Category Archives: Contact Your State Senators & Representatives

14th Amendment Birthright Citizenship & The Law of Statelessness

Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Educational Material, Elections, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material April 10, 2011 Comments: 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Educational Material, Elections, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material April 6, 2011 Comments: 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Declaration of Independence ; July 4, 1776

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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

Expatriation Act July 27, 1868

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

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

Why “ALL STATES” Need to Adopt Presidential “Eligibility Credential” Election Laws

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, Elections, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, Youth Educational Material March 29, 2011

Let me set the stage with “Propaganda: A Primer by Mark Levin”  (1 min 8 sec)

While the rest of the lame stream media & blogoshere have been trotting out Donald Trump and his birth certificate, they have failed/purposefully glossed over the immediate Constitutional issue . . . “natural born citizen”. Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is great that Trump has elevated this issue into the lame stream alphabet media, however that media is still pulling one over you.

Rewind to last Saturday night.  Mike Huckabee formally discloses, with a rather flippant attitude, the fact that neither the DNC, GOP, the US Congress or any of the states currently require that a presidential candidate must provide proof of “natural born citizenship”. Or for that matter, any citizenship at all. 

The only aspect of a presidential candidate’s life they are required to disclose is their financial history. WHAT? FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE? WHERE IS THAT REQUIREMENT IN ARTICLE II, SEC I OF THE CONSTITUTION?

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Arizona has the best legislation thus far  for determing the citizenship of all candidates. It requires everything needed for the AZ SOS to determine the eligibility of the candidate. It also contains protection for each & every registered voting AZ citizen to challenge a candidates eligibility within a reasonable period of time. The pertinent points are as follows:

16-507.01.  Presidential candidates; affidavit of qualifications; enforcement

B.  The affidavit prescribed in subsection A shall include references to and attachment of all of the following, which shall be sworn to under penalty of perjury:

1.  A certified copy of the presidential candidate’s long form birth certificate that includes at least the date and place of birth, the names of the candidate’s mother and father, including information sufficient to determine the citizenship of both parents, the names of the hospital and the attending physician, if applicable, and signatures of any witnesses in attendance.

D.  A member of the house of representatives, a member of the senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”

Today, Leo Donofrio published his latest research. In that research is reference to a 1968 US Supreme Court 14th Amendment case that clarifies what authority the states have in regards to interpreting the US Constitution and passing laws to ensure that the US Constitution is being upheld. The specific part of Justice Black’s concurring opinion of Justice White’s deciding opinion states:

Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)

“Professor Fairman’s “history” relies very heavily on what was not said in the state legislatures that passed on the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead of relying on this kind of negative pregnant, my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.” (Emphasis added.)

I have read the opinions and it is very clear that the states do have constitutional authority to interpret the term “natural born” as it was defined by Bingham & Trumbull who were the authors who submitted the amendment in their respective chambers of Congress. Bingham in the House & Trumbull in the Senate. According to the US Constitution, it is the states who are the sole protectors of the ballot. Therefore, any laws that are in compliance with the US Constitution are themselves constitutional. Including laws governing eligibility credentials.

How sad is it, that today we live in such a morally corrupt era, one can not trust that any given candidate is going to have the integrity & honor of former generations. The kind of integrity & honor that this great nation was built upon. But not only the candidates, we can not even trust our own state elected officials to do their job to ensure the integrity of our ballots.

click on photo for a larger view

I have already reported how former SOS Chris Nelson accepted & certified the nomination of Obama & Biden without any shred of evidence they were even eligible. Neither the State or National DNC, in which Nelson relied upon by faith not fact, certified that the persons they nominated were eligible under the provisions of Article II, Sec I of the United States Constitution. However in 2000 & in 2004, the DNC certification of nomination did contain the required language.

2000/2004/2008 HI Democratic Certifications of Nomination for Presidential Candidates (funny business going on in Hawaii)

WHY THE CHANGE? WHY THE REMOVAL OF THE QUALIFICATION LANGUAGE? WHY THE SAME LANGUAGE FOR ALL 50 STATES IN 2000 & 2004, BUT NOT IN 2008?

Is this the new kind of integrity level for state elected officials, both public & party?

 2012 is going to be upon us very soon. What are you going to do to protect your state’s ballot from ineligible candidates? In 2008  Roger Calero, a green card holding alien from Nicaragua  and member of the Socialist Workers Party (communist party), was on the Presidential ballots in 5 states where he received 7,209 votes. He originally was on the ballot in 12, however was removed from 7 and replaced by another SWP member James Harris who received 2,424 votes. The states that allowed Calero, a Nicaraguan National, to remain on the ballot despite complaints to the Secretary of State in those states prior to the election were: CT, DE, VT, NJ, NY & Minnesota. 

2008 Governor of Minnesota & 2012 presidential hopeful, Tim Pawlenty, thinks presidential qualifications are a “DISTRACTION”.  And he also thinks that already debunked CNN reports are the almighty gospel truth:

So, just how reliable is Pawlenty’s CNN?

UPI NEWS: CNN Chief: Obama birth story ‘dead’; Published: July 24, 2009 @ 8:02 PM

NEW YORK, July 24 (UPI) — CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein told staffers of “Lou Dobbs Tonight” the controversy over President Barack Obama’s birth certificate is a “dead story.”

Klein wrote in an e-mail to staffers Thursday that CNN researchers had determined Hawaiian officials discarded paper birth documents in 2001. Thus, he said, Obama’s long-form birth certificate no longer exists, and a shorter certificate that is public is the official record. 

Umm, I thought I just heard Pawlenty say that he heard on CNN that they had actually saw the original long form document? Let me check? Yep, he sure did. Now since Klein wrote his staff in a ‘super secret’ e-mail that the original long form had been destroyed in 2001(how convenient), how could they have actually seen it? Does Jon Klein & the CNN research staff have some ‘futuristic-super-dooper’ telepathy that allows them to see documents that were supposedly destroyed 10 years ago?

The truth is, Hawaii still maintains all the archived documents from 1961. If Obama’s original long form exists, it would take but a 5 minute call to have it released. The truth is, per order from Klein, the CNN staff of “propagandists” have been lying to the American public since the eligibility questions all began in 2007. But it’s not just CNN having all their fun at our expense, NPR has been at it for years now too. I ask you, is this how our tax dollars are suppose to work? NPR”S astonishing admission comes at 1:38 into the video:

 
FYI to NPR: It was “Hillary” supporters who began the investigations into Obama’s birth back in 2007, not conservative commentators & their followers
 
It is now 2011 and Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro-Soebarkah-Obama has yet to prove his eligibility because Secretaries of State across the nation failed to do their job which is to protect the integrity of our ballots.
 
Stop and ask yourself one question: “Are you willing to risk going into 2012 relying purely on political blind faith in an age where each & every day politicians, as well as failing alphabet media “propagandists” prove how morally bankrupt they are?”
 

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

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Educational Material, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material March 17, 2011 Comments: 5

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

In my call to his office today I inquired:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28th Congress, 2nd Session page 129 

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

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

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

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

So No, You Can’t Have It Both Ways!

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

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

NY Times 1859 natural-native defined by US AG

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
 

 

 

  

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

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

copyright 2011

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

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

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, In The News, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material March 6, 2011

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

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

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

“No person, except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,” and “The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8. By the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 306.)

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

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

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

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

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners…It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words “all children” are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as “all persons,”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”

Case in point, the 1779 citizenship laws of Virginia.

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

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

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

28th Congress, 2nd Session
page 129

MR. SAUNDERS’S REPORT ON NATURALIZATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Law of Nations Bk 1

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213. Inhabitants.

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

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)

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

Linda Melin, citizen researcher

copyright 2011

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

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

Matthew 6:24 & Luke 16:13

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

Jeremiah 5:5-6

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

SD State Computers & Education Offices Lobbying for Abortion

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Corruption, Educational Material, Elections, South Dakota State Legislation, Youth Educational Material January 21, 2010

I received a call last evening from a very nice sounding lady. She was calling to ask me to join in a bus trip to Pierre to sit in on legislative activities as well as talk to our elected officials to promote certain legislation.

PAUSE! Promote legislation? I asked her ‘What legislation are you promoting?”

She beat around the bush, so I went back with a different tactic and said it would depend on the trucking schedule and if it would be a heavy dispatch day. She then gave me the website address for the registration form, but not until I gave her my list of the most important legislation I thought should be pushed for such as balanced budget, immigration & election reform.

Well, this afternoon I went to the website: StandUpSD dot org. Now, I haven’t been active in the abortion issue online and I am glad I didn’t let on to her my views in this area, because it was totally shocking to find out that:

OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO PROMOTE ABORTION LEGISLATION!

Yep, you read that right. State offices, computers and personnel on OUR payroll are using state offices to conduct their business of promoting abortion as a health care issue & as a tool for contraception.

The Statists go to great lengths, even using every illegal tool in the book to promote the genocide of innocent children.

Early law commentaries that date immediately after the revolution specifically talk about killing of the unborn & infants as well as suicide and the unlawfullness of them all.

In “THE” very 1st commentary on American Law,1791 , Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote :

“Human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law.”

 

Let’s take Justice James Wilson’s words and use them AGAINST those who promote the genocide of God’s most precious gift.

The gift of ‘Human Life’

 

 

Could It Be? Charitable Contributions for “HealthScare’?

Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, In The News, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation December 28, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking: Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Is Promoting Child Porn in the Classroom– Kevin Jennings and the GLSEN Reading List

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, Youth Educational Material December 4, 2009
I am so glad that the grandchildren are now home schooled, but it still does not totally eliminate the possibility of government intrusion into what content the parents may exclude from the curriculum.
 
This is a MUST read with follow-up calls to all our reps in DC. This rogue administration must be stopped and all the commie czars must be thrown back to the cesspool of corruption from whence they came.
 
Via FirstThings  aka former GatewayPundit:

excerpt:

Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings was the founder, and for many years, Executive Director of an organization called the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN started essentially as Jennings’ personal project and grew to become the culmination of his life’s work. And he was chosen by President Obama to be the nation’s Safe Schools Czar primarily becausehe had founded and led GLSEN (scroll for bio).

(snip)

Through GLSEN’s online ordering system, called “GLSEN BookLink,” featured prominently on their Web site, teachers can buy the books to use as required classroom assignments, or students can buy them to read on their own.According to GLSEN’s own press releases from the period during which its recommended reading list was developed, the organization’s three areas of focus were creating “educational resources, public policy agenda, [and] student organizing programs”; in other words, the reading list (chief among its “educational resources”) was of prime importance in GLSEN’s efforts to influence the American educational system.

The list is divided into three main categories: books recommended for grades K-6; books recommended for grades 7-12; and books for teachers. (The books on the list span all genres: fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, even poetry.)

Out of curiosity to see exactly what kind of books Kevin Jennings and his organization think American students should be reading in school, our team chose a handful at random from the over 100 titles on GLSEN’s grades 7-12 list, and began reading through.

What we discovered shocked us. We were flabbergasted. Rendered speechless.

We were unprepared for what we encountered. Book after book after book contained stories and anecdotes that weren’t merely X-rated and pornographic, but which featured explicit descriptions of sex acts between pre-schoolers; stories that seemed to promote and recommend child-adult sexual relationships; stories of public masturbation, anal sex in restrooms, affairs between students and teachers, five-year-olds playing sex games, semen flying through the air. One memoir even praised becoming a prostitute as a way to increase one’s self-esteem. Above all, the books seemed to have less to do with promoting tolerance than with an unabashed attempt to indoctrinate students into a hyper-sexualized worldview.

Continue here  for the complete disgusting breakdown of the Obama appointed & approved Safe Schools Czar’s agenda of what US Children are now to be taught in the classroom.

The U.S. Constitution Does “NOT” Authorize Congress To Force Americans To Buy Health Insurance

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Corruption, Educational Material, Honoring Their Sacrifice, US Congress Legislation October 26, 2009 Comments: 2

Being under the weather and feeling the pressure of supplying new material here at ConstitutionallySpeaking along with the pressure I am now feeling of getting everything on my Christmas list completed as I am also a quilter & seamstress, it helps when an article such as this comes along. Thanks to Publius Huldah of Canada Free Press  for all your hard work and due diligence in compiling this for us.

I now CHALLENGE ALL my readers to copy and send this to ALL your US Senators & Reps in DC as well as your state Senators & Reps.

Constitution‘General Welfare’ Clause: Defending The Constitution From It’s Domestic Enemies.

By Publius Huldah  Friday, October 23, 2009

CNSNews.com recently posted an article, “Hoyer Says Constitution’s ‘General Welfare’ Clause Empowers Congress to Order Americans to Buy Health Insurance”.  In the article, Steny Hoyer(Democrat House Majority Leader) said Congress has “broad authority” to force Americans to purchase health insurance, so long as it was trying to promote “the general welfare”.

Oh my!  Does Steny Hoyer not know that his view was thoroughly examined and soundly rejected by our Founders?

The Truth is that Congress is NOT authorized to pass laws just because a majority in Congress say the laws promote the “general welfare”!  As shown below, James Madison, Father of The Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton, author of most of The Federalist Papers, expressly said The Constitution does not give a general grant of legislative authority to Congress! Rather, ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers  only. If a power isn’t specifically granted to Congress in The Constitution, Congress doesn’t have the power. It really is that easy – and our beloved Madison and Hamilton prove it.

1. Let us look at the so-called “general welfare” clause:  Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…

Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers!

2. But Steny Hoyer and his gang of statists claim that the “general welfare” clause is a blank check which gives them power to pass any law they want which they say promotes the “general welfare”. Further, they claim the power to FORCE their view of such on us.

3. Let us analyze this. Since words change meaning throughout time [200 years ago, “nice” meant “precise”], we must learn what the word, “welfare”, meant when the Constitution was ratified. “Welfare”, as used in Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 1, meant:

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil govern-ment (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).

But The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1969), gave a new meaning: “Public relief—on welfare.  Dependent on public relief”. Do you see how our Constitution is perverted when 20th century meanings are substituted for original meanings?  Or when the words of The Constitution are treated as if they have no meaning at all except that which the statists assign to them?

4. Both Madison and Hamilton squarely addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of power to Congress. In Federalist No. 41  (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “absurd” “misconstruction” the notion that

…the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….

In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:

…Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…

Madison was emphatic: He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.

In Federalist No. 83  (7th para), Hamilton said:

…The plan of the [constitutional] convention declares that the power of Congress…shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended… [italics added]

5. And what else did Madison and Hamilton say about the “enumerated” powers of the federal government?  In Federalist No. 45  (9th para), Madison said:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.  The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.  The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…[emphasis added]

Madison said it again in Federalist No. 39  (3rd para from end):

…the proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignity over all other objects….” [emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 14  (8th para), Madison said:

… the general [federal] government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects...[emphasis added]

In Federalist No. 27  (last para), Hamilton said:

…It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy [the federal government], as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land…Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS…[caps in original]

6. Now, let’s look at the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, we can understand the true meaning of the “general welfare” clause: OUR FOUNDERS UNDERSTOOD that the “general Welfare”, i.e., the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, and the enjoyment of the ordinary blessings of society and civil government, was possible only with a civil government which was strictly limited and restricted in what it was given power to do!

7. So!  How did we get to the point where the federal government claims the power to regulate every aspect of our lives, including forcing us to buy health insurance? Consider Prohibition:  During 1919, everyone understood that the Constitution did not give Congress authority to simply “pass a law” banning alcoholic beverages!  So the Constitution was amended to prohibit alcoholic beverages, and to authorize Congress to make laws to enforce the prohibition (18th Amdt.).

But with Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), the federal government abandoned our Constitution:  FDR proposed “New Deal” schemes; Congress passed them. At first, the Supreme Court opined (generally 5 to 4) that “New Deal” programs were unconstitutional as outside the powers granted to Congress. But when FDR threatened to “pack the court” by adding judges who would do his bidding, one judge flipped to the liberal side, and the Court started approving New Deal programs (generally 5 to 4).

Since then, law schools don’t teach the Constitution. Instead, they teach Supreme Court opinions which purport to explain why Congress has the power to regulate anything it pleases. The law schools thus produced generations of constitutionally illiterate lawyers and judges who have been wrongly taught that the “general welfare” clause, along with the “interstate commerce” and the “necessary and proper” clauses, permit Congress to do whatever it wants!

Roger Pilon  of the Cato Institute nailed it in his recent post on Politico.com:

Is it unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance or be taxed if they don’t? Absolutely—if we lived under the Constitution. But we don’t. Today we live under something called “constitutional law”—an accumulation of 220 years of Supreme Court opinions—and that “law” reflects the Constitution only occasionally.

Now you see how the statists justify the totalitarian dictatorship they are attempting to foist upon the American People.  The statists and the brainwashed products of our law schools go by U.S. Supreme Court opinions which reject Our Constitution!(But Publius Huldah goes by The Constitution as explained by The Federalist Papers).

8. But is the Supreme Court the ultimate authority on the meaning of our Constitution? NO!  Hamilton said the people are “the natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he called upon us to become “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority.” (Federalist No.16,  next to last para). Madison (or Hamilton) said that breaches of our Constitution can be corrected by “..the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission [The Constitution], can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance” (Federalist No. 49,  3rd Para).

Folks! Your duty is clear:  Study The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, and The Federalist Papers. Live up to the expectations of Hamilton and Madison; and throw off the chains which the usurpers are forging for you and Our Posterity.

My reply to Senator Johnson. I am still waiting for one from a similar letter sent a few weeks ago now that also pointed out the Federalist Papers, the Framers & early SCOTUS decisions.

Dear Senator Johnson,

I am still waiting for that reply to my previous constitutional questions sent to you regarding all the unconstitutional legislation that you and those on the left in Congress are trying to shove down our throats.

And while I do respect the office you serve, I can not and will not support your actions since getting re-elected and the following is why.

Please dear Sir, take some time to reflect on your position as a “PUBLIC SERVANT” to those whom you represent and the limitations of your office. You are treading on treacherous ground and ‘We the People’ are tired of you turning your back on us.

“We Are Taking Our Country Back”

Action Item, Contact Your State Senators & Representatives, Contact Your US Senators & Congresswoman, Economy, Educational Material, Honoring Their Sacrifice, Honoring Their Service, In The News, Media Blackout, Media Propaganda, Media Propaganda Exposed, South Dakota State Legislation, US Congress Legislation, Youth Educational Material September 12, 2009

A 9~12 message from Glenn Beck

Patrick Henry’s Peaceful Dissent

Those who were once united by the “Spirit of ’76,” or the Revolutionary generation, were not necessarily united in supporting the Constitution in 1787-88. We need only look to the state ratification debates to see the diversity of opinions regarding the new plan of government among faithful and once-united patriots. Acceptance of the Constitution was anything but a foregone conclusion.

Virginia patriot Patrick Henry, famous for his “give me liberty or give me death” speech which prompted Virginia (and eventually her sister states) to join besieged Massachusetts in the cause of independence, was one such devout Anti-Federalists, or one who opposed the new Constitution. His voice was often heard (and feared by Federalists) during the Virginia ratification debates.

Patrick Henry’s objections were not unfounded. After fighting off a British superpower, he feared a large national government with no declaration of rights to limit its power. He warned that if Virginia ratified, “the Republic may be lost forever,” and subsequently demanded to know “what right had [the delegates at Philadelphia] to say, We, the People.”

As the Virginia convention drew near a final vote on ratification, Henry stood to deliver his most impassioned soliloquy against the Constitution. He condemned an affirmative vote by saying it would negatively impact not just the fledging United States, but countries and even generations yet unborn but nonetheless present in the convention hall with the delegates in ethereal form.

“When I see beyond the horrison [sic.] that binds human eyes,” Henry began, “and look at the final consummation of all human things…I am led to believe that much of the account on one side or the other, will depend on what we now decide. Our own happiness alone is not affected by the event-All nations are interested in the determination. We have it in our power to secure the happiness of one half of the human race. Its adoption may involve the misery of the other hemispheres…”

Just as Henry finished his speech, a storm suddenly arose which combined with Henry’s rhetorical weaponry to have an eerie affect on his listeners. His final words were punctuated by thunder and lightning which “shook the whole building.”

Without calling for adjournment, the delegates—including such distinguished figures as George Washington, Governor Edmund Randolph, George Mason, James Monroe and James Madison—fled the convention hall. One listener explained why: “the spirits whom [Henry] had called, seemed to have come at his bidding.” Moreover, “[Henry] seemed to mix in the fight of his aetherial auxiliaries, and ‘rising on the wings of the tempest, to seize upon the artillery of Heaven, and direct its fiercest thunders against the heads of his adversaries.’”

Yet in spite of his vehement opposition, Patrick Henry demonstrated his commitment to the democratic process. Shortly after the Virginia Ratification Convention, he was approached by his Anti-Federalist colleagues to head a guerilla war against the ratified Constitution. Instead of continuing to oppose the Constitution outright, he declared “I will be a peaceable citizen.”

And he was. While Henry disagreed with some aspects of the new government, he also recognized that the Constitution left his head, hand, and heart free to advocate change “in a constitutional way.” He accepted the choice made by the American people and advocated for change within the system they had chosen. As a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, he ensured Virginia’s two U.S. Senators were Anti-Federalists, paving the way for the passage of the Bill of Rights.

ConSource logo