Natural Born is a Condition Of Eligibility, Not A Right

Happened to see the resolution regarding John McCain’s being born in Panama “granting” him Natural Born status. The fact that they “granted” someone Natural Born status means they don’t understand the fundamental. This isn’t a problem with the English language, this is a problem with politicians attempting to create rights out of thin air.

“Whereas the term Natural Born is not defined in The Constitution…” – nor is the word “is” defined.

Natural Born is a condition of birth, which implies the highest standard of undivided allegiance possible. The fact that it’s Natural means that it is not a condition that is legislated by a lawyer or, perhaps especially, a politician.

p.s. also notice that this document states “Whereas other presidential candidates have been born outside of America, and been considered eligible.” Outside of the ones who were American citizens at the time the Constitution was enacted, I have never heard of that. Not saying it’s factually correct, but I sure would like to see some background. It seems like a harmless error, or even deliberate shystery, but it seems like that sloppiness could be used as precedent. As I’ve already opined, and opined again, you can’t legislate natural. It’s just unnatural.

Liberal Lawyers Say It’s Too Hard To Twist The Evidence To Fit Their Case, So Let’s Change The Laws.

Everybody’s tired of the issue of Obama’s birth certificate, especially those like myself who felt it was a big fat red herring to distract from an underlying real issue. Face it, the guy is sure acting like he’s got something to hide.

In fact, the secretiveness reminds me of Chester Arthur, who burned all of his personal papers, perhaps to cover up the fact that his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen at the time of Chester’s birth, making him ineligible to be President under the Natural Born clause.

Liberals will go to great lengths to tell you there is ambiguity of the clause, but I think it’s intentionally created confusion. It’s clear that a person born of two citizen parents on native soil is a natural born citizen. On this, there is absolutely no ambiguity.

If you look in any depth at all in to the thoughts of the founding fathers, it becomes pretty clear that they thought this clause should be in the Constitution.

I suppose I should post links to what has led me to my conclusion. Consider this post a work in progress.

A friend of mine who happens to be of a liberal bent sent me the following article in defense of an alternative view of the term Natural Born.

Before I go into that, I want to point a couple things out. First of all, I don’t think everybody has the same understanding of lawyers and legal experts as I do. If you’ve ever faced a prosecutor before, you know that they will paint the most sinister picture of the defendant as possible. They will hype up the charges as high as they can, knowing it gives them bargaining room for a plea deal. Lawyers do not give legal opinions, in the sense that a judge’s ruling is a legal opinion. Lawyers twist the evidence of the case to their desired outcome. They are not unbiased. People seem to read something they agree with, and in their mind, it’s settled, and that’s all of the effort they’re willing to put into their position.

The other thing I want to point out, is that this author cites possibly the most obfuscated text to be found of a 1608 case on Rules of Conquest in English law to support his assertion that conquered subjects of the king of England were indeed, subjects of the king, by again, Rules Of Conquest.

So, he starts from this position and twists his way to his conclusion, that this is what a clause in the Constitution is based on, Rules of Conquest. Okay, seems highly improbable it’d pass Occam’s Razor, but let’s give him that this is a possibility.

He concludes his article by saying the Natural Born clause should be removed from the Constitution. Now, if you’re reading critically, wouldn’t you think he just undermined the very foundation of the position he just crafted together? If everything he said up to this point made sense, why would he now say this? Because he’s wrong, and he knows he can’t twist the evidence to support his position.

I copied one of my status updates from the discussions on facebook, and the link afterward.

The author argues that the natural born clause means that foreign born are natural born thru citizenship of the mother, citing a Rules of Conquest law, establishing that a UK subject owes allegiance to the King. Somewhat of an aside, the 1608 case asserts that an alien woman marrying a subject is also subject to the king. By the end of the article the author says we should remove the natural born clause, (if it’s valid, why?). You’ll probably need google translate, if you don’t know latin, but the gist of the argument is The king has dominion over conquered subjects. Read the Declaration of Independence, if you want our founding fathers’ take on that particular subject.

Here’s the article.

post notes:
There are a lot of people who want to repeal the Natural Born clause. This isn’t about Obama, exclusively, although it includes him. His natural allegiance is ambiguous because of a non-citizen father, (and step-father, I suppose, also).

Allegiance is the key to natural born citizenship. Born of two citizen parents on native soil is undisputable, unambiguously native born. There is no division of allegiance. A naturalized citizen renounces allegiance to all foreign countries. While there may be natural feelings toward their birthplace, (did I just use the word natural? I did), we accept them as fellow citizens.

A person born of one non-citizen parent is still considered a fellow citizen, but there’s a crucial difference. We don’t know what the citizenship laws are of his non-citizenship parent. In essence, a person born of a non-citizen parent is a dual citizen. There is a division of natural allegiances. Could he run for president in both countries? Maybe. There are innumerable possible complications.

Federalist 68 (on electing the President) has a strongly worded paragraph stating “every practicable obstacle” should prevent the ascendancy of foreign influence in our councils.
John Jay, specifically wrote to George Washington to suggest that the Commander in Chief of the United States should be natural born.

To those who say this is an antiquated clause, I couldn’t disagree more.

What Is The Appropriate Response To Tornadic Weather Predictions?

Supposing a meteorologist could predict there was a 96% probability of a tornado striking somewhere within a 10 square mile area, half rural, half urban in the next 24 hours. Assume the tornado’s path, while unknown exactly where it will be, will be approximately 7 miles x 300 yards, or a little over 1 square mile. Simplified, it’s almost certain a tornado will affect 1/10th of the area that day, but uncertain where.

Now run the same scenario with a probability of 68% and within the next two or three days.

Even armed with this knowledge, how could people better use this information?

Evacuation and storm shelters are the only two options that immediately come to my mind. The former seems less likely as uncertainty increases, the latter seems inadequate, in any case. It’s a perplexing problem.

Citizenship Is The Context Of All National Discussion

I’ve resisted getting involved with the President’s birth certificate drama, other than an occasional joke, for the simple reason I believed eventually it would be produced. But in the mean time, volumes of research has been produced which discusses the issue of eligibility. The fact that this debate took place at all is perhaps the biggest witness to the fact that clarifications of intent is needed. Some say the intent of the authors is unknowable, others produce documents that support one interpretation or another. Others will try to twist the words to their desired outcome, and after giving every justification for why they think their position is supported, conclude with something that logically reads like: “every justification I just used to support the case I just made should be removed from the constitution.” Whoa, there, fella.

The underlying point is important. Why did taxpayers send $23 Million dollars to support a referendum to a country the president’s father was a lifelong citizen of? Is the President of our country eligible to be president of another country also?

Sole allegiance to the United States should be, (and I believe is), a requisite of the Presidency. There should be no ambiguity, no doubt that the person holding that office has undivided devotion.

The fact that so many issues devolve from citizenship is one reason I think this needs absolute elucidation; if we don’t agree what a citizen is, how can we then discuss immigration, or entitlements? If we have non-uniform immigration enforcement, can we continually expand entitlement programs that only encourage more immigration, while not resolving the central issue of citizenship?

In the United States, we don’t have denizens. We have Natural Born, which would seem to indicate sole, indisputable allegiance. If you adopt Vattel’s version, Natural Born encompasses three conditions: Both parents citizens, and born on native soil. Other interpretations are less strict, Born on native soil, with one parent or the other being a citizen. My contention, that the former, being the highest standard, is the only one that indisputably meets the condition of sole allegiance.

The Natural Born Clause Doesn’t Go Far Enough

The fact that a lot of people seem to think the natural born clause is too restrictive and should be removed from the constitution seems a little alarming to me.

We can see from Federalist 68, that an ascendant of foreign influence was something to be guarded with every possible resistance.

There is no dispute that someone born on U.S. soil, to U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Leaving aside for a moment, other debatable combinations, (I’m not saying other combinations are not natural born, I’m saying for simplicity, let’s start with an indisputable case.)

Suppose a U.S. born Jihad Jane decided to have a child with U.S. born Anwar Al-Awlaki, having the child on U.S. soil, so as to confer U.S. citizenship. (Anwar Al-Awliki was born in the U.S., but I don’t believe he was ever a citizen, nor were either of his parents.) Jihad Jane raises her child under fundamentalist islam teaching, which includes a less than favourable inclination to the country which their citizenships offer both liberties and duties.

There is a “don’t punish the child” argument that can’t be completely dismissed, here. According to liberal interpretation of the natural born clause, the child is eligible to be president. Under the liberal argument of removing the natural born clause, Al-awlaki himself should be eligible for president.

Seems like a good place to quote Federalist 68:

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?

Paraphrased:

* Every practible obstacle should be opposed to cabal intrigue and corruption.


* The desire in foreign powers to gain improper ascendant in our councils is one of the most deadly adversaries of republican government.


The natural born clause is only one obstacle. The founding fathers state every practicable obstacle is what is needed.

Those arguing for removing the natural born clause are in direct contradiction to the original intent of our Constitution. Oppose them at every turn.

Where We All Belong

I got out of playing in a rock n roll band back in the late eighties, early nineties. In no small part, because I couldn’t relate to some of the people showing up to hear us play. Skinheads. I never sat down and listened to what they had to say. From my perspective, they were people from somewhere else, showing up in my old neighbourhood, they were the outsiders. They didn’t belong. They were not representative of the people who lived in the neighbourhood surrounding that shitty little club. They were the anti-thesis of that community, and I knew it. I was *born* there, even if we had to leave.

So, I played in a Southern Rock band for a couple years before moving away. Always felt a connection with hard rocking music from down home folk. It fit me.

Somewhere along the line, I developed an affinity for the rebel flag; to me, representing values I could understand: “where we all belong.”

So it distresses me, to stumble across some Fucking english cunt singing neo-nazi songs using the rebel flag as a backdrop. I’m a yankee, as far as anyone from The South is concerned, but I’ll be dammed if what I like about the rebel flag has a goddam thing to do with that bullshit.