Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Obligatory Literal Definition of a Natural Born Citizen as Defined by the US Constitution

The Obligatory Literal Definition of a Natural Born Citizen as Defined by the US Constitution

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Published by Brianroy
An abridged and mildly re-edited version of my blog post of February 27, 2011. It explains what the age understanding of a majority of those who ratified the US Constitution would have meant, and how the US Supreme Court should interpret this "Natural Born Citizen" clause. See also John Lockes Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 6 "Of Paternal Power" @ 59 et al.
An abridged and mildly re-edited version of my blog post of February 27, 2011. It explains what the age understanding of a majority of those who ratified the US Constitution would have meant, and how the US Supreme Court should interpret this "Natural Born Citizen" clause. See also John Lockes Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 6 "Of Paternal Power" @ 59 et al.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Brianroy on Oct 01, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/21/2012

pdf

text

original

 
In 1787, the United States Constitution was formulated, and stated:"No Person except a N
atural 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 Officewho shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,and been fourteen Years a Resident
 
within
the United States."
Constitution of the United States of America, Article 2, section 1, Clause 5
 In the Madison Debates, on September 7, 1787, it was then that it was entered that "the Presidentshould be a natural- born Citizen," of which he bore no allegiance or citizenship to any othernation than that of the United States of America.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_907.asp 
 In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and  appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word wasunnecessarily used or needlessly added.
The many discussions which have taken place upon theconstruction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown thehigh talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and 
this principle of construction applies …”
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840)
 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html In this Article 2.1.5 clause of the US Constitution, the person eligible to be President was to beeither a US Citizen at the time of the ratification of the US Constitution or a natural born citizen -- one who was reared from his US Birth within the United States into a US citizen by his USCitizen Father (and presumably US Citizen mother by virtue of marriage and union with the USCitizen Father) -- and his 14 year residency requirements in the clause was officially recognizedas required to be that starting at the age of 21 years old.Since at the age of 35 he was required to dwell WITHIN the United States for 14 years since his21st birthday, this a a Constitutional Obligatory presumption that has been extremely oftenentirely missed in discussing this clause, and deals with the concept of affirmation of solelegience to the United States alone.While the prospective Presidential hopeful and actual office holder was given a mandatoryresidency requirement of living WITHIN the United States the entire 14 years he was alive IF heaspired to the Presidency at age 35, he only needed a combined total residency within the UnitedStates of 14 years if he was older. For example, if he aspired to the Presidency at age 45, hecould have wandered outside the nation another 10 years as a merchant, but was still
needing amandatory residency/dwelling WITHIN the United States...not just being based there, butactually dwelling within the US...for at least 14 years since his 21st birthday
. You will seethis residency aspect return in the discussion of the parameters of the Constitution later on. Soplease keep it in mind.
 
 15 years prior to 1787, the United States was at that time "British America". It was composed of 13 colonies which were transmuted into the designation and nomenclature of "States" on July 4,1776. Therefore, if a person were a natural born citizen of one of the 13 Colonies that became aState of the United States, by accepting and declaring legience to State and Country after theWar as a Citizen of the United States, the Natural Born Citizenship for only that time in ournation's history, was transmuted or carried over into the Confederacy and then the Republic of the United States of America.Again, the TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was relegated tothose who were born in any one of the 13 United American Colonies before July 4, 1776, as wellas those born before the ratification of the US Constitution in 1789. It applies only to those inthat period of history that were
citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the Revolution,who also made the transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the UnitedStates AFTER the war was over.
 The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural borncitizen". In the United States
Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103),
theyspecified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of the age of twenty one years", and
specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called anatural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood)
rather than the simplistic jussoli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law. But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of 
"Nemopotest exuere Patriam" :
 
"No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself  from the Father's Land."
[Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]From those times until
the 26th Amendment
, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speakingon the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenshipstatus, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under Constitutionally setparameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired theright to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971,needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this,we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification notmeasuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by anyparty having legal standing to sue.To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens"as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where inthe world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.
 
 Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because itfailed to specify its intent clear enough.The
Act of January 29, 1795
sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "naturalborn citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.That
"natural born citizens of the United States"
were:1)
only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth who had only one nationalityand legience at the time of the child's birth;
 2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was
that the child also neverhave a dual nationality or any other legience than that of the United States for their entireexistence from birth to the grave.
 In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any naturalborn son was required to
"forever
[be free of]
all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
 This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who
"absolutely and entirelyrenounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, orsovereignty whatever".
He was also to be
"a man of a good moral character, attached tothe principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good orderand happiness of the same."
 
In Section 2,
any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any naturalborn son was required to
"support the constitution of the United States; and that he doesabsolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreignprince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".
 In other words,
the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be aforeign national
, as Obama's father was. Obama's father was an alien national Citizen of Kenya, under the Colonial Commonwealth Protectorate of Great Britain. He was NEVER a USCitizen, nor even had any expressed desire to be (not that such would have helped...it wouldn'thave).And
never in the child's life was that child to be a de facto or de jure citizen of a foreignnation as Obama was in Indonesia
so adopted and legally made a citizen minor underguardianship in that foreign society out of Jakarta, and attending Menteng 1.Just one year after the above-cited Act of 1795,in
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796)
 we find how that we are supposed to read the US Constitution, in its literal context.@240
"When
we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is aliteral interpretation
 , and 
indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and  precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention
of the writer 
 from thence.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->