You are on page 1of 8


on the subject of
U.S. natural born Citizen
as FOUND & CONSTRUED under the Laws of the COTUS

The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V

is the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision".
(U.S. {implicit}), natural born Citizen", is ASSUMED to be "ambiguous",
and that ambiguity creates a "legal-loop-hole" that at once makes the
provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other
conditions of U.S. Citizenship.

The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence is astounding given that

immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress,
in March of 1790, expressed the "attendant circumstances" required to
be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth in the
Constitutionally mandated plenary power over the subject of U.S.
Citizenship naturalization.

Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of "citizenship" requires a

primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how
the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship
can be identified.

ALL "citizens" are "made" in the 1st instant, without which there can be
no "natural" perpetuation. (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II).

In order for "natural perpetuation" to occur its acknowledgement must

be provided for within the particular society.

The "attendant circumstances" of acquisition of citizenship are

identifiable and notable for various purposes.

Now, let's see how this plays out under the Constitution in regard to the
acknowledgement of U.S. natural born Citizens.

The Preamble to the Constitution says, in parts pertinent to the subject,


" ... We the people of the United States, in order to

... secure the

blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and

establish this Constitution for the United States of America." ...

... which implies that those persons, being existing citizens of the
various States, then considered themselves as being the "Citizens"
referred to within the document establishing this new nation among the
nations of the world, ergo, the Ratification served to "collectively
naturalize" those Founding U.S. Citizens.

(Or it could be said that the Preamble was an "oath" given at a "selfnaturalizing" ceremony called the Ratification")

Within the COTUS, at A1S8C4 of the ENUMERATED POWERS

sections, it says; ... " .... The Congress shall have power ... To establish a
uniform rule of naturalization, throughout the United States; "

As noted above the 1st instant U.S. Citizens were made upon
Ratification, (aka, ourselves), so this provision is meant to deal with the
perpetuation of citizenship, at birth or otherwise,( aka, our posterity).

Before looking into the 1st Act of Congress under this Clause it is
necessary to consider the additional requirement placed on the
Congress by the Article II Section I Clause V "exclusionary prerequisite
imperative requirement provision" which REQUIRES the existence of
U.S. natural born Citizens be identifiable within the body politic of the
newly formed U.S.A.

By this Constitutional provision such a form of Citizenship MUST exist

in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied, ergo, the
Congress is obligated to provide for their existence.

In March of 1790 the Congress established the uniform Rule of U.S.

Citizenship and applied it within the process of naturalizing persons, at
birth and otherwise.

That "uniform Rule" can be expressed as; " ... Once a person is a U.S.
Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere
in the world." (slc) as construed from the three (3) pertinent parts of the
276 word Act, numbered here for ease of analysis;

(1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the
United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of
such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United

(2) And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born
beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered
as natural born Citizens:

(3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons
whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

The MOST important of the three (3) provisions is the third (3rd) which
ESTABLISHES the "right of Citizenship" being attached to any and all
persons who ARE U.S. Citizens.

The 1st provision makes the Right of Citizenship" effective at the

moment that a person becomes a U.S. Citizenship and affects the minor
children of that new U.S. Citizen.

The "Right of Citizenship" is ALSO acknowledged to be in effect upon

those who were made U.S. Citizens at the Ratification of the COTUS
and to be operative anywhere in the world.

Now that "Citizenship" and its acquisition under the Constitution is

defined the requirement of A2S1C5 must be distinguished from any and
all other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.

As noted above that can only be done by identifying the "attendant

circumstances" of acquisition of that U.S. Citizenship.

In the 1st provision above the "minor children present" are

"naturalized" with the parent (father).

In the 2nd provision a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father is
born as a U.S. natural born Citizen anywhere in the world.

Although many will say that the provision ONLY addresses those
children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. I
suggest that it takes a specious interpretation to say that while children
born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. that the children

born within the limits of the U.S. are not also born as U.S. natural born

Consider a moment the newly naturalized person takes his wife's hand,
who is now also "considered as" a U.S. Citizen under the matrimonial
doctrine of coverture, and walks directly to the midwife's house where
the wife immediately gives birth to a child. That child is born to two (2)
U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S.. Is THAT child NOT a
U.S. natural born Citizen.

So the 2nd provision needs to be looked at a bit closer in order for clarity
to see if clarity can be found in it s language.

The words "considered as" are, in that combination, known as a

"comparative adjective", under the rules of grammatical syntax, which
requires that a counter part to the subject must exist in order for the
subject to be compared to it.

The subject of the provision is the "foreign born" U.S. natural born
Citizen, therefore the only possible "counterpart" would be the children
born to U.S. Citizen parents "within the limits" of the U.S..

This interpretation of the statutory construction of the 1790 Act is

vindicated by the 1795 Act which repealed and replaced the 1790
"foreign born" U.S. natural born Citizen Provision and thereafter

LIMITING where a U.S. natural born Citizen may be born, i.e., within
the limits of the U.S.

Therefore, those "foreign born" "considered as" were in FACT the

"counterparts" to those who were being born "within the limits of the
U.S." as unambiguous U.S. natural born Citizens.

The perpetuation of U.S. natural born Citizens continued uninterrupted

under the attendant circumstances of being born to the legal wife of a
U.S. Citizen father within the limits of the U.S. until the passage of the
1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women's Independent Citizenship and
Citizenship Retention Act.

This Act abrogated the ancient matrimonial doctrine of coverture"

completely under U.S. Law, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned.
(Any residual effects of the doctrine of coverture are confined to the
concerns of probate and or "parental rights")

The effect of the Act was to establish a new form of U.S. Citizenship
that could not previously exist, that is, "dual-citizenship at birth".

Prior to the Act a woman was considered as the SAME Citizenship as

the husband from the moment that the marriage became "legal",
regardless of her previous citizenship status.

After the Act the woman RETAINS her own Citizenship regardless of
what her new husbands Citizenship is,

Under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation AND

Judicial reconciliation of conflicting laws, it is required to preserve the
desired effects of each law and to impose the least destructive
reconciliation in the process.

In this instant, where the Constitution REQUIRES the existence of U.S.

natural born Citizens in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally
occupied and where U.S. natural born Citizens are acknowledged as
being the result of a specific set of attendant circumstances the lest
destructive reconciliation to impose in light of the intents of the 1922
Cable Act is to require that BOTH parents be U.S. Citizens
INDEPENDENT of each others citizenship in order to produce the
effect of giving birth to a U.S. natural born Citizen within the limits of
the U.S.

This then IS all that needs be known, insofar as the LAW is concerned,
on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen and all other
considerations only adds to the AMBIGUITY which this proposition of
Constitutional Law seeks to undo.