So, are you still trying to understand “natural born” citizenship?
Invariably, in every Grand Jury we have convened (15 now) there is a jury member that raised his hand trying to understand “natural born” citizenship. Every time I end up writing a detailed email to that member explaining why Barack Obama is NOT a “natural born” citizen.
If you are one of those that don’t understand, I hope this article will clear things up for you.
By the way, ninety percent of the press, legislators, and judges don’t get it. Actually, the truth be known, they don’t want to get it because the truth suddenly rares its magnificent head and the wind is knocked completely out of their liberal sails.
From the liberal left:
I have had people write me and say, “what difference does it make, Obama is a US citizen?”
I have received 3-page disertations explaining why “natural born” citizenship should be interpreted as “naturalized” or “native born.”
Then there are those that say, “Obama got elected so NOW he is legally qualified.. get over it.”
Naturally, most of these Obots that write to me use foul language, call me a “birther” or “wingnut” or simply tell me I am a “racist.”
The truth of the matter, liberal progressives hate the fact that a conservative citizen does their homework, understands the law and sticks to their guns. Any type of rebuttal or conversation with these progressives (fruitloops) is a PURE WASTE OF TIME.
But since you are a jury member and one of the good guys, I will take the time to explain to you, as best I can, the “natural born” clause. It is quite important.
Article II of the Constitution for the
United States of America
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Sec. 1 - If you are thinking the Constitution says “or ANY Citizen of the United States qualifies” forget it. You have to read the clause after that. “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..” this is the “Grandfather” clause that qualified such citizens as George Washington to become President who were British citizens prior to the Adoption. Once old George and others like him died, this clause became moot. Today, any Presidential candidate MUST be a “natural born” citizen to qualify.
What is a 14th Amendment Citizen?
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to define a US citizen born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or “naturalized.” It DOES NOT define “natural born” citizenship.
The Obots will spend hours trying to explain to you how Obama is a 14th Amendment citizen and as such is qualified to be President. NOPE! A presidential candidate is not defined under the 14th Amendment.
Attorney Mario Apuzzo does an excellent job comparing “natural born” citizenship under Article II to other classes of citizenship:
As applicable only to a Presidential Article II “natural born Citizen” (not an Article II grandfathered “Citizen [which of course has long expired],” not an Article I “Citizen” [for Representatives and Senators who are eligible even if naturalized], not a 14th Amendment “citizen” [who is one either born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or naturalized], not a U.S. Code born “citizen” [born on U.S. soil with U.S. jurisdiction or in U.S. outlying possessions or foreign countries to one or two U.S. citizen parents or being of unknown parentage is found in the U.S. while under the age of 5], and not a Wong Kim Ark 14th Amendment “citizen” [born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are legal U.S. residents]), the individual must be born in the United States to a mother and father who are themselves United States citizens (by birth or naturalization). This is to assure that a would-be, all powerful President and Commander in Chief of the Military has sole allegiance and loyalty to the United States from the time of birth, for the sources of citizenship (jus soli and jus sanguinis) are all united at birth to give the child only U.S. citizenship from birth and thereby forever prevent any other nation from claiming that child’s citizenship, allegiance, loyalty and demanding military service or political favors. Such unity of U.S. citizenship also prevents a would-be President from feeling conflicted as to his allegiance and loyalty between the United States and some other foreign country, whether done consciously or unconsciously. Finally, such unity of U.S. citizenship allows the American people to fully trust their President with protecting their nation and their families’ very lives. The American people expect their President to make very tough decisions in a moment of crisis and they cannot risk that their President may be ambivalent about taking the proper course of action because of some allegiance and loyalty conflict acquired from birth and nurtured throughout his or her life.
But ‘NATURAL BORN’ is not defined
in the Constitution?
Yes, it is!
“Natural Born” is declared in Article II [No Person except a 'natural born' Citizen...]
.. and “Natural Born” is implied and expressed in the Constitution as a result of COMMON LAW.
The Common Law in this case goes all the way back to the Magna Carta (over 700 years). “Natural Born” was actually expressed (written) in Vattel’s Law of Nations. If you don’t know what the Law of Nations said about “natural born” you should. The Founding Fathers did. The Founding Fathers knew exactly what was implied, expressed and common to law when they drafted Article II, the “natural born” eligibility clause.
The Constitution and Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations has the answer to any questions regarding citizenship abroad and any laws crossing national boundaries:
EXCERPT 1. U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. 1:
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;
EXCERPT 2: de Vattel’s Law of Nations circa 1758 Book 1, Chapter XIX, Sec. 212:
The natives, or NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
Finally, the main item in the Constitution that ties both together:
EXCERPT 3: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Sec. 8:
The Congress shall have Power.. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations..
Law of Nations is capitalized, meaning our framers were citing a PROPER NAME. There was only one Law of Nations in 1787 officially declared. And yes, Congress and the Judiciary has the power to enforce ANY LAW mentioned in the Law of Nations written by Emmerich de Vattel! It was sitting right under our noses the entire time.
“Natural Born” is a “separate” class of citizen for a very important reason. The Founding Fathers wanted to make sure any citizen that served as President owed his allegience, commitment and fiduciary responsibility, FIRST and FOREMOST, to the United States of America, NOT some foreign nation.
In the simplest of terms: NATURAL BORN means born of parents (mother AND father) who were US Citizens at the time of birth. It also means born on soverign US soil (Vattel: born in THE country, of parents who are citizens). Obama’s father was NOT a US Citizen. In the case of Obama it doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii (which is seriously in question). Obama can never legally be a NATURAL BORN citizen since his father was NOT a US Citizen. Case closed!
American Grand Jury
In Mario’s 4 Mar 2010 post he refers back to the original latin in “Institutio Oratoria,” by Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (published in the first century A.D.) and Greschak’s analysis on December 2, 2008:
“Quare, si fieri, potest et verba omnia et vox huius alumnum urbis oleant, ut oratio Romana plane videatur, non civitate donata.”
The earliest translation by Guthrie in 1756 suggests that “alumnum urbis oleant” was the underlying source of “natural born citizen” and it meant not just parent citizens and born on the soil, but also education and upbringing.
“It was both birth in the locality and parental and institutional rearing and education from birth that produced the “natural born citizen.””
This is a definition that many folks would understand as reasonable. In fact, I might suggest that the Supreme Court could (theoretically) interpret NBC to include an upbringing requirement. A suggested SCOTUS interpretative definition might be:
Born on the soil with 2 citizen parents and residing on U.S territory to the age of majority (18 years). They could go on to say that citizenship can never have been given up, even if re-naturalized, and that dual citizenship may never have been acquired.
To me everyone would get this definition. This also suggests that the 14 year residency is on top of the need to be brought up (and residing) on US soil up til 18. In this scenario, an individual eligible at 35, needs to be a resident for the 1st 18 years and for 14 of the next 17 years up to their 35th birthday. This would allow a President to have acquired direct experience in foreign lands that should help them in foreign affairs and treaties…
THANK YOU! for the truth. Would be a very good ideea, if this few passages be posted every single day in all bloggers side. This way those who don’t understand the meaning of “NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”, will have a chance to understand it.