2009, the Hawaiian Department of Homelands would not accept this Certification of Live Birth to determine native Hawaiian identity–the Department insisted upon also reviewing an original birth certificate. Many do not understand that the online document was from 2007, generated by computer, laser-printed, and merely a certification that there is an original birth certificate on file which may or may not be sufficiently probative. An original birth certificate is the underlying document that presumably includes a hospital and attending physician’s or midwife’s name that should lay to rest the “natural born” dispute.

In 2008, after pressure from the news media, Senator McCain produced an original birth certificate from the Panama Canal Zone; a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing examined and affirmed his “natural born” status and Constitutional eligibility to serve as President. The U.S. Senate was silent about your eligibility, despite statements from Kenyan citizens that you were born in Mombasa, including your paternal grandmother and the Ambassador from Kenya to the U.S. during a radio interview. Hawaiian state officials claim they cannot release an original birth certificate without your consent.

I have attempted through my chain of command for many months to get answers to the questions surrounding your eligibility. I also sought answers, unsuccessfully, through my Congressional delegation. You serve as my Commander-in-Chief. Given the fact that the certification that your campaign posted online was not a document that the Hawaiian Department of Homelands regarded as a sufficient substitute for the original birth certificate and given that it has been your personal decision that has prevented the Hawaiian Department of Health from releasing your original birth certificate or any Hawaiian hospital from releasing your records, the burden of proof must rest with you.

Please assure the American people that you are indeed constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief and thereby may lawfully direct service members into harm’s way. I will be proud to deploy to Afghanistan to further serve my country and my fellow soldiers, but I should only do so with the knowledge that this important provision of our Constitution is respected and obeyed. The people that continue to risk their lives and give the ultimate sacrifice to the service of our country deserve to know they do so upholding their vows to the oath of office and the Constitution.

Unless it is established (by this sufficient proof that should be easily within your power to provide) that you are constitutionally eligible to serve as President and my Commander-in-Chief, I, and all other military officers may be following illegal orders. Therefore, sir, until an original birth certificate is brought forward that validates your eligibility and puts to rest the other reasonable questions surrounding your unproven eligibility; I cannot in good conscience obey ANY military orders.

Respectfully,

// Terry Lakin

Lieutenant Colonel Terrence Lakin, USA

 

Sept. 24, 2010

Dear Sen. Thune,

As a member of the Armed Forces Committee & member of the sub-committee on Personnel, I am imploring you to please take this seriously & take immediate action.

The Commander in Chief has begun court martial proceedings against Lt Col Terry Lakin. Now Lt Col Lakin is being refused access to documents that are critical to his defense. The most current ruling from the military judge who refused release of Obama’s original vault birth certificate & ALL school & college records stated:

Sept 2, 2010 Fort Meade, Maryland

“The potential for embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question are uniquely powerful to ensure that courts-martial do not become the vehicle for adjudicating the legality of political decisions and to ensure the military’s capacity to maintain good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=5329

If there is no question as to the location of Obama’s birth, then why for over 2 years now has he been fighting in courts all over the country to keep his original vault records from seeing the light of day. This is “NOT” the actions of an honorable commander of the US military.

In July of this year, in a blatant disregard of orders of a federal judge, the US State Dept. released only partial passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham-Soetoro.

However, after careful study of the files that were released, what the records do conclusively show is that in 1968 Barack-Barry-Hussein-Obama II-Soetoro-Soebarkah was “NOT” a US citizen.

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/us-state-dept-confirms-obama-not-a-us-citizen-prior-to-in-1968/

This has gone on far too long & it’s time to put politics & elections aside for the sake of our nation & our national security.

I am trusting, that in light of all this new evidence, you will do the honorable thing and put your country before yourself. Please do the right & moral thing by serving your state & country as an upright public servant of honor & integrity by once & for all putting an end to this abuse of political power currently being displayed by Obama & his administration. I implore you to request the immediate release of all the records requested on behalf of Lt Col Terry Lakin by his defense team.

No one is above the law, especially those public servants who took an oath to protect & defend it.

Respectfully,

Linda Melin

http://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/

I will be in contact with your office on Monday, Sept. 27, 2010. The day prior to the next hearing for Lt Col Lakin in his legal defenses efforts to get the vital records for his defense released.

_______________________________________________

Lt Col Terry Lakin Defense @ http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/

DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR LTC TERRY LAKIN PHYSICALLY THREATENED BY LEAD PROSECUTOR AT ARRAIGNMENT HEARING http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/lakin-physically-threatened.html

Washington, D.C., August 12, 2010. The Army doctor who is being court martialled for refusing to obey orders, including a deployment order for his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, was formally arraigned last Friday at the first hearing in the Court Martial process. However, the lead prosecutor overstepped his bounds and injected himself improperly into LTC Terrence Lakin’s chain of command.

UPDATE:  HAT-TIP to rolling_stone at Free Republic:

Via Sonoran News via  obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com – Ike needed birth certificate to run for president – ‘Ike had nothing to hide!’

BY LINDA BENTLEY – CAVE CREEK – Glen Fairclough, a reader from Salt Lake City, Utah, sent us an e-mail last week to express his gratitude for publishing the recent article regarding President Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

And, while going through digital images online of his hometown newspaper, the Deseret News and Telegram, Fairclough forwarded us a United Press wire article from the Oct. 2, 1952 edition he thought we would find interesting.

The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office.

“Nobody had bothered to make out a certificate when the Republican presidential candidate was born in a house at the corner of Lamar and Day streets in nearby Denison.

“A copy of the certificate filed Wednesday was mailed to Mrs. Eisenhower in Denver. Eisenhower’s older brother, Arthur, signed the certificate. It was also signed by the Grayson County Judge J.N. Dickson and recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan.”

David Dwight Eisenhower was the third of seven boys born to David Jacob and Ida Elizabeth.

Since he was called Dwight while growing up, Eisenhower swapped his first and middle names when he enrolled at West Point Military Academy.

Elected 34th president of the United States in November 1952, Eisenhower made it through his first 62 years without any need for a birth certificate.

However, the need arose when he became a presidential candidate. Since Eisenhower was the oldest man to be elected president since James Buchanan over 100 years earlier, age was obviously not at issue. Instead, there was protocol in place for presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to appear on the ballot.

article continues HERE

Jefferson On Citizenship Under A Republican Form Of Government

 Thomas Jefferson served in the Virginia legislature from 1776 until his election as Governor in 1779. It was Jefferson that drafted the legislation that passed in the Congress of Virginia on June 28, 1776 declaring their independence from Great Britain. In June of 1783, Jefferson was appointed to the Congress of the Confederation & was sent to France to serve as the US Minister. This left Jefferson unable to be physically in attendance at the Philadelphia convention, thus he stayed informed and involved through his correspondence with James Madison. Now, let us begin this short visit back into the year of 1803 and the wisdom & patriotism of Thomas Jefferson from his time in the Virginia state legislature…

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of-foreigners ? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect: the greatest number, of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for.an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

One has to remember that at the time of the Declaration, there was no formal federal government set up thus all laws pertaining to citizenship & immigration was regulated by the individual states with each of them adopting, regulating & enforcing their own individual laws in this area. Liberals today, including those of the Republican & conservative factions, claim that the States merely substituted the word ‘subject’ for the word ‘citizen’ when writing the new laws after the Declaration of Independence. Read & learn the truth through Jefferson himself as to which principles of the English constitution they rejected thus adopting better laws based on natural rights & natural reason…

Many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely to that form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism, the first assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a committee to revise the whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report it to the assembly. This work has been executed by three gentlemen, and reported ; but probably will not be taken up till a restoration of peace shall leave to the legislature leisure to go through such a work;.

The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant, that part of the English law which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is made the basis of the work. It was thought dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it was therefore left to be collected from the usual monuments of it. Necessary-alterations in ‘that, and , so much of the whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as were thought proper to be retained, were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity of style was aimed at, as far as was safe. The following are the most remarkable alterations proposed :

To change the rules of descent, so as that the lands of any person dying intestate shall be divisable equally among all his children, or other representatives, in equal degree.

To make slaves distributable among the next of kin, as other movables.

To have all public expenses, whether of the general treasury, or of a parish or county, (as for the maintenance of the poor, building bridges, court-houses, & etc.) supplied by assessments on the citizens, in proportion to their property.

To hire undertakers for keeping the public roads in repair, and indemnify individuals thro’ whose lands new roads shall be opened.

To define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens, and citizens make themselves aliens.

To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom. (snip)

Hmm, to define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens? So what was the law they enacted?

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth

May 1779Virginia Papers 2:476–78

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.

The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record, and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar. And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides, or of the General Court, or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses, and by them proved in either of the said courts, openly declare to the same court, that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and shall depart the commonwealth; or whensoever he shall without such declaration depart the commonwealth and enter into the service of any other state, not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America, or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state, such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure.

So there you have it. Jefferson clearly declaring that ‘subject’ was not equivalent to ‘citizen’ and thus the feudal law of perpetual allegiance from birth on the soil was thereby abolished and replaced with the law of natural right & natural reason. Do you really think the states who had cast off the chains of feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance would have agreed to a return to it under the federal constitution? According to all the early philosophers as well as the framers such as Wilson, reason should be the basis in which all laws should be written & that is the crux of interpreting the constitution & the original intent of the framers. Without natural right & natural reason, there can be no just law.

James Wilson:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

Liberal Conservatism: A Bane to the Survival of a Constitutional Republic

“Folks, this is so damn clear-cut, but it requires a result that the political class doesn’t like, including way too many Republicans. The question is: are we too far gone on this issue to be able to get back to the constitutional requirements?” Mark R. Levin August 13, 2010

Liberal conservatism is alive & well. It has so deeply infiltrated every aspect of the true conservatism movement that some days it’s hard to tell a friend from a foe. Take for example Mark Levin’s latest attempt at explaining the original meaning the text of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution & the definition of the ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ clause therein. Mark has spent his lifetime studying the Constitution and he openly admits that he isn’t anywhere near done. To this later admission I whole heartedly agree because there are aspects of the 14th that Mark either conveniently leaves out or perhaps it is that he has yet to research these pertinent historical references & 1 major Act of Congress that are crucial to defining the 14th Amendment. Historical research from the annals of Congress that is easily available through the Heritage Foundation & Hillsdale College. As far as Mark’s neglect in this area, I am leaning toward that of political convenience as Mark has clearly stated his position that Gov. Bobby Jindal, LA is looking to be a good contender for the presidency in 2012 or 2016. Folks, Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of India as both his parents were students residing is the US on temporary student visa when Jindal was born. NEITHER of Jindal’s parents were US citizens at the time of Jindal’s birth thus the irony of Mark’s claim that we need to get back to the original text & meaning of the constitution.

As always, I will let my readers make the determination for themselves as to whether Mark is a genuine constitutional conservative or just another liberal conservative. Below is the audio of Mark’s dialogue from Friday, Aug 13th, 2010.

When the Constitution was drafted & ratified, there were only 2 paths to citizenship. You were either born into an American family (father had to be a citizen or if born out-of-wedlock, mother had to be a citizen at the time of the child’s birth) or you were naturalized. Naturalization came through parents(father) who was naturalized or you applied for it on your own at the coming of age if the parents had not opted to become American citizens.

Erler gets it right on the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’. He quotes Howard & Trumbull but what he leaves out is another pertinent quote from Rep. Bingham, co-author of the 14th, in which Bingham states:

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 – Rep. John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment, before The US House of Representatives (March 9, 1866 )

Mark also leaves out is Erler’s testimony of the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898 wherein Justice Gray uses the English feudal law definition of a ‘subject’ which is in complete contradiction to over a 100 years of US law. Gray uses an unsubstantiated argument that the founders had adopted some form of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance which is quite ironic since he objected to any notion thereof in a former deciding opinion he wrote that held that the definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ meant exactly what Trumbull & Howard stated to be:  ‘not owing allegiance to any foreign power’. But what Mark probably hasn’t researched and thus would probably cast off those who are brave enough to actually report the truth is the fact the Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur who was born a British Subject as Arthur’s father did not become a US citizen until Arthur was 13 yrs old. Arthur lied about the date of his birth to conceal this fact that would have deemed him ineligible for the Vice Presidency which later lead to the Presidency after to the death of Garfield. Having a president who has loyalties to a foreign nation according to Washington, was to be avoided at ALL costs. But enough of this little history lesson that has slipped through cracks and into the depths of the abyss of the progressive cover-up, what about the 100 plus years of US legislation on citizenship?

We know that the only power US Congress has regarding citizenship is to legislate in the area of naturalization & immigration. They have absolutely no power over natural law other than to restrict through positive law by the consent of the people which rights under natural law we wish to relinquish to them, thus giving them the power to regulate those areas. The constitution clearly cites 2 types of citizenship, citizenship in general which includes natural citizens & naturalized citizens under Article 1 &  then the specific natural citizen requirement under Article 2. Citizens born by the laws of nature require no act of congress as there was no foreign power at the time of the birth of the citizen that could lay claim to that person. This is the law which the founders spoke of in the Declaration of Independence as the law of the new nation, the United States of America. How do we know this? The most clear & concise example comes from Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the 1st citizenship law for the state of Virginia that was passed in May of 1779:

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.

This also is reflected in the 1st Naturalization Acts passed by the US Congress:

Naturalization Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate. APPROVED, March 26th, 1790: GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States

And the Naturalization Act of 1795: SECTION 1. BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise. First, he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the Ohio River, or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject…that he will support the Constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court. Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years. It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same…SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,…signed by: FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate. APPROVED, January the 29th, 1795: GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States

No where does the US Congress with the President concurring by signing the legislation distinguish the children of aliens as to the location of their birth. They merely declare that all children of the alien father under the age of 21 & residing in the US are declared citizens upon the naturalization of the father. This follows natural law. It was considered unnatural for a child to be considered an alien to the father. It was unnatural for any household to have immediate family members(spouse & children) that held conflicting allegiances, thus the reason that the wife also followed the nationality of the husband. This is the natural unity of a civilized society going back to its formation. It is the only way a civilized society could naturally protect its sovereignty & freedom.

From 1798 to 1855 there were 9 other subsequent Acts of Congress on Naturalization dealing with race, length of time an immigrant must be a resident before naturalizing, land holding and also clarification of the wife follows the citizenship of the husband per natural law, etc but the one fact that never changed was the fact that all children of any alien immigrant were aliens themselves until the father/single or widowed mother became a citizen. If the parents remained aliens, the child could apply upon coming of age.

Next comes the 1866 Civil Rights Act which states that “all children born to parents not owing allegiance to any foreign power” that was ratified into the Constitution per the 14th Amendment. What Mark and also Erler in his testimony leave out is the Expatriation Act of 1868. This Act was passed on July 27th, 1868 just 18 days after the ratification of the 14th Amendment (July9, 1868):

CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States. Approved July 27, 1868. 

Right of ex- patriation de- clared.

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 princi-ple, 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.

Protection to naturalized citizens in foreign states.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circumstances.

John C. Eastman (also of the Claremont Institute) in his March 30, 2006 legal memorandum at the Heritage Foundation titled “From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenhsip” says this of the Expatriation Act of 1868:

“Thus, when Congress passed as a companion to the Fourteenth Amendment the Expatriation Act of 1868, which provided simply that “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,” it necessarily rejected the feudal birthright citizenship doctrine of medieval England as fun­damentally incompatible with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. As Representa­tive Woodward of Pennsylvania noted on the floor of the House of Representatives: “It is high time that feudalism were driven from our shores and eliminated from our law, and now is the time to declare it…Such remnants of feudalism were rejected by our nation’s Founders when they declared to a candid world that they no longer owed allegiance to the king of their birth. They were rejected again by the Congress in 1866 and by the nation when it ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.”

And for even more resourses, I encourage you to read the Amicus Brief of March 29, 2004 submitted on the behalf of Rumsfeld by former US Att. Gen. Edwin Meese III (whom Mark Levin served under) and John C. Eastman of the Claremont Institute in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

In another of my research days at the online Library of Congress I found this SoundexIndex to Naturalization, Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950) Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

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 Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization also states:

The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen. (Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.

The current US State Dept website states that there is no law which prohibits dual citizenship. This couldn’t be further from the truth and that is why they also claim that one can lose ones citizenship by acts & words spoken by any person that holds citizenship of another country. Also, one can barely change the page of the US State Dept website without finding them contradicting themselves and sometimes they do so several times on the same page. In several areas of the website, the US State Dept states that it does not encourage the practice of holding dual allegiances. The reason?  The only changes made to the Expatriation Act (which has never been repealed) pertain to treason and the right of the US government to revoke the citizenship of a naturalized person convicted of treason or for acts by that person that the government deems treasonous. The last change came in 1952. The threat of communist infiltration into the US government was very much a threat and on the minds of the true patriots elected to office at that time. They were acting very “Washingtonian” and liberal progressive history has written them all off as kooks.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter…Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government... Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…(excerpts from Washington’s Farewell Address)

Who are the kooks now? We have the communist manifesto which includes multiculturalism (dumbing down of citizenship) unfolding right before our eyes right from the oval office of the White House from a president who was born subject to a foreign power and the so-called conservatives aka liberal conservatives are still wanting to pick & choose which parts of the Constitution they wish to define under original intent as it fits their liberal agenda. But I digress.

Going back to defining citizenship however, let’s not forget that we must look to international law. From the 1st day of our founding on July 4, 1776, the US has always respected the laws governing the citizenship of the immigrants or temporary resident aliens making sure that US laws do not override or veto that of the foreign government in which the person is a citizen or subject of. For further clarification we go to Dicey, Savigny, Philimore, Hall, Westlake but the one I go to most is Story’s Conflict of Laws Vol 1 & Vol 2.

First, the place of birth of a person is considered as his domicil, if it is at the time of his birth the domicil of his parents. Patris originem unusquisque sequatur*. This is usually denominated the domicil of birth or nativity, domicilium originis. But, if the parents are then on a visit, or on a journey, (in itinere), the home of the parents (at least if it is in the same country) will be deemed the domicil of birth or nativity.

Now I know, you are going to say domicil is a persons place of residence. You would be completely wrong. Domicil in the day was a person’s nationality. Later it was changed to domicil(e) and thus the confusion brought forward by many legal scholars who either didn’t bother to actually learn the difference or they purposefully meant to confuse the two definitions to push their personal political agenda as Justice Brennan did when he wrote that the founding fathers merely substituted the word citizen for subject leaving the feudal definition in tact. In Olson & Tribes most recent testimony to Congress on citizenship, they cite Brennan and I have to say although Mark was dismayed by Olson’s recent work on Prop 8, it came as no surprise to me.

We also have this cite from the 1903 Cyclopedia of law and procedure, Volume 7 (America Law Book Company, New York) By William Mack, Howard Pervear Nash. It refers to citizenship of parentage which is the citizenship of natural law & adopted by the United States at the time of the Declaration of Independence as referenced earlier by the 1st citizenship law passed by the state of Virginia in 1779:

Children Of Aliens. The child of a citizen father and of an alien mother is a citizen ; but one born of an alien father and of a citizen mother is not a citizen

You also will not find the term dual allegiance in the 1903 law cyclopdia either, it only speaks of double citizenship or as some in those days called it, double character and it is defined as:

DOUBLE CITIZENSHIP: In this country a double citizenship exists, for the term applies both to membership in the nation considered as a whole and to membership in the state in which the individual may reside.

The problem we have today is the usurping of natural law by both parties, but especially those who claim to be constitutional conservatives and spout off about original intent, yet they also turn a blind eye when natural law is inconvenient or not expedient to their political cause. The founding fathers knew full well that the sovereignty & security of the country came from unity in the home. But it wasn’t just the founding fathers or framers of the constitution such as Wilson who knew this. They got their wisdom through the study of the early philosophers, especially the wisdom of John Locke as quoted by Wilson in Vol 1 of his works:

‘Tis plain,” says he, ” by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to the age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under ; what body politick he will unite himself to.”

Or how about this quote from Cicero that is also found in these works of Wilson’s:

” O glorious regulations!” says Cicero, ” originally established for us by our ancestors of Roman name ; that no one of us should be obliged to belong to more than one society, since a dissimilitude of societies must produce a proportioned variety of laws; that no one, contrary to his inclination, should be deprived of his right of citizenship ; and that no one, contrary to his inclinations, should be obliged to continue in that relation. The power of retaining and of renouncing our rights of citizenship, is the most stable foundation of our liberties.”

Now I think that a guy who was a signer of the Declaration & the Constitution, who was commissioned to write the 1st law books on American law & who helped establish the 1st American Law school would be the ultimate authority on the subject of US citizenship. And while congress may have the authority to pass a statute that says a child born to a legal alien resident may be a citizen at birth, it does not change the language of the constitution that requires a president to be born a US citizen & nothing else. But more importantly, Mark & Erler are right, there is no such thing as birthright citizenship for legal or illegal aliens. Permanent residents or not. I would also welcome Mark’s commentary on when & how US Statute changed the laws pertaining to conferring citizenship at birth. When did the law transfer that natural right from the father to the mother when the child is born in wedlock? Is this not in direct conflict to natural law, the law adopted by the founders & thus the law that defines who are the natural citizens of the United States? The natural law that is so well explained by Grotius, Pufendorf, Locke & Vattel, all of whom the founders where very well learned in & all of whom are referenced in the listing of “Laws of Nature” to whom they refered to that is archived in the annals of the Continental Congress of 1783:

The Committee [Mr. James Madison, Mr. Hugh Williamson and Mr. Thomas Mifflin] instructed on the motion of Col. [Theodorick] Bland to report a list of books proper for the use of Congress, recommend that the Superintendt. of Finance and the Secy. of Congress be empowered to take order for procuring the books enumerated below: the same when procured to be under the care of the said Secy.

Encyclopedie Méthodique.

Dictionaire de l’homme d’État.

Law of Nature and Nations

Madison’s committee then goes on to list several versions from the different philosophers of the laws of nature which you will find by following the provided link to the Congressional record above.

We either have a Constitution or we don’t & the right questions to ask is: Is political expediency more important than the rule of law & is the true patriotism and meaning of constitutional US citizenship gone forever? Congress has been very busy over the past 60 years working to usurp the constitution, especially citizenship laws. It is either time to stand strong & steadfast on our founding principles & the rule of law or retreat into submission. I have never been one of the later and neither do I intend on becoming one lest it be at the barrel of a gun and still then I am unlikely to concede.

In closing, I encourage all my readers to listen to Mark Levin, take notes, but do not stop there. Expand on those tidbits that Mark throws out, employ due dilligence & research for yourself. The art of interpretaing the Constitution & the original intent of the founders is not rocket science.  As Justice Joseph Story stated, it’s mostly just good ole plain & obvious common sense:

In the first place, then, every word employed in the constitution is to be expounded in its plain, obvious, and common sense, unless the context furnishes some ground to control, qualify, or enlarge it.  Constitutions are not designed for metaphysical or logical subtleties, for niceties of expression, for critical propriety, for elaborate shades of meaning, or for the exercise of philosophical acuteness, or juridical research.  They are instruments of a practical nature, founded on the common business of human life, adapted to common wants, designed for common use, and fitted for common understandings.  The people make them; the people adopt them; the people must be supposed to read them, with the help of common sense; and cannot be presumed to admit in them any recondite meaning, or any extraordinary gloss.

The New “Touchy-Feely” Religion of Redistribution

Or as I like to call it, “Today’s twisted & watered down version of God’s Scriptures that are being heralded from the pulpits of the 501C(3) churches across America. Brought to us by the US Govt’s new age socialist “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps”; because being true “Red, White & Blue” Ministers of God’s Laws is just too passe’ for today’s times of a touchy-feely religion of redistribution.”

I have been digging deep & studying the rich religious history of America for nearly 2 years now; especially the Annals of Congress, the Library of Congress online, the Belcher Foundation, the Avalon Project, the Heritage Foundry, Hillsdale College, the Kirby Center & the online Library of Liberty to name just a few.  Did you know that at google books (books.google) you can get free PDF copies of many of the original works & books from the founding Era and the immediate decades following the ratification of our Constitution such as the very 1st commentaries on American law written by James Wilson (1791) who was a signer of both the Declaration of Independence & the US Constitution & also the founder of the 1st official American law school?

Also, did you know that one of the 1st Major Generals of the revolution was a preacher by the name of Rev. John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg and that this guy was not afraid to preach the politics of what a moral government should be from the pulpit of the 2 churches he served in Woodstock, Va., one being a German speaking Lutheran church & the other an English speaking Episcopal church. Yes, it was common for preachers to give sermons on tyranny, taxation without representation, election sermons on what the qualities of ministers (elected officials) of the Civil (Man’s) Law should possess, what the proper role of government is & what type of government is the best in order for the members of a religious society to maintain its God given liberties. I found out that this was a common practice going back to the pilgrims first settling in America; (A practice that they brought with them from their native lands in Europe & Scandinavia). Also, did you know that 29 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were preachers? Imagine that; preachers who also knew it was their duty according to God’s Laws to serve as elected officials (Ministers of Civil Law) while still serving their congregations as Ministers of God’s Laws. In fact, the very 1st speaker of the US House of Representatives was none other than Rev. Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg, the brother of Maj. Gen. (Rev.) Peter Muhlenberg. You can find Frederick’s signature on the bottom of the “Bill of Rights”. I’ll be coming back to all this at a later date, for now let’s move onto today’s topic: the touchy-feely religion of redistribution.

I hadn’t realized how bad this practice of “twisted teaching” of the bible had gotten until several months ago when my UPS (United Patriots Service) driver handed me a package containing a much anticipated copy of the 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible. This bible was banned by the British Crown in all of its colonies & territories in order to keep the kings subjects under oppression and one could say that the pilgrims smuggled it with them when they came to America.

Once in my hands, an overwhelming thirst for more knowledge caused me to rip the packaging that kept this wonderful book of God’s laws hidden from the light of day & the packaging that kept its pages bound shut. I couldn’t help but wonder why this version of the bible had been kept so secret for the past 100 years or so. Well, no wonder…

Once light was cast upon the pages, one could plainly see that all that talk in the annotations (that were banned by the king) of duty & due diligence to God’s laws set forth in the bible, liberty, free speech, patriotism, limited government, qualifications of ministers of law (elected officials), self reliance & self responsibility for ones actions goes against every fiber & letter of the socialist agenda. The modern “Socialist” theologians have taken the true meaning of the text of the Scriptures containing God’s Laws & his instructions on the establishment of civil governments for a moral & religious society and twisted them in order to perpetuate their immoral & corrupt self serving totalitarian agenda of forming a new national touchy-feely religion of redistribution. These members of the new age “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps” are aiding in the government’s stealing of our private property in the name of the good Samaritan by calling it God’s work. By promoting all these federal ‘AID’ programs that have nothing to do with true charity; these new age religious defense linebackers promote the exact opposite of the original & pure laws set forth in the bible.

The original laws in their purest form set forth by God are too harsh & just plain mean according to these socialist theologians. They are also no longer politically correct or expedient thus we must not teach them to our children lest they might travel a moral, knowledgeable & just road that is in opposition to the socialist agenda. Heaven forbid they would find out that there are consequences for immoral and unlawful actions. No, they must be taught that the new reading of the scriptures demands a touchy-feely definition of a law breaker by giving them an infliction which I shall call a psychological deficiency of the brain waves (momentary or long term lapse of moral judgment). If this deficiency is found in a criminal, an immoral person or select groups of immoral or criminal people, it allows the socialist law makers & judges to redistribute wealth from the victim to the criminal, from the moral to the immoral, from the hard working, self reliant achievers to the lazy, self-serving govt. trough feeders. Now mind you, I am not saying that ALL welfare is bad, there is a justification for some, but let’s get real here; when the govt. shells out 10’s of billions of dollars every year of other peoples money to people who were not qualified for or deserving of it in the 1st place, there is a breach of the civil law as well as a breach of the 8th, 9th & 10th Commandments of God’s Laws. You know, those 10 Commandments in which ALL civil law is to be based from?

Today’s example of the ‘socialist theologian’ propaganda came from a “Linebacker of Religion Defense Corps” pulpit member while I was listening to the Sunday sermon of a local church, whose denomination’s core principles have consistently deteriorated over the past couple of decades, but a denomination in which I am still currently a member of, just not a member of this particular local church. The sermon was based yet again on the new age ‘socialist’ text of a bible parable that has been transcribed by a modern day ‘socialist’ theologian. Now while these parables are integral in teaching, does anyone else besides me feel they are getting a bit mundane? Especially since these religious defense linebackers don’t use the entire text of the parables anymore. Has anyone else noticed how they chop them off right before the heart of the meaning of the parable is revealed? But I digress.

This week’s parable was all about the good Samaritan (Luke 10). Now while this parable is suppose to teach about loving thy neighbor as thyself while also doing ones duty of due diligence in following, spreading & teaching God’s laws, it seems that the these modern day ‘socialist’ theologians have written a new age ‘socialist’ theology of which the good Samaritan in now meant to mean the equivalent of the 21st century Robin Hood type Robber Barron and if there is a chance that the stranger on the side of the road “MAY” be an enemy, it is ok to turn & walk away. So, here we go:

Close your eyes & imagine listening to a sermon being given from a pulpit of God by a linebacker of the new age religion defense corps in which he includes a story of his missionary work in Kenya (I know, how ironic).

According to the religious defense linebacker, while there he had to travel a distance to get to the location of the missionary work to be done. Well, before departing, a fellow missionary pulled him aside and told him that if he came upon a person laying on the side of the road he was to keep going and not stop to ask if the person needed help because it “MAY” be a trap. He was to ignore what he saw & leave the poor soul laying there along side the road and forge ahead to the mission work site. “WHAT? BACK UP THE HORSE BESSY!” A preacher telling his congregation that it IS ok to turn your back on a stranger lying on the side of the road because of location? A preacher who IS suppose to be teaching his congregation that our enemies ARE our neighbors and we are to treat them no differently in their time of need than we would a friend? And let’s not forget the most important fact of this story & that is, he was to pre-judge the situation. Yes, it is the new modern day ‘socialist’ theology to teach your congregation & especially the youth to fear your neighbor instead of treating him like a friend.

So, keeping along that theme of his twisted text, this new age religious defense linebacker then goes on to reel in the sports fan in the pew by interjecting the LeBron James headline of the week: “LeBron James signs with the Miami Heat”.  Yes, LeBron James is now a sainted patriot of goodwill because he is moving to a new team in order to help “redistribute basketball championships among the less fortunate teams” who have yet to achieve that accomplishment. I KID YOU NOT! You just can’t make this kind of socialist ministerial propaganda up!

Meanwhile, still sitting in anticipation of hearing about the monetary part of the good Samaritan parable (charitable goodwill & honoring contracts), I found out that this was to be the sermon from whence nothing on that subject was to come. Nope, nada, not a word about how governments taking property from one in order to give it to another is unlawful under the laws set forth by God in the Scriptures. I also heard nothing about not expecting anything in return for the good deed that was done. You see that is not part of this new ‘social justice’ religion and according to the new age “Socialist Theology” is perfectly proper & lawful to be a modern day Robin Hood type Robber Barron. Also, if someone helps you in your time of need, in some cases you may be expected to return the cost of that charitable goodwill deed that was done for you, even if you can not afford it. This all depends if you are from the moral or immoral, criminal or law abiding class of persons.

By this time, the religious defense linebacker’s time was running to a close and there was still one part of the parable that he had not addressed; the part where in it tells of our duty to be diligent & unwavering in following, spreading & teaching God’s Laws & if we do this, he will always be with us. It is now 10pm & I’m still waiting.

In closing, here is what I learned from God’s pulpit by a member of the “Linebackers of Religion Defense Corps” of the 501C(3) socialist theologian society of the US Government:

1)      Civil laws do not apply to criminals or the immoral because they might be inflicted with a medical condition of the psychological deficient brain wave type. (momentary or long term lapse of moral judgment)

2)      The parable of the good Samaritan is about NOT helping a neighbor in need (especially a fallen enemy) unless the circumstances & location are pre-approved.

3)      The parable of the good Samaritan is about social justice via redistribution.

4)      It is no longer politically correct to call out from God’s pulpit the unlawful acts of a tyrannical government who is stealing its society blind in order to push their Totalitarian Utopian “redistributive socialist agenda” even though 501C(3) churches are exempt from any hindrance of free speech except for campaigning for a specific political candidate &…

5)      Duty to & Due Diligence in following, spreading and teaching God’s Laws is NO LONGER the core meaning of the parables according to this new age “Socialist Theology” & THEIR written word.

Coming this fall: The parable of the mustard seed: “PLANTING THE TYTHES THAT BIND & GAG”

Madison’s Letters: Defense of the American Party (Bumped)

The contents under this caption contain the material portions of eleven or twelve letters, written over the signature of ” Madison,” in vindication of the American party. The editor has examined carefully all the defences of the American organization, and considering this the most able of them all, written, it is said, by the Hon. A. II. 11. Stuart, of Virginia, he yields it a space in his work.

No. 1.

The vital principle of the American party is Americanism—developing itself in a deep rooted attachment to our own country—its Constitution, itsUnion.and its laws—toAmerieuo men, and American measures, and American interests—-or, in other words, a fervent patriotism—which, rejecting the transcendental philanthropy of abolitionists, and that kindred batch of wild enthusiasts, who would seek to embroil us with foreign countries, in righting the wrongs of Ireland, or Hungary, or Cuba—would guard with vestal vigilance American institutions and American interests against the baneful effects of foreign influence.

No. 2.

I closed my first number by stating what I conceived to be the vital principle of the American party—the principle which, like the main spring of a watch, imparts activity to its whole machinery.

Let us now consider what are the measures and policy which these Americans propose to adopt, to give practical efficiency to this great principle.—There is, doubtless, among the members of that party, as among the members of all other parties, much difference of opinion in regard to matters of detail; and mutual forbearance and concession must and will be practised in giving shape to their measures. No one can, therefore, tell with certainty what form they may ultimately assume.

For the present, I will refer to the action of the National Council as the most authentic exposition of the opinions of the party. It» creed, as expressed by that body, is embraced in the following propositions:—

2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of American independence.

3d. Americans must rule America, and to this end, native-born citizens should be selected for all state, federal, and municipal offices or government employment, in preference to all others; nevertheless,

4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born citizens ; but,

5th. No person should be selected for political station (whether of native or foreign birth), who recognises any allegiance or obligation, of any description, to any foreign prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognise the federal and state constitutions (each within its sphere) as paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the reserved rights of the several states, and the cultivation of harmony and fraternal good will, between the citizens of the several states, and to this end, non-interference by Congress with questions appertaining solely to the individual states, and non-intervention by each state with the affairs of any other state.

7th.  The recognition of the right of the native-born and naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing in any territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union, whenever they have the requisite population li-r one representative in Congress.—Provided always, that none but those who are citizens of the United States, under the Constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence in any such territory, ought to participate in the formation of the Constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said territory or state.

8th. An enforcement of the principle that no state or territory ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the right of suffrage, or of holding political office.

9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued residence of twenty one years, of all not hereinbefore provided for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested rights of foreigners.

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State ; no interference with religious faith, or worship, and no test oaths for office.

llth. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public expenditures.

12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or shall be declared null and void by competent judicial authority.

These propositions may be classed, for greater perspicuity, under three heads.

I. Those that relate to reforms in the naturalization laws which require legislation.

II. Those that relate to the appointment and election of officers, which are purely ministerial.

III. Those that refer to the general policy of the party in the management of the government, which appeal both to the legislative and executive departments.

I intend to discuss these subjects in the order in which they are stated.

It is proposed to modify the naturalization laws in four particulars:—

1. To make them prescribe uniform rules of naturalization throughout all the states and territories.

2. To exclude convicts and paupers from the country.

3. To extend the period of residence of the applicant for naturalization, so that he may have time to understand our language and become acquainted with our laws and institutions, before he is intrusted with the right to participate in their administration.

4. To guard against fraudulent abuses of the right of naturalization.

I am aware that there is a very prevailing idea that Congress has no constitutional power to provide by law, that the rules of naturalization shall be the same in all the states; and

I have heard this difficulty suggested as being fatal to the objects of the American party. But the objection is wholly without foundation. The Constitution of the United State* provides in terms ” that Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule

This provision has repeatedly been the subject of judicial consideration and interpretation, and although the opinion was at one time expressed by the Circuit Court of th« United States for the District of Pennsylvania, that the power was concurrent in th* state and federal governments, that opinion has long been overruled, and it is now held by Judge Iredell, in U. S. r. Fellato. 2 Dallas, 370: Judge Washington v Gordon r. Prince, 3 Wash. C. C. U. 313: by Judge Marshall, in Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Whenton, 2(19: by Judge Story, in Houston c. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 40 ; by Chancellor Kent, 1 Comm. 423 ; and by Judge Taney, in Norris r. Boston and Smith v. Turner Howard, that the exclusive power is in Congress. The remarks of C. J. Taney are so clear, not only in regard to the power, but also as to the policy of exercising it, that I readily adopt his argument, as far more satisfactory than any I could offer. He says:—

” It cannot be necessary to say anything upon the article of the Constitution which gives to Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. The motive and object of this provision are too plain to be misunderstood. Under the Constitution of the United States, citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states, and no state would be willing that another should determine for it, what foreigner should become one of its citizens, and be entitled to hold lands and vote at its elections. For without this provision, any one state could have given the right of citizenship in every other state ; and as every citizen of a state is also a citizen of the United States, a single state, without thi> provision, might have given to any number of foreigners it pleased, the right to all the privileges of citizenship in commerce, trade, and navigation, although they did not even reside among us.

” The nature of our institutions under the federal government, made it a matter of absolute necessity that this power should be confided to the government of the Union, where all the states were represented, and where all had a voice; a necessity so obvious, that statesman could have overlooked it. The article has nothing to do with the admission or rejection of aliens, nor with immigration, but with the rights of citizenship. Its sole object was to prevent one state from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens, whom they were unwilling to admit as such.”

Another subject of kindred character, if nut indeed falling under the same head, will also doubtless engage the attention of the party. with a view to see if the Constitution does not supply the means of redressing an evil which is of the most flagrant character. I allude to the want of uniformity in the state constitutions in regard to the right of suffrage by foreigners. By the constitution of Virginia, none but citizens of the United States can vote, and as no one can legally become a citizen of the United States unless he has been a resident of the country for five years, it follows that no one can be a voter m Virginia, who has not been a resident of the United States for five years. But by the constitution of Illinois’, it is provided (Art. 2, s. 27), “that in all elections, all white male inhabitants above the age of 21 years, having resided in the state six months next preceding the election, shall enjoy the right of an elector.”

Now as the vote of every man cast in Illinois for members of the legislature which elects U. S. Senators, for members of Congress, and for Presidential electors, has a direct bearing on the interests of Virginia, it is well worthy of inquiry whether Virginia is, under the Constitution, to be governed by the votes of aliens. It is a new and a grave question. There is certainly a difference in form between the question of elective franchise and the question of naturalization. But is not this system of allowing aliens to vote before they are naturalized an abuse, if not an evasion of the Constitution ? A sensible writer on the subject has well remarked, ” if individual states can admit to the elective franchise those who are not citizens, thereby neutralizing the votes of citizens, not only the federal power over naturalization becomes a nullity, but a minority of actual citizens, by the aid of aliens, may control the government of the states, and, through the states, that of the Union.”

Who will deny that this is a crying abuse, and that all the constitutional powers of the government ought to be brought into requisition to correct it ?

2. It is proposed to exclude by state and federal authority, convicts and paupers from landing on our shores, to corrupt the morals of citizens, to plunder our property, to fill our penitentiaries and alms-houses, and to burden •our people with taxation for their support. This is no new policy, and it will at once commend itself to the favorable regard of all reflecting men. It is an evil which attracted the attention of the founders of the republic at an early day, and has from time to time been pressed upon the attention of the government, but thus far no adequate measures of prevention have been adopted.

On the 10th of September, 1788, the Continental Congress, then about to close its labors, adopted the following resolution : ” Resolved, that it be, and it hereby is recommended to the several states to pass proper laws to prevent the transportation of convicted malefactors from foreign countries into the U. S.”— Journal, page 867.

On the 13th November, 1788. Virginia did

pass such a law imposing a penalty of $50 on masters of vessels who should land convicts in this state.

In 1836, the matter was brought to the attention of Congress by Mr. Davis of Massachusetts, who made a Jong and able speech to the Senate, on presenting certain resolutions of the legislature of Massachusetts on the subject.

In 1838, Mr. Van Buren, in reply to a call of the House, sent a message to Congress, accompanied by many documents. A bill was reported to correct the evil, but amidst the press of business it was overslaughed.—See Congressional Globe 1837-’38, page 489, and 1838-’39, page 168.

In 1845, Mr. Berrien made an elaborate report on the subject, accompanied by a great mass of testimony establishing in the most conclusive manner the certainty and magnitude of the evil.—See Sen. Doc. 173, 28th Cong. No final action, however, was taken.

In 1847, Mr. Buchanan, as Secretary of State, adopted measures to obtain information on the subject, and a report was made by Mr. A. D. Mann, on the 13th September, 1847.

On 1st January, 1855, Mayor Wood, of New York, addressed a strong letter to President Pierce, invoking his aid. He says: ” It has long been the practice of many governments on the continent of Europe to get rid of paupers and convicts by sending them to this country, and most generally to this port, (N. Y.) 1*116 increase of crime here can be traced to this cause, rather than to defect in criminal laws or their administration. An examination of the criminal and pauper records, shows conclusively that it is but a small proportion of these unfortunates who are natives of this country. One of the very heaviest burdens that we bear, is the support of these people, even when considering the direct cost, but when estimating the evil influence on society, and the contaminating effect upon all who come within the range of their depraved minds, it becomes a matter exceedingly serious and demanding immediate and complete eradication.”* Mayor Wood, being a Democrat and in no way attached to the American party, I presume he will be regarded as good authority, and I will here rest this branch of the subject, and I hope I may console myself with the reflection, that as far as we have progressed in the examination of the propositions of the American party, nothing has yet hern discovered in conflict with ” the cause of civil and religious freedom.”

Did Common Law Really Grant Automatic US Citizenship Upon Birth Regardless Of Parentage? Part II (Bumped)

At the time of the revolution, citizens either renounced their ties to the English crown, taking up their arms and joining the cause for freedom, or they held fast to English Monarchy and took up their arms and joined the British army. The only middle ground during the revolution was for those that deserted the British army to join the cause for freedom and remained loyal to the end of the revolution.

After that bloody war was over and the United States were free from the feudal form of government & Orwellian laws of England, the founding fathers set out to draft a new constitution, with limited powers for a national government, to replace the current Articles of Confederation which were hindering interstate commerce & citizenship travel due to the lack of a set of uniform laws. From the time of the Declaration of Independence to the passing of the US Constitution in 1789, the Articles of Confederation, which included extremely limited powers to a national congress, allowed for each state to adopt and enforced their own individual laws regarding property, commerce & citizenship.

From the founding, American citizenship is something every stifled subject of some foreign oligarchy dreams of acquiring and for most that have acquired American citizenship either by emigrating & going through naturalization or being born to those emigrants, they never let go of that pride and patriotism, making sure future generations would learn & know what it meant to be an American.

In the new country, the citizens were sovereign. The government of the people, by the people, for the people was adopted to ensure true freedom for all citizens for all time. Well, that is for all time that they worked earnestly to ensure it.

As a protection against foreign influences & intrigues, the founding fathers carefully and diligently worked to draft a constitution that would protect this from happening. Strict requirements were put in place for anyone who wished to attain to elected positions in the national government.  The President, Vice President, Senator or Congressman must have reached a certain age as well as had residency in the US for a number of consecutive years prior to attaining election to office. Then we get to citizenship. The president must be a ‘natural born’ citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, however, Senators & Congressmen merely needed to be a citizen, so what is the difference. Why the 2 distinct verbiages?

To that, one only needs to go back to the debates of the Continental Congress & the Federalist Papers. Congress was comprised of many but the Executive was only comprised of 2. There was less chance for mischief to arise if only a couple of the elected officials in Congress were naturalized from foreign nations, however with only 2 in the Executive, there clearly was a need for more stringent requirements to guard against foreign influences & intrigues.

So, how do we define the difference between ‘citizen’ & ‘natural born’ citizen? Liberal constitutional scholars and progressive legalese rely on English common law that was in place prior to the revolution. Their interpretation is that if you are born of the soil, you are a natural born citizen and they wallow in diluted elitism by citing historical foreign law & case precedent, when in fact there is plenty of American law & legal case history for one to learn from.  Now, as I have said before, to think that the founding fathers & patriots fought a bloody war only to adopt the same definition of citizenship that they were oppressed under by the English Monarchy is to believe that there never was a bloody war to gain freedom from it. The feudal form of government that the British adopted did not allow for natural rights for all citizens. All rights were granted to the people by the government of the Monarchy, the Monarchy was the sovereign not he people. In the very 1st US Supreme Court decision (Chisholm v. Georgia) written by Chief Justice John Jay, we find our 1st clue as to the type of citizenship the founding fathers adopted for the new nation:

[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State…

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…]

Chief Justice John Jay was also the person who sent this historical letter to George Washington the summer of 1787 before the constitution was finalized:

[Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government ; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.]

So, if the people are the sovereigns, not the government, then where did the definition come from? For that we go to the very 1st commentaries on US law, Lectures on Law by Justice James Wilson, 1791. In the lectures Wilson expounds heavily on early philosophers and the different forms of government from the earliest of times that have been recorded. When he finally gets to discussing the laws adopted by the Continental Congress and ratified by the states, he writes:

The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation…But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed…As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so…the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.

Natural law did not always elude that of the Monarchy though. Early definitions of ‘natural born’ subject confined it to children born to parents, both of whom were ‘natural born’ subjects. However, to replenish their depleting armies from the many wars & to increase the Treasury, the Monarchy expanded the definition of ‘natural born’ subject to include  all children born on the soil, regardless if the soil was that of England, provided that the father was a natural born subject. For foreigners whose children by chance were born on English soil, the Monarchy also laid claim to them. This is the feudalism form of government commonly known as a democracy or dictatorship. The reasoning of today’s progressives that any child born on US soil, regardless of parentage, is thusly a ‘natural born’ citizen of the US is not the original definition that was initially adopted by the Monarchy and the definition that the founding fathers were highly learned in.

So what did the law of nations say as to who were the citizens of a nation?

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.

According to natural law which is that of the law of nations children follow the conditions of the father. But was this really the law adopted by the US? The 1866 act passed by congress stated:

“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 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard, decided  that ‘the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and ‘not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ Thomas Bayard was the fourth generation of his family to serve in the U.S. Senate and was considered a prominent Bourbon Democrat.

Another interesting thesis  I recently had the pleasure of finding in historical archives is one of a George H. Yeaman, another constitutional scholar from the mid-late 1800’s who certainly would have been familiar with Kent, Story & Wilson’s works which were the only American works for law students to study during that time. Yeaman was the US Minister to Copenhagen from 1865-1870 and was also a professor of law at Columbia College. In 1867 Yeaman wrote a thesis titled:  Allegiance and citizenship: An inquiry into the claim of European Governments to Exact Military Service of Naturalized Citizens of the United States. In the thesis, Yeaman writes of the unconstitutionality of dual citizenship and its ill effects on sovereign citizens & the continued existence of our sovereign nation.

To quote from American writers and statesmen who maintain the liberal view on this subject would be to incur the objection of attempting to sustain our position by our own authorities. To accept as law the opinions of those  modern European writers who have maintained the theory of  indissoluble allegiance and continuing, unavoidable duty to serve the crown, would be to yield the contest for truth and right, to those who discover a supposed interest in. maintaining what we hold for error. It will be far more satisfactory to rely upon general principles, and, so far as authority is invoked, to seek for it in the works of those great European masters of the Laws of Nature and of Nations who built up and illustrated the science of which they are the acknowledged fathers…

Vattel discusses the matter more explicitly than any who had preceded him in the science of natural and public law and international jurisprudence…

every man, on coming of age, may determine for himself if his interest is to remain a member of the society in which he was born…

writers, statesmen, diplomats, and legislators who have treated allegiance, which is imposed by the accident of birth, as an indestructible tie, have labored against reason, against nature, against the highest authority and against common sense practical to mankind. The states which adopt this theory are far municipal regulations, an extraterritorial effect, in this, that though they may enforce them against those who under the laws of nations does not subject a foreigner to any but the command of his own government…

Progressive scholars and legalese of today would like you to believe that since the term ‘native-born’ was often spoken when discussing and writing about the presidential qualification, those scholars were inherently implying that the term native as adopted merely meant born and had nothing to do with allegiance.

Enter James Kent, who was the 1st professor of law at Columbia College from 1793-1798 during which time he also resumed his seat at the NY state assembly. In 1798 Kent then went on to serve as a Justice on the NY State Supreme Court where he became the Chief Justice in 1804. Here is the Kent citing that the very liberal progressives want you to see and uses adnausium.

“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)

The progressives cite from 2 completely different sections in Kent’s commentaries as if the above phrase was all part of the same section. What they do not tell you is that the latter part, natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States is cited from Kent’s lecture on A1, S8, C4, the power granted to Congress to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

The actual text of Kent’s commentary on the qualifications for president taken from Kent’s original works, not cites from unknown sources and taken out of the original context, state something quite different.

(2.) The constitution requires that the President shall be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he shall have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and shall have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient executive power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot ; intrigue for the office, and the qualifications of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome… (James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Part II: Of the Government and the Jurisprudence of the United States, 1826) 

Lets break it down:

As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot; intrigue for the office ( here he is speaking of the grandfather clause ( a citizen at the time of the adoption of the constitution),

Then he goes onto part II:

and the qualifications for birth (natural born citizen) cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation and war,

There you have it. As the President is required to be a native citizen AND the qualifications for birth. Kent was talking about each qualification respectively, not inclusively.

As you can see, the progressives go to great lengths to twist and turn the truth with no regard as to the law. Liberal progressive legal scholars believe that the meaning of the words written in the constitution are ever changing and that the constitution itself is a living, breathing blank vessel for liberal interpretation. The radically progressive Professor of law at Harvard, Laurence Tribe, writes in the opening of his newest book that [i]nterpreting the constitution is an ‘equal-opportunity’ reality that is not confined to the text of the document.]

Moving on, under the progressive interpretation of ‘native’, which is that of the feudal form of government, mere chance of birth on the soil is equivalent to perpetual allegiance. So was this really the case? Let’s continue with the Commentaries of James Kent, who wrote about just exactly what the term ‘natives’ meant. This is the actual text of the above mention cite the progressives had you believe was under qualifications for president, when in fact it is found under immigration & naturalization.

James Kent, Commentaries  1:397–98; 2:33–63(1826-1827)

We are next to consider the rights and duties of citizens in their domestic relations, as distinguished from the absolute rights of individuals, of which we have already treated. Most of these relations are derived from the law of nature, and they are familiar to the institutions of every country, and consist of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, and master and servant. To these may be added, an examination of certain artificial persons created by law, under the well known name of corporations. There is a still more general division of the inhabitants of every country, under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives, and to the consideration of them our attention will be directed in the present lecture.

(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens at the time of the declaration of independence, though born elsewhere, and deliberately yielded to it an express or implied sanction, they became parties to it, and are to be considered as natives; their social tie being coeval with the existence of the nation. If a person was born here before our independence, and before that period voluntarily withdrew into other parts of the British dominions, and never returned; yet, it has been held, that his allegiance accrued to the state in which he was born, as the lawful successor of the king; and that he was to be considered a subject by birth. It was admitted, that this claim of the state to the allegiance of all persons born within its territories prior to our revolution, might subject those persons who adhere to their former sovereign, to great inconveniences in time of war, when two opposing sovereigns might claim their allegiance; and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it was, undoubtedly, a very strong application of the common law doctrine of natural and perpetual allegiance by birth. The inference to be drawn from the discussions in the case of M’Ilvaine v. Coxe, would seem to be in favour of the more reasonable doctrine, that no antenatus ever owed any allegiance to the United States, or to any individual state, provided he withdrew himself from this country before the establishment of our independent government, and settled under the king’s allegiance in another part of his dominions, and never afterwards, prior to the treaty of peace, returned and settled here. The United States did not exist as an independent government until 1776; and it may well be doubted whether the doctrine of allegiance by birth be applicable to the case of persons who did not reside here when the revolution took place, and did not, therefore, either by election or tacit assent, become members of the newly created state.The ground of the decision in the latter case was, that the party in question was not only born in New-Jersey, but remained there as an inhabitant until the 4th of October, 1776, when the legislature of that state asserted the right of sovereignty, and the claim of allegiance over all persons then abiding within its jurisdiction. By remaining there after the declaration of independence, and after that statute, the party had determined his right of election to withdraw, and had, by his presumed consent, become a member of the new government, and was, consequently, entitled to protection, and bound to allegiance. The doctrine in the case of Respublica v. Chapman, goes also to deny the claim of allegiance, in the case of a person who, though born here, were not here and assenting to our new governments, when they were first instituted. The language of that case was, that allegiance could only attach upon those persons who were then inhabitants. When an old government is dissolved, and a new one formed, “all the writers agree,” said Ch. J. M’Kean, “that none are subjects of the adopted government who have not freely assented to it.” The same principle was declared by the Supreme Court of this state, in Jackson v. White… 

According to Kent, the ‘natives’ were the adults who elected to renounce the Monarcy and take allegiance with the new nation of the United States and as so went their allegiance, so went that of their wives & children.

Looking into the legal definition of the terms that are used by the early scholars that were taken from the law of nations also helps us to understand what the original intent of the founding fathers of the meaning of ‘natural born’ citizen was is also a task one cannot divest themselves of.

tacit: Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated

assent: An intentional approval of known facts that are offered by another for acceptance; agreement; consent

Children at birth can not speak their consent to be a citizen and as it was in England and all nations at the time of the adoption of the constitution, it was the father who gave the consent for the child to be a citizen unless the child be born out of wedlock and if the father made no claim to the child prior to the child coming of age..

[A]s the child ascends from the father, so does his citizenship through tacit assent] as stated by Kent. Therefore the children become citizens of the society in which their fathers are citizens.

I also had a hard time conclusively finding specific government documentation of this that was not mere debate of congress or declarations made by those that drafted the 1866 Act, the 14th and the Expatriation Act of 1868. The halls on the online Library of Congress are exhaustive. One has to look at all the laws pertaining to all US citizenships to find a conclusive definition for ‘natural born’ citizen as required in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution.

The 1st finding came at a genealogy page in the National Archives on the history of immigration and its laws. For years now we have been stating that at the time of the adoption of the constitution, women & children followed that of the husband and father which is that of the laws of nations. Children of unwed mothers followed the condition of the mother which was that of her father and to this we now have government confirmation.

Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103)

The 1st major exception to this 1790 Act was that “derivative” citizenship was granted to wives and minor children of naturalized men. From 1790 to 1922, wives of naturalized men automatically became citizens. This also meant that an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a citizen.

(Conversely, an American woman who married an alien lost her U.S. citizenship, even if she never left the United States.) From 1790 to 1940, children under the age of 21 automatically became naturalized citizens upon the naturalization of their father.

Further confirmation comes from the SoundexIndex to Naturalization  Petitions for the United States District and Circuit Courts, Northern District of Illinois, and Immigration and Naturalization Service District 9 (1840-1950)

Under the section on the background of Naturalization . . . .” (A1, S8, C4) this official government document states that:

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.

Illinois state voting law in 1919, which could not supersede the requirements for citizenship that was laid out in the US constitution stated that:

A woman born in the United States of foreign parents, regardless of whether either of her parents was naturalized, is a citizen, unless such parents were temporarily in the United States. (see above naturalization of children born on US soil to foreign parents after their coming of age) A woman citizen of the United States who marries an alien thereby forfeits her citizenship, whether such alien is a resident of the United States or not.

These official government documents conclusively support what we have been reporting and that is, at the founding of the United States there were 3 kinds of citizens. The natural born, children born to the US citizens that renounced the Monarchy after the Declaration of Independence and were subsequently the original native(inhabitant) citizens born on the soil, but some of the founding patriots were even native(inhabitant born overseas such as Hamilton) citizens by naturalization according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who was also the founder of Harvard Law School, in Volume 3, Section 73: § 1473 of his Commentaries on the Constitution, 1933:

It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. (emphasis mine)

At the formation of a new nation, a citizen can be a native, but not all natives are citizens. Being a ‘native’, did not automatically make one a citizen according to Wilson, Kent & Story. Citizenship required complete allegiance and there was no law that allowed for one to retain the former while aligning with the latter. I also found it quite intriguing that everyone of these 1st scholars on American law & the US Constitution began their works by expounding on the Law of Nations as well as the different forms of government and that which was adopted by the United States was that of the Republic, not that of a Democracy.

In my previous series, The Congressional Natural Born Citizen, I laid  out dozens of attempts over the past 35+ years where Congress has attempted to change the qualification requirements for president as well as change the definition of natural born so that it includes children of not yet naturalized immigrants, whether they be here legally or not. Thanks to citizenscott, a commenter at The Right Side of Life (TRSOL), I now have another document to add to that file. It is a 1987  Oklahoma City University Law Review  wherein they conclude:

 [t]he natural born citizen qualification, although embedded into our Constitution, serves no useful purpose.

In 2008, another liberal progressive appeal  appeared titled: An Idea whose time has come—the curious history, uncertain effect, and need for amendment of the “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN” requirement for presidency by Lawrence Friedman. Mr Friedman lists many more congressional attempts to amend presidential qualifications. His list dates back to 1961 but he also brings to light another challenged candidate in the 20th century and he also has a funny notion of what makes law. Hmm…assumptions are now the rule of law?

It is now generally assumed that the term “natural born” is synonymous with “native born. 

Many progressives to this date, claim the need for the amendment is simply because the requirement that a President must be a natural born citizen is barbaric and does not reflect the view of the mainsteam US public today and they base their findings on assumptions; however it is not the law of assumptions that we are seeking to define & uphold. It is the written law at the time of ratification that definitively sets the requirements for president. The written law which is still in place today. As George Washington proclaimed in his farewell address:

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution  designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield…

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government

Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests…

 

For more on the history on American Citizenship, Allegiance & American Law  please visit the Heritage Foundation.