Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Depends On -- h2ooflife, A.R. Nash

[bsteadman]

Fundamental Constitutional Errors Obama Depends On

h2ooflife
A.R. Nash
2/11/2013

Excerpt:

Revised & Expanded; -and expanded again 2-26-13 and 3-4-13

The Constitution’s presidential eligibility clause and the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause both mean what they say, but don’t say what they mean. The result has been people assuming things that are false, -with not just a few people believing the false interpretations, but nearly all believing them. They wrongly assume that they say and mean things that they do not. It’s simple to demonstrate that fact by stating the interpretation that those clauses are assumed to say or to mean.

Presidential eligibility: “All native-born citizens, or citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, are eligible to the office of the President, provided they are 35 years of age and have resided in the United States for 14 years.”

One immediately runs into a problem with this imagined version, -the one relied upon by defenders of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President. What it says is that all citizens who met the age and residency requirements could be President, at least for about three generations. That included literally all citizens, whether they were born as citizens or were born as foreigners but became citizens by choice or were children born to new citizens.

Then eventually when there were no more “citizens at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” (which included naturalized citizens) only native-born citizens could then be President, thereby limiting the presidency to only those born in the United States, and thenceforth prohibiting all citizens who were foreign-born-&-naturalized, as well as citizens born as Americans but beyond American borders, -such as John McCain.

The imagined assumption would be that naturalized citizens of the Revolution era (who met the age and residency requirements) were immigrant people who knew the awfulness of royal dictatorship, and had suffered the hardships and dangers of the war along with the native citizens and could therefore be trusted to be loyal Americans, as could their sons born to them before the Constitution was adopted in 1788. But later generations of naturalized immigrants could not be assumed to be aware of the price of freedom and the plight of living in its absence, nor assumed to not be loyal at heart to a foreign monarch. So their access to the presidency ended with that Revolutionary War generation.

But this imaginary version of the eligibility clause (“All native-born citizens”…) is worded in reverse of the actual wording. Instead, the Constitution actually states: NO PERSON, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of the President.

So it contains two huge contradictions with the imaginary version. One is a strong and exclusionary prohibition, (“No person except…”; and secondly, one that’s a mandate against any person who is not a natural born citizens.

The imaginary version is open and all-inclusion of all native-born and then living naturalized citizens. The actual version excludes all citizens in perpetuity except natural citizens, while allowing legal (derivative) and naturalized citizens of only that early generation.

A naturalized citizen, who had moved to America by 1774 when the rebellion against the crown was born, would have been living in the United States for 14 years when the Constitution was ratified; and if he arrived at the age of 21 or older to help fight for freedom, then he would have been 35 years of age or older in 1789 when the first federal election took place. Clearly, accommodation was made to include that generation of patriotic foreign-born citizens who after 14 years were completely Americanized.

The problem for Obama supporters is that the nature of the eligibility clause is not inclusionary but exclusionary. It was not intended to included all native-born citizens or else it would have said that in an inclusionary way, but if it had, as in the imaginary version, (along with naturalized citizens), it could have simply stated; “All citizens shall be eligible…except the foreign-born citizens not alive when this Constitution was adopted.” That would have moved the “except” from referring to natural born citizens only, to referring to foreign-born citizens only.

But since the actual wording of the eligibility clause limits the presidency to natural born citizens only, -although simultaneously making a second exception for living naturalized citizens and their children born before their father’s naturalization which came before the adoption of the Constitution, it can’t be true that the differentiating prohibition it was drawing by the words “no person except” was between natural born and the naturalized citizens since it was allowing both.
............................................

View the complete article at:

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/...tional-errors/

[bsteadman]

Fundamental Errors Obama Depends On Pt. 2

Obama’s Constitutional Fraud & The 20th Amendment

h2ooflife
A.R. Nash
3/20/2013

Excerpt:

Article II, Section I U.S. 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 the President.

Another source of fundamental error in understanding the eligibility clause is a failure to grasp the meaning of the word “person”, -what it doesn’t mean and what it does mean. It does not refer to the class of beings known as humans. Instead it refers to a particular class of humans, which can be discerned easily by process of elimination, -by eliminating a class it could not possibly include, and that is foreigners. “No person” does not mean “No foreigner”. Foreigners would not have been and were not even possibly included in its meaning. They were universally automatically excluded as understood by all. It was a given.

So with foreigners not even being in the picture, the only thing left was citizens. Therefore the meaning of “No person” is in fact “No citizen except a natural born citizen”.

So what type of citizen was excluded by the presidential eligibility clause in favor of only natural born citizens? Was it strictly naturalized citizens? If it was, and if natural born citizens were considered indistinguishable from native-born citizens of foreign paternity, then the eligibility clause could have and would have been worded in a much more simple manner; i.e.; “No citizen naturalized after the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of the President,…” Bingo.

That is much plainer and simpler than the wording chosen, but it was not employed because it was not what they meant.

The provisional inclusion of the second exception allowing all citizens alive before the Constitution was adopted (who were 35 years of age and 14 years in residence) speaks independently that after that point, any citizen who became a citizen by law via naturalization was not eligible to be President. So, since that is already stated in that segment of the sentence, it cannot possibly be redundantly focused on as the alternative type of citizen that was being prohibited by the “No person except..” language of the first segment. The Constitution avoids redundancy and interpreting it requires avoiding it.

So if it wasn’t naturalized citizens that those words were intended to exclude, -since they were covered by the “or” segment, then it had to have been a different type of citizen. What other types were there?

Only two: Native-born sons of foreigners who were granted citizenship from birth by some states; or sons who obtained derivative citizenship as children upon their foreign father’s naturalization. They, -being foreigners because they were born abroad, or being foreigners because they were born to a non-citizen, (-even though native-born) inherited by parentage, -by patrilineal descent via the natural principle of jus sanguinis (the law of blood) the new American citizenship of their father. Whatever he was, they were also since they were a reflection of him.

Those sons were the citizens who were not natural born citizens, and were implicitly excluded, deliberately, even though their number was minuscule as a percentage of American sons, perhaps less than two percent. But if elected President, they could pose a potential security risk that was avoidable by their exclusion. And so they were excluded. But they were accepted during the founders’ generation because no wolf in sheep’s clothing would have gotten past the scrutiny of the founders’ generation, and its press. And Congress was expected to vet their constitutional eligibility to serve before the electoral college voted, or even after. Congress was expected to nullify the election of any candidate it found unqualified to serve, i.e., - too young, not enough years of residency, or not a natural American.
.....................................

View the complete article at:

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/...l-errors-pt-2/