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, May 4, 2011

In regard to the Natural Born Citizen Issue: clarifications.

No Person except a Natural Born Citizen,
...shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution 2.1.5

[Note:  Just a quick addendum reminder. 
This post was created as an extension of 

The Obligatory Literal Definition of a Natural Born Citizen as Defined by the US Constitution posted on Sunday February 27, 2011 and updated on March 17, 2011 at 


-- Thanks.  -- Brianroy 01/13/2012]

I hold to the view that from July 04, 1776 to May 24, 1934, a United States Natural Born Citizen derived a "Natural Born Citizen" status via / through the father only, the father naturalizing the wife by marriage.   The requirement to be US Soil born as part of the Natural Born Status was solidified with the clause of the 14th Amendment section 1's "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" regarding having a State of the United States  Citizenship at the time of birth.  As of May 25, 1934, to present day, "natural born citizens of the United States" have both a US Citizen Father and US Citizen Mother of legal age at the time of birth,  and were born on US Soil, have a State of the United States Citizenship at the time of birth as well. 

That is MY position.  Whether others will agree or disagree beforehand or after thoughtful consideration and careful analysis is for them to decide.  I believe that my view as disclosed above would majority convince the United States Supreme Court in a question and answer session before them.

{Updated on May 7, 2011 at point 8  -- Brianroy}

Back on November 27, 2010, I posted these 6 Questions that should be posed in debating the Constitutionalism regarding the Natural Born Citizen Requirement to the Office of the US Presidency, inclusive of what motivated the "Where's the Birth Certificate?" issue.

"Birther" Challenge Questions to be posed to the US Supreme Court

1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law or not?

2. Is the requirement of presenting an identification of person, and proof of birth to follow 533 US 53 @ 54 and 62 Nguyen v. INS (2001) in which both hospital records of where born and witnesses to the birth, be a partial fulfillment of 333 US 640 @ 653, in which the Court would recognize such certification as rising to the level of a jus soli claim for High Federal Office?

3. Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.4. (now 2.1.5) in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole legience to the United States at birth?

4. Does a Natural Born legience follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child's father at birth or not?

5. Is the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel -- even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using "natural born citizen" in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel?

6. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where "every word
[of the US Constitution] must have its due force" active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.4 (now Article 2.1.5)  "natural born citizen" clause or not?


No Person except a Natural Born Citizen,
...shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution 2.1.5

In 1787, a US Citizen eligible to be President was officially recognized as a male Citizen at the age of 21 years old. The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen". In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.

From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

The Act of 1795 taught us that the Founder's Intent was that "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) only born to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth who had only one nationality and legience at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.

The Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), clarified later as Revised Statute 1993 stated:
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

In other words as 1787 to 1934 (which the act of 1855, later as Revised Statute/R.S. 1993 governed until May 25, 1934):
1) Children born to a US Citizen father outside the US = US Citizen
2) Children born to a US Citizen Father inside the limits of the US = US Natural Born Citizen
3) The presumption of the US Citizen Father is that he is age 21 or older at the time of the child's birth.

On July 28, 1868, a mandatory state residency and sole allegiance to the United States was specified as a requirement in the US Constitution.

John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639, states:

“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.

Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on the House floor:
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. So states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866

"The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was...to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

"It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102, 103

With the inclusion of the 14th Amendment into the Constitutional language and intent, in specificity Section 1's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in order to be a US Natural Born Citizen under Constitutional Originalism: 1) Children must be born to a US Citizen Father 
2) Be born in the United States
3) Reside perpetually in the United States to age 21. 
4) Never at any time owe any allegiance to any alien power.

As it regards the Constitution and the obligatory intent of the Natural Born Citizen clause, there evolved one more requirement, that of a US Citizen Mother (as well as that of a US Citizen Father) at the time of birth.

With the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution on August 26, 1920, stating,
"the right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
increased the obligatory Constitutional Requirements on those aspiring to be President of the United States, as defined by the parameters set forth by the United States Constitution.

With the 1920 ratified 19th Amendment, and the ensuing Act of May 24, 1934, in order to be qualify as a "natural born citizen" in order to be President, a person within the defining parameters of the US Constitution (Article 2.1.5, the 14th and 19th Amendments) needs to:
a) Be born to BOTH a 21 year old or older US Citizen Father plus be born to a 21 year old or older US Citizen Mother. 
b) Be born on United States soil within a US State
c) Be absent of any dual or multi-citizen nationalities and /or allegiances at birth. 

In 1961:
a) Barack Hussein Obama II was born to an alien national father of foreign citizenship and foreign allegiances.

b) Barack Hussein Obama II acquired a British / United Kingdom Citizenship at birth.
…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.” 

c) Barack Hussein Obama II would maintain foreign multiple citizenships other than to the United States to at least his entire Age 22, never renouncing them officially.

Joyce v. D.P.P. seems relevant v. Obama regarding his passport issue and his British Commonwealth citizenship.

Of significance in the Joyce v. D.P.P. case, beyond the fact that it is the Father's Citizenship that confers a "natural born status", is the "passport" issue. It was argued by the defense @355
“Apart from the Naturalization Act, 1870, the general principle still holds good. Nemo potest exuere patriam. Nothing a man does can make him a British subject and nothing he can omit to do can prevent him from being a British subject if he was so born.”

De facto and de jure, at birth, even the Brits must admit that under their own laws, and International interpretation, that it is of necessity that Obama’s Father transfers a de facto British Commonwealth Citizenship of the territories of Britain legience to Barack II, so that not only is Barack II a British Commonwealth Citizen (of the territory, and then nation of Kenya) , but must be a “natural born citizen” of the same, and hence a US Presidency Usurper because it is the Father’s Land… Nemo potest exuere patriam - No one may leave the Fatherland. .

Barack Hussein Obama II was born a "natural born British Citizen" with a secondary "local" citizenship in the United States by virtue of his mother and an alleged US Soil Birth. At the time of his birth, Ann Dunham Obama was a British Subject by marriage, as well as an American Citizen minor in 1961, not even able to vote as yet (so as to rise to the level of even a 19th Amendment citizenship right to vote). 

12 + 1 Points of the Natural Born Citizen Issue in Consideration:

    1)  John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 6, “Of Paternal Power”, 

  §. 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,
-- of one born to the same soil and allegiance of his father,
-- of one reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father 
-- of one who finds it natural or as if a foregone conclusion 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 an allegiance 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.]

2)      Thomas Jefferson, 
       A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens Of This Commonwealth  
       May 1779 http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/images/1ptrans.gif 
          Virginia Papers 2:476–78
“…all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth…shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth… all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.   
  It seems to me that Thomas Jefferson argues jus sanguinis, not jus soli.  Jus soli (to the soil) birth in a 1779 Virginia was irrelevant in the Commonwealth of Virginia as it pertained to a Commonwealth of Virginia citizenship by birth.  
3)      If "...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.” Then, that allegiance or lack of allegiance to foreign states in contingent upon the citizen status of the parents and what nationality and allegiance or allegiances they pass onto the child via jus sanguinis.
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
4)      The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

 George D. Collins asked the question:
“are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

Collins cited Vattel in probing for the answer, and while he quoted 
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens" he also mined that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”

5)    In the September 7, 1787 debates on the Constitution, the Vice-President was viewed as if a son inheriting the Presidency of his father so as to perpetuate the US Presidency upon the President's death or incapacity to govern.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS. The vice president then will be the first heir apparent that ever loved his father. If there should be no vice president, the President of the Senate would be temporary successor, which would amount to the same thing.
6)      The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290

- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"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 indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.

Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of an absentia from the Citizen Mother). 
7)      A quote from  Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments reads: 
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.
       I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.

Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...

Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?

Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband. So we are not suggesting that.

The transcript and tape is available at:
Justice Ginsburg refers us back to the date of May 24, 1934 and previous to that, such as in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308 (1961) @ footnote 6 et al.
In the context of the section, it is clear that the word "parent" refers both to fathers and mothers. Section 2 of the Act of May 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 797), on which petitioner alternatively relies, is in all respects here material a reenactment of the above provision.

   8)      Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308 (1961), 
            citizenship is inherited via the father only (or the presumption of the father) until 1934: 

Page 365 U.S. 309
…In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment
of § 4 of an Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 155), provided that
"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) R.S. § 1993, substantially a reenactment of § 1 of an Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), provided that
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
Page 366 U.S. 312
...Whatever may have been the reason for the 1874 reenactment of the Act of 1802 as R.S. § 2172, we find nothing in that action which suggests a purpose to reverse the structure of inherited citizenship that Congress created in 1855 and recognized and reaffirmed until 1934. On this basis and in the light of our precedents, we hold that, at the time of petitioner's birth in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship status for foreign-born children of American parents. That statute cannot avail this petitioner, who is the foreign-born child of an alien father.

Citizenship status is inherited by those "whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof".

In other words, beginning on May 25, 1934, both fathers and mothers were able to pass on citizenship without prejudice.  But we see that in the Naturalization Act of June 27, 1952,  in Section 305, just being born in Hawaii grants a localized or jus soli US Citizenship birth.   According to Section 355, by residing in the foreign nation to which Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro became attached, having resided there before age 25, accordingly Obama could have lost his US Citizenship because of the marriage of the mother and relocation and the adoption by the step-parent Lolo Soetoro by the mother’s consent.  In Asian countries such as Indonesia, adoption requires a loss of all foreign to their country’s nationalities.   

The citing of a British Passport is a legal lead into citing the British Nationality Act of 1948 and British Case Law.  From BOTH sides of the Atlantic, and from the legal perspectives of BOTH the United Kingdom and that of the United States, the British Passport of Obama’s father (# 84764) meets the legal threshold in validating Barack Hussein Obama I’s   British identity, and his status as being a British Citizen.

-----Updated portion, 05/07/2011 ------
There has been some debate offered about conditions if they were outside the legality of a marriage would affect how we should view the issue, because some argue, that a woman of any age had more rights than a US Citizen male in passing on citizenship if having children overseas, where a US female child of 10 or 11 was as likely to pass on citizenship as a US minor of 18.  Considering many Communists advocate child rape of both boy and girls and openly push adult-child sex, be it incestuous, homosexual, or just plain pedophilia...we should consider the immorality of the opposition which advocates such sick and criminal behavior with prejudice.   But let me take a moment to address this, anyway.
Under the Nationality Act of 1940, ch. 876,§§ 201(g), 205; 54 Stat. 1137, 1139-40, it was true that no US Citizen Father could transmit citizenship outside the act of marriage when overseas, unless he was at least age 21, had spent the last 10 years as a resident of the United States.  If he was 21, that meant he was required to reside in the United States with the immediacy of being  5 years a resident of the United States before age 16, and 5 years a resident of the United States since the age of 16.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952,  ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1, §§ 301(a)(7), 309(a), 66 Stat. 163, 235-38 (1952), the 10 year residency was maintained, but a reduction to age 19 occurred, with 5 years residency in the US since the age of 14 and 5 years US residency immediately before and leading up to the age of 14.  The obvious intent of the statute was to be inclusive of both male and female to be age 19 or above with 10 year residency, but some claimed there was a loop-hole in the Legislation. 

Now, it would be unconstitutional and gender discrimination to state that a woman who was a minor at the time she gave birth has greater legal rights to pass on US Citizenship than her male foreign Citizen male counterpart.  In US Law, it was the US Citizen male who -- in the US Constitution -- was the sole means for passing on United States Natural Born Citizenship by statutory and US Supreme Court interpretation of that same Constitution for its first  147 years of existence.  For the argument to shift that a female of any age, under  the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952,  ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1,§ 309(c), even if she were an 10 or 11 year old child bride and rape victim, let alone an 18 year old minor under US Laws in effect at the time she gave birth, is ridiculous.  The clause was directed at newly naturalized female citizens who swore allegiance to the United States after meeting the US Department of Justice Immigration and Naturalization requirements to become US Citizens, and had been us US Citizens AND US residents for the past year of their naturalized US Citizenship prior to giving birth to a child overseas.  The presumption is still that it would be a US Citizen father fathering her child by inference in the statute of INA 1952's ch. 477, Title III, ch. 1, § 309(c).  That is clearly obvious.

The statute insists on a 5 year US residency AFTER the age of 14.  Ann Dunham Obama did NOT meet this minimum requirement, and Barack Jr. under US law, I say, depends solely on an Hawaii statute (Section 305) inserted into the INA of 1952 to grant him a "jus soli" birth citizenship to Hawaii, IF he was actually born there. By screwing up the middle numbers on the Short form as "1961" with 4 numbers instead of the two in "61", showing a contradiction...by screwing up on Obama's father's birth year by two years with that in his Immigration file, by screwing up in releasing an uncredentialed 7 layer clearly manipulated electronic copy  that picks up the same defects as a computer generated forgery based on 1966 defects from the Nordyke Twins online copies of their Long Form Certifications of Live Birth,  and Obama's electronic forgery was time stamped as computer created from the White House at less than 40 minutes before it was Media released...etc....give us all a flying break that there is no longer "no questioning Obama". 

If US Citizenship is "a most precious right" as was stated in 372 US 144 (1963) @ 159  (1963), Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, then we ought to treat it as such, and not hand US Citizenships out like candy to be cast down and trampled about. 

In dealing with Barack Hussein Obama II, in regard to even a skewed recognition (in the remote hypothetical / some say possibility) of a defect @ 309 (c) that might be cited in heated debate, I must point out that by the same principle as gender discrimination against the female is fought in the Courts, so it should be in regards to the male.  The Supreme Court, in response to or because of under-inclusion in statute or codified laws has the ability to raise the bar to an equality of a higher non-discriminatory standard, equalizing the sexes under negative law.  

“Where a statute is defective because of under-inclusion there exist two remedial alternatives:
a court may either declare it a nullity
and order that its benefits not extend to the class the legislation was intended to benefit, 
it may extend the coverage of the statute to include those who are aggrieved by exclusion.”  
 Welsh v. United States, 398 US 333 (1970) @ 361

Since there was a marriage in effect at the time of Barack's alleged 1961 birth, and since the father was over 21 and the mother a minor at the time of the February 2, 1961 marriage.  But if the opposition is so certain of their case, then let us have our day in Court.  Let there be no more opposition to Orly Taitz to take on Barack Obama and the DOJ and Perkins Coie.  One lone naturalized US female lawyer, and it takes thousands of the Media and others to stonewall her for Barack Obama Jr., the former attorney who no longer practices...because why? 
Barack said on or about May 5, 2011,
"As a former attorney, I know...."  

May I ask if he was he disbarred for misconduct? If Obama were a white male Republican, the Press would have made it a point for America to know for what reason he lost his license.  So let me ask if it was for any of these reasons:  Was his law license in any way lost because of misconduct in behalf of or for ACORN, or in behalf of or for the SEIU, or for tax fraud with the IRS in being one of three owners claiming full tax exemptions on the same house at the same time in the same tax year?  Was Obama told to hand his Law License in, at any time or in any way,  BEFORE he was charged with a crime?  America has a right to know. 

-------end of updated portion 05/07/2011 -----------

 9)  We can hammer home the stipulation that:
“…at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.”
10)  Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that: 

"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, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393;) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306." 

Obama as a British Citizen through inheritance by his father who married and legitimized him with a marriage to the minor Ann Dunham, owed legience to both the United Kingdom (Great Britain) and Kenya at birth, regardless if he was born in the US or not.  Only by complete dishonesty can anyone label the man a qualified occupant of the Presidency.

  Ipso facto and de jure, Barack Obama II is not legally President of the United States in the eyes of the US Constitution because he was born a British Citizen, and his entire occupancy in the White House is therefore legally voidable.  

Some may argue that once a child is natural born, the law of nature casts aside the word citizen.  But is that true?  By example, if a child was born to two US parents in the Soviet Union in 1953, and the child never set foot in America, but is reared his entire life as a Soviet and becomes a Colonel in the KGB, i.e., a devout Soviet Communist swearing fealty to the Soviet Union, there are those who would define him as a United States Natural Born Citizen because his birth status to 2 US Parents is all they demanded of him.  The same principle applies to them if he was born in New York State, moves to the Soviet Union at age 2, and 40 years later is launching a murder spree on CIA assets in Eastern Europe.  There are those who demand that even though statutory law strips him of his citizenship, we should call such a one at age 42 a US Natural Born Citizen as if he was still eligible to one day run for for the US Presidency if the OTHER elements are met (such as older than 35, lived in the US 14 years) and to them, this eligibility runs from birth to the grave.  I MUST VEHEMENTLY DISAGREE.   While some would demand that the "natural born citizen status" is NOT dictated by Law or Statute, I cannot agree with that error in misapplication of natural law and its misapplied transiliency that they are allowing for. The word "Citizen" governs the kind of naturalism perpetuated in the society, and the word "Natural" governs the sole citizenship and allegiance in monogamous unity that is perpetuated from birth to the grave.  

 Under the biblical sense, when someone was born into a patriarchal lineage, and had direct relations with the founder of a nation and its patriarch, in such a sense, what you say is true.  Any son of Israel, the seed of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob / Israel via the fathers is a natural born son of Israel in the natural sense, both to the man and to the soil or land of Promise. 

Natural implies a solitary state or solitary status one was created and designed by its seed to be in and continuing in, and remains in to its death.  The seed or sperma, as in nature derived from the father, is what disqualifies Barack, being Kenyan.  The mother, even though a US Citizen, until 1934 was practically inferred as if the citizen person of her were merely as if part of the soil or "ethnic locale" the sperm was planted / impregnated in.  Without the sperm, there is no child, even as without the seed there is no crop or produce.   

11)   The word "born" infers a question of parental condition (species - which in humanity, may also include a political condition pertaining to nationality or even the statelessness thereof) as well as to to time and place.  But as with the “Native American” or that of the Indian tribe, having a mother who is a US Citizen, while having a father who is of the Indian Nation meant EXCLUSION from US society until the “Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.”

  The child, though born to two US Citizens --  in the example of an Indian father and US Citizen mother, even if the father was  a “Native American” who was taxed, but still owed allegiances to the tribe -- was NOT called a United States Natural Born Citizen until after the political metamorphosis or unspoken law of transmutation was applied.  If an Native American woman, such as an natural born citizen Iroquois woman born to a tribal Iroquois father and Iroquois mother in good standing and citizens of the Iroquois Tribe,  if such a woman married a US Citizen male, the male in the marriage from 1776 to 1934 naturalized the wife into a US Citizenship, and in the case of a child…it was via the US CITIZEN FATHER at the time of birth, that the child could be called a United States Natural Born Citizen. 

Again, from the days of the US Confederacy in 1776 and the days of the US Republic from 1787 to 1934, the US Constitution and Statutory Law guided who could and could not be a United States Natural Born Citizen exclusively through the Father’s relationship to the Government of the United States. 
If a US Citizen father becomes a felon, and loses the right of US citizenship at the time of the child’s birth, will the child be able to claim a “Natural Born Citizen Status” based on the mother only?  I would say the answer is NO.  Because in Case Law, the concern is about the Father’s Citizenship at the TIME of Birth.  This is by example of Steinkauler as used in Perkins v. Elg.  

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 @ 330 (1939), referred to: "Steinkauler, a Prussian subject by birth, emigrated to the United States in 1848, was naturalized in 1854, and in the following year had a son who was born in St. Louis."
Steinkauler Jr. was a natural born citizen who inherited his citizenship from his father, and his father's citizenship condition at the time of his birth coupled with the birth location (because naturalization was attached to the condition of his father's new citizenship at the time of birth, rather than being a natural perpetuation from Steinkauler Sr.s own perpetuation of natural born citizenship in the land of his birth and perpetual allegiance until that of his child's entry into the world, etc. ). 
Had Steinkauler Jr. (in this example used by the Court from the previous century),  had Steinkauler Jr. NOT returned to the United States by age 21, he would have voluntarily ceased not only that of his "Citizen of the United States" status granted him by mere virtue of birth, he would have ceased to be a United States Natural Born Citizen as well.   By NOT being "subject to the jurisdiction" of a State of the United States since before age 1, his nationality was in jeopardy of removal by the age of 21 by operation of both Positive and Negative Law..   That being the case, Natural Born Citizen is the operation of both Natural and Positive and Negative Law: the dictates are by Nature as to what one is, and by society as what the individual can do or cannot do to perpetuate the condition of that Naturalism, the same as in a reflection of that which is in Nature.   At age 22, that window of opportunity for Steinkauler to repatriation would have closed, because he spent 20 of his 21 years in Germany.   Under the statutory law in effect at the time, if he returned before age 22, the Court was of a mind that after 14 years US residency, he could have been eligible for the US Presidency because his father was a US Citizen at the time of his US Soil birth.  I believe the Court was erroneous in that conclusion, because a 20 year absence made it "unnatural" for Steinkauler Jr. to become a United States Citizen after 20 years being reared up to be a devout citizen of Germany with fealty to the Kaiser and the Deutscheland.  That issue of loss of birth citizen status would STILL NOT  be moot even with Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967, 387 US 253 (1967), because the act to stay in Germany would have been voluntary on the part of Steinkauler Jr., and the Court in 387 US 253 was concerned with Congress INVOLUNTARILY stripping birth citizenship, which would NOT occur if Steinkauler Jr. VOLUNTARILY swore fealty to the Kaiser and renounced the nation and citizenship of his birth. 

Citizen is the political animal, often neglected, and exists only as long as the Government or people of the same political character exists.  If the Government ceases, as long as the person does not cease to change, he may perpetuate the Government that has ceased in his own practice.   
Those of British America, born in the colonies of America, were natural-born citizens of their British Colony that experienced a political transmutation into the States of the Confederacy in 1776, although still being titled "Commonwealths" before -during-after the process of transmutation, as with the State of Virginia, by example.  Those who returned to Britain in 1776, being born say in 1754 in the Commonwealth and Colony of Virginia, remained "natural born citizens" of the Commonwealth and Colony of Virginia.  In 1783, their status as "natural born citizens" did not extend for them to be "natural born citizens" of the State of Virginia, but of a British America that no longer existed.  There was no "tribe" of Virginia to attach to that could never be taken away...for a tribe is derived from a commonality of patriarch or patriarchs by tribal lineage and often tribal treaties of unification as allies forming a nation.  The Iroquois, I believe it was, did essentially the same thing based out of upper New York State hundreds of years before the 17th century. 

The error in the discussion on Natural Born Citizenship comes when "nature" is argued not on point of laws of nature, but as if political citizens share the same permanence as a patriarchal attachments as if by DNA, or tribal / familial attachments.  I am speaking from the point of natural political citizenship, in the same way that George Washington's natural born citizenship was derived from and to the political entity of the colony of Virginia and transmutated into the State of Virginia. 

Nations come and go, but unless one claims an "ethnic" natural born citizenship, be they a Celt or a Jew or German by ethnicity by birth, DNA permanence usually does not apply outside a direct familial attachment (such as most Hebrews have with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, for example).

12) Natural Born Citizen is also regulated by "Citizen" to be conformed into a definition defined by laws and a natural perpetuation of a sole citizenship and the laws that already define it. 

 A Citizenship can dissolve with a nation, but to be natural born or native to a geography, we find, is often also conditional in Western Civilization whenever the term "citizen" is applied.

Citizen comes from "civitas".  Well, let me cite the US Supreme Court saying this:

Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
Page 60 U. S. 476
... For who, it may be asked, is a citizen? What do the character and status of citizen import? Without fear of contradiction, it does not import the condition of being private property, the subject of individual power and ownership. Upon a principle of etymology alone, the term citizen, as derived from civitas, conveys the ideas of connection or identification with the State or Government, and a participation of its functions...."

I do understand what some have meant to employ in the definition by holding onto "Natural" while letting go of the word "Citizen" in the clause, as if to be all but dismissive of it.  

However, since ancient times, this was refuted.  "Natural Born Citizen"  is a generational inheritance under preset conditions being met.  We see that in ancient Greece, and the Western Development of the modern political scheme of Governance in its infancy
there was occasion to state by inference
( see Plato, in Menexenus 237b - 237c
and, Demosthenes, On the False embassy, 19.261, 19.260 et al.)
 that it took several generations for one to be native to the soil, so as to "spring up from the land itself" in the Greek.

13) Under the Immigration Naturalization Act of June 27, 1952 Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 301 and 305 makes allowance for Barack Obama to be a US Citizen IF he was born in Hawaii. 
 The intentional electronic Long Form Fraud makes us question what really is going on with even a very simple low birth doument threshold Obama either can't or intentionally refuses to meet.

Expert refutes Obama Long Form Certification of Live Birth with Alex Jones

If  one can Create a Short Form BC with template, as in this video...it is only an extension of these same kinds of manipulations (and then some) to  to create a Long Form Fraud

The Layers:
<< /Length 17 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 123 /Height 228 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >> << /Length 13 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 199 /Height 778 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>
<< /Length 19 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 47 /Height 216 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>
<< /Length 15 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 42 /Height 274 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>
<< /Length 10 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 1454 /Height 1819
/ImageMask true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>
<< /Length 25 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 132 /Height 142 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>
<< /Length 23 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 243 /Height 217 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>
<< /Length 21 0 R /Type /XObject /Subtype /Image /Width 34 /Height 70 /ImageMask
true /BitsPerComponent 1 /Filter /FlateDecode >>

A 5 layer separation example is also available at Google Docs.

Then there is the lifting and forging of the Nordyke Twin Birth Document anomalies onto Obama’s own forgery as shown by Miss Tickly

 The preponderance of the evidence supplied by his father's Immigration File leaves us at a 40% likelihood he was born in the US, and 60% that he was born in Kenya even as it seems all but proven.

I demonstrate the larger preponderance of the known data via the Kenyan Media and Kenyan Government claims as posted in 
 Sections 349 and 350 indeed appear to make allowance of a loss of birth citizenship.  If for example under Section 350 Obama should go to Kenya for 3 any continuous years after age 22, and attach himself to that nation as a citizen of it, he loses US Citizenship.  However, under section 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, if a legal parent of a foreign state like Obama's legal and adopting step-father Lolo Soetoro adopts a US Citizen child, by the mother marrying that foreign national and becoming a foreign citizen with him, the act of the father adopting the child like that of Barack Obama's situation would REVOKE or DESTROY the child's US Citizenship.  By looking at the 3 year threshold in section 350, we would have to wonder if it is permanently if the child never naturalizes back through legal registration with the US Department of State.

However, by 1964, via Schnieder v. Rusk 377 US 163 (1964) the provision to strip birth citizenship in section 350 of the 1952 INA Act regarding a 3 year foreign residency was stricken.  In 1967, Afroyim v. Rusk 387 US 253 (1967) the Court seems to have made it of a necessity that the only way to INVOLUNTARILY strip someone of his or her birth citizenship would be by a Constitutional Amendment.  Congress on its own has no Constitutional Power to strip a US Birth Citizenship "involuntarily", the act must be a voluntary relinquishment on the part of the individual, such as a renunciation of US Citizenship and the swearing fealty to another  However, if the mother matriculates and expatriates the child.to another nation, as in the case of Barack Hussein Obama II, what is the legal condition of the child?   

 This Constitutional Issue is  a matter to be put before the US Supreme Court along with Barack Obama's British Citizenship at birth, an automatic disqualification to the US Presidency which is sufficient to void every law, every executive order he has ever assigned, and every code and regulation put forth during his term in office. -- Brianroy



Alan Keyes on Natural Born Citizen issue argued by Alan Keyes

The US Citizenship Status of 44 US Presidents, by Mario Apuzzo
The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents

No comments:

Post a Comment