Welcome! Jesus Christ is my LORD and Savior! Romans 10:9-10,13; John 3:16

[For EU visitors, I do not personally use cookies, but Google or any clickable link (if you choose to click on it) might. This is in compliance with mandatory EU notification]

I am a Natural Born United States Citizen with NO allegiance or citizenship to any nation but my own, and will use this site as a hobby place of sorts to present my own political and religious viewpoints, as a genuine Constitutional Conservative and a genuine Christian Conservative.

Thank you for coming.
In the Year of our LORD Jesus Christ
-- As of January 20, 2017
A Sigh Of Relief With The Inauguration Of Donald John Trump as President of the United States of America, And Hope For A Prosperous Future For All United States Citizens (we who are a nation called "the melting pot of the world"). We shall be great and exceptionally great again.

It is likely that the entries to this blog will be less frequent than in years past. I do intend to keep this blog active, and to offer insightful information and/or opinion (and sometimes humor and/or entertainment on occasion) when I do post.

Peace and Liberty. Semper Fidelis.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6, and the Natural Born Citizen essence as being born from and through the Citizen Father

John Locke was a major influence in the discussions of the Founding Fathers.  For those unfamiliar with Locke, they may either wish to first start by reading these links from Stanford University: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

or to read his works, such as the Two Treatises of Government (and others) at:

  In regards to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, those who are well familiarized with Chapter 6 of Locke's second Treatise on Government, labeled "Paternal Power", at once know what a Natural Born Citizen is...the natural product of his Citizen Father who rears the child up in his own Citizenship.  It is not from the mother, but from the father...or as Locke puts it, "of Paternal Power."

Of Paternal Power.
§. 52.
IT may perhaps be censured as an impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world: and yet possibly it may not be amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal power probably has done, which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title. This may give one reason to ask, whether this might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature and the right of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. 12. Whosoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1. is the stile of the Old and New Testament.

§. 53.
Had but this one thing been well considered, without looking any deeper into the matter, it might perhaps have kept men from running into those gross mistakes, they have made, about this power of parents; which, however it might, without any great harshness, bear the name of absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father, would yet have sounded but oddly, and in the very name shewn the absurdity, if this supposed absolute power over children had been called parental; and thereby have discovered, that it belonged to the mother too: for it will but very ill serve the turn of those men, who contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it, that the mother should have any share in it; and it would have but ill supported the monarchy they contend for, when by the very name it appeared, that that fundamental authority, from whence they would derive their government of a single person only, was not placed in one, but two persons jointly. But to let this of names pass.

§. 54.
Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.

§. 55.
Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.

§. 56.
Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.

§. 57.
The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam’s children, being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier without it, the law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.

§. 58.
The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non-age, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.

§. 59.
This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.

[Simply put: 
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.
      Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government.  In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution.  -- Brianroy]

§. 60.
But if, through defects that may happen out of the ordinary course of nature, any one comes not to such a degree of reason, wherein he might be supposed capable of knowing the law, and so living within the rules of it, he is never capable of being a free man, he is never let loose to the disposure of his own will (because he knows no bounds to it, has not understanding, its proper guide) but is continued under the tuition and government of others, all the time his own understanding is uncapable of that charge. And so lunatics and ideots are never set free from the government of their parents; children, who are not as yet come unto those years whereat they may have; and innocents which are excluded by a natural defect from ever having; thirdly, madmen, which for the present cannot possibly have the use of right reason to guide themselves, have for their guide, the reason that guideth other men which are tutors over them, to seek and procure their good for them, says Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sect. 7. All which seems no more than that duty, which God and nature has laid on man, as well as other creatures, to preserve their offspring, till they can be able to shift for themselves, and will scarce amount to an instance or proof of parents regal authority.

§. 61.
Thus we are born free, as we are born rational; not that we have actually the exercise of either: age, that brings one, brings with it the other too. And thus we see how natural freedom and subjection to parents may consist together, and are both founded on the same principle. A child is free by his father’s title, by his father’s understanding, which is to govern him till he hath it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of discretion, and the subjection of a child to his parents, whilst yet short of that age, are so consistent, and so distinguishable, that the most blinded contenders for monarchy, by right of fatherhood, cannot miss this difference; the most obstinate cannot but allow their consistency: for were their doctrine all true, were the right heir of Adam now known, and by that title settled a monarch in his throne, invested with all the absolute unlimited power Sir Robert Filmer talks of; if he should die as soon as his heir were born, must not the child, notwithstanding he were never so free, never so much sovereign, be in subjection to his mother and nurse, to tutors and governors, till age and education brought him reason and ability to govern himself and others? The necessities of his life, the health of his body, and the information of his mind, would require him to be directed by the will of others, and not his own; and yet will any one think, that this restraint and subjection were inconsistent with, or spoiled him of that liberty or sovereignty he had a right to, or gave away his empire to those who had the government of his nonage? This government over him only prepared him the better and sooner for it. If any body should ask me, when my son is of age to be free? I shall answer, just when his monarch is of age to govern. But at what time, says the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6. a man may be said to have attained so far forth the use of reason, as sufficeth to make him capable of those laws whereby he is then bound to guide his actions: this is a great deal more easy for sense to discern, than for any one by skill and learning to determine.

§. 62.
Common-wealths themselves take notice of, and allow, that there is a time when men are to begin to act like free men, and therefore till that time require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance, or other public owning of, or submission to the government of their countries.

§. 63.
The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to be free; but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched, and as much beneath that of a man, as their’s. This is that which puts the authority into the parents hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this care on their off-spring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as his wisdom designed it, to the children’s good, as long as they should need to be under it.

§. 64.
But what reason can hence advance this care of the parents due to their off-spring into an absolute arbitrary dominion of the father, whose power reaches no farther, than by such a discipline, as he finds most effectual, to give such strength and health to their bodies, such vigour and rectitude to their minds, as may best fit his children to be most useful to themselves and others; and, if it be necessary to his condition, to make them work, when they are able, for their own subsistence. But in this power the mother too has her share with the father.

§. 65.
Nay, this power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them, he loses his power over them, which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed; and it belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child, as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue; if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father. And what will become of this paternal power in that part of the world, where one woman hath more than one husband at a time? or in those parts of America, where, when the husband and wife part, which happens frequently, the children are all left to the mother, follow her, and are wholly under her care and provision? If the father die whilst the children are young, do they not naturally every where owe the same obedience to their mother, during their minority, as to their father were he alive? and will any one say, that the mother hath a legislative power over her children? that she can make standing rules, which shall be of perpetual obligation, by which they ought to regulate all the concerns of their property, and bound their liberty all the course of their lives? or can she inforce the observation of them with capital punishments? for this is the proper power of the magistrate, of which the father hath not so much as the shadow. His command over his children is but temporary, and reaches not their life or property: it is but a help to the weakness and imperfection of their nonage, a discipline necessary to their education: and though a father may dispose of his own possessions as he pleases, when his children are out of danger of perishing for want, yet his power extends not to the lives or goods, which either their own industry, or another’s bounty has made their’s; nor to their liberty neither, when they are once arrived to the infranchisement of the years of discretion. The father’s empire then ceases, and he can from thence forwards no more dispose of the liberty of his son, than that of any other man: and it must be far from an absolute or perpetual jurisdiction, from which a man may withdraw himself, having licence from divine authority to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

§. 66.
But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and command of his father, as the father himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else, and they are each under no other restraint, but that which is common to them both, whether it be the law of nature, or municipal law of their country; yet this freedom exempts not a son from that honour which he ought, by the law of God and nature, to pay his parents. God having made the parents instruments in his great design of continuing the race of mankind, and the occasions of life to their children; as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourish, preserve, and bring up their offspring; so he has laid on the children a perpetual obligation of honouring their parents, which containing in it an inward esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions, ties up the child from any thing that may ever injure or affront, disturb or endanger, the happiness or life of those from whom he received his; and engages him in all actions of defence, relief, assistance and comfort of those, by whose means he entered into being, and has been made capable of any enjoyments of life: from this obligation no state, no freedom can absolve children. But this is very far from giving parents a power of command over their children, or an authority to make laws and disposs as they please of their lives or liberties. It is one thing to owe honour, respect, gratitude and assistance; another to require an absolute obedience and submission. The honour due to parents, a monarch in his throne owes his mother; and yet this lessens not his authority, nor subjects him to her government.

§. 67.
The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government, which terminates with the minority of the child: and the honour due from a child, places in the parents a perpetual right to respect, reverence, support and compliance too, more or less, as the father’s care, cost, and kindness in his education, has been more or less. This ends not with minority, but holds in all parts and conditions of a man’s life. The want of distinguishing these two powers, viz. that which the father hath in the right of tuition, during minority, and the right of honour all his life, may perhaps have caused a great part of the mistakes about this matter: for to speak properly of them, the first of these is rather the privilege of children, and duty of parents, than any prerogative of paternal power. The nourishment and education of their children is a charge so incumbent on parents for their children’s good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it: and though the power of commanding and chastising them go along with it, yet God hath woven into the principles of human nature such a tenderness for their off-spring, that there is little fear that parents should use their power with too much rigour; the excess is seldom on the severe side, the strong byass of nature drawing the other way. And therefore God almighty when he would express his gentle dealing with the Israelites, he tells them, that though he chastened them, he chastened them as a man chastens his son, Deut. viii. 5. i. e. with tenderness and affection, and kept them under no severer discipline than what was absolutely best for them, and had been less kindness to have slackened. This is that power to which children are commanded obedience, that the pains and care of their parents may not be increased, or ill rewarded.

§. 68.
On the other side, honour and support, all that which gratitude requires to return for the benefits received by and from them, is the indispensible duty of the child, and the proper privilege of the parents. This is intended for the parents advantage, as the other is for the child’s; though education, the parents duty, seems to have most power, because the ignorance and infirmities of childhood stand in need of restraint and correction; which is a visible exercise of rule, and a kind of dominion. And that duty which is comprehended in the word honour, requires less obedience, though the obligation be stronger on grown, than younger children: for who can think the command, Children obey your parents, requires in a man, that has children of his own, the same submission to his father, as it does in his yet young children to him; and that by this precept he were bound to obey all his father’s commands, if, out of a conceit of authority, he should have the indiscretion to treat him still as a boy?

§. 69.

The first part then of paternal power, or rather duty, which is education, belongs so to the father, that it terminates at a certain season; when the business of education is over, it ceases of itself, and is also alienable before: for a man may put the tuition of his son in other hands; and he that has made his son an apprentice to another, has discharged him, during that time, of a great part of his obedience both to himself and to his mother. But all the duty of honour, the other part, remains never the less entire to them; nothing can cancel that: it is so inseparable from them both, that the father’s authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right, nor can any man discharge his son from honouring her that bore him. But both these are very far from a power to make laws, and inforcing them with penalties, that may reach estate, liberty, limbs and life. The power of commanding ends with nonage; and though, after that, honour and respect, support and defence, and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a man to, for the highest benefits he is naturally capable of, be always due from a son to his parents; yet all this puts no scepter into the father’s hand, no sovereign power of commanding. He has no dominion over his son’s property, or actions; nor any right, that his will should prescribe to his son’s in all things; however it may become his son in many things, not very inconvenient to him and his family, to pay a deference to it.

§. 70.
A man may owe honour and respect to an ancient, or wise man; desence to his child or friend; relief and support to the distressed; and gratitude to a benefactor, to such a degree, that all he has, all he can do, cannot sufficiently pay it: but all these give no authority, no right to any one, of making laws over him from whom they are owing. And it is plain, all this is due not only to the bare title of father; not only because, as has been said, it is owing to the mother too; but because these obligations to parents, and the degrees of what is required of children, may be varied by the different care and kindness, trouble and expence, which is often employed upon one child more than another.

§. 71.
This shews the reason how it comes to pass, that parents in societies, where they themselves are subjects, retain a power over their children, and have as much right to their subjection, as those who are in the state of nature. Which could not possibly be, if all political power were only paternal, and that in truth they were one and the same thing: for then, all paternal power being in the prince, the subject could naturally have none of it. But these two powers, political and paternal, are so perfectly distinct and separate; are built upon so different foundations, and given to so different ends, that every subject that is a father, has as much a paternal power over his children, as the prince has over his: and every prince, that has parents, owes them as much filial duty and obedience, as the meanest of his subjects do to their’s; and can therefore contain not any part or degree of that kind of dominion, which a prince or magistrate has over his subject.

§. 72.
Though the obligation on the parents to bring up their children, and the obligation on children to honour their parents, contain all the power on the one hand, and submission on the other, which are proper to this relation, yet there is another power ordinarily in the father, whereby he has a tie on the obedience of his children; which tho’ it be common to him with other men, yet the occasions of shewing it, almost constantly happening to fathers in their private families, and the instances of it elsewhere being rare, and less taken notice of, it passes in the world for a part of paternal jurisdiction. And this is the power men generally have to bestow their estates on those who please them best; the possession of the father being the expectation and inheritance of the children, ordinarily in certain proportions, according to the law and custom of each country; yet it is commonly in the father’s power to bestow it with a more sparing or liberal hand, according as the behaviour of this or that child hath comported with his will and humour.

§. 73.
This is no small tie on the obedience of children: and there being always annexed to the enjoyment of land, a submission to the government of the country, of which that land is a part; it has been commonly supposed, that a father could oblige his posterity to that government, of which he himself was a subject, and that his compact held them; whereas, it being only a necessary condition annexed to the land, and the inheritance of an estate which is under that government, reaches only those who will take it on that condition, and so is no natural tie or engagement, but a voluntary submission: for every man’s children being by nature as free as himself, or any of his ancestors ever were, may, whilst they are in that freedom, choose what society they will join themselves to, what common-wealth they will put themselves under. But if they will enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they must take it on the same terms their ancestors had it, and submit to all the conditions annexed to such a possession. By this power indeed fathers oblige their children to obedience to themselves, even when they are past minority, and most commonly too subject them to this or that political power: but neither of these by any peculiar right of fatherhood, but by the reward they have in their hands to inforce and recompence such a compliance; and is no more power than what a French man has over an English man, who by the hopes of an estate he will leave him, will certainly have a strong tie on his obedience: and if, when it is left him, he will enjoy it, he must certainly take it upon the conditions annexed to the possession of land in that country where it lies, whether it be France or England.

§. 74.
To conclude then, tho’ the father’s power of commanding extends no farther than the minority of his children, and to a degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age; and tho’ that honour and respect, and all that which the Latins called piety, which they indispensibly owe to their parents all their life-time, and in all estates, with all that support and defence is due to them, gives the father no power of governing, i. e. making laws and enacting penalties on his children; though by all this he has no dominion over the property or actions of his son: yet it is obvious to conceive how easy it was, in the first ages of the world, and in places still, where the thinness of people gives families leave to separate into unpossessed quarters, and they have room to remove or plant themselves in yet vacant habitations, for the father of the family to become the prince of* it; he had been a ruler from the beginning of the infancy of his children: and since without some government it would be hard for them to live together, it was likeliest it should, by the express or tacit consent of the children when they were grown up, be in the father, where it seemed without any change barely to continue; when indeed nothing more was required to it, than the permitting the father to exercise alone, in his family, that executive power of the law of nature, which every free man naturally hath, and by that permission resigning up to him a monarchical power, whilst they remained in it. But that this was not by any paternal right, but only by the consent of his children, is evident from hence, that no body doubts, but if a stranger, whom chance or business had brought to his family, had there killed any of his children, or committed any other fact, he might condemn and put him to death, or otherwise have punished him, as well as any of his children; which it was impossible he should do by virtue of any paternal authority over one who was not his child, but by virtue of that executive power of the law of nature, which, as a man, he had a right to: and he alone could punish him in his family, where the respect of his children had laid by the exercise of such a power, to give way to the dignity and authority they were willing should remain in him, above the rest of his family.

§. 75.
Thus it was easy, and almost natural for children, by a tacit, and scarce avoidable consent, to make way for the father’s authority and government. They had been accustomed in their childhood to follow his direction, and to refer their little differences to him; and when they were men, who fitter to rule them? Their little properties, and less covetousness, seldom afforded greater controversies; and when any should arise, where could they have a fitter umpire than he, by whose care they had every one been sustained and brought up, and who had a tenderness for them all? It is no wonder that they made no distinction betwixt minority and full age; nor looked after one and twenty, or any other age that might make them the free disposers of themselves and fortunes, when they could have no desire to be out of their pupilage: the government they had been under, during it, continued still to be more their protection than restraint; and they could no where find a greater security to their peace, liberties, and fortunes, than in the rule of a father.

§. 76.
Thus the natural fathers of families, by an insensible change, became the politic monarchs of them too: and as they chanced to live long, and leave able and worthy heirs, for several successions, or otherwise; so they laid the foundations of hereditary, or elective kingdoms, under several constitutions and mannors, according as chance, contrivance, or occasions happened to mould them. But if princes have their titles in their fathers right, and it be a sufficient proof of the natural right of fathers to political authority, because they commonly were those in whose hands we find, de facto, the exercise of government: I say, if this argument be good, it will as strongly prove, that all princes, nay princes only, ought to be priests, since it is as certain, that in the beginning, the father of the family was priest, as that he was ruler n his own houshold.

[* ]It is no improbable opinion therefore, which the archphilosopher was of, that the chief person in every houshold was always, as it were, a king: so when numbers of housholds joined themselves in civil societies together, kings were the first kind of governors amongst them, which is also, as it seemeth, the reason why the name of fathers continued still in them, who, of fathers, were made rulers; as also the ancient custom of governors to do as Melchizedec, and being kings, to exercise the office of priests, which fathers did at the first, grew perhaps by the same occasion. Howbeit, this is not the only kind of regiment that has been received in the world. The inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry others to be devised; so that in a word, all public regiment, of what kind soever, seemeth evidently to have risen from the deliberate advice, consultation and composition between men, judging it convenient and behoveful; there being no impossibility in nature considered by itself, but that man might have lived without: any public regiment, Hooker’s Eccl. P. lib. i. sect. 10.

Thus we see that in this Second Treatise of John Locke's, John Locke informs us of that natural process by which a child is born into society naturally. 
The Mother brings the seed of her head of the marriage and family she has joined to by vows, the husband (who thereby becomes a father).  The Mother brings the seed of that husband into this world by G-D's design as a human, and the Father of that same child is thus charged in Nature (and hence by G-D the Creator of all things, including Nature/Creation)  with rearing him up into a natural and productive member of society. He, the natural born child, is clearly inferred to be born to the same land and governance as that of his father

Again, we may confidently conclude that in the minds of the framers of the US Constitution who most all would have studied and discussed and incorporated this chapter of Locke, that a "natural born citizen" is he who is born in the country of or the same dominion as that of his father, and is instilled with the love of country, ability to reason, and loyalty / legience to that same government as that of his father -- as though inherited from his father.  The child inherits a membership into that same society of his father and then takes his place in society when he matures, so that when the father dies off, his genus is naturally extended both in Nature and in Government.  At the age of 21, the child of the Father, being a natural born citizen, thereby enters into the same society - land dominions and Government of his father as a participating citizen of society (paying his taxes, voting, adding to the general welfare, etc.). 

Again, the Citizen Child is born without the ability to reason until his Citizen Father instills the ability to reason as a citizen of that same Government he was born into, into the mind processes of the child. Once the child has matured, he enters into society as a natural citizen extension of the father, so that even as in nature, as we can infer from the extended argument made from Locke, that if the parent were to die off, there is an offspring having the ability to reproduce with "seed" who is able both to plant and to rule in the government of his household after the same genus as that of the Citizen Father (now grandfather) and to carry on. Thus the merging of Nature (G-D's Creation) and Citizenship into the phrase of what constitutes "Natural Born Citizenship" to the Founding Fathers, who were taught this principle for the entirety of the 1700s until they wrote the US Constitution's "Natural Born Clause".

There is no way in hell or on Earth that Barack Obama can ever be truthfully declared a United States Natural Born Citizen, or US Constitutionally eligible because of the Natural Born Citizen Clause of Article 2.1 of the US Constitution. The Left and other Obama supporters or justifiers instead of being honest and transparent so as to debate US Supreme Court and Constitutional Law on Cases, Merits and Facts, instead always would rather resort to (on their part) ever having to lie, excuse, obscure, cover up, and attack the messenger in order to justify Barack Obama's unConstitutional usurpation of the Office of the United States Presidency. Go figure
[[[[Addendum,  Update: added January 13, 2011

Thomas Hobbes, former secretary to Francis Bacon, was also discussed in the Colonies amongst the Founding Fathers, and his work Levithan is still extant for us to read as well. In regards to Nature and Civil Law, as well as that of Paternal Power, I refer to two portions of that work:

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

Chapter 26: Of Civill Lawes
The Law Of Nature, And The Civill Law Contain Each Other

4. The Law of Nature, and the Civill Law, contain each other, and are of equall extent. For the Lawes of Nature, which consist in Equity, Justice, Gratitude, and other morall Vertues on these depending, in the condition of meer Nature (as I have said before in the end of the 15th Chapter,) are not properly Lawes, but qualities that dispose men to peace, and to obedience. When a Common-wealth is once settled, then are they actually Lawes, and not before; as being then the commands of the Common-wealth; and therefore also Civill Lawes: for it is the Soveraign Power that obliges men to obey them. For in the differences of private men, to declare, what is Equity, what is Justice, and what is morall Vertue, and to make them binding, there is need of the Ordinances of Soveraign Power, and Punishments to be ordained for such as shall break them; which Ordinances are therefore part of the Civill Law. The Law of Nature therefore is a part of the Civill Law in all Common-wealths of the world. Reciprocally also, the Civill Law is a part of the Dictates of Nature. For Justice, that is to say, Performance of Covenant, and giving to every man his own, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature. But every subject in a Common-wealth, hath covenanted to obey the Civill Law, (either one with another, as when they assemble to make a common Representative, or with the Representative it selfe one by one, when subdued by the Sword they promise obedience, that they may receive life And therefore Obedience to the Civill Law is part also of the Law of Nature. Civill, and Naturall Law are not different kinds, but different parts of Law; whereof one part being written, is called Civill, the other unwritten, Naturall. But the Right of Nature, that is, the naturall Liberty of man, may by the Civill Law be abridged, and restrained: nay, the end of making Lawes, is no other, but such Restraint; without the which there cannot possibly be any Peace. And Law was brought into the world for nothing else, but to limit the naturall liberty of particular men, in such manner, as they might not hurt, but assist one another, and joyn together against a common Enemy.

Chapter 30: Of the Office of the Soveraign Representative
And To Honour Their Parents
And because the first instruction of Children, dependeth on the care of their Parents; it is necessary that they should be obedient to them, whilest they are under their tuition; and not onely so, but that also afterwards (as gratitude requireth,) they acknowledge the benefit of their education, by externall signes of honour. To which end they are to be taught, that originally the Father of every man was also his Soveraign Lord, with power over him of life and death; and that the Fathers of families, when by instituting a Common-wealth, they resigned that absolute Power, yet it was never intended, they should lose the honour due unto them for their education. For to relinquish such right, was not necessary to the Institution of Soveraign Power; nor would there be any reason, why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish, and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them, than from other men. And this accordeth with the fifth Commandement.

As I have previously noted, in 1651 the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1651 was recognized in a Treaty with Great Britain, and from that time forth, America's Colonies, though many Common-wealth and Colonies of Great Britain, began to be distinctive in its operation, coarse, and laws. However, America mirrored Britain in many of its reasoning processes, and adapted those processes to a unique monarchy-free society.

With the signing of the Virginia Treaty of March 12, 1651, when the Virginia Colony’s House of Burgesses entered into a Free Trade Treaty (et al.) with Great Britain (cf. Thomas Jefferson’s “A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA”), America's legal relationship was by precedent established as distinctively unique from those laws (including those Common Laws) that governed the United Kingdom and other English citizens and subjects, and this all began (as Jefferson recorded for us to know) with the unique Treaty and political experience between the Virginia House of Burgesses and England in 1651. Natural and Divine Law merged in Christian Interpretation in the American Experience of Jurisprudence -- Rector, etc. of Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 456 (1892); School District of Abington TP. V. Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 US 677 (2005) -- to such an extent that we must include such a perspective as true Founder's Intent and Founders' Constitutional Originalism.

From America's beginnings, just 16 years after the mass migrations to this part of the New World began, Massachusetts in 1646, and other of America’s Colonies instituted Natural and Divine Law to supplement and fill in where Magna Charta (et al. Constitutional) and Common Law allowed. This was retained up and until the times of the Declaration of Independence and a year before the drafting of the US Constitution.
By examples:
The Constitution of Vermont, July 4, 1786 @ 2.12 and the Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776 @ 2.10 requires all its representatives to swear they "acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration...." The Constitution of Delaware; September 21, 1776 @ Article 22 requires its representatives to swear: " I, A B. do profess faith in G-D the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one G-D, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

In relation to the modern issue at hand, as to the Natural Born Citizen  Clause, the argument needs to change direction now to the acknowledgement and admonition that Paternal Power was a recognized fact in US Civil Laws to well after Barack Obama was born. With the rise of Women's Liberation, only after Obama was born and from the latter 1960s and well into the 70's, the pre-eminent place of the father in the home was only then decimated in US Society.

Barack Obama is accepted to have been born in August of 1961, although there is no hard copy proof, hospital records, or witnesses to the birth to say that he was. Until his original Long Form Hospital Birth Records are released, he could be accused of being born in June or July of 1961, and he could not sue for libel about it because he has intentionally hid his records contrary to 333 US 640 @ 653 and 533 US 53 @ 54,62. By Law he is required to produce such proof of birth identity with hospital records and witnesses to the birth. It is a fact of law that Barack Obama has never been legally vetted according to what the US Supreme Court requires.

Only 2 US Supreme Court Justices are currently (as of January 2011) willing to examine the issue. 

I have 51 Cases to cite before the US Supreme Court by which the Obama usurpation is taken apart at the seems and exposed for the Criminal Action to violating the NBC Clause of the US Constitution, and I may yet include a half dozen more  (not to mention the dozens of the CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & STATUTES & the Miscellaneous that would have to be summarized in a 10,000 word or less brief).  If any one had just petitioned a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari with the intro citation of these below listed US  Supreme Court Cases alone, I believe we may have had not only the required 4 Justices to proceed, but perhaps 5.  Further any successful acceptance of the Petition must be followed with another addendum  petition that Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves based on legal prejudice, etc. 

Current Table of Authorities for citation in future US Supreme Court Brief

Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)…………………………………………#

American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (1932)………………#

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 @ 204 (1962)………………………………..#

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)…………………#

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)………..#

Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948)………………………………….#

Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948) ...#

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)……………………………………………..#

Dames & Moore v. Regan , 453 U.S. 654, (1981)
District of Columbia v. Heller  ...US...  (2008)…………………#

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1856)…………………………………..#

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)………………..#

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) ……………………………………...#

Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)…………………………………..#

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)………………..#

Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New

York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)……………………………..#

Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)……………..#

Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)…………………………#

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 550 (1992)………………..#

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913)……………………………….#

Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)………………….#

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)……………………………..#

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)……………...#

Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1874)………………………………….#

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)……………………………..#

Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915)  …………#

Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001)………………………………….#

Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)…………………………………#

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)……………………………………..#

Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) …………..#

Reid. v. Colvert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)………………………………………….#

School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963) ……..#

Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)…………………………………#

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)…………………………..#

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent……………..#

Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 (1888)...........#

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)………………………………….#

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)…………….#

Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)……………………………………#

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)…………..#

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)………………………………………….#

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)…………………#

United States v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)……………………………#

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)………….#

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans

United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)………..#

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)…………………………………#

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)……………………………..#

Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)……………………………..#

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)….#

In the mean time, we must continue on a greater in depth understanding on this, until we reignite a new era of enlightenment in the consciousness of the American People, and rediscover what our founders knew at the time the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution was written and ratified.

End of update 01/13/2011 ]]]]]  


  1. And if Obama Sr. is not his biological father?

    His original BC has been amended...we cannot possibly know what it said originally, so we really don't know who his biological mother and father are.

    He very well could be a NBC, elected under false pretenses, which is just as bad, if not worse.

  2. Then, irregardless, Obama gets Watergated and imprisoned for fraud and a host of other violations. If his original isn't available, and has been tampered with, the Courts must accept his prior testimony and auto-biographical that he is the son of a foreign national who was always a foreign national citizen of Kenya and the lands of Kenya. Obama has NO wiggle room. He cannot be accepted at his word when caught in a lie of this magnitude that he is anything other than UNQUALIFIED Constitutionally. In time of war he can legally and peacefully be sentenced to execution under existing US Law BY THE US SUPREME COURT, because lacking a legal right to be President, it falls into an entirely different category as one of espionage and criminal action of a civilian sort that the Impeachment clause does not protect him from. That level of severity, however, is for the COURTS to decide and pass judgment on, not by anyone else. So if the Leftists spin this out of control and lie about this, I have grounds to sue them for libel.

    The Senate cannot Impeach by technicality, and would have to appoint a special prosecutor to act as Plaintiff, after using the 25th Amendment Section 4 (et al.)to install a new President and Vice President as they once did with Ford and Rockefeller. But as with Nixon, he, Obama, will likely be pardoned by whomever the Senate would install before any lawsuit can be brought to bear by any special prosecutor.

    In regard to Obama, his pardon upon any resignation would be at the insistance of being necessary to the preventing mass nation-wide riots. I do not doubt it would be granted.

    Obama could have been disqualified while President-elect in a use of Amendment 20 section 3 which allows for the President-elect who failed to qualify. That means, someone doesn't have to pass away by natural causes or an accident or something...they could be found out as unqualified, and then the Vice President becomes the "President Elect" or Congress could have nullified both candidates and put it to a vote as to who then shall act as President.

    In effect, in post-November 4th of 2008 to pre-January 20th of 2009, the US Senate could have disqualified both Obama and Biden (Biden under collusion)and installed Hillary Clinton as President with a John McCain Vice-Presidency and been entirely within the Law.

    I have maintained that Obama should be legally and peacefully prosecuted, covicted, and sentenced to be super-maxed for the remainder of his life, with no visitation or communication rights whatsoever, held in isolation and solitary confinement until the day he dies (however many decades are left in him to live).

    I also would amend that, and require that he would be beyond the possibility of any pardon, Presidential or otherwise, at any time in the future. His sin on a US National scale is that gross, heinous, and nationally unforgiveable...but again, it is up to the Courts to legally and peacefully make that determination as well.

    While Christ may forgive his soul if he repents, and we can forgive on that level as well, his physical actions and deeds and the extent of his conspiracy demands he be legally and peacefully areested, tried, convicted, and denounced as the greatest traitor ever in the annals of US History.

    These are absolutely legal free speech utterances that mean no physical harm to the man, nor advocate such. I only advocate that the US Constitution be followed in its entirety by the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Branches of United States Government without respect of persons, be it under any category that unprotected exceptionalism be made...whether they be by excusing him for race, or his creed, or his religion, etc.

    "Without respect of persons" means exactly that, and applies equally if Jindal or any unqualified Republican seeks the office of the Presidency as well...they should be soundly rejected.