Tag Archives: Article II

Guide to “Natural Born Citizen” for Dummies

Our Founding Fathers conceived and founded the United States of America as a rule of law.

To that end, the Founders wrote the Constitution as the highest law of the land, clearly spelling out:

  • The inalienable natural rights and liberties of the people.
  • The powers of the federal and state governments which are derivative of and from the people.
  • The procedural “rules of the game” of government and how we do politics.

Among the procedural rules are the necessary criteria of presidential eligibility. Article II, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states:

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.

Alas, the Constitution does not define what “natural born Citizen” means.

In the following essay, FOTM reader/commenter NaturalBoredCitizen defines and explains the meaning of  “natural born citizen” by looking to Swiss jurist and philosopher Emer de Vattel‘s (1714-1767) words in his influential work, The Law of Nations (1758).

~Eowyn

VattelEmer de Vattel

Natural Born Citizen for Idiot Obots

By NaturalBoredCitizen

Our blessed Supreme Law of the Land, The Constitution was constructed by its noble authors as though it was a single word, a singularly constant complex law based on its simplicity of thought and it’s abidance to Natural Law. Each and every word and letter was thoughtful, with purpose, and should always be judged in that context and by it’s Original intent. It need not be interpreted, it does not change or morph to accommodate agendas. The Constitution only needs to be applied and followed to the letter.  It’s meanings are clear to everyone, it appears, except politicians and attorneys. And Obots. Those involved in it’s Framing relied on many sources but none so much as The Laws of Nationsor the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns  By Emer De Vattel who appropriately relied on and referenced Wolff and his work “The Law of Nations According to the Scientific Method “ and others like Liebniz and Grotius. Vattel was Swiss and his ‘Law of the Nations’  written first in French, was like the bible of, an encyclopedia of and dictionary to all things government, nation building and even revolutionary change, but for sure, it was more then familiar to our Framers, it is said that Franklin had three copies and Washington two. It’s impossible to think they did not imply Vattel and his: The Law of Nations and it’s lust for Natural Law when they approved Article II section 1 clause 5:

“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.”

Many think Vattel had  simply written:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. “

Most tend to argue Vattel’s influence on the matter of Natural Born is resolved with this out of context single sentence as the absolute rule of who is and is not Natural Born. They are wrong. This is instead, an ‘Origination‘ clause. A single set of all circumstances, at a minimum, required to create that first generation of Natural Born Citizens for a new nation and sealed in its purification and immunity of influence by a first generation of citizen parents and redeemed to loyalty by a second generation true citizen baptized in birth by the soil of home ground. That soiled baptism is as much a part of Natural Birth as is Dracula’s attachment to the dirt of Transylvania. You don’t leave home without it.

Now we must see and realize that there is much more as to the nature of being a Natural Born Citizen. What is its importance? It’s that it is hereditary. You see, it’s HEREDITARY.  Vattel like the Constitution must be read as a whole and in context with everything else he says furthering the logical simplicity of Natural Law. Therefore Natural Law, which we must suppose in our understanding of it, always comes down to  the ‘least’ common denominator as can be had to resolve all things true, practical and practice-able.  A single ‘Defining thing‘. An example would be the confusion that arises from the above and constantly repeated sentence (which is in reality what I refer to as the essential ‘Origination’ clause) as being the lowest common denominator in deciding ‘original’ Natural Birth, this statement has three factors: those being a citizen father, a citizen mother and a birth on the soil.  This seems too complicated regarding Natural Law, while it no doubt clearly establishes an undeniable Natural Born Citizen, how could it and why would it require 3 factors? Natural Law can not be diminished and as we see if any one of these three factors were missing there goes Natural Born regarding the soil you are ‘ON’. or ‘OF’ You see that a non-citizen Mother, a non-citizen Father or foreign soil birth appears to deny the child Natural Birth. However it does not, for all children are Natural Born, if they are born to a Father who has not renounced or quitted his hereditary right of birth. The citizenship of the child always follows that of the father including his renunciation.  Natural Birth is ‘indelible‘ but it can be painted over and obscured forever with renunciation. So, without renunciation the child logically becomes Natural Born as to the condition or citizenship of the father and not Natural Born to the place of birth, if the Father has not quitted. If a Father is Natural Born the child always inherits it. He then goes much further to conclude that by the Laws of Nature, Natural Born or the ‘True’ citizens of a country  follow their fathers, even as outlined in the ‘Origination‘ clause Period. You see that’s Natural Law a factor of ONE single determination without any ability to be further diminished. It’s ‘elemental‘ As in Jewish law”

Q:  How do you determine that you are a Jew?

A: Your mother is a Jew.

It’s hereditary.  Period. Nothing further can be said nor is there a simpler or smaller better defining factor.

So what is the point of Vattel stating:  parent citizens and soil birth? Well it too, is Natural Law , these three factors are the ‘defining moment’  a trilogy of purity recorded in the moment of birth, or the minimum requirements for the establishment of the first generation of True or Natural Born Citizens, of a new nation or a nation new to an immigrant father, and as in heredity the child inherits the citizen condition of the Father and as we see in his further writings that the mother except in the ‘Origination‘ clause was of no further consideration lest she and her husband have renounced their citizenship: Vattel: ‘I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere. ‘

So what we see in Vattel’s ‘Origination’ clause, is that which elementally establishes the ‘first generation of Natural Born, Native, or True citizens.  So  of course it is Natural Law to require parents’ mutual citizenship and a soiled birth. These would then be the new natives who are subject to none but the country of their birth as to cleansing qualification of citizen parents and a birth baptized by the home soil.. Creating a second and purified generation. These true citizens now take their soil and its protection with them. These Natural Born are then subject only to the New nation or the nation New to their parents and their place of birth. Now we must get down to basics, These Laws of Nature explain what happens once a citizen has been first established Natural Born and more so what a Natural Born male or father bestows. In Natural Law, heredity of citizenship naturally goes with heredity of name. You are the citizen of your name. I am a Moore as was my Father. My Father was a Natural Born U.S. Citizen, therefore no matter the place of my birth or the citizenship of my Mother can remove the soil from my heredity, as the condition is that of my Father. No offense ladies, but the purpose of the above ‘Origination‘ clause is to establish the two generations of citizenship including the Birth on the soil of that original  Natural Born Child of a new Nation or a nation new to the parents. Let’s be blunt, the heredity of the name and soil is the Father’s right. Period. So, as I have my Father’s name, I too, have his citizenship unless he has renounced it. Vattel then gets to the ‘single factor‘ required in the Laws of Nature when he says these things about the hereditary citizenship of a male child born as a True, Natural, Native of a country, Vattel:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3.The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. (This tacit or silent consent means that it can be renounced by breaking the silence )

4. 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.

5. On Inhabitants: 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.

6. In Naturalization Vattel says:  By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers

7. On children born in a foreign nation Vattel says more so: 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, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere.

And then last but not least the mother enters the picture again, why? To establish that it takes both citizens to renounce their citizenship and take new citizenship elsewhere to DENY the Natural Born status of a child born of woman at sea without her husband being present, the child would remain natural born as a condition of the father unless they both, meaning that is was known also, that the father had quitted his citizenship too, because the citizenship of the mother did not determine the citizenship of the child. The only time a Mother is a factor in the determination of Natural Born Citizenship is in the ‘Origination‘ clause. That is when creating the first generation Natural Born Citizen. And the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country, I suppose that she and her husband have not left their native country to settle elsewhere.

So here’s the way it works: Let there be no doubt that:  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.  But when in doubt the True, Natural Born or Native citizen follows that of the Father and to establish or Originate the first generation of Natural Born Citizenship requires that 2/two citizen parents deliver a child on the soil, but from thereafter that Natural Born Child being male and becoming a father will always deliver a Natural Born Child of the Country of his Natural birth. unless he has quitted or renounced his citizenship prior to the child’s birth.

So to resolve many of the various scenarios:

  1. A child born to citizen Parents on the soil of their country is a Natural Born of that nation
  2. A child born to a Natural Born Mother on her soil to a Father of another nation is Natural Born to the Fathers nation if the Father has retained it and not Natural Born as to the soil of the Mother.
  3. A child born to a Natural Born Father on his soil of a Mother of another nation is Natural Born to the soil of the Father.
  4. A child born on any soil, ship or port, foreign to the Father, regardless of the soil of the Mother is Natural Born to the soil of the Father if he has retained it.
  5. All children can be Natural Born regardless location, or citizenship of the Mother. They are Natural Born to the soil of the Father, if he has retained it This is Natural Law.
  6. New Natural Born Citizens are created by the ‘Origination’ clause and it’s redemptive, cleansing, two generation culmination of citizen parents delivering a child on the soil of their new Naturalized country
  7. Natural Born status can only be and is lost by ‘quitting’ it. That is the proper and public formal renunciation on new soil. In other word’s a formal change of citizenship.
  8. A child born on the soil of a Father naturalized to his new soil and of a Mother of foreign soil is a simple Citizen, a first generation citizen and potential parent of a Natural Born.
  9. Regarding Barack Hussein Obama he is Natural Born, to the soil of his Fathers citizenship as there is no evidence that Senior renounced or quit his Kenyan/British heredity Natural Birth and any other citizenship Junior may otherwise hold or have held is irrelevant and is simple citizenship and redundant, regardless his Mother’s citizenship. He is not nor ever can be eligible.
  10. John McCain’s Father was a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.  The debate over the place of his birth was bullshit, a red-herring ,John McCain regardless Panama Schmanama is an NBC of the U.S.A.
  11. Regarding Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal: all evidence and information concludes that at the time of Cruz’s and Rubio’s and Jindal’s birth’s that their fathers were citizens of other nations, Cuba for Cruz and Rubio and Jindal’s father was from India, we also know that Cruz was born in Canada of Cuban parents and that Rubio and Jindal were born on US soil. So Rubio and Jindal as simple born of the soil citizens and Cruz is a dual citizen as having been born on foreign soil and oddly still needs to renounce his Canadian citizenship do to his birth on their soil, as some queer dance to appear eligible. Let’s be clear none of them or any others in their condition are Natural Born Citizens of these United States and are therefore not eligible and a vote for any of them in my opinion would be criminal especially doing so while informed. To me doing so willingly and with knowledge breaches high crime and any oath taker , who has done so is guilty of treason. Period.

In Part 2,  I will attempt to explain the correct but failed opportunities for preventing the Usurper Obama from ever being President and the traitors who failed us and when they did it.

For reference here’s all things citizenship by Vattel from The Law of Nations:

§ 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.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign 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, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

§ 216. Children born at sea.

As to children born at sea, if they are born in those parts of it that are possessed by their nation, they are born in the country: if it is on the open sea, there is no reason to make a distinction between them and those who are born in the country; for, naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights: and if the children are born in a vessel belonging to the nation, they may be reputed born in its territories; for, it is natural to consider the vessels of a nation as parts of its territory, especially when they sail upon a free sea, since the state retains its jurisdiction over those vessels. And as, according to the commonly received custom, this jurisdiction is preserved over the vessels, even in parts of the sea subject to a foreign dominion, all the children born in the vessels of a nation are considered as born in its territory. For the same reason, those born in a foreign vessel are reputed born in a foreign country, unless their birth took place in a port belonging to their own nation; for, the port is more particularly a part of the territory; and the mother, though at that moment on board a foreign vessel, is not on that account out of the country. I suppose that she and her husband have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.

§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state.

For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

Why the Electoral College method won’t work to reverse 2012 Election

U.S. presidential elections are not actually determined by the popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

There is a plan on the blogosphere, asking conservative and GOP voters in the “red states” to contact their Electoral College electors to ask that they refrain from casting their ballots next month for America’s president and vice president. The idea is that, according to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, this would mean the presidency vote would then devolve to the U.S. House of Representatives where Republicans have a majority of 241 v. the Democrats’ 193. Presumably, those 241 Republican House members would NOT vote for Obama.

Indeed, Article II does specify that if no person has a majority of votes by the Electoral College, then the House of Representatives would vote for the President:

Art. II: “the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Alas, upon a closer reading of Article II, we must woefully admit that this plan won’t work. Here’s the reason:

If the House of Representatives were to replace the Electoral College in selecting who would be President (and Vice President), Article II specifies in that voting, the House of Representatives would do so as reps of their states, with each state having only one vote:

Art. II: “But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote.

Further, Art. II also specifies that a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.”

All of which means that if the House of Representatives were to elect the President, there would be 50 votes (“the representative from each state having one vote”), instead of the present 435 voting members who comprise the House.

Of America’s 50 states, 24 are “red states” which presumably (a big “if”) would not vote for Obama. Assuming that the 26 “blue states” will vote for Obama, that means the House of Rep. votes will at best be 24 v 26.

26 is “a majority” — which means that the plan to convince the Electoral College electors from the red states not to cast their ballots so that the vote will go to the House of Reps, won’t work.

Does that mean we sit on our behinds and do nothing?

Hell No!

We still have the option of writing our state’s attorney general to ask him or her to look into the compelling and ever-mounting evidence that massive vote fraud was committed in the 2012 presidential election. (See “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election“.)

I did all the footwork for you, gathering the names and contact info of the attorneys general of the 50 states and territories. To find out who your state’s attorney general is, go to my post or click here:

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/what-you-can-do-about-vote-fraud/

Download (print) “22 signs of Democrat Voter Fraud in 2012 Election” and attach it to your letter to your attorney general.

~Eowyn