Showing posts with label eligibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eligibility. Show all posts

Sunday, January 17, 2016

Natural Born Citizen Definition

Natural Born Citizen - Presidential Eligibility
Once again Americans are facing questions about the definition of a Natural Born Citizen (NBC).

This is the simple and indisputable definition: Two citizens who have a child, naturally create a new citizen. This is a Natural Born Citizen.

There is absolutely no expert either legal or historical who will argue to the contrary. They may argue to include additional citizens, but this is the core of the definition.

Two people who have a child in a location, have a citizen who is native to that land. This is a Native Born Citizen. Thus, terms like "Native American" which imply a location and not an allegiance to a country.

A person can be both Natural Born and Native Born, or in the United States we also have Naturalized Citizens who are foreign born but have legally become citizens.

Why is this an important issue?


 The United States is a Democratic Republic. Republics are representative governments, government through representatives of the people. Because a democratic republic represents the people, it has some inherent vulnerabilities to foreign and opposing powers. 

The most pressing vulnerability is the election to power of a representative of a foreign power or ideology. Foreign governments can use their money, power and influence to overwhelm the electoral process because individual citizens of a republic cannot compete with an entire determined nation when running for office. 

Once elected, a foreign puppet would then pursue national or ideological interests to the detriment of the interests of the people of the republic. The puppet prince's declarations end the representative republic from within by undermining the trust, authority and legitimacy of the republic. 

The founders of the United States were educated men who understood this threat and built several layers of protection against this existential threat.
  • Natural Born Citizen eligibility requirement to prevent puppet princes from running for president.
  • Political parties who vet and certify candidates prior to the general election.
  • The Electoral College to mitigate the risk that the masses choose a president who is an existential threat to the republic by adding a layer of representatives who cast the final ballot for the people.
On July 25, 1787,  John Jay, who later became the Chief Justice of the United States under George Washington, wrote a letter to George Washington regarding the first draft of Article II of The Constitution. In the letter he specifically asks that only Natural Born citizens be eligible for the presidency in order to subvert foreign interests. 

“..cut off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.”

Two days after reading the request, the requirement was adopted without discussion or debate.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

"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."

How do we know what the founders meant by Natural Born Citizen?


Legal Insurrection has a summary of all the factors that encompass the legal debate. I disagree with the opinions in this article, but there is a lot of excellent information for researching this issue. The legal opinions that dominate this discussion lack historical context. Some historical context to consider...

In 1787, the biggest foe of the United States was the British Empire. However, all the kings of Europe were embroiled in wars for power and money. Any of these kings might scheme against America and take an American wife or have a prince born on American soil with the goal of establishing a puppet ruler in the newly formed American government. The resource rich Americas would then be ruled as under British rule, through a "Governor," but under the illusion of sovereignty.

Remember, these were men familiar with farms and animals.  Every one of America's founders knew what our legal experts have forgotten;

A horse and a horse beget a horse.
A donkey and a donkey beget a donkey.
A horse and a donkey beget neither a horse nor a donkey, but a mule.

Having one citizen parent does not mean allegiance is necessarily to our country, our culture or our republic. Having two citizen parents does not necessitate loyalty either, but at least We The People have every chance to assimilate Natural Born Citizens into our culture. If we fail to assimilate our own core citizens into our culture, the republic will not endure in any event.

This is the most alarming aspect of the rank ignorance in America today. Legal scholars, the education system and the press are so unenlightened that this simple historical fact is deemed political incorrect an assigned the derogatory term "Birther." 

Consequences


As stated above, Americans face an existential threat to our form of government and the rights it is meant to ensure. However, this is about more than America, it is about the future of human freedom and human rights.

There are only 2 political ideas in the world of men; men rule men or men rule themselves. 

If men rule other men, no amount of technology or "progress" will ever lead to peace. War for conquest, power and to struggle for freedom will forever plaque our existence until we destroy ourselves.

If men are to rule themselves, we must protect ourselves from those of us who are obsessed with the desire to rule us, deceive us, mislead us, and undermine our ideas and culture. Humanity needs America as a strong representation of men ruling themselves. 

Monday, May 7, 2012

Marco Rubio Not Natural Born Citizen: A Reasonable Counter Argument


After spending many hours studying natural-born citizen legal cases, arguments and opinions, an interesting argument has been found for Marco Rubio. (previous article) A U.S. Supreme Court ruling should be made to clarify the legal issues surrounding natural born citizenship (The Constitutional requirement to be president of the United States of America). A requirement summarized by Breckinridge Long and published in the Chicago Legal News on 7 December 1916:
"Now if, by any possible construction, a person at the instant of birth, and for any period of time thereafter, owes, or may owe, allegiance to any sovereign but the United States, he is not a 'natural-born' citizen of the United States."
This common definition has been upheld in several supreme court cases.  We have further detailed the reasoning behind this constitutional requirement for presidency with regard to both Republicans and Democrats.

The argument supporting Marco Rubio goes like this: Since Cuba was freed from Spain in 1898 by the USA and was not fully independent until 1934, Marco Rubio is a Natural Born Citizen because his parents were born while the island was "Americanized."  Lame Cherry Blog states it as:
Cuba gained formal independence in 1902, but these United States retained the right perpetually to intervene in Cuba, therefore making it and it's Citizens Americanized.

It does not matter what John Kennedy pooched up at the Bay of Pigs or how the Rockefellers installed dope lord Castro for money laundering..........Cuba and Cubans are Americanized.

This is especially true in Marco Rubio's parents in Mario was born in 1927 and Oria born in 1931 were fully under the US protectorate status as much as Barack Hussein Obama sr. was under British Mandate status making him British.
The specific argument is that under the Platt Amendment (1901), America had rights to lands on Cuba including Guantanamo Bay and as such it was an American territory protected from Spain and other powers until 1934. Further, Rubio's parents, born during this period, fled Cuba for America as political refugees who cut all allegiance to Cuba.

There is one big problem with this excellent point. It is the Teller Amendment (1898).
The following resolutions were passed without opposition by both houses of Congress on April 20 1898. The fourth is the one referred to as The Teller Amendment, and is named after its author, Henry M. Teller, Senator of Colorado.

[..]Fourth. That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.
A review of the Platt Amendment reveals that it does not claim any jurisdiction over Cuba. The goal of the Platt Amendment was to 'leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people.' There is no claim that Marco Rubio's parents were U.S. citizens. The best that can be argued for is an ethereal "Americanized" status.

Opinions?

POST SCRIPT AND OTHER NOTES

This argument begs for Supreme Court clarification of the term Natural Born Citizen in this very specific case. I believe that Senator Rubio is assimilated to American culture, ideology and values and is a loyal American with no other allegiances. However, the U.S. Constitution does not rely on my opinion to ensure our hard won republic. Currently, if Marco Rubio is chosen as the vice presidential candidate, does that mean that children of Iraqi or Afghan refugees who made it to America could run for the highest office in the land?

Current TV commentators and other "experts" argue that anyone born on U.S. soil can be our President regardless of allegiance, ideology or culture. This is directly counter to John Jay's original argument to protect America from rich foreigners who would seek to install themselves as our rulers.  My now studied opinion is that this "expert" argument is treasonous and directly assaults the U.S. Constitution and We The People who bestowed upon it the duty and obligation to protect our inalienable rights.

America has many enemies, both foreign and domestic, who will pour unlimited resources into our open democratic system to grab the office of President and then lay waste to our country. Individual patriotic candidates cannot match the power of anti-American nations and movements. Allowing the de facto removal of the Natural Born Citizen clause from Article II, Section I is lethal to our Republic because it leaves us exposed to the enemy battle plan of insurgency.

When beginning my look into natural-born citizenship, I drafted a post titled "Debunking Obama 'birthers'." It focused on some Snopes.com information about birth certificates and eligibility. When I began investigating and confirming the snopes information it proved to be biased, cherry-picked straw men arguments and completely false. It was appallingly wrong.

The natural-born definition exposed may rule me personally ineligible to be president. My father met my mother in a foreign country and married her. I was born many years later in northern Indiana per jus soli ("right of the soil"). As a patriotic American and a truth seeker these are the facts. This is despite the fact of my eligibility to the Sons of the American Revolution and Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War. It is clear that had my mother not been pro-American, had my father not been a patriotic American and if the culture around me had not immersed me in Americanism, I might have been indoctrinated with hate and ill-will towards America.

Most Americans do not know that the American electorate is the group who vets candidates, not the FBI, CIA or any other governmental agency. The Federal Election Commission is authorized by law to administer and seek compliance with campaign finance for federal candidates. Once first voted into federal office, security clearance is granted based upon vetting by the people. It is all up to We The People

If the SCOTUS ruled that anyone born on American soil can be president, our duty would be to amend the Constitution and restore the protection. The amendment is assuming our republic survives long enough for such action to be taken. My fear is that this information has come late. It may be our own president who someday shouts, "WE HAVE BURIED YOU! YOUR CHILDREN ARE COMMUNISTS!"

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Obama Eligibility

The appeal before the court was on standing to challenge Obama's eligibility. Several interesting issues arose during the discussion.

Lawyers for Mr. Obama argue that courts can rule on eligibility only prior to election. After an election, Congress must deal with the issue through impeachment.

This is problematic because minor political parties (or citizens) may never be able to enforce eligibility for two reasons:

  1. They can not challenge through Congress without representation in the Congress. 
  2. Prior to election, a minor party could not challenge eligibility in court because it is premature as there is no clear remedy without determination of who won the election. (There is no remedy if the challenged candidate loses the election.) After an election, the Federal courts say there is no one with standing to challenge because even defeated candidates and their political parties are no longer candidates with standing to challenge.
The Senate cannot determine eligibility fraud as they are not a court of law or comprised of judges. How could a citizen hope to preserve their Constitutional Rights?

In effect, "We The People" are being told that we do not have standing, even opposing candidates and political parties' standing is challenged. So by election, the Constitution is amended without the proper process because judges wish to dodge the issue.

The only redress discussed was "wait for the next election and then challenge through a candidate." Which, for the above reasons, will not allow the enforcement of the Constitutional requirements to run for President. It seems that major political parties can put anyone they like on the ballet for President.

Bumper sticker from Cafepress.com.
Made me laugh!


The entire affair was broadcast on CSPAN2, May 7th, 2011 at 1:10 am PST as "President Obama's Birth Certificate & Citizenship Status."
Added to Archive as "[Drake v. Obama] Oral Arguments May2, 2011" Cases 09-56827 & 10-55084



ShareThis

Ads

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...