TRUE FACTS ABOUT THE
ENDLESS NATURAL BORN DEBATE
PatriotsUnion.org
The
2008 Obama event caused people to start learning
about what a natural born Citizen (NBC) is and why
that condition for the Oval Office exists in Article
II -- who is and who isn’t a natural born Citizen
and the focus of the discussion was entirely upon
who can and cannot seek or occupy the White House.
The
political focus point caused two important
problems... 1) overlooking the more important issues
surrounding NBC, the Natural Right of every child to
be born a true citizen of the country of their
father, due to no process of man-made law, and 2)
everything regarding politics immediately becomes
open for debate due to competing agendas, the
driving force behind most people’s “facts” ....
instead of allowing the real facts to drive the
agenda.
The
result has been an endless debate over NBC wherein
there are now five competing definitions of those
three very simple English words and people are
searching the four corners of the earth, all of
history and every law school to find the definition
that suits their agenda....
The
five competing definitions
#1 –
The Original Meaning
– Synonymous with the term “True Citizen” in Natural
Law, a Christian bible based concept of Natural Law
and Natural Rights in a patriarchal society wherein
all rights pass from natural birth father to child
at birth. This is the Vattel definition, and The Law
of Nations is only political in the sense that it is
a highly regarded treatise on the subject of Natural
Law and the effects of Natural Law on nations,
people and governments. (Part
I – How natural-born Citizen came to appear in
Article II
and
Part II – What the Founders meant by natural-born
Citizen
as a matter of history)
“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.”
#2 –
The Textual meaning
– the words have the meaning of their face value,
based upon the common use of the words at the time
the words were used, in this case ratified.
natural+born+Citizen, someone who is a legal member
of society, at the moment of birth, as a result of
nature alone. – (If one is a legal member of society
only due to an act of legislation or governmental
policy, they are a citizen via act, statute or
government policy, and not by nature alone. One made
a legal member of society by any act of government
is a “naturalized” citizen.) In this case, the
textual and original meaning are fully aligned.
#3 –
The “birther” definition
– “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those
born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
The “birther” movement chose this single sentence
from Vattel because the “jus soli” (born in country)
part was what they needed to challenge John McCain
in 2008. The focus on John McCain is what took focus
off of Barack Obama and allowed someone who is NOT a
NBC to enter the White House while all eyes were on
McCain, who is a NBC by any reasonable definition or
intent. The U.S. Senate issued a 99-0 resolution
affirming McCain, but no such resolution was sought
for Obama, who cannot pass the McCain resolution
statements. The “birthers” are of the opinion that
even though this definition is not the original
definition, and to some degree, is at odds with the
original meaning and textual meaning, it none the
less represents the “Founders intent” to eliminate
any foreign influence from the office of
Commander-in-Chief, in accordance with John Jay’s
stated reasoning for proposing the requirement be
added. They want no foreign influence, from the
father, the mother or the place of birth. Not
Vattel’s definition as “birthers” claim, but not an
unreasonable view either.
(The
definition Cruz invented to attack Trump in the last
RNC Debate is used by no one except Cruz. Ted
created a sixth definition to suit his agenda, an
outlandish extension of the “birther” definition.)
#4 –
The Trump and Rubio definition
– native born
is natural
born. This is one of two 14th Naturalization
Amendment views, in which the claim is made that one
must be born on US soil, aka “native born” in order
to be a natural born Citizen, without any regard for
parentage. Marco Rubio was born in the USA, but to
two Cuban citizens who did not become legal US
citizens until years after Marco’s birth. This is a
14th anchor
baby, a native born citizen due only to US
government policies on the naturalization of foreign
children born on US soil.
(Trump made a
technical mistake during the exchange with Cruz
because he has a poor understanding of native vs.
natural born, maybe by intent.)
#5 –
The Progressive definition, aka common law
interpretation
– (the second 14th Naturalization view)
Common Law is the practice of making, amending or
overriding constitutional and statute law via court
precedence or scholarly opinions. We just watched
this happen in real time on the term “marriage” as
the high court issued a 5-4 opinion that the 14th
Amendment protects the right of gays to marry,
thereby altering the definition of “marriage” from
what it has meant since the beginning of recorded
history to what the gay community and globalists
want it to mean today. This is the same practice
being employed by “legal experts” on both sides of
the political aisle as we speak, to eliminate the
NBC requirement for the Oval Office by simply using
common law precedence to redefine the term to suit.
This effort ends with no distinction between natural
born, native born, naturalized and undocumented
citizens from foreign lands. ALL of them will be
NBCs when the “legal experts” are finished here,
including “undocumented migrants and Middle East
refugees.”
How
else to you eliminate U.S. national sovereignty and
meld the USA into the global commune, unless people
from all over the world can occupy the Oval Office?
When
Ted Cruz was running for the Senate in 2012, he
stated to supporters at a Texas 912 campaign event
that he was “NOT ELIGIBLE for the White House
because (using NBC #3 above) his father was never a
US citizen until 2005, in addition to being born in
Canada.”
The
problem isn’t really that Ted was “born in Canada.”
The problem is, Ted was “born Canadian.” A legal
citizen of Canada from birth until he decided to run
for the Oval Office in May 2014, when he renounced
his birthright citizenship to Canada. Ted Cruz has
NO authentic US documentation of any form of legal
US citizenship. Ted is an “undocumented citizen” of
the USA, no different than millions of “undocumented
citizens” residing in the USA today.
Of
course, by definition, a “constitutionalist” is a
“constitutional originalist.” Anyone who buys
“precedence” and “modern interpretations” as a
method of interpreting the Constitution or Bill of
Rights, is NOT a “constitutionalist.”
Now,
we no more need “legal experts” to tell us what
natural born Citizen means, than what daylight and
dark mean. The answer to both questions are obvious
and self-evident. In both cases, the words mean
exactly what they suggest…
The
difference between natural born Citizen and every
other type of citizen under U.S. law, is as obvious
as the difference between daylight and dark.
Only
when one seeks to alter the original and textual
meaning of the term does the term become “ambiguous”
and then, open to competing interpretations and
debate. Only when one is willing to use very broad
progressive interpretations of constitutional text,
in order to slip their candidate through the key
hole to the Oval Office, does the matter become
confusing, by intent.
Whether or not RNC talkers Levin, Hannity, Kelly and
Limbaugh have any honest clue what a natural born
Citizen is, Obama, Cruz and Rubio, as well as many
others “trained in the law” do know, which means
they are not just mistaken, they are frauds actively
working to subvert the Constitutional requirements
for high office.
However, upholding, defending, protecting and
preserving the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights
and all foundational Rights of the American
citizenry requires us to enforce the letter of the
Constitution, based on the original meaning and
Founders intent at the time of the adoption…
Anything less is an effort to undermine and subvert
the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, the result
of which will be the loss of all constitutionally
protected natural rights, as endowed by our Creator… and mistake of grave
consequences that reach far beyond the political
ambitions of both candidates and constituents.
We
only have the Foundations we are willing to uphold
and enforce… When the people become as corrupt as
their politicians, there is no hope for America… Are
we there now?
© JB
Williams
Writer on American History and Politics
Jb.uspu@gmail.com
www.JB-Williams.com (Home)
www.newswithviews.com (Archives)