(Letter To The Editor to The New American)
February 25 2016
In the February 22 'Letters to the Editor' column Steve Byas has it wrong about the Constitutional definition of a 'natural born' citizen. He cites the Naturalization Act of 1790 which uses the term, but fails to note that that Act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, on precisely this issue - because it was misleading in its use of the term, as signed off on by both Madison and Washington in the 1795 substitute Act The correct constitutional definition of the term is contained in E. de Vattel's definitive tome on the subject, which there is considerable historical evidence that the constitutional Framers were going by in their use of the term. In that treatise, 'The Law of Nations, Or Principles of Natural Law' (which was taught in the universities of the day), de Vattel gives the precise definition of the term in use at the time in his Book One, Chap. XIX, Sect. 212, titled 'Citizens and natives':
"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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
I used the expression "the constitutional definition" because, though terms may change their meanings over time, it is the ORIGINAL INTENT meaning that is operative regarding the Constitution, i.e., the intended eligibility requirement itself. If the original intent meaning is to be changed, it would require a constitutional amendment - and in point of fact, both current major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and 2'008, to get just such an amendment going through Congress on this very issue (i.e., including this issue as their common denominator), and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue. So: THEY KNEW. And know, what a true 'natural born citizen' is, and was, in constitutional terms.
Some people try to argue that there are only two kinds of citizens, natural born and naturalized. Not so, as graphically demonstrated by the fact that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent 'natural born' category, i.e., a person born on the soil - jus soli - of citizen parents thereof - jus sanguinis; with the emphasis on the father.
This whole subject is dealt with in exhaustive and excellent detail by Atty. Mario Apuzzo at his web site: puzo1.blogspot.com. I urge your readers to go there, and familiarize themselves with the true, and full, facts of this matter. Which includes the fact that we have a constitutional crisis on our hands as we speak, with a Usurper in the Oval Office. And who is proving the very concern of the constitutional Framers - that the potential Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES - to have been very prescient, indeed.
2) from teaparty.org: ‘Obama Lifts Ban On Diseased ‘Refugees’…Here’s Who He’s Dumping Into Your Town’ - February 25 - (orig. posted at breitbart.com - February 22)
(Obama now letting 'refugees' into this country with HIV and STDs. Whatever it takes to get as many votes as possible - and to bankrupt the country - in aid of his dark agenda...)
Don't worry. Once America's Oathkeepers - current and retired - do their duty and arrest the Usurper, for being an illegal occupant of the Oval Office (for not being a 'natural born' citizen, i.e., and as understood by the constitutional Framers: a person born in the country of citizen parents thereof, with particular respect to the father), and hold him for trial on a number of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason, all the legislation that he has signed into law, and all the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made, go with him, into the trash bin. It will be as if he had never been there.
Except in our consciences, for ever letting this gross constitutional error happen, on our watch, of letting someone occupy the Oval Office who had no business being there. Except 'funny' business. And definitely not as in ha ha. Rather, as in very dark business.
Can you say, part of the machinations of the totalitarian 'New World Order' crowd?? Making a major move against the United States??? And getting away with it. So far......
How about it, Oathkeepers???? Up to the job yet, in your minds?????
We really don't have a lot of space left in which to maneuver before TPTB try to pull the plug on the former federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A.
It may well go. But not this way. It will go the way it should go.
And that is not the way that the Dark forces wish it to go: to say, into their hands.
I don't know which universe you Dark-force types think that you are in. But God rules this one.
Which you are about to find out.