By J.B. Williams
January 16, 2016
The 2008 Obama event caused people to start learning about what a natural born Citizen (NBC) is and why that condition for the Oval Office exists in Article II -- who is and who isn’t a natural born Citizen and the focus of the discussion was entirely upon who can and cannot seek or occupy the White House.
The political focus point caused two important problems... 1) overlooking the more important issues surrounding NBC, the Natural Right of every child to be born a true citizen of the country of their father, due to no process of man-made law, and 2) everything regarding politics immediately becomes open for debate due to competing agendas, the driving force behind most people’s “facts” .... instead of allowing the real facts to drive the agenda.
The result has been an endless debate over NBC wherein there are now five competing definitions of those three very simple English words and people are searching the four corners of the earth, all of history and every law school to find the definition that suits their agenda....
The five competing definitions
#1 – The Original Meaning – Synonymous with the term “True Citizen” in Natural Law, a Christian bible based concept of Natural Law and Natural Rights in a patriarchal society wherein all rights pass from natural birth father to child at birth. This is the Vattel definition, and The Law of Nations is only political in the sense that it is a highly regarded treatise on the subject of Natural Law and the effects of Natural Law on nations, people and governments. (Part I – How natural-born Citizen came to appear in Article II and Part II – What the Founders meant by natural-born Citizen as a matter of history)
“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.”
#2 – The Textual meaning – the words have the meaning of their face value, based upon the common use of the words at the time the words were used, in this case ratified. natural+born+Citizen, someone who is a legal member of society, at the moment of birth, as a result of nature alone. – (If one is a legal member of society only due to an act of legislation or governmental policy, they are a citizen via act, statute or government policy, and not by nature alone. One made a legal member of society by any act of government is a “naturalized” citizen.) In this case, the textual and original meaning are fully aligned.
#3 – The “birther” definition – “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The “birther” movement chose this single sentence from Vattel because the “jus soli” (born in country) part was what they needed to challenge John McCain in 2008. The focus on John McCain is what took focus off of Barack Obama and allowed someone who is NOT a NBC to enter the White House while all eyes were on McCain, who is a NBC by any reasonable definition or intent. The U.S. Senate issued a 99-0 resolution affirming McCain, but no such resolution was sought for Obama, who cannot pass the McCain resolution statements. The “birthers” are of the opinion that even though this definition is not the original definition, and to some degree, is at odds with the original meaning and textual meaning, it none the less represents the “Founders intent” to eliminate any foreign influence from the office of Commander-in-Chief, in accordance with John Jay’s stated reasoning for proposing the requirement be added. They want no foreign influence, from the father, the mother or the place of birth. Not Vattel’s definition as “birthers” claim, but not an unreasonable view either. (The definition Cruz invented to attack Trump in the last RNC Debate is used by no one except Cruz. Ted created a sixth definition to suit his agenda, an outlandish extension of the “birther” definition.)
#4 – The Trump and Rubio definition – native born is natural born. This is one of two 14th Naturalization Amendment views, in which the claim is made that one must be born on US soil, aka “native born” in order to be a natural born Citizen, without any regard for parentage. Marco Rubio was born in the USA, but to two Cuban citizens who did not become legal US citizens until years after Marco’s birth. This is a 14th anchor baby, a native born citizen due only to US government policies on the naturalization of foreign children born on US soil. (Trump made a technical mistake during the exchange with Cruz because he has a poor understanding of native vs. natural born, maybe by intent.)
#5 – The Progressive definition, aka common law interpretation – (the second 14th Naturalization view) Common Law is the practice of making, amending or overriding constitutional and statute law via court precedence or scholarly opinions. We just watched this happen in real time on the term “marriage” as the high court issued a 5-4 opinion that the 14th Amendment protects the right of gays to marry, thereby altering the definition of “marriage” from what it has meant since the beginning of recorded history to what the gay community and globalists want it to mean today. This is the same practice being employed by “legal experts” on both sides of the political aisle as we speak, to eliminate the NBC requirement for the Oval Office by simply using common law precedence to redefine the term to suit. This effort ends with no distinction between natural born, native born, naturalized and undocumented citizens from foreign lands. ALL of them will be NBCs when the “legal experts” are finished here, including “undocumented migrants and Middle East refugees.”
How else to you eliminate U.S. national sovereignty and meld the USA into the global commune, unless people from all over the world can occupy the Oval Office?
When Ted Cruz was running for the Senate in 2012, he stated to supporters at a Texas 912 campaign event that he was “NOT ELIGIBLE for the White House because (using NBC #3 above) his father was never a US citizen until 2005, in addition to being born in Canada.”
The problem isn’t really that Ted was “born in Canada.” The problem is, Ted was “born Canadian.” A legal citizen of Canada from birth until he decided to run for the Oval Office in May 2014, when he renounced his birthright citizenship to Canada. Ted Cruz has NO authentic US documentation of any form of legal US citizenship. Ted is an “undocumented citizen” of the USA, no different than millions of “undocumented citizens” residing in the USA today.
Of course, by definition, a “constitutionalist” is a “constitutional originalist.” Anyone who buys “precedence” and “modern interpretations” as a method of interpreting the Constitution or Bill of Rights, is NOT a “constitutionalist.”
Now, we no more need “legal experts” to tell us what natural born Citizen means, than what daylight and dark mean. The answer to both questions are obvious and self-evident. In both cases, the words mean exactly what they suggest…
The difference between natural born Citizen and every other type of citizen under U.S. law, is as obvious as the difference between daylight and dark.
Only when one seeks to alter the original and textual meaning of the term does the term become “ambiguous” and then, open to competing interpretations and debate. Only when one is willing to use very broad progressive interpretations of constitutional text, in order to slip their candidate through the key hole to the Oval Office, does the matter become confusing, by intent.
Whether or not RNC talkers Levin, Hannity, Kelly and Limbaugh have any honest clue what a natural born Citizen is, Obama, Cruz and Rubio, as well as many others “trained in the law” do know, which means they are not just mistaken, they are frauds actively working to subvert the Constitutional requirements for high office.
However, upholding, defending, protecting and preserving the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all foundational Rights of the American citizenry requires us to enforce the letter of the Constitution, based on the original meaning and Founders intent at the time of the adoption…
Anything less is an effort to undermine and subvert the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, the result of which will be the loss of all constitutionally protected natural rights, as endowed by our Creator… and mistake of grave consequences that reach far beyond the political ambitions of both candidates and constituents.
We only have the Foundations we are willing to uphold and enforce… When the people become as corrupt as their politicians, there is no hope for America… Are we there now?
© 2016 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
JB Williams is a writer on matters of history and American politics with more than 3000 pieces published over a twenty-year span. He has a decidedly conservative reverence for the Charters of Freedom, the men and women who have paid the price of freedom and liberty for all, and action oriented real-time solutions for modern challenges. He is a Christian, a husband, a father, a researcher, writer and a business owner. He is co-founder of action organizations The United States Patriots Union, a civilian parent organization for The Veteran Defenders of America. He is also co-founder of The North American Law Center, a citizen run investigative legal research and activism organization preparing to take on American's greatest legal battles. Williams receives mail at: email@example.com
Web site 1: www.PatriotsUnion.org
Web site 2: www.VeteranDefenders.org
Let's clear up something first, I am not Jewish, I grew up in a Christian environment, Grandfathers were deacons in their respective denominations, great grand-father was a pastor. I accepted Jesus as my Savior at 15-1/2 and left my faith at 21, spent the next 25 years trying to prove that all religions led to God, ended up broken by alcoholism and some short term drug addictions. Miraculously YHVH (God) saved me from death and brought me to His Son, Yeshua, the one Christians call Jesus. I spent a few years researching the thoughts YHVH put in my mind and I soon discovered numerous errors in Christianity (Sunday Sabbath, Christmas, Easter, pre-trib rapture, Trinitarianism, etc.) I discovered the Hebraic perspective of the "faith once for all delivered". Judaism rejects Jesus because of what Christianity has done to the Jewish people and the "three-in-one God", which contradicts clear Biblical teaching, Sabbath replacement. (Jesus/ Yeshua was Jewish.) As for Bible translations, all have human translational errors, usually because of Doctrinal issues versus Scriptural Truths. I study every translation necessary to gain a true Spiritual understanding (some translations are in serious error, some minor), even the KJV, which is based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate (authorized by the Harlot Roman Catholic Church) has errors, especially referring to Easter (the pagan feast of Ishtar) as the time when Herod intended to kill Peter. Christmas is the pagan celebration of the re-birth of the Roman sun-god Sol Invictus (having a false god before the Creator God, YHVH). This nation has rejected YHVH (banned prayer in schools and many public places, legalized murder (abortion) allows abominations (homosexuality) and Christians have the gall to demand "God bless America"? We are in tribulation, at the doorway of the Great Tribulation, which all alive will go through, Christian, Jew, Moslem, Buddhist, atheist, etc. As for me and my house, we will serve and worship and follow YHVH, the Creator of all things, you choose for yourself whom you wish to follow. Heavenly blessings and Shalom aleikhem (may peace be upon you).
Good ay to you freedomfighter! Some time back another forum member and I had a similar exchange, and Old Rooster asked us to refrain from that as this forum was for another matter. I respect that and comply as much as possible but you have proven to be more level headed and respectful than that other member. YHVH is the correct transliteration of the Name given Moses (Genesis 3:10-22). The word "god" is a generic term used by men through tradition. The name Jesus is the transliteration of the Greek Ieusos but Yeshua is a Hebrew word which means "God is Salvation" or God's Salvation", which either is Scripturally correct. the words Messiah and Christ both mean "Anointed One", (the first is derived from Hebrew and the latter from Greek, Yeshua/ Jesus was a Hebrew, of the tribe of Judah (the modern Jewish people), He was not Greek nor Roman). We are free to worship YHVH any day we wish but He set aside one day a week for us to rest from our labors and that day was the Sabbath (Shabat), and is the 4th of The Ten Commandments. In ancient Israel breaking the Sabbath was punishable by death (stoning). Since YHVH never changes why do you tempt Him by not observing one of His Commandments? If you wish to have this debate you are free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and we can exchange thoughts, in the mean time visit this web site of a ministry I am a part of, read some of the many articles there and if you have any questions email the owner of that web site (his email is on the home page), that web site can be found at http://seedofabraham.net I believe you will be blessed and enlightened if you would visit with a cautious mind-set as the Bereans were in Paul's days (Acts 15:10-12). So you believe in a mid-tribulation Rapture, okay, I believe we will be gathered to Him at His (Yeshua/ Jesus) return/ Final Coming when He rules God's Kingdom for 1,000 years and then this earth will melt away and the new Jerusalem will descend from heaven and we will inhabit a new heaven and earth in glorified bodies, forever with YHVH (God the Father), Yeshua (the Son of YHVH) and the Spirit of YHVH (Holy Spirit) to guide us into all Truth's. Have a blessed day, I gotta go make my days wages and hope to read an email from you soon.
Michael, you ARE that other forum member I was referring to. My email address and the site of which I am a member of, and a licensed minister through, is there for your use. The Trinity doctrine which came into the early Church has it's roots in Gnosticism. If you wish to debate and explore the matter, use the referred website and my email address for such matters. "Our fathers have inherited lies", that's from one of the OT Prophets. Bet you don't know which one? And I am not familiar with Michael Serventus.
Lee, Begin reading in the 13 chapter of Jeremiah, KJV, to explain the verse you mentioned, Jeremiah 16:19. God was chastising the land and people, for their disobedience to his word, the worship of Idols, and giving in to the lusts of the flesh.
The Gentiles, as it says clearly, and my Refuge ( a sheltered or protected state safe from something threatening, harmful, or unpleasant)
in the day of affliction, SHALL come to thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is not profit. Profit is not something in any manner sanctioned by God. They were accusing their fathers for the iniquity which God was pouring out upon the land, because of that disobedience of themselves.
God says as much, in Jeremiah 21, when he said 16:21 therefore, behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know mine hand and my might; and they shall know that my name is THE LORD.
When a part of a verse is quoted, to make a particular point, one has to read back, and even sometimes forward in that book, to find why what is said, is said.
Gnosticism? Did you actually say the Trinity was born of Gnosticism?, here is one clarification of what that word actually means
early religion: a pre-Christian and early Christian religious movement teaching that salvation comes by learning esoteric spiritual truths that free humanity from the material world, believed in this movement to be evil. The Trinity is mentioned in the Christian Bible multiple times, as I have shown you previously. So how is it even possible for the belief to be pre-Christian?.
The Bible, the Christian Bible, was written through the words of God’s angels to the various writers, through God’s own words, some several thousand years ago. The Bible is true, although many say interpretation-ally, it has been erred, or miscopied.
You say you actually at one time studied Christianity, then you have exhaustively studied the Bible, to come to any conclusion concerning it. How is it possible, if the Bible is in error, have hundreds of Prophecies told 2-3,000 years ago, which have actually been fulfilled in a completely timely manner, 100% accurate, be a eroded, or errored document?. There is NO book written, NO prophet predictions, other than that of the Bible which can claim 100% accuracy. Tell me I am absolutely wrong, and I will bow to your beliefs for you, but I am happy and most content in my own salvation. I know where I will go, when Jesus RETURNS in the clouds with the sound of trumpets, and the loud voices of angels proclaiming his return.
I hope you have as much faith in your own doctrine, and belief that you will actually see Heaven, When the asleep in Christ, then those who remain alive in him, are called to his side to live with him forevermore. I have asked you twice, which version, or Bible, or Book you use, but have not yet received a reply. Do you have a Bible you follow in your faith?.
This will be my last post on this thread, concerning Religion. The subject matter of the original article has been bypassed, in favor of Biblical theology, inter faith, and multi flavored doctrine. I cannot possibly email you, personally, and let you as a get my true Email Address. Some things in life are classified to eyes only.
I know the Trinity Doctrine, as explained by Christendom, was born of Gnosticism. You won't die and go to heaven, you will die and be resurrected, and stand to be judged as worthy or unworthy to be in the Kingdom of God, which will replace the present earth. I hope you would take the time to explore the website I sent the link for.
Whatever Michael. Probably best we ignore one another as I don't deal with self-righteous CHINO's
You all go on with your fascination with this shiny object keeping all of you distracted from the real issues that threaten U. S. National Security, but Rome is burning and we have ALLOWED ONE IS NOT EVEN PROVED ANY KIND OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE WHITE HOUSE FOR 7+ YEARS.
MARK LEVIN has stated this so eloquently and clearly and SO MANY of the electorate in the country has not the first clue of these facts , so all this prattle is wasted when it could be spent on what is REALLY CONFRONTING US AS A NATION. WE ARE FACING ENEMIES FAR WORSE THAN THE COMMUNISM OF THE COLD WAR ERA.
I HOPE YOU ALL GET A GRIP SOON.