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 )

  1. 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. 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.

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

  4. 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.

Please follow and like us:
0
 

0 responses to “Guide to “Natural Born Citizen” for Dummies

  1. NaturalBoredCitizen

    Correction in: (we also know that Cruz was born in Canada of Cuban parents,) Correct is that: Rubio’s both parents were Cuban citizens at the time of his U.S. birth, Cruz’s Father was a Cuban citizen and his Mother a U.S. citizen and he was born in Canada with a Canadian B.C. Nonetheless, both are ineligible as they were born To the condition of their Fathers if they were Natural Born Citizens of Cuba, otherwise, they hold dual citizenship for Rubio and Mutliple for Cruz including Cuban, Canadian and U.S. Cruz, let’s face it has very complex issue’s and both are aware of their ineligibility. Period.

     
  2. All “anchor babies” born here by illegal aliens cannot be legal citizens of the US. When are we going to force the hands of our legislators over this issue, Obummer and the others who have sights on the presidency who are not legally eligible?

     
  3. The U.S. Constitution only gives Congress the Power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, it does not give Congress the Power to say who a “natural born Citizen” is or who is not.

    Persons who acquire their citizenship via the 14th Amendment or the uniform Rule of Naturalization are citizens of the United States. They are not “natural born Citizens”. If they were, the citizenship they acquire at birth would not be subject to Congressional or Constitutional Statute.

    Sign the Petition: http://wh.gov/lPWGq

     
  4. Pingback: Guide to "Natural Born Citizen" for Dummies |

  5. Pingback: Guide to “Natural Born Citizen” for Dummies

  6. NaturalBC, Great post. I’ve said all along about Cruz and Rubio are not eligible. So what will GOP do? Break Constitution, just because skippy got away with it. Shame on anyone who follows that thinking.

     
  7. No one in Congress will do anything about Obama having gotten away with usurping the Office of the Presidency or Cruz, Rubio and Jindal not being eligible because in doing so they would be self-incriminating themselves as having committed Misprision of Felony at best, Misprision of Treason at worst.

     
  8. Just one quick question:

    If the Framers intended “natural born” to mean what Vattel meant, how were the people (who neither read French nor knew Vattel) supposed to comprehend that?
    Did the Framers write the Constitution for the people or for legal scholars who knew French?

     
    • Philip, “for the people or scholars”.?
      Have you read Bamacare. What is it like 2,000 pages for bill and 15-20 K for regulations? That’s not for “The People”

       
  9. NaturalBoredCitizen

    As I said Natural Law says this, Vattel and others simply put it in writing as in The Laws of Nations. Everyone knew this because it was Hereditary, just an as easily as you understand that your last name comes as an ‘inheritance’ from your Father so did the ‘condition’ of your citizenship. This was also common law and common knowledge. No one needed to guess or investigate the purpose for their last name, it was natural and common. You must remember that many of our founders spoke French and were educated in France and Europe, Lafayette was and American war hero. Latin was also a commonly taught language they understood by our founders and framers. Franklin, Jefferson. Madison. Jay, Washington, these and others were brilliant scholars and multilingual. Besides you’re wrong about it being only in French: from Wikipedia: Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated into English in 1760, based on the French original of 1758. Vattel simply placed into print that which was naturally and therefore commonly accepted. Natural Law and Common Law agree most often and it’s usually the Common Law of Monarchy’s (Britain) that collide with Natural Law. Think of Vattel and Laws of Nations like you would of Webster’s, Encyclopedia Britannica and the Bible all three contain many things we already know and accept but they’re still listed. I don’t need a dictionary for the meaning of ‘is’, only lawyers, Obots and Bill Clinton do. Natural Born was commonly understood and widely prizes by patriot citizens all over the world. Even when I was a child in school this was taught, 1960’s.

     
    • I’m just a little bit confused, sorry.

      > As I said Natural Law says this, Vattel and others simply put it in writing

      Then I don’t understand the fixation with Vattel. If it was obvious, why the convoluted claims how the Founders “worshipped” Vattel?

      > You must remember that many of our founders spoke French

      That does not address my question how the *people* were supposed to understand what was in the Constitution.

      > This was also common law and common knowledge

      In the Common Law of England, “natural born subject” meant something else. There is no source of “natural born citizen” predating the Constitution. There was no other “common law” when the US were founded.
      Therefore it couldn’t have been “common knowledge” what the new term of art “natural born citizen” was supposed to mean, except if people looked to “natural born subject” which, according to Vattelists, meant something different.

      That’s the point where the Vattelist argument bothers me – how could the Founders rely on a term of art that didn’t exist before and could even be confused with an almost similar term?

      > Latin was also a commonly taught language they understood by our founders and framers.

      Again you’re just bolstering my argument that the meaning of what Vattel wrote could only have been understood by those who wrote the Constitution, not those who they wrote it for.

      Can you imagine a Constitutional amendment today that uses a (legal) term from a Chinese author, translated by lawyers in Congress, that nobody understands? Something like “No-one but a smiles-like-a-duck shall be eligible for Vice President”? Then Congress would claim that “duck” does not mean “the animal that goes ‘quack'” here but something else altogether that you could only understand if you understood Chinese?

       
  10. NaturalBoredCitizen

    correction:
    Natural Born was commonly understood and widely ‘prized’
    Also Frankiln was the French Ambassador, Jefferson lived in France and many of the founders and framers were still young men or children when Vattel was printed in English. Madison the Father of The Constitution was 9, Washington 26, Hamilton 5, John Jay (ambassador to France, Spain etc.) 15, Jefferson 17, only Frnklin and Adams were older, Washington spoke no French and had to rely on the English version.

     
    • The English version of Vattel that had “natural born citizen” was released 10 years after the ratification of the Constitution. Earlier English editions had the original French words in that place.

      It bothers me that someone can claim a term from the Constitution does not mean what it says but something else that you could only know if you had been one of the Framers. (Because even if you knew French as an ordinary citizen and knew Vattel, you could not have known the Founders had translated “les naturels ou indigènes” as “natural born citizens”.)

       
      • Philip, so your point is Obama is eligible?
        BTW, you say only the “Framers ” could understand it. Either you think everyone was really stupid then, or you have never read a bill by Congress. Who the hell ever knows what it means.

         
      • Philip, I also believe the SCOTUS reaffirms this position in
        MINOR V. HAPPERSETT
        http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162

        Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

        The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,
        it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,” and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

        Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided “that any alien, being a free white person,” might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

         
  11. In reading Vattel and Minor, we read the phrase “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Of interest are the adverbs “in” and “of”. The words “born in the country,” establishes jus soli (birth of the soil) and the words “born of parents,” establishes jus sanguinis (birth of the blood). Children born of the soil are native born. Children born of the soil and blood are natural born.

     
  12. The 14th Amendment requires birth in one of the United States, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” States that ratified the US Constitution join the confederation of United States, but it is the State not the confederation which issues a birth certificate. So, where is the jurisdiction? Is the jurisdiction under the State or federal? The birth certificate is from the State. California Government Codes 241 says children born to transient aliens, consuls and military are aliens. So, why don’t California hospitals verify parent’s nationality?

     
    • NaturalBoredCitizen

      Birth certificates do not clarify citizenship per se they document the facts of birth in a federally required standardized format. There are different types of citizenship and this is not on a BC, How could it be on the BC of a naturalized citizen? The only BC that can declare if you are a Natural Born citizen is that of your father and proof of his parents citizenship at the time of your birth. The other documents to prove your are a natural born Citizen would be any recognized document that proves your parents were citizens at the time of your birth. That could be their BC’s if they were born here, their US Passports issued before your birth, Naturalization documents prior to your birth, your fathers grandparents BC’s proving they were born here with your fathers BC showing he was born here, making him natural born. Again a mothers citizenship is only required for the natural born status of a first generation natural born Citizen, A child always follows the condition of the fathers citizenship otherwise. If a father is a natural born Citizen then the child is. Period. That was Chester A. Arthur’s problem as it is Obama’s. Remember the capital C in natural born Citizen in Article II section 1 clause 5 is C for Citizen of the U.S. That’s why it was capitalized to avoid a natural born citizen of any other nation.

       
  13. NaturalBoredCitizen

    You all make my position better then I, Phillip is an expert at confusing himself while contemplating his navel. He pretends that all original American citizens were stupid and didn’t realize what they were fighting for, and Phillip ignores that Article 2 has never been challenged, and that all Presidents except Chester A. Arthur and now Obama have oddly been natural born Citizens by the standards I have outlined. Coincidence to Phillip, I suspect. Arthur’s father was not a citizen exactly like Obama. Arthur was exposed and was not re-elected. When he died all of his personal records were destroyed much like all of Obama’s records are faked or missing. See a pattern here Phillip? Of course our first citizens took pride in their citizenship and understood what natural born Citizen meant. The Constitution was widely debated and reported before ratification it was not the: pass it before you find out what’s in it Constitution. Many also spoke french and other languages as a matter of trade and trapping or parentage but our Constitution was in the vernacular of the law of the day. Phillip also missed that I mentioned in my responses, The Common Law of the Monarchy of Britain was specifically avoided in the Constitution when it failed the Laws of Nature. We were anti Monarchy and it’s laws Phillip. Phillip our framers and our citizens put their lives, fortunes and sacred honors at stake they didn’t do this for a nation of idiots but for one of freemen and concerned citizens with much to lose I suppose unless they were willing idiots.

     
    • NBC, ” Phillip is an expert at confusing himself while contemplating his navel. ” That is too funny. I think philip has sulked off back to the basement.
      I have to admit my ignorance as to C. Arthur. I’ll have to look into that.
      Great post and defence of it.
      Steve

       
  14. NaturalBoredCitizen

    “Permit me to hint whether it would not 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 command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.” — John Jay, later first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *