14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

The definition of “natural born” comes from the common law of nations. Under the law of nations, all treaties and the laws of the foreign nations must be considered if a child is born on foreign soil. Therefore the fundamental rule for NBC is “exclusive allegiance to the United States” at birth. According the US Government, to answer the question, is one born without the soil (jus soli) a natural born citizen, we must ask ourselves this question…If the US denied citizenship to a child born abroad, would that act of the US government leave the child stateless?

Take for example, George Romney who was born in Mexico because his refuge parents, who were mormons, were being persecuted in the US. George’s parents never changed their citizenship. They never renounced their US citizenship & took Mexican citizenship. Under the citizenship laws of Mexico at the time, George Romney was born an alien/foreigner as Mexican law did not recognize him as a citizen by the mere fact that he was born on their soil. It was “jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” (the jurisdiction to make decisions) under the law of nations that governed George Romney’s status at birth. Therefore, if the US had denied citizenship to little George, he literally would have been left stateless because the foreign nation in which he was born never claimed him as a member/citizen of their society. His “exclusive” allegiance at birth was to the United States.

This is the same for children born to 2 citizen parents in the military, no matter where they are born. Vattel, Bk1, sec 217: For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.

During the hearings and testimony on S.Res. 511, the revisionists brought in 2 highly respected revisionist constitutional lawyers to obfuscate the truth by using English feudal law. Feudal law is not common law. It is the law of the Sovereign King. It is statute law, not natural law. Had McCain or any of the other spineless GOP establishment known their history, they would have refuted that resolution and stood firm on the law of their birthright. This is especially disturbing to me because of the stress it is causing our men & women in uniform who are temporarily stationed overseas. By saying that they are subject to the citizenship laws of foreign nations is ludicrous and absurd.

Since 1920 & the right of women to vote, our country’s basic foundation, the family as “One” standing under one allegiance, has been usurped by statute law. Women already had citizenship. Voting is not a fundamental right, it is a privilege. I am a woman & I am sick of the feminist movement. There are certain things in nature that are vital to the preservation of a society/nation and that is unified allegiance of all households. When a man & woman get married they become “One” in the eyes of the law and this includes allegiance to the society in which they have their main domicile. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, 1791:

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

[T]he most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

Children are a consequence of marriage, therefore they become in the eyes of the law part of that “One” union.

“Jus sanguinis” & the law of “parens patriae” and the effect of statelessness should children find themselves born without the soil (jus soli) of the parents is the common law of nations.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization. All others are aliens in the eyes of the law of the US Constitution.

Harvard Law agrees with my assessment. The Harvard & Michigan Law Reviews used by SCOTUS are copyrighted and thus I am not able to publish the pdf’s. Those with Hein-online access will be able to access the entire documents:

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/natural-birthright-citizenship-birthright-of-blood-according-to-english-common-law/

See also the official government notices published nationwide by the Buchanan Administration. These documents were the founding documents for the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later was Constitutionalized as the 14th Amendment, the 1868 Expatriation Act(also still law, it is the authority for the oath of allegiance all naturalized citizens must take) as well as the 1870 Act passed to enforce the 14th Amendment and the basis of all citizenship treaties with all foreign nations since then. Click the link for each pdf file to save a copies of them. The state legislators need these documents to enforce their new election laws pertaining to constitutional eligibility:

https://constitutionallyspeaking.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/subject-to-the-jurisdiction-you-cant-have-it-both-ways/

Natural Birthright Citizenship: Birthright of Blood According to English Common Law

My research has finally come full circle with an absolute and irrefutable conclusion and I want to thank all the patriots whom inspired me to research “out of the box”.

As I had already reported in my Congressional “Natural Born Citizen” series, in 1987 Michael Greve of the ‘Reason Magazine’ wrote that Prof. Lawrence Tribe is

[n]otorious for urging judges to go boldly where none have gone before…[T]ribe’s pretenses are a thin cover for their effort to mobilize the Constitution for left-liberal causes

As we already know, Lawrence Tribe was Obama’s law professor at Harvard whom Obama supposedly did extensive research for. What I conclude with, is research from the Harvard Law Review archives. Research that neither Tribe or Obama hoped would become public knowledge. For if this legal information cited by the US courts did become public; it would have immediately crushed Obama’s eligibilty for the presidency. And that is why, when it came to testimony for S.Res. 511, “A Bill Proclaiming John Sidney McCain III a natural born citizen“, Tribe was called in to give obfuscation to the exact meaning and intent of Article II qualifications for the presidency.

As I have said, the key to defining who the citizens are lies within the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and more specifically, what “jurisdiction” does it pertain to? Therein lie the question which must be answered. And as I have previously reported, the US Supreme Court has stated that unless otherwise specified in the Constitutional Amendment itself or in subsequent legislation, jurisdiction cannot have conflicting consequences. It cannot have one meaning for persons born and another for persons naturalized. The subsequent legislation, the 1868 Expatriation Act, passed just days after the 14th was ratified defined what the term jurisdiction in the 14th pertained to. It is political jurisdiction, owing exclusive allegiance to the United States, the same as it had been since the revolution. But how do we know this? By researching “out of the box” that’s how.

The legal premise that the founders grounded the revolution on was the “inalienable right of expatriation” that every person is born with.

Declaration of Independence ; July 4, 1776

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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Expatriation Act July 27, 1868

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Expatriation is a God-given right that no man can take from another. And while there are plenty of revolutionary era documents supporting this, for the purposes of eschewing todays leftist propagandists like Tribe, the lame stream media & the Obama camp, who see only a revisionist theory based on their interpretation of what the United States future should look like. I will keep my argument within the scope of the 14th Amendment & the 1868 Expatriation Act ,which is still on the books and which gives Congress the legal authority to continue to require that all naturalized citizens must formally swear an oath renouncing & abjuring forever any & all foreign allegiances. This will also include the official US Government documents, with current supporting legal references, that contain the meaning of language of the 14th & the Expatriation Act. These 2 laws cannot be defined exclusively, they must be defined inclusively otherwise they completely cancel each other out leaving both of them wholly unconstitutional & without authoritative legal weight for the Federal or State governments & courts to act upon.

After decades of foreign nations, but especially those under British feudal law, ignoring this right of expatriation, the Buchanan Administration put out two official releases(9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859)) which stated:

 “The question then arises, what rights do our laws confer upon a foreigner by granting him citizenship? I answer, all the rights, privileges and immunities which belong to a native-born citizen, in their full extent with the single qualification that under the constitution, “no person except a natural born citizen is eligible to the office of President…”

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been.”

These official releases were used by Congress who authored the legislation & later the Courts in defining the words set forth in the 1866 Civil Rights Act which later became the 14th Amendment as well as the 1868 Expatriation Act. The US government declared once and for all that exclusive political allegiance to the United States government is what makes a citizen. A person can be born a native to the soil and yet not be a citizen because upon their birth, they did not owe exclusive allegiance to the US Government. They were considered inhabitants either here permanently or temporarily depending in status of their parents at the time of birth. Only if the parents became naturalized prior to the child turning 21, or upon the child acting on their own accord at or after the age of 21 do they become legally & officially a US citizen.

So what has all this got to do with the 14th & the Expatriation Act? Fast forward to 1922 the US Assist Solicitor General, Richard W. Flournoy, citing ATT’Y General Black.

Attorney-General Black, whose opinion of July 4, 1859, concerning the case of Christian Ernst, a naturalized American citizen of Hanoverian origin who was arrested upon his return to Hanover, has become a classic on this subject. It seems worth while to quote from this notable opinion:

“The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance and substituting another allegiance in its place—the general right, in one word, of expatriation—is incontestible. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. It is too injurious to the general interests of mankind to be tolerated; justice denies that men should either be confined to their native soil or driven away from it against their will.”

Under the oppressive feudal law of perpetual allegiance, subjects had to get permission from the Sovereign, the King, before traveling outside of the limits of the territory. Everywhere they traveled, their allegiance and that of their children whether born in or out of the territorial confines of the Crown, was due first and foremost to the Crown. Likewise, children born to aliens within the territorial limits of the Crown owed fealty first to the Sovereign Crown and could not leave the limits of the territory without express permission from it.

This is not, nor ever has been the rule of law in the United States since the revolution. When independence was declared, the founding fathers declared that, from that moment on, the individual is Sovereign and needs no permission from the government to travel from state to state, or country to country. The fact that passports are required is so that while traveling outside of US territory, one has an official document stating that they are a US citizen and therefore the US Government has the right,  under the law of nations, to step in to protect them legally should the need arise as it did in the Ernst case. This sovereignty was expressed in no uncertain terms within the confines of US Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America…

Article IV, Section. 2.The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Throughout the early 20th century after the WKA decision was handed down by the US Supreme Court, by a Justice whose own appointment was questionable, many changes were made to the US Code. However, one thing that has remained constant is the oath that all foreigners must take before becoming a US citizen. Since WKA relied so heavily on English feudal law for its decision, what was the real original common law of England pertaining to those who were the sovereigns of the nation? For that we go to the Michigan Law Review (50 Mich. L. Rev. 927 1951-1952) that is cited by Harvard law professors.

 The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).

In the 50’s, there was still speculation as to whether a person born in a US territory, but not yet a state, could become president. There were also surmounting concerns over the dual nationality that children born on US soil to parents, either of whom were foreigners, but not diplomats, claimed to have because of the erroneous decision sent down by the Supreme Court in the 1898 WKA case. The one constant that the US had to rely on was not that of the soil, but that of the blood & of the 1868 Expatriation Act. Had WKA removed himself from the US after that decision, the fact that he had formally renounced the allegiance to China that he had at birth, is what gave him his right to his citizenship. At the coming of age, he made a declaration as to which country he wished to attach his allegiance to before the US State Dept. issued him a passport.

These questions would once again be laid to rest by Harvard (66 Harv. L. Rev. 707 1952-1953) and their repeated reference back to the 1859 OP released by the Buchanan Administration and ATT’Y Gen Black.

For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)

When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)

Only persons who held an allegiance to a foreign nation either at birth or naturalization are subject to deportation, because that person did not owe exclusive allegiance to the United States at either time. So how did Harvard determine who could & who could not lose their citizenship? For that we go to 73 Harv. L. Rev. 1512 1959-1960.

…later there was considerable controversy whether aliens who became American citizens could effectively cut their original ties. This was a different issue from that discussed in Perez and Trop. The earlier controversy resulted in the celebrated opinion presented by Attorney General Black to President Buchanan, and the Expatriation Act of 1868,” both upholding the individual’s right of expatriation. The vigor of the American point of view had its effect upon Great Britain, where in 1869 a Royal Commission recommended the end of a system of perpetual allegiance. (9 Ops. ATT’Y GEN. 3.56 (1859). Act of July, 27, I868, ch. 249, I5 Stat. 223.)

A person born with conflicting allegiances, and who has never formally renounced & abjured one of those allegiances they claim to have, will not be left stateless. The big claim that the progressive revisionists make in their court arguments today is that somehow a child born on US soil to foreigners will be left stateless. This simply is not true. The revisionists use the argument to inject emotion & fear to further their cause which is to establish global citizenship, where there are no borders between nations. In other words, they are using our republican form of government to establish a “Global Republic” under one government of the United Nations.

So folks, it isn’t the government who forms (births) the citizens, it is the people themselves who’s inalienable right of expatriation gives them the right to choose which government they will attach their allegiance to. And since children at birth or prior to the age of consent (21) are not able to do so legally, they are therefore under their parents governance as well as the governance of the government in which the parents owe allegiance to. Their nationality & allegiance is that of their parents.

Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, their nationality follows that of their fathers.

 Under the laws of nations from time immemorial, a family is a unit comprised of but one allegiance, that of the husband/father. This is necessary for the survival & preservation of all civilized societies, but especially that of a Republic. A doctrine that has been written down from time immemorial.

Sovereign birthright citizenship is the common law “Right of Blood” in which every King of England depended upon to preserve to their posterity, their right to the Sovereign throne & the right to govern the kingdom. Since the July 4, 1776  Declaration of Independence & the ratification of the US Constitution, this birthright citizenship has belonged exclusively to the children, the posterity, of United States citizens.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This right does not, nor ever has it ever belonged to the children of foreigners who by chance are born on US soil, regardless or not that the parents happen to be diplomats . At birth, their primary fealty is to the foreign government of their parents’ allegiance & that allegiance is what establishes their nationality at birth.  Therefore, as Supreme Court Justice Waite, in Minor v Happersett, as well as Justice Grey, in Elk v Wilkins concluded, there are but two paths the citizenship, either by birth or by statute. Children who are born to an alien father/mother on US soil, are citizens by statute, not by birth. Their citizenship is one of election upon renunciation of the foreign allegiance should they so choose to claim it and by this fact alone, a loss of US citizenship could never deem them stateless.

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

Copyright 2011 : This article may not be reprinted for distribution or cross-posted on the internet without the express consent of and attribution to the author.

“Subject to the Jurisdiction”: You Can’t Have It Both Ways UPDATED with 2 Official Proclamations From The US Administration of 1859

Since the SD legislature has refused to address the birthright citizernship issue, I decided to give it another go with Sen. Thune on a national level.  As that “IS” the level of government in which it rightly should be addressed.

In my call to his office today I inquired:

Can the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” mean one thing for persons born and another for persons naturalized without it specifically separating the two in the initial language of the bill? If it does not, then that would mean that either there is no constitutional provision for anchor babies aka birthright citizenship for children born to parents in which one or more is an alien or that the oaths that immigrants must take renouncing any and all foreign allegiances is wholly unconstitutional and the US State Dept must immediately cease and desist in requiring it. If it is as some claim, that mere birth alone creates citizens, then it would also leave the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” completely unconstitutional and thereby creating complete chaos of the laws of nations not to mention the treaties signed by our government from its founding. The Expatriation Act of 1868, known as the sister act to the 14th Amendment, is still in force today as part of Title 8, while some parts of it were transferred under Foreign Affairs. This law is the basis for the renunciation oath that all immigrants must take and is the law which gives Congress the right & authority to rebuke a naturalized citizen’s US citizenship status & have that person deported for “bad behavior”. It is also the law that states that dual allegiance is not now nor ever has been part of our legal system. The Act states: “whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed” and then goes on to declare ” is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government”.

From all the research into the congressional archives & past legislation that I have done from our founding to the present, and all the historical evidence that I have acquired, it is my conclusion that “subject to the jurisdiction” as it is written into the law can not suppose to repudiate itself nor are laws to be made that create redundancy. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 (1995). I would like to hear how Sen. Thune, being a lawyer & writer/author of our laws can suppose a phrase mean two different things in the same law without specifically addressing them separately?

The 1995 Supreme Court case of  Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 562 concluded that:

[562] The Act’s structure and § 12’s language reinforce this view. In addition, since the primary innovation of the Act was the creation of federal duties-for the most part registration and disclosure obligations-in connection with public offerings, it is reasonable to conclude that the liability provisions were designed primarily to provide remedies for violations of these obligations rather than to conclude that § 12(2) creates vast additional liabilities that are quite independent of them. Congress would have been specific had it intended “prospectus” to have a different meaning in § 12. Pp. 570-573 . . . [563] The Act’s legislative history clearly indicates that Congress contemplated that § 12(2) would apply only to public offerings by an issuer or controlling shareholder, and nothing in that history suggests that Congress intended to create a formal prospectus required to comply with both §§ 10 and 12, and a second, less formal prospectus, to which only § 12 would be applicable. Pp. 578-584.

In other words, when a “term” or “phrase” of the law pertains to two different subject matter, unless otherwise stated in the statute by congress, the “term” or “phrase” shall be interpreted as to not repudiate itself.

The 14th Amendment is a prime example of this rule of law, i. e. birth & naturalization. According to Justice Kennedy, who delivered the opinion of the court in Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. on the rules pertaining to interpretation of laws, we can now surmise that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment shall have the exact same meaning for the one as it does for the other unless otherwise stated specifically by Congress in subsequent legislation or in the definitions of the “terms” & “phrases” of that law that is written in the US code .

Furthermore, according to Justice Kennedy the corresponding legislation to the 14th, the Expatriation Act of 1868 being that subsequent legislation, shall also have no affect on the law as to create any redundancy or repudiation of the 14th & the 1866 Civil Rights Act which held the verbiage of the codified law until it was changed in 1940 when the 14th & the 1866 Acts were consolidated into one.

Constitutional & legislative interpretation was written centuries ago and after the revolution there was but a couple of law schools in the US. It wasn’t until 1833 that Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, also founder of Harvard Law school, wrote in his commentaries about constitutional interpretation that is still cited to this day. Chapter 5 titled “Rules of Interpretation”, Section 188 & 194 of his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

§ 188.  IV. From the foregoing considerations we deduce the conclusion, that as a frame or fundamental law of government, (2.) The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred.  By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the constitution; that which will give it efficacy and force, as a government, rather than that, which will impair its operations, and reduce it to a state of imbecility.  Of course we do not mean, that the words for this purpose are to be strained beyond their common and natural sense; but keeping within that limit, the exposition is to have a fair and just latitude, so as on the one hand to avoid obvious mischief, and on the other hand to promote the public good.

§ 194.  VIII. No construction of a given power is to be allowed, which plainly defeats, or impairs its avowed objects.  If, therefore, the words are fairly susceptible of two interpretations, according to their common sense and use, the one of which would defeat one, or all of the objects, for which it was obviously given, and the other of which would preserve and promote all, the former interpretation ought to be rejected, and the latter be held the true interpretation.  This rule results from the dictates of mere common sense; for every instrument ought to be so construed, ut magis valeat, quam pereat (the interpretation that makes a contract valid rather than the one that makes it invalid; law.nyu.edu).

And this brings us to the power granted to Congress regarding citizenship. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Congress was afforded the power to naturalize citizens, but only nature could provide for the “natural born”. Naturalized citizens are required by law to formally renounce, in front of a judge, any and all allegiances they may have to any foreign sovereign, potentate or nation & relinquish any and all titles of nobility to or of the same. They must declare that they personally & individually consent to hold but one citizenship, that of the United States. Therefore, the term “subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to one & ONLY ONE nation which is also currently noted in the historical archives of the Library of Congress on Immigration & Naturalization (1840-1950 when women, under law, were formally granted the right to keep a separate citizenship than that of their husband thereby adding to the destruction of the unified family under the laws of Nature & Nature’s God).

Married women and children under the age of twenty-one derived citizenship from their husband or father respectively. Children of unsuccessful applicants could apply for citizenship in their own right, at the age of twenty-one.

The one thing I have yet to find is a US law which specifically repealed the law of nations doctrine of transference of citizenship to children born in wedlock in a country where the father is a foreigner. All the citizenship treaties between the US and foreign nations were written based on the laws of nature & nations. I have yet to find in the international laws, reference that a child who is born in wedlock to parents who are citizens of different nations receives the nationality of both parents. As far as I can find, the doctrine described above from the Library of Congress pertaining to children born in these cases, is still on the books but hidden rather good in the extensive codes that are hard to manuever through. Common sense tells us that at some point these children will have to make a formal declaration as to which country they want to be a citizen of as an adult and it would require a formal renunciation of one of those citizenships they supposedly acquired. In my mind & from my understanding of the law, these children are really citizens of neither. They merely partake in the rights of their parents, the benefits & rights of which ever parent best suits their needs on any given particular day without having to show a complete and absolute allegiance to either nation.

The naturalization laws from 1790- reflected what was already required of those born in the United States from July 4, 1776, that they be born to parents who did not owe any allegiance to any foreign nation. Rep Bingham, framer of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 14th Amendment & the subsequent legislation of the 1868 Expatriation Act:

 “All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862))

I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 March 9, 1866 )

And later after the passing of the 14th & the Expatriation Act we find Bingham once again on the floor of Congress in 1872 debating legislation pertaining to a US citizen jailed in Cuba:

As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States. That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is no room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth. (The term “to-day”, as used by Bingham, means “to date”.  Obviously, the Constitution had not been amended on April 25, 1872. by Leo Donofrio, Esq.)

Mr Speaker, the next point in the issue is as to expatriation. Expatriation is one of the most imprescribtible right of men. To assert it the American government waged war against Great Britain, in what is known in our history as the “second war for independence,” for three years. The right of expatriation is one of the fundamental principles of American government. (Cong. Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session page 2791)

First, the “second war for independence” that Rep Bingham is referring to is of course the “War of 1812” in which Great Britain was not acknowledging the rights of former British subjects who had become naturalized in the United States as well as children born on American soil to former founding British subjects who had adhered to the American revolution. The British government was clinging bitterly to their feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance, once a Brit always a Brit, that the founders had cast off to adopt the laws of Nature & Nature’s God. Secondly, if the nationality of the parents at the time of the child’s birth was immaterial to gaining US citizenship, Bingham would have merely stated that “Dr. Houard is a natural born citizen because he was born in the jurisdiction of the United States“. 

Now previous to Bingham’s statements on the floor of Congress from 1862 to 1872 which was never disputed, we find an even earlier reference that was also not disputed regarding allegiance & citizenship and how children of foreigners born on US soil gain citizenship:

28th Congress, 2nd Session page 129 

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts…provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States: 

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children…who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United State (April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155)

There is no ambiguity here. “Subject to the jurisdiction” means owing allegiance to ONLY the Unites States, either at birth or by naturalization. Children of foreigners, whether born here or abroad do not gain citizenship as a child until the parents themselves become citizens. This is the doctrine of citizenship through tacit consent that goes back to the time of Adam & Eve. Society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation. 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. (Law of Nations Bk1, Chap 19, Sec. 212)

Native refers to soil, Natural refers to blood. To this there is no dispute in the laws of God, of Nature & of man. (Webster’s Dictionary for the US Constitution (1828) Vol 1 and Vol 2 per request by the US Congress). And although according to Title 8 of the US Code, natives may be Nationals, not all Nationals are US citizens and they certainly are not natural born citizens because under the color of the law, one can not pass naturally to their minor child by the law of tacit consent that which they themselves first do not possess.

So No, You Can’t Have It Both Ways!

UPDATES:  NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US Govt Administration  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US AG

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

  

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

H/T to Leo Donofrio, Esq. @ Natural Born Citizen & his citizens researchers and my many fellow citizen researchers at Free Republic

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

Birthright “Jus soli” Citizenship Only Applied to State Citizenship Prior to March 26, 1790

There has been much hubbub in and around the lame-stream media airwaves as well as bloggers of all political affiliations regarding birthright citizen aka anchor babies. Now while much of it is coming from hosts that I respect; they just happen to not quite be the true constitutional conservatives they claim to be.  None the less, we are all entitled to our own opinions, however as the old saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts”. Especially when one can not substantiate one’s own facts with evidence that can be corroborated by independent researchers. 

One of the 1st pieces of evidence that was brought to my attention nearly 3 years ago and hundreds of hours of research since was the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v Wilkins in which Justice Gray stated in the deciding opinion of the court.

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which

“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,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”; The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized

One can not surmise from Gray’s opinion that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant one thing for birth and another for naturalization for no law can suppose to repudiate itself. Nor can 2 laws of the same effect at the same time suppose to repudiate themselves. Gray is merely reiterating the deciding opinion written by Chief Justice Waite in Minor v Happersett (1874).

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization…and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”

Both the Minor (1874) & Elk (1884) cases pertained to the meaning of the 1st section of the 14th Amendment and thus we continue with Chief Justice Waite’s deciding opinion as to who the “persons” born or naturalized & “subject to the jurisdiction” are.

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…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

And the 14th Amendment is merely the Civil Rights Act of 1866 ratified as a constitutional amendment with the 1866 Act itself remaining in tact and acting as the chief language used to enforce the citizenship laws until 1940 when Congress finally consolidated the two laws into one. We’ll touch more on this in a bit,  but until then make a note that  Title 8 of the US Code defining persons who were born citizens read as follows in the highlighted opening of the 1866 Act until 1940.

“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In the Elk deciding opinion written by Justice Gray, we find the dicta of the Slaughter-House Cases (1872) that was accepted unanimously by that court, including all the dissenters.

“[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”…Justice Steven Field, joined by Chief Justice Chase and Justices Swayne and Brad­ley in dissent from the principal holding of the case, likewise acknowledged that the clause was designed to remove any doubts about the constitu­tionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which pro­vided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

Thus, the Slaughter-House dicta was adopted in the holding of the opinion in the Elk case.

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.

And this is where most of the pundits derail themselves in reference to children born to aliens on US soil. They claim that only children born to ambassadors or diplomats are not “subject to the jurisdiction”. It is very clear here that the Supreme Court justices, including those who held dissenting opinions, determined unanimously that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” did not pertain to children born on US soil to aliens regardless of thei parents political duty to their country of allegiance.

Yes, prior to the adoption of the US Constitution, citizenship & immigration was controlled wholly by the individual states and the laws were as vast as there were states. While some held fast to the old English custom of feudal doctrine, many did not and they adopted the natural law, “jus sanguinis” in accordance with the Declaration of Independence which was also the law adopted by the US Constitution & the US Naturalization laws.

“ 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”

Case in point, the 1779 citizenship laws of Virginia.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

Already in 1779, even before the “Treaty of Paris” (1783) we see that the state of Virginia had cast off the feudal doctrine of birthright “jus soli” allegiance and children born in Virgina to aliens not yet naturalized were themselves aliens born. Thomas Jefferson was Governor of Virginia at the time and the drafting of this law is attributed to him. He also was the Secretary of State under Washington until he resigned in 1793. Jefferson was a stickler for detail in order that there would be absolutely no obfuscation of the intent of the laws and he carried it with him into the Presidency in 1801. In 1802 the US Congress revised the Naturalization laws, repealing the Alien & Sedition Acts put in place by Adams as well as clarifying important aspects of the Naturalization law.

In my most recent research of the Congressional Globe (H/T to bushpilot1 at Free Republic for directing me specifically to the 28th Congressional debates) I finally found specific reference to the much important Naturalization Act of 1802.

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

First, the act of 1802, which repeals all former acts.

It restores the provision of the declaration of intention to three years before application, and a residence of 5 years before admission, and requires proof of good character, renunciation of former allegiance, as well as of all titles or orders of nobility, and an oath to support the constitution; it requires the “registry” of aliens “in order” to become citizens, and the production of the certificate of registration when applying for admission. It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States

That last part intrigued me as I had read the 1802 Act several times but had never latched onto the pertinent part of the Act which states:

An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
Approved April 14 1802 US Statutes at Large Vol 2 pg 155

SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States

Under the Article of Confederation, the states & their citizenship & naturalization laws were independent of each other; each acting separately & wholly for the benefit of the individual state as if it was an independent nation in & of itself under the Laws of Nations. Birthright “jus soli” citizenship only pertained to state citizenship proffered to children born to aliens within the states that kept the feudal law in place prior to the adoption of the US Constitution & prior to the passing of the 1790 Naturalization Act. Therefore, children born to aliens on US soil prior to AND after the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not become US citizens until their parents, themselves finalized their immigration process & became US citizens as US citizenship did not exist until the ratification of the US Constitution.

According to Black’s Law, laws are to be specific and not made to create “Repugnancy” (Black’s Law 1171 5th Ed) Rule of Civil Proc. 8 ) if they refer to similar subject matter as did the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the 14th Amendment that remained in place at the same time for 72 years. When the 1866 Civil Rights Act was consolidated with the 14th Amendment in 1940, it was a matter of common sense jurisprudence that a formal change in the verbiage of Title 8, from “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction”, needed to be made to reflect the verbiage of the law still in place. Not because the Civil Rights Act was repugnant, but because Congress finally made the decision that since the 1866 Act was constitutionalized by the amendment process, the law no longer needed to remain in place as the other aspects of the Act had been formally transferred to different sections of the US Code pertaining specifically to other civil rights. Also, parts such as expatriation had also been transferred & reflected in Title 22 under foreign affairs while some parts of the expatriation act still remain under Title 8.

Title 8> Chapter 1> §§ 1-18. Repealed or Omitted

These sections, relating to citizenship, were affected by the Nationality Act of 1940, former section 501 et seq. of this title.

That act was passed on Oct. 14, 1940, to consolidate and restate the laws of the United States regarding citizenship, naturalization, and expatriation, and, in addition to certain specific repeals thereby, all acts or parts of acts in conflict with its provisions were repealed by former section 904 of this title. See the notes below for history of individual sections.

Section 1, relating to citizenship of persons born in the United States, was repealed by act Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 876, title I, subch. V, § 504, 54 Stat. 1172. It was from R.S. § 1992, which was revised from act Apr. 9, 1866, ch. 31, § 1, 14 Stat. 27. Similar provisions were contained in former section 601 (a) of this title. See section 1401 of this title. [emphasis mine]

And that is where I will close, with the Expatriation Act of 1868 formally known as “An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States” approved by Congress on July 27, 1868 that denounces any claim, notion or concept that the United States does or ever did adopt & recognize any form of dual nationality & that the Law of Nations as adopted by the United States government is the common law of the national government as it is the only law that remains constant when dealing with independent & sovereign states under a Republican form of government.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Therefore, the 14th Amendment along with its sister act, “The Expatriation Act of 1868, any “claims” that there was anything such as dual citizenship was finally & formally declared to be inconsistent with the principles of our Republican form of government; and that the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” as ratified by the states has always meant “owing allegiance exclusively to the United States”. Birth on US soil & US citizenship are not naturally inclusive terms unless born to parent(S) (plural) who do not owe allegiance to any foreign nation. All others fall under the naturalization clauses of Title 8 and are citizens by statute, not by nature, thus they can never claim to be “natural born” US citizens. At most, they are naturalized citizens per old English feudal law as shown in Sec 214 of the law of nations. At the least, they are foreigners permitted to settle & stay in the country under Sec 213 of the law of nations. These persons may be citizens of their local community; but still owing direct allegiance to their home country, they & their children therefore are not US citizens for constitutional purposes.

Law of Nations Bk 1

§ 212. 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.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

copyright 2011

No part of this article may be reprinted or cross-posted at other blogs without the express consent of the author. However, the references contained herein that are linked are in the public domain and are there to ease the burden of others in their own research so they may write their own original articles.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13

No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other.

Jeremiah 5:5-6

So I will go to the leaders
and speak to them;
surely they know the way of the LORD,
the requirements of their God.”
But with one accord they too had broken off the yoke
and torn off the bonds.
Therefore a lion from the forest will attack them,
a wolf from the desert will ravage them,
a leopard will lie in wait near their towns
to tear to pieces any who venture out,
for their rebellion is great
and their backslidings many.

Jefferson On Citizenship Under A Republican Form Of Government

 Thomas Jefferson served in the Virginia legislature from 1776 until his election as Governor in 1779. It was Jefferson that drafted the legislation that passed in the Congress of Virginia on June 28, 1776 declaring their independence from Great Britain. In June of 1783, Jefferson was appointed to the Congress of the Confederation & was sent to France to serve as the US Minister. This left Jefferson unable to be physically in attendance at the Philadelphia convention, thus he stayed informed and involved through his correspondence with James Madison. Now, let us begin this short visit back into the year of 1803 and the wisdom & patriotism of Thomas Jefferson from his time in the Virginia state legislature…

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of-foreigners ? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours, perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect: the greatest number, of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth ; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for.an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

One has to remember that at the time of the Declaration, there was no formal federal government set up thus all laws pertaining to citizenship & immigration was regulated by the individual states with each of them adopting, regulating & enforcing their own individual laws in this area. Liberals today, including those of the Republican & conservative factions, claim that the States merely substituted the word ‘subject’ for the word ‘citizen’ when writing the new laws after the Declaration of Independence. Read & learn the truth through Jefferson himself as to which principles of the English constitution they rejected thus adopting better laws based on natural rights & natural reason…

Many of the laws which were in force during the monarchy being relative merely to that form of government, or inculcating principles inconsistent with republicanism, the first assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a committee to revise the whole code, to reduce it into proper form and volume, and report it to the assembly. This work has been executed by three gentlemen, and reported ; but probably will not be taken up till a restoration of peace shall leave to the legislature leisure to go through such a work;.

The plan of the revisal was this. The common law of England, by which is meant, that part of the English law which was anterior to the date of the oldest statutes extant, is made the basis of the work. It was thought dangerous to attempt to reduce it to a text: it was therefore left to be collected from the usual monuments of it. Necessary-alterations in ‘that, and , so much of the whole body of the British statutes, and of acts of assembly, as were thought proper to be retained, were digested into 126 new acts, in which simplicity of style was aimed at, as far as was safe. The following are the most remarkable alterations proposed :

To change the rules of descent, so as that the lands of any person dying intestate shall be divisable equally among all his children, or other representatives, in equal degree.

To make slaves distributable among the next of kin, as other movables.

To have all public expenses, whether of the general treasury, or of a parish or county, (as for the maintenance of the poor, building bridges, court-houses, & etc.) supplied by assessments on the citizens, in proportion to their property.

To hire undertakers for keeping the public roads in repair, and indemnify individuals thro’ whose lands new roads shall be opened.

To define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens, and citizens make themselves aliens.

To establish religious freedom on the broadest bottom. (snip)

Hmm, to define with precision the rules whereby aliens should become citizens? So what was the law they enacted?

Thomas Jefferson, A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth

May 1779Virginia Papers 2:476–78

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.

The clerk of the court shall enter such oath of record, and give the person taking the same a certificate thereof, for which he shall receive the fee of one dollar. And in order to preserve to the citizens of this commonwealth, that natural right, which all men have of relinquishing the country, in which birth, or other accident may have thrown them, and, seeking subsistance and happiness wheresoever they may be able, or may hope to find them: And to declare unequivocably what circumstances shall be deemed evidence of an intention in any citizen to exercise that right, it is enacted and declared, that whensoever any citizen of this commonwealth, shall by word of mouth in the presence of the court of the county, wherein he resides, or of the General Court, or by deed in writing, under his hand and seal, executed in the presence of three witnesses, and by them proved in either of the said courts, openly declare to the same court, that he relinquishes the character of a citizen, and shall depart the commonwealth; or whensoever he shall without such declaration depart the commonwealth and enter into the service of any other state, not in enmity with this, or any other of the United States of America, or do any act whereby he shall become a subject or citizen of such state, such person shall be considered as having exercised his natural right of expatriating himself, and shall be deemed no citizen of this commonwealth from the time of his departure.

So there you have it. Jefferson clearly declaring that ‘subject’ was not equivalent to ‘citizen’ and thus the feudal law of perpetual allegiance from birth on the soil was thereby abolished and replaced with the law of natural right & natural reason. Do you really think the states who had cast off the chains of feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance would have agreed to a return to it under the federal constitution? According to all the early philosophers as well as the framers such as Wilson, reason should be the basis in which all laws should be written & that is the crux of interpreting the constitution & the original intent of the framers. Without natural right & natural reason, there can be no just law.

James Wilson:

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.

Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.

The law of nature is immutable; not by the effect of an arbitrary disposition, but because it has its foundation in the nature, constitution, and mutual relations of men and things. The law of nature is universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their Maker; but it is true also, that the law of nature, having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind, and binds them without distinction

The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person… Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side.

[T]hat important and respectable, though small and sometimes neglected establishment, which is denominated a family…[The family is] the principle of the community; it is that seminary, on which the commonwealth, for its manners as well as its numbers, must ultimately depend. As its establishment is the source, so its happiness is the end, of every institution of government, which is wise and good

Brooklyn Daily Eagle on US Citizenship & Presidential Eligibility; Feb 26, 1888

The following includes citations from Kent, Story & the Immigration & Nationality Acts of 1790, 1795 & 1802. It also mentions US Sec of State Thomas Bayard, whom I have already included in a previous article on the history of the definition of US citizenship. Bayard concluded in 1885 that the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, was not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth subject to a foreign power, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”.

Brooklyn-Daily-Eagle-Sunday-February-26-1888-p-6 Pres eligibility

View this document on Scribd

Massachusetts Miracle: Kennedy’s Reign No More & Online Chat With Herseth-Sandlin

YES! It was the “SCOTT HEARD ROUND THE WORLD”! Congratulations US Senator Scott Brown!

The Dakota War College had a good quip yesterday from state Rep. Blake Curd, who is running against Herseth-Sandlin For the US House seat, and they couldn’t have put it any truer:

We must be approaching the Groundhog’s day Recess, as Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin is momentarily poking her head out of her Washington cave to determine whether or not it’s safe for her to come out. Usually, she dives back into DC for 8 more months, and is only seen in campaign commercials, and scripted events:

Blake Curd Encourages South Dakotans To Ask Rep. Herseth Sandlin Questions Tomorrow

SIOUX FALLS – U.S. House Candidate, doctor and U.S. Air Force veteran Blake Curd today reminded concerned South Dakota citizens that tomorrow might be their only chance to ask Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin about how she plans to vote on the final version of the health care bill. Rep. Herseth Sandlin has agreed to take questions from the public during a online chat session with the Rapid City Journal tomorrow at 12:00PM MST.

“This might be the only opportunity South Dakotans have to dialogue with Rep. Herseth Sandlin before the final vote on the health care bill. I encourage concerned citizens to log in online tomorrow and let our Representative know how they feel. Sadly, other live forums or townhall meetings are highly unlikely,” said Curd, a State Representative representing Lincoln and Minnehaha Counties.

“Democratic leaders promised this would be the most open and transparent legislative process in history. Unfortunately it has been far from that. Our own Representative has kept the public in the dark about her position on the health care reform until the last minute before the vote. South Dakotans deserve better than that,” said Curd.

I had the opportunity to sit in on the online live chat with Herseth-Sandlin this afternoon that was sponsored by the Rapid City Journal. As usual, all rhetoric & no substance. When my questioned was asked regarding future stimulus spending to create jobs, she said she voted against a so-called one this last Dec, but said she voted against it because it was rushed and not well thought out. So in otherwords, she is still not opposed to BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING & BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT as long as she gets her piece of the pie.

Read the Dakota War College response to the online chat appropriately titled:

Sounds like Herseth Sandlin is already planning a election year repeat: The Debate-duck

Time for South Dakotans to send our own ‘Shot Heard Round the World in November and send Herseth-Sandlin packing, just as we did to her mentor, Tom Daschle, in 2004.

Sen. Tim Johnson: “I Compromised” , NOT!

In a much anticipated interview of Sen. Tim Johnson  by Ben Dunsmoor of Keloland news today, Johnson clearly cited where his priorities are:

Senator Johnson says it was a bit of a compromise to vote for the Senate bill because he would have liked to see health care reform that included that public option.

Instead, the Senate bill includes non-profit private plans that would be overseen by the government

Yes, they do not need a public option as long as the government still has control over the insurance companies and can mandate/regulate what they charge for those so called private plans, what they must pay our for and when payments can be made. This is just another backdoor, cleverly disguised way of passing the public option and I can’t believe he thinks so little of the intelligence of his constituents as to think we would fall for this disgusting piece of garbage.

And he obviously also doesn’t feel he needs to follow what he advertises on his Senate webpage. Nope, Nada,  it’s all about the fictional power he believes he has to rule over us.

Sen. Johnson then concludes by citing his requirements for ANY legislation thta he predicts will pass by February:

the final bill must make health care more affordable, decrease the deficit, and eliminate higher costs for patients with pre-existing medical conditions

If this is his true stance then why did he vote on Dec 24, 2009 to pass a bill that does none of the above. In fact, according to the CBO, the Senate bill is worse than the House bill that passed and in fact, the Senate bill will increase deficits, increase medical/health care costs, and it most certainly will increase the cost of health insurance for ALL whom are mandated to buy it.

So, it is all about redistribution in Johnson’s eyes and controlling the lowly little constituents at home while making himself exempt from the mandates.

Have no fear though, it wasn’t all for naught. I hear there is some disguised relief/exemption for SD in the bill for the increases in medicaid that state would have to pick up. A  ‘yes’ vote for Obama nominating his son to a US Attorney’s position with a just announced new chairmanship position in a brand new division  of the US Attorney’s Office?

I’ll let you judge that one for yourself.

 

Could It Be? Charitable Contributions for “HealthScare’?

Want a peek at what is in our future if the disastrous & unconstitutional healthscare legislation is passes?

Look no further. Reporting from the Uk  today: Ministers to ‘take control’ of hospital charity cash

Hundreds of millions of pounds of charity donations to hospitals are to be “nationalised” under an NHS accounting change, which critics say will make it easier to slash health budgets.

Ministers are imposing new rules on NHS charities requiring all donations — including those to specialist children and cancer units, local fundraising campaigns, teaching hospitals and local community trusts — to be listed on a hospital’s balance sheet.

The Charities Commission says that this is “wholly inappropriate” because combining the trust and charity accounts will jeopardise the charity’s autonomy and discourage donations.

I guess this is the UK governments way to pay for their ‘care for government coggers’, because I know personally that it is not the hard working people of the UK that enjoy the so called ‘British cadillac health care plan’. I have a friend over there who’s husband was nearly on his death bed and it wasn’t until he could no longer walk across a room without being out of breath, that he finally got the corrective stint he so desperately needed for nearly a year.

This is absolutely disgusting and we must keep fighting against it with every breath we have. The state legislature will be back in session soon and its high time we get them on board in passing some state sovereignty laws, election reform laws, education/indoctrination reform laws, etc, etc to protect us from all the madmen & women in DC who wish to control every last detail of our personal lives.

The Illegality/Un-Constitutionality of Dual Citzenship

First, thanks to the readers for their patience in my non-posting days leading up to Christmas. Yes Christmas has now past, but for those of us who were snowbound and whose 18 wheels must keep rolling to pay the bills,  our holiday gatherings will have to be revisited after the new year has rung in.

Now, back to the business of our Constitution & US citizenship, in which I have had some spirited debates on recently, I bring to you a snippet from Edwin Meese III’s 2005 release of the Heritage Guide to the Constitution. I came across this while researching back through Article I in my effort to better understand the commerce clause & the general welfare clause.

It was like fate that the word ‘dual’ jumped out at me while fanning to get to the page I was headed to.

page 111:

Until recent decades, American public policy consistantly prohibited dual citizenship. Since 1795, Congress has required that all candidates for naturalization formally renounce allegiance to their native land and any other foreign power. That requirement remains part of national law and is an integral element of the citizenship oath. The rationale for these policies is that citizenship requires undivided loyalty to one country.

Yet today there are millions of American citizens who are also citizens of other countries. Many are naturalized American citizens whose native countries do not recognize the renunciation of loyalty that their native citizens make in the American citizenship oath. Others are the off-spring of one American parent and one foreign parent, deriving citizenship from both sides, or foreign-born children adopted by American parents. Because the courts now prohibit the government from expatriating those who maintain an active citizenship in a foreign nation (some American citizens have even held public office in other countries), dual citizenship has become a fact of American life, despite statutory law.  ~  Joseph Bassette

 

Meese’s full review of the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution covers the War of 1812 and numerous Supreme Court cases, but let these facts ring loud and clear:

1)  America has never legally recognized dual citizenship, and the framers never intended for a dual national to hold the highest office in the land

2) The American judicial system has over-stepped its bounds and created fictitious laws that they had no authority to do so

3) It is a fact, that as of this day, there is no statutory law allowing for dual citizenship that has ever passed out of the US Congress

Which brings me back to THIS, a list of Congressional aactivities since 1973 to remove the term ‘natural born citizen’ from Article II and replace it with ‘citizen’ as well as Congressional aactivities to change the laws and confer natural born status on all anchor babies that would have been retroactive if passed. They were also ALL Congressional activities that all died in committee because they knew full well the public would not stand for a foreigner to become President.

Oh, wait, they didn’t need the legislation, they only needed a dumbed down public & corrupt election process.

Does it make it law? absolutely not!

Does it make it irreversible? absolutely not!

Will it ever be reversed? I pray for our Nation’s national security & sovereignty that it does.