A Natural Born
Citizen is a True Citizen
By JB Williams
PatriotsUnion.org
Despite numerous efforts by our illustrious legal and academic professionals to use precedence and 1946 Rules of Procedure to alter or abolish the Natural Born Citizen requirement for the Oval Office found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, using false history and tortured legal interpretations of 14th Amendment laws and cases pertaining to naturalized citizens, to avoid the need to amend in order to actually alter, the true meaning of the term Natural Born Citizen remains exactly as it was when our Founders chose the status as a requirement for high office in 1787.
In short, the term Natural Born Citizen is synonymous with the term “True Citizen.” Its point of origin is very well documented, as is the true meaning of the term and even the purpose should be obvious to every thinking individual with at least third grade reading and comprehension skills.
HOW IT CAME TO BE IN OUR CONSTITUTION
-
Our early settlers had left England and other
parts of Europe because those countries had
already experienced a shift away from Natural
Law concepts to Common Law concepts, wherein men
were making laws that infringed upon the Natural
Rights of the people, not the least of which was
religious persecution.
-
Our very first “founding
document” by our earliest settlers was the
Mayflower Compact.
An effort to establish the New World on Natural
Law concepts and the Natural Rights of a free
people.
-
By 1774, there was a growing division between
members of the original 13 colonies and England
due to Common Law statutes which again, were
infringing upon the Natural Rights of settlers
in the New World. It was about much more than a
tax on Tea. This was the reason for our Founders
split from British Common Law rule that resulted
in the Revolutionary War to declare our
independence from British rule and establish a
new independent sovereign nation. The First
Continental Congress was convened by the
colonies to begin the separation with Britain
and form a sovereign nation of our own, one that
would be based upon Natural Law and Natural
Rights.
-
In April of 1775, the Revolutionary War had
begun, as Britain attempted to force its Common
Law statutes on the 13 colonies by sending
troops to the New World, infringing upon the
Natural Rights of our early citizens.
-
The Second Continental Congress convened in
1775, to begin the work that would result in the
writing of our
Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson wrote in just 17 days, once
commissioned with the task.
-
In October of 1775, Benjamin Franklin received
three (3) copies of
The Law of Nations
from Charles W.F. Dumas. Dumas was a "person of
letters" aka a well-read man, he was a Swiss
publisher. He was also a Swiss diplomat to
America at the time, on behalf of the Swiss
government.
-
Franklin placed one of the
three copies of
The Law of Nations
in the New York Library, kept a copy for himself
and gave the third copy to Thomas Jefferson, as
Jefferson was writing the Declaration of
Independence.
-
On December 9, 1775,
Franklin wrote a letter of thanks to Dumas,
stating as follows:
“It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.”
-
On July 4, 1776, the 13
colonies ratified the Declaration of
Independence, in which the preamble states as
follows:
-
“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, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should
declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.” - You can easily see that the
Founders were entirely focused on creating a new
sovereign independent nation governed by The
Laws of Nature, not British Common Law. Their
understanding of Natural Law and Natural Rights
came from
The Law of Nations,
which Dumas had sent to Franklin during the
founding period of the nation.
-
On July 25, 1787, Founder
John Jay recommended in a
letter to members of the Constitutional Convention
that the term “Natural Born Citizen” (synonymous
with True Citizen) be placed in Article II as a
requirement for the Office of President and
Commander-in-Chief, stating that only a Natural
Born Citizen of the United States would be
eligible for high office. Members of the
Constitutional Convention agreed, adding the
condition to the document that would be ratified
less than two months later.
-
In September of 1787, the ratified U.S.
Constitution included a Natural Law term Natural
Born Citizen, synonymous with the term “True
Citizen,” as a condition for access to the Oval
Office, in Article II. You can also find in
Article I, the enumerated power of Congress to
enforce The Law of Nations, which means enforce
all Rights under Natural Law as defined in
The Law of Nations.
-
Since then, there has been no amendment altering
the original definition of Natural Law or
Natural Born Citizen, nor has there been any
amendment removing the Natural Born Citizen
requirement for the Oval Office in Article II.
-
On eight separate occasions, between 2004 and
2008, members of Congress proposed altering or
eliminating the Natural Born Citizen requirement
in Article II, failing in each of those
attempts.
-
To legally alter anything in the Constitution,
there must be an amendment to the Constitution
and that amendment must be very specific in
wording, as to what is being changed, altered or
removed. The amendment itself must also be in
perpetuation of the original context and intent
of the Constitution, and cannot violate the
original text or intent, or the measure itself
becomes “unconstitutional.”
-
As a result, the term Natural Born Citizen means
exactly the same thing it meant when the
Founders made it a condition for access to the
Oval Office in September of 1787.
-
Upon being elected the First President of the
new United States in 1789 under the new
constitution, on October 5, 1789, George
Washington withdrew the one copy of The Law of
Nations from the library where Franklin had
placed it in 1775, as Washington explained in
his notes, in order to learn the foundations
upon which the new system of government had been
formed and in order to properly govern under
those concepts in accordance with the Founders
intent under the constitution.
-
Washington never returned that copy of the book
to the library. 221 years later, the staff of
Washington's Mount Vernon Estate learned of this
situation and replaced the book at the New York
Library. No effort to collect the estimated
$300,000 in late fees was made.
-
On June 15, 1804, the 12th
Amendment clarified that the same Natural Born
Citizen and all other Article II requirements
for the Presidency applies to the Vice
Presidency, as the Vice President may succeed
the President to the Oval Office.
WHY IT WAS PLACED IN OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
The Founders reasoning for the Natural Born Citizen requirement in Article II is self-evident in the history of how it came to exist in our founding documents. In his letter to the Constitutional Convention, requesting the Natural Born Citizen be added as a requirement for high office under Article II, Jay explained his reasoning…
“Permit me to hint, whether it
would 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 Commander in Chief of the
American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on,
any but a natural born Citizen.”
–
John Jay letter dated July 25, 1787
The reasoning of our Founders or the “original intent” of our Founders was a matter of National Security. In this case, it pertained to the highest and most powerful political office in our new nation, the office of Commander-in-Chief, or President of the United States.
The
Founders reasoning and intent was clearly to prevent
anyone with natural foreign loyalties or
entanglements due to dual, divided or foreign
citizenship, from ever holding the office of
Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, as stated in Article
II of the U.S. Constitution,
“No person
except a natural born citizen, - shall be eligible
to the office of President;” (or Vice President as
of Amendment XII)
The section which states “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” pertains only to the Founders themselves, as they were all “citizens” of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, but none of them were “natural born Citizens” at the adoption of the Constitution.
HOW THE LAW OF NATIONS DEFINES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Many have argued that the U.S. Constitution does not define the term natural born Citizen. Of course, the U.S. Constitution, unlike most legal documents, does not have a definitions section at all. None of the words that appear in the Constitution have a definition attached to them.
This is due to the fact that the U.S. Constitution was not written in legal-ease, but rather in basic simple common English, that any person able to read could easily comprehend, avoiding any need for citizens to rely upon the legal interpretations of men to understand their basic Natural Rights protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The ethical research of any subject requires an honest effort to seek truth, a complete study of all available information, when possible, a reliance on first source evidence, as opposed to second hand information or third party opinions which might be socially or politically motivated, and a recognition of and respect for the point of origin.
As the term was borrowed from Natural Law as defined by Emmerich De Vattel in the Law of Nations, we must refer to Chapter XIX Sections 212-220 of Book I to glean the true meaning of the term natural born Citizen, as it was used and intended by the Founders in 1787.
Contrary to the popular belief of many today who have not yet completed their research on the subject, Vattel did not define natural born Citizen in one sentence, or even one paragraph. Vattel spent nine sections of Chapter XIX defining natural born Citizen, and he makes it very clear that the term is synonymous with the term “True Citizen.”
Close and complete examination of Chapter XIX Sections 212-220 will eliminate all doubts and questions concerning the true definition of natural born Citizen, aka True Citizen. Upon inspection of all related sections, we find that Vattel has a common thread throughout concerning the meaning of natural born Citizen, or True Citizen. The following excerpts represent that common thread in order of appearance… the common thread in bold for ease of identification purposes.
-
“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.” – Section 212
-
“The
country of the fathers is therefore that of the
children; and
these become
true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” – Section 212
-
“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.” – Section 212
-
“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;” Section
213 pertaining to “inhabitants” or foreigners
allowed by the state to settle and stay in the
country.
-
“It is asked whether the
children born of citizens in a foreign country
are citizens? The laws have decided this
question in several countries, and their
regulations must be followed. (59)
By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their
fathers, and enter into all their rights (§
212); the place of birth produces no change in
this particular,” - Section 215 pertaining to
children of citizens born abroad, which refers
back to Section 212.
-
“The
natural, or original settlement, is that which
we acquire by birth, in the place where our
father has his;”
– Section 218 pertaining to the settlements of
naturals…
-
“We have observed above (§
212),
that they have a right to enter into the society
of which their fathers were members. But
every man is born free; and the son of a
citizen, when come to the years of discretion,
may examine whether it be convenient for him to
join the society for which he was destined by
his birth.” – Section 220 again refers back to
Section 212, when attaching the natural rights
of an individual to the natural birth father as
it pertains to the individual right to withdraw
from society once of legal age.
As you can see, a complete study of how the Law of Nations addresses natural born Citizen, True Citizen, is consistent in attaching Natural Birth Right Citizenship to the natural birth father.
Some ask, what about the mother?
As you can see, the mother is not mentioned as a means of passing natural born Citizenship to the child. Only the father is mentioned. Why?
In U.S. Law governing naturalization under the 14th Amendment, a mother can pass basic citizenship to the child at birth, but not natural born Citizenship under Natural Law. As a result, “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages.”
In cases of married parents, all Natural Rights follow the blood of the father, including that of the family name, or surname, the family crest, family lineage and all natural rights of inheritance, including the natural right to inherit the citizenship of the father at birth by tacit consent, without any naturalization process.
This is because under the laws of marriage, two people become one entity, the father being the dominant legal figure within that union. The father is held most responsible for the actions of his family, to include his wife and his children.
Recent efforts, again by our illustrious legal and academic professionals, to alter even the age old definition of marriage have led to much anxiety and confusion over this very basic precept. The push for “equality” between genders and shifting gender roles have very much complicated this matter and frustrated many.
When the mother is not married, the condition of the natural birth father may or may not be known or documented.
However, when properly and ethically interpreting a document which is 227 years old, the definitions in force at the time the terms were used is the only correct definition, no matter how anyone feels about those definitions.
Our Constitution is written in stone, in the sense that it cannot be altered at all other than by amendment process. It does live and breathe, but only to the degree that society sees fit to amend the original Articles via the amendment process to meet with modern times. The amendment process was intentionally made very cumbersome to prevent people from altering our foundations of freedom and liberty on a whim for light or transient purposes.
The mere fact that some don’t like it does nothing to change it. Even court opinions, or congressional legislation, or executive orders do not have the power to constitutionally alter anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights, or supersede them in law. Such efforts are all “unconstitutional” on their face.
INALIENABLE NATURAL LAW
It is not possible to change a condition which exists in nature. Our Founders wisely chose Natural Rights under Natural Law as the foundation for everything they created, because the Laws of Nature are constant, they are inalienable, they are beyond the power of man to regulate.
I was recently asked why I thought The Law of Nations has never been updated for modern use since its publication in the mid-1700s…. I answered… Because the Laws of Nature never change.
Some have no clue what the Laws of Nature are or how they affect their daily lives, much less why our Founders based everything upon these Laws. So, I often put the subject in terms that people can relate to by using the example of gravity, another law of nature.
Men can dislike, legislate against, rule against in the courts or order from existence from the Oval Office, gravity. The very best of scientists have never been able to alter or abolish gravity. At best, they have only been able to temporarily escape the effects of gravity. Yet sooner or later, what goes up will still come down. And that’s because gravity, like natural born Citizen, is a condition which exists in nature and it is inalienable by men.
Because our Founders had no trust in the pursuits of men in power, they entrusted everything to the Laws of Nature, and provided in our Founding documents that our Rights are all Natural Rights, Rights that exist in Nature, of Nature’s God, not of men easily manipulated via Common Law processes.
By 1823, Thomas Jefferson among other Founders had already witnessed the destructive nature of an unbridled judiciary, stating as follows;
“At the
establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary
bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and
harmless members of the government. Experience,
however, soon showed in what way they were to become
the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the
means provided for their removal gave them a
freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their
decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors
only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at
large; that these decisions nevertheless become law
by precedent, sapping by little and little the
foundations of the Constitution and working its
change by construction before any one has perceived
that that invisible and helpless worm has been
busily employed in consuming its substance. In
truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if
secured against all liability to account.”
WHY DON’T MODERN LAWYERS KNOW THIS?
In short, it’s because they do not want to know it and even more importantly, they do not want you to know it…
The Rules of Procedure “unconstitutionally” installed in the U.S. Justice system in 1946 made it possible for lawyers to alter or abolish Natural Rights in their Common Law by simply legislating against them, ruling them out of existence from the bench, or ordering them out of force from the Executive Branch.
Since then, American Law Schools have not taught Natural Law of Constitutional Law. Instead, they have focused on how to infringe upon the Natural Rights of every American by using precedence and procedure found only in Common Law. They had granted themselves the power to change law, the Constitution and the Bill of Natural Rights, by merely “setting a new precedent” or blocking public access to the proper justice system via “procedures of the courts.”
As a result, very few if any lawyers alive today know any of the truths presented in this essay on the subject of Natural Law and natural born. Further, even fewer want to know these truths and almost none of them want the American people to know this historic truth.
However, the truth exists… and it will not vanish, so long as the people grasp it, protect it and preserve it. They must, as the information provided herein is much greater than the subject of who can and cannot hold the office of President…
It is the Foundation of freedom and liberty, without which, the people of the United States will possess neither.
I have spent so much time and effort researching and writing on this subject for one single reason… I know that if the American people cannot get this one thing right, there is no chance that they will get anything else right in their efforts to defend the Constitution and regain control of their stolen Republic.
This is the lynch pin to everything. If the American people can get this one issue right and act swiftly to enforce it, they can save their country. If they cannot get this right, they will get nothing else right…
jb.uspu@gmail.com
www.PatriotsUnion.org
www.VeteranDefenders.org
www.NorthAmericanLawCenter.org
"Tolerating evil in any form at any level only
brings about more evil. As a result, the true cost
of tolerating the intolerable is a totally
intolerable society, from which you can never draft
good government." - JB