Legal Brief on Historical Meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Requirement, and why Barack Obama Is Not Eligible

For Inclusion On The Florida Election Ballot -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------It is always helpful to know the purpose of a Constitutional term when determining its meaning. A requirement made of the President is of utmost importance, and the founders and framers of the constitution certainly did not take the requirements lightly. They were not overly stringent, and numerous, so as to include the greatest number of the citizenry in the eligible class. From the available historical data, produced by the men present during the framing of the US Constitution, it is readily apparent that the measure requiring the President to be a natural- born Citizen was made in the interest of national security.

Prevention of Foreign Influence

The earliest known reference to the term natural born Citizen is found in a letter from John Jay to George Washington , presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, on July 25, 1787, as follows, Dear Sir, 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. I remain, dear sir, Your faithful friend and servant, John Jay. When the draft of the US Constitution was completed, Art. 2 S.1 C.5 read:

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. The plain language of Article 2 indicates that citizen, and natural born Citizen are two separate things. Art. 2 S.2 C.1 read: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. It is certainly a well founded security requirement that the greatest care be taken to choose a person with the greatest chance of allegiance and attachment to the US to be the Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces. To further verify, by the writings of the men that were present at the Convention, one must only look to Federalist #68, March 12, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, who at first proposed that the President be hereafter born a citizen, but was overruled at the convention, without any comment therein, in favor of natural-born Citizen. Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.Federalist #68

It cannot be possible that a creature of their own (natural born Citizen) is anything but the indigenous product of 2 US Citizens, raising to the chief magistrate, a child born on US soil, clothed, and immersed in the spirit and cultural attitudes of America; for as Vattel said, the country of the father is the country of the son, Law of Nations Book 1 Sect 212 Hamilton clearly states the intent of the requirement, that every practicable obstacle be put in the way of any but a creature of their own with the most provident and judicious attention, by preventing an improper ascendant, or an improper ancestor ( Websters 1828 Dictionary) within the councils. In those days the wives and children followed the condition of the father. It is not possible that the founders would think one born a British subject, except those grandfathered in by the treaty of Peace and the ratification of the Constitution, those that were citizens at the time of the ratification of this Constitution, could be eligible, after they had just fought the War of Revolution against the British. A Kenyan, Communist, British subject father, who was never a US Citizen, or even resident, would certainly be considered an improper ancestor, who could not possibly breed a child of our own (sic). Barack Obama Sr., birthed in Kenya, and subject to the British Nationality Act, 1948, as a British subject, passed the same foreign status to his scion. As he was born a British subject, Barack H. Obama 2, may or may not have the prerequisite allegiance and attachment to the US. But to allow one born of dual allegiance to be eligible for President certainly would not present a very provident and judicious obstacle to foreign influence, or lack of allegiance. Eligibility for President is not a right, and is no more exclusive than the requirement that the president be at least 35 years old and 14 years resident. The founders of the Constitution were very concerned about the danger of foreign influence undermining American society, so much so, that John Jay wrote 5 Federalist Papers on the dangers of foreign influence (#2-6), and George Washington warned direly about it in his Farewell Speech in 1796: Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since

history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. It is not possible that the founders, in their effort to cut off every avenue to foreign influence, would leave open the 6 lane highway of presidential eligibility for those born of foreign influence through foreign citizenship. To be born of 2 US Citizens on US soil was the firewall to block that avenue. At best, if born in Hawaii, of US citizen mother, and a British subject father, Mr. Obama would have been a dual citizen at birth, subject to the jurisdiction of both Britain and the United States, depending on his place of residence. While the State Department acknowledges dual citizenship exists, it is not encouraged, and is warned against in 7FAM US statutes. State Department current policy at 7FAM regarding dual citizenship. The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Claims of other countries on dual national U.S. citizens may conflict with U.S. law, and dual nationality may limit U.S. Government efforts to assist citizens abroad. The country where a dual national is located generally has a stronger claim to that persons allegiance. However, dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there. It cannot be possible that the conflicts and potential embarrassments of dual citizenship would be allowed to exist in the future President of the US, when the very purpose of the requirement that he be a natural born Citizen was the prevention of foreign influence.

While some apologists may claim that the term natural born Citizen is not defined, and that no one is sure what it means, nothing can be further from the truth. Not only is the meaning obviated by its purpose, but it has been referenced and defined many times in the Supreme Court, historical writings, and Congressional statutes. The first source is E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, 1758, a Treatise on natural law. Some would claim that natural born Citizen means the same as natural born subject, but that leap of logic forgets that subjects are not even eligible to be the chief magistrate of England. Why wouldnt the term mean the same as the EXACT term, found in a book from the same period of the founders Constitutional Convention, proven to be studied by the framers, and conforming logically to the purpose of the requirement, and the Declaration of Independence? While some elements of British Common Law remain in the American system, natural law is the separate but equal basis of American law, as stated by the Declaration of Independence: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 The body of law known as natural law, or law of nations, is International common law of International relations, and is adopted whole cloth into the Constitution at Art. 1 S.8 C.10. Congress shall prosecute violations of the law of nations. Vattels Law of Nations was studied by the framers intently, as evidenced by this letter by Ben Franklin to Charles W. F. Dumas, publisher, dated December 9, 1775:

I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. 3. Definition of the law of nations. The object of this work is to establish on a firm basis the obligations and rights of Nations. The Law of Nations is the science of the rights which exist between Nations or States, and of the obligations corresponding to these rights. It will be seen from this treatise how States, as such, ought to regulate their actions. We shall examine the obligations of a Nation towards itself as well as toward other Nations, and in this way we shall determine the rights resulting from those obligations; for since a rights is nothing else but the power of doing what is morally possible, that is to say, what is good in itself and conformable to duty, it is clear that right is derived from duty, or passive obligation, from the obligation of acting in this manner. A Nation must therefore understand the nature of its obligations, not only to avoid acting contrary to its duty, but also to obtain therefrom a clear knowledge of its rights, of what it can lawfully exact from other Nations. Vattel, Law of Nations, s. 3 The law of nations is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity and natural justice. The Venus, 12 US (8 Cranch) 253, 297 (1814) In the original French, Vattel wrote: "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, meaning the "natives or indigines" are those born in the country of citizen parents. Both the Framers and later English translators of Vattel's treatise replaced the words "natural born Citizen" for the words "natives or indigenes." From Madison's notes, we see that there were some delegates who were concerned about foreigners. For example, from Max

Farrand's transcripts of Madison's notes (August 9 and August 13, 1787), there is the following concerning the House of Representatives eligibility requirements: "Mr. Gerry wished that in future the eligibility might be confined to Natives." The word "native" occurs multiple times in the notes for these two days. (The phrase "natural born citizen" was not used here by the delegates.). The word "native" was a synonym for the phrase "natural born citizen," the Natives or natural born Citizens. In The Venus, 12 US 253 (1814), Justice Marshall states, in a case entirely decided by the concepts of law of nations, but on the natural law concept of domicile to be discussed later, directly quotes the above definition by Vattel almost verbatim. Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." 12 US 253, 289 That was only 24 years after the ratification of the Constitution, by one of the most preeminent jurists to ever grace the bench, Minor v. Happerset, likewise almost verbatim, cites the law of nations definition as precedent: 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 parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. 88 US 162, 167,168

One will notice that the synonym Native is used, (not native-born, an adjective for citizen meaning born in the US), and also that it is stated that the definition is not in the constitution, therefore, being 1874, after the adoption of the 14 th Amendment, the term certainly cannot be defined by it. The Minor case that serves as Supreme Court precedent for the meaning of natural born Citizen, because it makes an independent judicial determination of that definition, with respect to Virginia Minor, in direct support of the holding (519 US 79, 84 (1996), that "independent" ground in support of a judicial decision is not dictum). The test applied to determine if women had a right to vote was whether they had a right to vote prior to the 14th Amendment, but first, whether women were citizens before the 14th Amendment had to be determined, and whether Virginia Minor was one of them. Id., 169 It was never doubted that persons born in the US of US Citizens were the class known as natural born Citizens, Id., 167 of which Virginia Minor was one Id.,170, as opposed to the classes of foreigners and aliens, who were not citizens. Thus women were always citizens before the 14th Amendment. Those citizens were not deemed to receive any new privileges and immunities after the Amendment, which they did not have before, of which, voting was never a right. In between the citizen class of natural born citizens, and aliens and foreigners not naturalized, were the citizens, or members of the nation, and nothing more Id., 166, without regard to parentage. Of that class, there were doubts as to who was a citizen, but never that the natural born Citizens were citizens. Id., 168 If two parents were not necessary in the formulation of a natural born Citizen, then Vattel, and the Minor Court, would have said a citizen parent, or a citizen father, not citizen parents, in the plural. In Wong Kim Ark,169 US 649 (1898)169 US 649 (1898), the Minor definition of natural born Citizen was cited twice Id., 655, 679, 680, and never disagreed with, as well as citing Binneys quote that the citizen child of an alien is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen. Id., 693. Law of nations was the basis of that determination, as it was based on the law of nations concept of permanent domicile, and allegiance by inhabitance, not British Common Law, and the concept of perpetual allegiance, if born in the realm.

But what did Congress think defined a natural born Citizen? In the Naturalization Act, 1790, those born outside of the jurisdiction of the US of US Citizen parents were to be considered as natural born Citizens, indicating that parentage would determine that fact, even if born outside US territory. That distinction was amended, and taken away by the 1795 Act, and those children were deemed to be citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1802 repealed the first 2 Acts, and required an oath of allegiance, throwing off all previous allegiance to foreign power. It also required 2 years residence in the US, and one year in the province where the oath is taken, and provided that children, under the age of 21, of persons naturalized by any acts of congress, living within or born outside of the territory of the US, shall be naturalized also, provided the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose father has never resided in the United States. (Section 4, Naturalization Act 1802). According to the proviso in Section 4 of the Act of 1802, forgetting for a moment the designation of race, now firmly done away with, Barack H. Obama 2, born of a British subject father, Barack Obama Sr., who never resided in the US, was to be considered as an alien, until the naturalization of his father, after the designated 2 years of permanent residence was established, while the child was under 21. The children of alien fathers, whose wives and children followed their condition, were considered as aliens until their fathers naturalized, during their minority. Since Art. 2 s. 1 c.4 has never been amended, it is impossible that Barack H. Obama, born of an alien father, would be considered a natural born Citizen, either then or today. The words natural born Citizen never appear in any naturalization act of Congress but the first, since voided, and that one designation required US Citizen parents, not a citizen father, not a US citizen, but citizen parents, in the plural. Natural born Citizen is a concept of natural law, embedded in the US constitution whole cloth, by the designation of law of nations in Art.1 s.8 c.10. The 43rd Congress (1773-1775) combined and revised all of the Organic and Congressional statutes of the US, beginning with the Declaration of Independence. Revised Statutes 1773 provides the definitive Congressional

thought as to what the term natural born Citizen meant to Congress, less than 100 years from the founding of the nation. Within the statutes is an annotated Constitution. The Supreme Court case Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors of Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830) annotates Art. 2 s.1 c.4, which says,

Natural Born Citizen in the Supreme Court

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. Inglis, a case regarding US Citizenship and inheritance, annotates that clause because it describes who were citizens at the time the constitution was ratified. The ante nati, born before the Declaration of Independence, as British subjects, who did not adhere to the British Crown, were the first naturalized US Citizens, and were grandfathered in to eligibility for President. Inglis also denotes the time that the new nation adopted the law of nations, which according to the British, was after the 1783 Treaty of Peace, while to the US it was the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776 Id., 121. According to US law, Americans became citizens rather than subjects at that time, throwing off perpetual allegiance and subjection to British Common Law of the Crown Id., 121, establishing the law of nations rule of citizenship by descent, or jus sanguinas, as well as by birth on the soil, jus soli. According to Inglis v. Trustees, by the original Constitution, the original US Citizens, born, not naturalized, were those born on US soil, of newly created US Citizen parents. It was determined that even if the young Inglis was born after the Declaration of Independence, and before the British occupation of NY, thus being born in the United States, that John Inglis was too young to make the election of British or US citizenship Id., 126, and that his fathers (Charles) election was the ruling factor. Charles Inglis was a British Royalist, and adhered to the British crown. John Inglis mother died shortly before the Treaty of Peace, and the father took the young Inglis with him to England before the Treaty of Peace. It was determined by that court that Inglis was born British, and remained British by

not making the election of American citizenship, even if birth occurred in America, because his father was British. If born in America, before the occupation, and after the Declaration of Independence, Inglis may have returned at his majority and claimed American citizenship, despite his fathers election. At that time he would have been naturalized. If born in the same time frame, and his father had adhered to the Revolution, and resided in America, then Inglis would have been a natural born Citizen, born in the US of US Citizen parents. Inglis v. Trustees, a case a mere 40 years after ratification of the Constitution, denotes the precise time that the ante nati ceased, and the US adopted the law of nations rule of jus sanguinas, eschewing British Common Law. Its annotation to Art. 2 C.1 S.4 clearly indicates that Congress, in 1773, thought that natural born Citizens were born in the US of US Citizen parents, since at the time of ratification congress had yet to make any naturalization law. The clause has never been amended, therefore it means the same today as then. If it should be thought that it should be amended, then that process is also described in the Constitution, but no Congressional law or judicial decision can amend the US Constitution. As George Washington said in his 1796 Farewell address, let there be no change by Usurpation. In 1881, A Treatise on Citizenship was published by Alexander P. Morse, who served as an American counsel for foreign affairs. It is a comprehensive account of the history of the American common law of law of nations. In it he defines natural born Citizen twice, as on born in the US of US citizen parents. (A Treatise on Citizenship, by birth and by naturalization, Boston, Little, Brown and Co., 1881, Morse, ix, 12.) A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 US 827 (1824) Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society.

These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827, Luria v. United States, 231 US 9 (1913). The Supreme Court, in Luria v. US, 231 US 9 (1913), cites Minor, which defines natural born Citizens as those born in the US of US citizen parents in a determination that only a native citizen can serve as President. If Ark defined natural born Citizen, then why isnt it cited here in Luria? We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. While the rights of citizenship of the native born derive from 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted, "becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual." Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9, 231 U. S. 22; United States v. MacIntosh, 283 U. S. 605, 283 U. S. 624; Knauer v. United States, 328 U. S. 654, 328 U. S. 658, Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 (1964) Here, in Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163 (1964), the Supreme Court establishes that natural born Citizen is a subset of native-born citizen, and are determined by separate clauses of the US Constitution, but only the natural born Citizen, determined by Art. 2 S.1 C. 4 is eligible to be President. Therefore, if Citizenship, even if born in the US, is determined by the 14th Amendment, one is not eligible, as a natural born Citizen, to be President. Further, by the law of statutory

construction, they cannot mean the same thing, as each clause in the Constitution must be given separate meaning. Current Immigration and Naturalization Service Interpretations of US law also make a strict delineation between native- born citizens and natural born Citizens. Interpretation 324.2, Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage. Interpretation 324.2 (a)(3) provides: The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien Then, Interpretation 324.2(a)(7) provides: (7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it. The words shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. And again, Interpretation 324.2(b) provides: The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss. http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-00-48575.html

Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born Citizen

Some would claim that the case of Wong Kim Ark , 169 US 649 (1898) proves that the interpretation of natural born Citizen is the same as the British Common Law interpretation of perpetual allegiance if born on the soil of the sovereign.

However this claim can easily be proven false. While Justice Gray certainly discussed a wide array of citizenship issues, some based on British Common Law, his decision was based on the law of nations concept of allegiance of an inhabitant through permanent domicile, and commerce. If British Common Law was the basis of his decision, he certainly would not have to discuss the domicile of the parents of Wong Kim Ark in order to determine that he was subject to the jurisdiction of the US. In that case, simple birth within the territory of the US would have made Wong Kim Ark a natural born Citizen. The holding of the case was the children, born in America, of permanently domiciled aliens (inhabitants), are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and thus are US Citizens at birth, SPECIFICALLY that they are not natural born Citizens. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." 169 US 649, 693 The concept that an inhabitant, in the continuance of commerce, and establishment of permanent domicile within his non native country establishes allegiance to his country of domicile is well known in law of nations. The same principle is allegiance. Gray definitely separates the children who are judged to be subject to the jurisdiction, into 2 classes- citizens, and natural born citizens by his citation of Binney here.

Domicile and Allegiance in Law of Nations

According to the law of nations, when the national character of a person is to be ascertained, the first question is, In what territory does he reside, and is he resident in that territory for temporary purposes, or permanently? If he resides in a given territory permanently, then he is regarded as adhering to the nation to which the

territory belongs. And to be a member of the political body settled therein. Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, 231, 232 In the previously discussed case of The Venus, 12 US (8 Cranch) 253, decided entirely on the law of nations principle of allegiance to a nation by an inhabitants permanent domicile and ongoing commerce, stated, The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. The Venus, 12 US 253, 278 (1814) In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles. Id., 279 Like in Wong Kim Ark, The Venus noted that allegiance through domicile of the inhabitant, is easily thrown off simply by moving domicile back to his native country. Of course this tenuous allegiance cannot be what the framers were looking for when requiring the future President to be a natural born Citizen, for the purpose of the prevention of foreign influence. The framers were looking for a firewall of deep abiding allegiance for the future President, as Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces. They were looking for allegiance derived from at least naturalized US Citizen parents, on the standing of a Native, who had legally thrown off native allegiances and pledged sole allegiance to their new nation, not the temporary allegiance of inhabitants, simply changed by moving domicile. Justice Gray established the rule that the children of domiciled resident aliens, regardless of race, or previous treaties or restrictions on the naturalization of the

parents, would be citizens at birth, if born in America, since they would be subject to the jurisdiction of the US through the jurisdiction had over their parents. Since he already agreed with the Minor holding, that natural born Citizens are born of US Citizen parents, and in noting that the parents were not US Citizens, Justice Gray certainly was not stating that children of domiciled resident aliens were natural born Citizens, eligible for President. But this national character which a man acquires by residence, may be thrown off at pleasure, by a return to his native country, or even by turning his back on the country in which he has resided, on his way to another. Id., 280 Justice Gray compared Wong Kim Ark to the children of slaves who were naturalized by the 14th Amendment, despite the fact that their parents were not considered US citizens before the Amendment, but were certainly domiciled within. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was intended to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race." Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40. 169 US 649, 692, 693 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 118 U. S. 356; Law Ow Bew v. United States 144 U. S. 47, 144 U. S. 61, 144 U. S. 62; Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893), 149

U. S. 698, 149 U. S. 724; Lem Moon Sing v. United States (1893), 158 U. S. 538, 158 U. S. 547; Wong Wing v. United States (1896), 163 U. S. 228, 163 U. S. 238. 169, US 649, 694

Perpetual Allegiance v. Right of Election

Justice Gray cites Diceys Conflict of Laws that, "'British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown 'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' Id.,658 But citizens are not subjects (isnt that what the Revolutionary War was about?), and have the right of election, and the new US Citizens threw off perpetual allegiance, which in the eyes of the laws of nations is the bane of all freedom loving people. Natural Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance in the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that rule of law. Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231 The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled by the Revolution. Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2, pg. 1280 Certainly the American Revolution threw off British Common Law relating to US Citizenship, and established the right of election, and jus sanguinas, that is, the concept of citizenship by descent, no matter where birth occurred. In Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors of Snug Harbor (1830), John Inglis was held to follow the condition of his British father, Charles, even if born in US territory, since he was too young to make the election, and followed the election of his father. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors of Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1930), 126 Before the first Naturalization Act (1790), the only 2 ways to obtain US Citizenship was by being born of US Citizen parents, a natural born Citizen, or by adhering to the American Revolution by residence in the colonies. That is the construction of Article 2 s.1 c.4. The 14th Amendment added as citizens those born or naturalized

and subject to the jurisdiction of the US, but only the natural born Citizens of Article 2, those born in the US of US Citizen parents, are eligible for the Presidency. By the law of statutory construction Art.2 and the 14th Amendment cannot be read in tandem, so as to make Art. 2 obsolete or moot, without explicit language to that effect, and the two statutes certainly exist side by side, and can co-exist, as they have for 145 years. While some native- born Citizens are natural born, not all are, since as a security measure, singular allegiance at birth, the time that fixes national character, is required most judiciously by the framers. Those born of alien fathers or mothers, or born with dual allegiance, are not eligible. Every term in the Constitution is to have specific meaning, and if the framers meant native- born Citizen they would have said so. The text cannot be expanded or changed beyond its original meaning. If a born citizen of the 14th Amendment was the same as a natural born Citizen, then Art. S.1 c.4 would be moot, and that construction is inadmissible according to Marbury v. Madison (1802). Art.2 s.1 c.4 described who were US Citizens at a fixed point in time, at the ratification of the document, and is protected by that fixed point. There were only two groups of US Citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified. There were the natural born Citizens, those born of the newly created citizens, after the Declaration of Independence, and the citizens at the time the Constitution was ratified, at the fixed point in time of ratification. No naturalization law existed until later, and the ante nati, those born before the Declaration of Independence, and those that took up residence in any of the United States before the Constitution was ratified, were the first naturalized citizens, and were grandfathered in to eligibility. The children of those original citizens were the natural born Citizens, the children of those persons who adhered to the American Revolution. The requirement restricted the office of President and Commander In Chief, from aliens, either by birth, or by blood. Only naturally occurring, indigenous citizens are eligible to the Oval Office as a national security measure.

The framers were afraid that foreign influence would endanger the Republic, as an invasive species, like the Malaluka tree, does to the environment right here in Florida, or the havoc that invasive species of carp inflict on the Midwest. Natural born Citizens comprise the largest segment of society, so it is certainly not racist, or exclusionary. The sons or daughters of the naturalized parents of any race or former nationality could serve as President. If Citizen at Birth meant the same as natural born Citizen, then Congress could amend the Constitution by the enactment of Congressional Law with respect to who is a citizen at birth, which is obviously an unconstitutional construction. Never amended, the requirement means the same as it did in 1789, at the fixed point in time that Congressional naturalization law did not exist, and the Constitution was ratified. It is impossible to think that any parent that adhered to the British, could produce a child eligible for President. To be changed, if it must, it must be done explicitly by amendment, which reflects the importance that the framers placed on the requirement.