Obama, Harris, and Natural Born Citizenship for Dummies

[Elderberry]

The Post & Email by  Tom Arnold 8/4/2024

There appear to be FOUR (4) CATEGORIES OF U.S. CITIZENS:  Birthright citizenship (Jus Soli); Family citizenship (Jus Sanguinis); Naturalization; and citizenship by Marriage.  Each, of course, has its own definition and subtleties, which can be viewed on various websites.  I have found that U.S. Government, Department of Homeland Security, Wikipedia.org, the U.S. Constitution, and Natural Born Citizen sites are the most helpful.  However, because of the complexity of the material and the numerous sites involved, I will not be referring to or describing any of the wording in them unless there is a specific reason or need to do so.  You will see where all of this is leading when you read and make an impartial and reasoned assessment of what follows.

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (44th U.S. President) IS NOT AND NEVER WAS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution to hold the office of president and/or vice president.  For one, it has never been proved that he was born in the United States.  Actually, it is entirely possible, too, that we do not even know his true name.  The alleged Hawaiian long-form birth certificate of Obama has been examined by multiple and independent forensic document experts including law enforcement and determined to be a FORGERY.  Obama was found guilty by a Citizens Grand Jury in Ocala, Florida, in September 2013, of FORGERY of an official document (the birth certificate), which he finally had produced and made known to the public (the VOTING public), which in turn resulted in ELECTION FRAUD.  Obama was sentenced in absentia to ten years imprisonment.  It also should be noted that Obama was a citizen of, and had divided allegiance to, three separate countries (British Kenya, Indonesia, and the United States of America).

Obama had a background of repeat delinquency and serious criminal conduct which should have rendered him unsuitable for any government office.  Forgery of the birth certificate alone disqualified him by law from becoming Commander-in-Chief.  Additionally, I believe there is credible evidence he had been mentored and groomed by Communists and and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  When elected in 2008 and again in 2012, he promised to “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE” America.  Look around you to see what he and his comrades accomplished.  Do you like what you see?  His objective was, and remains (the CIA also has the same objective), the establishment of a New World Order with a socioeconomic class system, woke Marxist beliefs and related behaviors (discriminatory and/or racist qualities?).  The unconstitutional presidency of Obama set a PREDICTABLY LETHAL PRECEDENT for our republic and democracy.  In my opinion, Obama “STOLE” the presidency and should be held accountable to the full extent of the law for violation of the high crimes of TREASON AND/OR SEDITION.  Others who are complicit, even if only by their silence, should also have to answer for their traitorous criminal activities. 

KAMALA D. HARRIS, vice president under 46th U.S. President Joe Biden and the Democrat Party nominee for the 2024 presidency, was born on American soil in Oakland, California on October 20, 1964.  At age 12 in 1976, Kamala moved with a sister and their mother to Canada.  After graduating from high school in Montreal, Quebec, Kamala returned to the United States (California) in 1981 and began traveling to and living in various locations throughout the Midwest and East.  Eventually, she ended up in Washington, D.C. where she obtained both a BA degree and a law degree from Howard University.  She then became a prosecutor and the attorney general in California, followed by U.S. senator from California, and as mentioned above President Biden’s vice president in 2021.  It appears Kamala may fit the definition of “anchor baby” (her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, came to the United States in 1957 on a student visa).  Whether Kamala is a natural born Citizen, native born citizen, and/or anchor baby is a subject of differing opinions.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/08/04/obama-harris-and-natural-born-citizenship-for-dummies/

[DefiantMassRINO]

A friend of mine wants to know ... is a forceps delivery a natural birth?

Does the use of salad tongs or plungers make birth un-unatural?

My friend needs to know in case he decides to run for President some day.

[LMAO]

A friend of mine wants to know ... is a forceps delivery a natural birth?

Does the use of salad tongs or plungers make birth un-unatural?

My friend needs to know in case he decides to run for President some day.

Hmmm…..
I have a nephew that was born by C-section. If that isn’t resolved, there goes his aspirations for President of the United States

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The Post & Email by  Tom Arnold 8/4/2024

There appear to be FOUR (4) CATEGORIES OF U.S. CITIZENS:  Birthright citizenship (Jus Soli); Family citizenship (Jus Sanguinis); Naturalization; and citizenship by Marriage. 

The guy can't even get his first sentence right.  Right off the bat, marriage doesn't make you a citizen - you still must go through the naturalization process.

Anyone who can't get something that basic correct has no business lecturing other on citizenship.

The other distinction he makes is equally bogus.   "Birthright citizenship" can be either from being born here, or from your family.  Both count equally as citizenship by birthright.

 

[Elderberry]

‘Citizen at Birth’ Term vs ‘natural born Citizen’ Term: Grammatical and Logical Analysis

The Post & Email by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr 8/9/2024

First, let us put on our thinking hat and do some simple grammatical analysis of the two terms ‘Citizen at Birth’ (“CAB”) and ‘natural born Citizen’ (“nbC”).

The first term, “CAB”, tells the reader simply WHEN the person became a Citizen, i.e., at birth.

The second term, “nbC”, tells the reader two things, i.e., WHEN the person became a Citizen, i.e., when born, and also HOW they became a Citizen, i.e., by what type of law the person became a Citizen –- Man-made laws, acts, treaties, amendments, Positive Law(s), or the Law(s) of Nature, Natural Law. The ‘natural born Citizen’ obtains their citizenship by the clear-cut natural law circumstances of their birth, with the birth being in the country and being born to two U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized Citizen) parents, via the Laws of Nature, Natural Law. No man-made law or act is needed to grant them their U.S. citizenship.

Regarding the U.S. constitutional ‘natural born Citizen’ (“nbC”) term, the person gained their sole allegiance to the USA and citizenship via the Laws of Nature aka Natural Law, not man-made laws aka Positive Law.

So it is important to note, in the grammatical analysis of a term or sentence, adjectives mean something. The “born” adjective in the ‘natural born Citizen’ term tells us when the person became a Citizen, that is at the time they were born. And the “natural” adjective in the ‘natural born Citizen” term denotes a special KIND of Citizen when born, i.e., a Citizen created by Natural Law, not Positive Man-Made Law. Things described as “natural” are created by nature, not man.

By Natural Law, a ‘natural born Citizen‘ is defined as a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens of the country) when their child was born in the country. Natural born Citizens are naturally at birth a Citizen of only that country and no other. In the case of the USA, they are born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the USA at birth with no dual-Citizenship, foreign allegiance, or foreign influence on them via their birth circumstances.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/08/09/citizen-at-birth-term-vs-natural-born-citizen-term-grammatical-and-logical-analysis/

[Bigun]

 

[Fishrrman]

I agree with the premise of the original post, and Bigun's "yowsa".

But there are only two ways this is ever going to be settled:

1. United States Supreme Court opinion which specifies the distinctions between "natural born" and other citizens, and what conditions would disqualify one from being defined as a "natural-born citizen",
or...
2. A Constitutional Amendment which spells out in no uncertain terms the definition of "natural-born" citizen, "naturalized" citizen, etc.

Once more I'm going to state that the oversights and omissions made by The Founders resulted in a Constitution that -- although it served us well for two centuries -- can no longer protect us against the assaults of the leftists and communists.

I will go further and assert that the Constitution, as it exists today, is precipitating the collapse of The United States as a nation.

It's time to "RE-Constitute" it to correct those oversights and omissions.

I invite and challenge the other members of this forum to rebuke me on what I've posted above.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

‘Citizen at Birth’ Term vs ‘natural born Citizen’ Term: Grammatical and Logical Analysis

The Post & Email by CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr 8/9/2024

First, let us put on our thinking hat and do some simple grammatical analysis of the two terms ‘Citizen at Birth’ (“CAB”) and ‘natural born Citizen’ (“nbC”).

The first term, “CAB”, tells the reader simply WHEN the person became a Citizen, i.e., at birth.

The second term, “nbC”, tells the reader two things, i.e., WHEN the person became a Citizen, i.e., when born, and also HOW they became a Citizen, i.e., by what type of law the person became a Citizen –- Man-made laws, acts, treaties, amendments, Positive Law(s), or the Law(s) of Nature, Natural Law. The ‘natural born Citizen’ obtains their citizenship by the clear-cut natural law circumstances of their birth, with the birth being in the country and being born to two U.S. Citizen (born or naturalized Citizen) parents, via the Laws of Nature, Natural Law. No man-made law or act is needed to grant them their U.S. citizenship.

Regarding the U.S. constitutional ‘natural born Citizen’ (“nbC”) term, the person gained their sole allegiance to the USA and citizenship via the Laws of Nature aka Natural Law, not man-made laws aka Positive Law.

So it is important to note, in the grammatical analysis of a term or sentence, adjectives mean something. The “born” adjective in the ‘natural born Citizen’ term tells us when the person became a Citizen, that is at the time they were born. And the “natural” adjective in the ‘natural born Citizen” term denotes a special KIND of Citizen when born, i.e., a Citizen created by Natural Law, not Positive Man-Made Law. Things described as “natural” are created by nature, not man.

By Natural Law, a ‘natural born Citizen‘ is defined as a person born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized Citizens of the country) when their child was born in the country. Natural born Citizens are naturally at birth a Citizen of only that country and no other. In the case of the USA, they are born with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the USA at birth with no dual-Citizenship, foreign allegiance, or foreign influence on them via their birth circumstances.

More: https://www.thepostemail.com/2024/08/09/citizen-at-birth-term-vs-natural-born-citizen-term-grammatical-and-logical-analysis/

In legal terms, this is what is known as an "ipse dixit" argument.   Basically, it's just asserting that things are true without any evidence other than your own say-so.

[Smokin Joe]

I agree with the premise of the original post, and Bigun's "yowsa".

But there are only two ways this is ever going to be settled:

1. United States Supreme Court opinion which specifies the distinctions between "natural born" and other citizens, and what conditions would disqualify one from being defined as a "natural-born citizen",
or...
2. A Constitutional Amendment which spells out in no uncertain terms the definition of "natural-born" citizen, "naturalized" citizen, etc.

Once more I'm going to state that the oversights and omissions made by The Founders resulted in a Constitution that -- although it served us well for two centuries -- can no longer protect us against the assaults of the leftists and communists.

I will go further and assert that the Constitution, as it exists today, is precipitating the collapse of The United States as a nation.

It's time to "RE-Constitute" it to correct those oversights and omissions.

I invite and challenge the other members of this forum to rebuke me on what I've posted above.

In defense of the Founders, terms which were in common use with distinct meanings were held to be sufficient. Concepts such as ...shall not be infringed and natural born citizen  were not alien to the educated man, and not really subject to misinterpretation in English as spoken before the deluge of anti-semantic attacks of the media on the precise nature of the language, intensified since radio and television. This is compounded by the apparent inability or simple reticence of those entrusted to teach the language to do so.

I fully believe that the founders would not be able to anticipate the Orwellian (1984--since 1947, anyway) destruction of the English language that has been perpetrated since their time.
The very notion of these United States was dashed in the wake of a conflict of disunion, not unified by choice, but by the sword, something which flew in the face of the original concept and which led to the Federal Government becoming a de facto National Government. From that seemingly subtle shift to today's student, a great deal of our problems arose.

Granted, languages and usage evolve, but at some  point the very definition of words is ordinarily retained, even as a secondary or tertiary definition, and it is time to analyze those inferences as written, in order to, if necessary, clarify the terms which once were plain English.

[Bigun]

We have been visited recently with several very silly articles which assert that Marco Rubio is a “natural born Citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution (ratified 1788), and hence is qualified to be President:

Bret Baier (Fox News) asserts that Congress may define (and presumably redefine, from time to time) terms in the Constitution by means of law.

Chet Arthur in American Thinker quips that “the original meaning of ‘natural born citizen’” is determined by reference to “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution” and to the definition of “citizen” at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified 1868.

Human Events claims that anyone  born within The United States is a “natural born citizen” eligible to be President.

Jake Walker at Red State purports to show how the term has been used from 1795 to the present.  After quoting James Madison on the citizenship requirements imposed by Art. I, §2, cl. 2, to be a member of the House, Walker gleefully quotes a 1795 discussion of “natural born subject” to “prove” that anyone born here is a “natural born citizen”:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection…” [emphasis mine]

“The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” [emphasis mine]

But “subjects” are not “citizens”; and we fought a war so that we could be transformed from “subjects of the British Crown” to Citizens of a Republic!

The four writers don’t know what they are talking about.  But I will tell you the Truth and prove it. We first address Word Definitions.

Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time.  “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So!  In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it.  Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So!  Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used?  Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?

Article II, §1, cl. 5, U.S. Constitution, requires the President to be a “natural born Citizen”.

The meaning of this term is not set forth in The Constitution or in The Federalist Papers; and I found no discussion of the meaning in Madison’s Journal of the Federal Convention or in Alexander Hamilton’s notes of the same.

What does this tell us? That they all knew what it meant. We don’t go around defining “pizza”, because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is.

Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles1 already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.

And we know that our Framers carefully studied and relied upon Vattel’s work.  I’ll prove it.

How Vattel’s Law of Nations got to the Colonies, and its Influence Here:

During 1775, Charles Dumas, an ardent republican [as opposed to a monarchist] living in Europe sent three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations to Benjamin Franklin. Here is a portion of Franklin’s letter of Dec. 9, 1775 thanking Dumas for the books:

“… I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…” (2nd para) [boldface added]

Vattel’s Law of Nations was thereafter “pounced upon by studious members of Congress, groping their way without the light of precedents.”

Years later, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction to the 1916 ed. of Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment.2 Lapradelle said the fathers of independence “were in accord with the ideas of Vattel”; they found in Vattel “all their maxims of political liberty”; and:

“From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel’s influence.  In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities.”(page xxx) [emphasis added]

In footnote 1 on the same page (xxx), Lapradelle writes:

“… Another copy was presented by Franklin to the Library Company of Philadelphia. Among the records of its Directors is the following minute: “Oct. 10, 1775. Monsieur Dumas having presented the Library with a very late edition of Vattel’s Law of Nature and Nations (in French), the Board direct the secretary to return that gentle-man their thanks.” This copy undoubtedly was used by the members of the Second Continental Congress, which sat in Philadelphia; by the leading men who directed the policy of the United Colonies until the end of the war; and, later, by the men who sat in the Convention of 1787 and drew up the Constitution of the United States, for the library was located in Carpenters’ Hall, where the First Congress deliberated, and within a stone’s throw of the Colonial State House of Pennsylvania, where the Second Congress met, and likewise near where the Constitution was framed …” [emphasis added]

So!  Vattel’s work was “continually in the hands” of Congress in 1775; Members of the Continental Congress “pounced” on Vattel’s work; our Founders used the republican Principles in Vattel’s work to justify our Revolution against a monarchy; by 1780, Vattel’s work was a “classic” taught in our universities; and our Framers used it at the Federal Convention of 1787. 3

Vattel on “natural born citizens”, “inhabitants”, and “naturalized citizens”:

From our beginning, we were subjects of the British Crown. With the War for Independence, we became citizens.1  We needed new concepts to fit our new status as citizens.  Vattel provided these new republican concepts of “citizenship”. The gist of what Vattel says in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213:  Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization.  In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law.  And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are citizens. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.

Do you see?  The republican concept of “natural born citizenship” is radically different from the feudal notion of “natural born subjectship.” Under feudalism, merely being born in the domains of the King made one – by birth – a “natural born subject”.  But in Vattel’s Model and Our Constitutional Republic, Citizens are “natural born” only if they are born of Citizens.

How Our Framers applied Vattel’s Concept of “natural born citizen” in Our Constitution:

The Federal Convention was in session from May 14, through September 17, 1787.  John Jay, who had been a member of the Continental Congress [where they “pounced” on Vattel], sent this letter of July 25, 1787, to George Washington, who presided over the Convention:

“…Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & 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…”4

According, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 was drafted to read:

“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.” [boldface added]

In § 214, Vattel states that “fundamental law” may withhold from naturalized citizens some of the rights of citizens, such as holding public office. The Constitution is our “fundamental law”; and, following Vattel, Art. II, §1, cl. 5 withholds from naturalized citizens (except for our Founding Generation which was “grandfathered in”) the right to hold the office of President.5

Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. But after our Founding Generation was gone, their successors were required to be born as citizens of the United States – not merely born here (as were our Founders), but born as citizens.

And do not forget that the children born here of slaves did not become “citizens” by virtue of being born here. Their parents were slaves; hence (succeeding to the condition of their parents) they were born as slaves. They did not become citizens until 1868 and ratification of the 14th Amendment – which transformed them into “naturalized citizens”.

So!  Do you see?  If our Framers understood that merely being born here were sufficient to confer status as a “natural born citizen”; it would not have been necessary to grandfather in our first generation of Presidents; and all the slaves born here would have been “natural born citizens”. But they were born as non-citizen slaves, because their parents were non-citizen slaves.

David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation on Citizenship:

David Ramsay was an historian, Founding Father, and member of the Continental Congress  [REMEMBER: This is where they “pounced” on Vattel], whose Dissertation On The Manner Of Acquiring The Character And Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States was published in 1789, shortly after ratification of our Constitution and the Year the new Government began.

It is an interesting dissertation and only 8 pages long. At the bottom of his page 6, Ramsay states:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” [modernized spelling & emphasis are mine]

Do you see?  Ramsay’s Dissertation sets forth the understanding of the Time, formally stated by Vattel and incorporated by our Framers, that a “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of citizens.  And we had no “citizens” until July 4, 1776.

Now, let us look at the First Congress. ...

Excerpt: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/