ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
By JB Williams - Jb.uspu@gmail.com
The recent release of my previous column titled Rubio Can Lock the Election for Obama resulted in numerous reader emails that demonstrate a continuing confusion over the indisputable definition and application of the term Natural Born Citizen. This follow up column is written to remove all confusion from the topic, once and for all.
Sadly, most of the people concerned with this topic believe they each know the truth, even though they do not agree on what the truth is. Most opinions are based upon second source or third hand information, most of it motivated by political agenda.
My objective is to establish through first source evidence and spread the truth, no matter who it helps or harms in the political arena. I have written on this subject extensively and my only loyalty here is to the truth, no matter who it serves.
The true definition of Natural Born Citizen
Simply stated, a Natural Born Citizen is a second (or more) generation citizen by birth right. None of the Founding Fathers were Natural Born Citizen as they all became 1st generation citizens the moment they created our nation. As a result, they had to exclude themselves from the NBC requirement, even though most of them were born on soil (Native Citizen), or none of them could have held the office of President.
The term Natural Born Citizen was borrowed from Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations, based upon the unalienable rules of Natural Law. Most people understand and agree on this. Then, they begin cherry-picking their facts from there, in all cases, based upon their individual political agendas rather than a careful and complete study of the facts.
I direct you to four sections in particular…
The Law of Nations – Book 1 – Chapter 19 – Sections 212, 213, 214 and 215 – The true definition of NBC is given in these three sections.
§ 212. Citizens and natives (the section most people are familiar with) READ IN ENTIRETY PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO SECTIONS I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED.
“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.”
212 – Defines Natural Born Citizen as the natural offspring of a Citizen Father. Vattel explains this three times in this section. Just as all birthrights follow the blood of the father, so does natural rights of citizenship. This debunks the theory that “both parents” must be legal citizens and the time of their offspring birth. Only the Father confers Natural Born Citizenship.
§ 213. Inhabitants (Refers to situations like Rubio’s)
“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.”
Marco Rubio - Is he eligible?
213 addresses “citizen” and “inhabitants” – not Natural Born Citizens defined in 212. Rubio falls into this category as he was born in the U.S. – however, his parents (specifically his father) were legal citizens of Cuba at the time of Marco’s birth. Due to our 14th Amendment based upon this section from Vattel, Marco became an inhabitant at birth, and an “anchor baby citizen” via our current immigration and naturalization laws. But because his Father was a legal citizen of Cuba, his father conferred natural citizenship right to Cuba upon Marco’s birth. It is on this basis that Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Barn Citizen of the United States.
§ 214. Naturalization (58) (confirms everything I just told you about Rubio)
“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.”
215 answers the question of soil, or Native Born versus Natural Born
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country (NO born on soil requirement)
“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.”
This pertains to John McCain, who was born in Panama due to his father’s military deployment. As Vattel explains in section 215, where a person is born cannot take away the Natural Born Birthright that passes via Natural Law from Father to Son. Because John McCain’s Father was indeed a well-known legal citizen of the United States at the time of John’s birth, no matter where the birth took place, Natural Born Citizenship passed from John’s Father to John at birth. John McCain is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, no matter what else people think about John McCain.
In this regard, the United States Senate got it exactly right in their 99-0 Sen. Res. 511 clearing John McCain to pursue the office of President in 2008. Using the exact same definition used to clear John McCain, Barack Hussein Obama and Marco Rubio would fail the test.
Just in case there is any doubt concerning McCain, Vattel goes further on the McCain circumstance in section 217
§ 217. Children born in the armies of the state (John McCain)
“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.“
One does not quit citizenship rights when deployed abroad by our government. In fact, even if a soldier deployed abroad sires a child, with a foreign mother, that child is still a Natural Born Citizen of the USA as those rights pass from Father to child at birth.
Are you with me so far? Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, John McCain is…..right? Barack Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen no matter whether he was born in Hawaii or Kenya…. right?
Now for Romney….
According to all available records on Romney, his Grandfather was a legal citizen of the United States who became an “inhabitant” of Mexico long before Mitt’s birth. Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, the natural offspring of a legal US citizen living in Mexico. Remember from above that soil changes nothing. According to all evidence available at present, Mitt’s father was born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, even though his parents were “inhabitants” of Mexico at the time.
Mitt’s Father later returned to the United States and became Governor of Michigan, something a non-citizen could not do. Mitt was born in Michigan, the natural offspring of a legal citizen Father, making Mitt a Natural Born Citizen of the United States at birth.
So, McCain and Romney both pass the NBC test according to Vattel and The Law of Nations. Rubio, Obama and others like Jindal DO NOT pass the test.
Before you spread any more false information regarding the subject, I welcome any challenge you want to raise to any of the information provided here. If it is truth you seek, you now have the truth. If you seek something else, the truth will not serve that agenda.
Last, if Marco Rubio truly wants to serve this country in the best way possible, he should immediately pronounce himself “ineligible” for the offices of President and Vice President, which would immediately turn all focus upon the current Fraud-in-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama, and secure the defeat of Obama’s international assault on the United States of America.
If Rubio does not do this, he is not what many Tea Party supporters think he is…
Shortlink:
8 Responses to ROMNEY, RUBIO, McCAIN and NATURAL BORN CITIZEN
Leave a Response
A Survey – “The Americans Project”
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
PAID ADVERTISEMENT
SUA SHOWCASE – Aaron Vaughn R.I.P.
SUA SHOWCASE – Operation 300
MINOR v. HAPPERSETT REVISITED.
…the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:
“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168.
There’s a quote for you. It really exists. And it tells you exactly who are natural-born citizens; those born in the country of parents who are citizens. The words are plain-spoken and self-evident. There are two classes of persons discussed in the above quotation. Those born in the country of citizen parents were labeled by the Court as “natives or natural-born citizens”, but these were also further identified as being “distinguished from aliens or foreigners”. The distinction is crucial.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/minor-v-happersett-revisited-2/
Well done . thank you
What is more important than the obvious violation of the constitution is the refusal to redress it. There is no basis in law that gives the government any power to refuse to answer the petitions for redress. Those individuals who have made statements on the issue of NBC equate it to a civil right as if it were a violation of any citizens right to hold office based upon the citizenship of his/ her parentage. Ignoring the design of the constitution by arguing that John Jay’s “wise and seasonable” letter is obsolete now that the danger from King George is long past, out of season as it were. To suppose no other danger exists is a treachery not a timely reading of a living document. One only look at the laws of the world, from the CIA website; https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2100.html to ascertain reason enough to sustain the “wise and seasonable” attribute to remaining a strong check against all who might fancy another system simply by admiring ones father or having been indoctrinated in foreign ways and concealing it through adoptions or a false identity.
What is being held out as proof of citizenship is not even supported by a document acceptable in any court let alone able to withstand constitutional satisfaction.
Cabal is at work. Cabal is not respected in any form of government in this era and for good reason.
4 Supreme Court Cases define “natural born citizen”
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) – Decision: “The citizens are the members of the civil society;
bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives
or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and
to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers,
and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) – Decision: The Constitution does not in words say who shall be
natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) – Decision: 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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) – Decision: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound
to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
In all 4 decisions the court denoted parents, plural.
The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the
American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court:
Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829.
John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835.
William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834.
Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823
Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826.
Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835.
Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845
Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father
took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British;
and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst
Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the
latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as
statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper
Minutement of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of
General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly.
Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir.
Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended.
IRREFUTABLE AUTHORITY HAS SPOKEN
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Not exactly….
It tells us that a child born in the US of citizen parents is a Native “or” Natural Born Citizen.
Note the “or”…. As opposed to “and”
As Vattel states in the opening text on citizens, a child born on soil (native, soil) to citizen parents (natural, blood) are both citizens by birth. But, are natives and naturals the same thing? Is native born (soil) part of the requirement for Natural Born?
Vattel tells us, as presented in my column, that native and natural are two different things and that native is not a requirement to natural. In fact, if one is a citizen via any act of man-made law, they are NOT a Natural Born Citizen.
Please read the column again very carefully.
Vattel did not tie natural born right to the Mother at all. He repeatedly ties Natural rights to the Father alone.
Well we see what happens when WE, as a people, elect folks who snub our Constitution! They become DICTATORS! God help us all!
Live FREE or DIE!
Thank you for your research and hard work! We DO appreciate it. You explained what I have believed all along in such a clear way that maybe now I will be better able to articulate it to my neighbors and friends.
Thanks!
Clears up a lot of confusion, thank you for the article…..
The gender of the natural born parent that passes on the rights or designation can be argued to include both since the constitution was amended to give females the franchise in 1920. A clarification of this point would require a supreme court decision.
As to Sen. Rubio, the question asked would be if both his parents became naturalized citizens did his status change to a natural born citizen. This also would require a supreme court decision to clarify.
You have done a great job explaining what should be considered the current state of the law but the questions I have posed reflect changes to the constitution and law creating gray areas in what the natural born citizen requirement currently mean. I am disappointed how this country has ignored rather than dealing with the issue. Currently what I understand is that the corrupt court system is claiming that a citizen has no standing to challenge a candidate’s or fraudulently elected official like Obama’s qualification for office in court, I hope I am misinformed.