Tweet
Class Time: Natural Born Citizen Is NOT The Same As Natural Born Subject; Subjects Or Citizens!?
Birther Report
3/7/2015
Excerpt:
Class Time: Natural Born Citizen Is NOT The Same As Natural Born Subject; Are We Subjects Or Citizens!?
It's absurd to think our founders would base the meaning of "natural born Citizen" on England's "natural born Subject" when the founders had just fought a bloody war to free us from being subjects of England.
Thinkwell sets the record straight:
Natural born Citizen is NOT the same as natural born subject. The founders very specifically rejected the idea of natural born subjects, a term implying an irrevocable fealty to an elite sovereign. Natural born subject was a term of ownership and was used, among other things, to justify impressing as many able bodied, but otherwise unwilling "subjects" into his majesty's royal service as possible (typically as sailors). For this reason (gathering up as many able bodies as possible), qualification as a natural born subject was like a logical OR operation, thus being born of either of the blood of a subject or within the king's realm was qualification enough.
The founders thoroughly rejected this idea and considered every citizen as sovereign -- we were founded as a nation of sovereign Citizens, none higher than any other. Politicians, even up to and including the president, were intended to be the servants of We the People, the exact opposite of the system natural born subjects suffer under. The founders were familiar with the term "natural born subject" and they rejected it in its entirety.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous on its face to assume that the founders, who were articulately deliberate and elegantly succinct in their writings, inserted an entirely superfluous word into the phrase "natural born Citizen." If they had meant only "born citizen" that is exactly what they would have written, but they did not. As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840):
The purpose of the presidential eligibility requirement was to ensure that those born with a naturally divided allegiance be excluded from ever becoming our commander-in-chief. For this reason, qualification as a natural born Citizen was like a logical AND operation, thus one must born one hundred percent exclusively American, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).
Common freaking sense!!!
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03...en-is-not.html
Birther Report
3/7/2015
Excerpt:
Class Time: Natural Born Citizen Is NOT The Same As Natural Born Subject; Are We Subjects Or Citizens!?
It's absurd to think our founders would base the meaning of "natural born Citizen" on England's "natural born Subject" when the founders had just fought a bloody war to free us from being subjects of England.
Thinkwell sets the record straight:
Natural born Citizen is NOT the same as natural born subject. The founders very specifically rejected the idea of natural born subjects, a term implying an irrevocable fealty to an elite sovereign. Natural born subject was a term of ownership and was used, among other things, to justify impressing as many able bodied, but otherwise unwilling "subjects" into his majesty's royal service as possible (typically as sailors). For this reason (gathering up as many able bodies as possible), qualification as a natural born subject was like a logical OR operation, thus being born of either of the blood of a subject or within the king's realm was qualification enough.
The founders thoroughly rejected this idea and considered every citizen as sovereign -- we were founded as a nation of sovereign Citizens, none higher than any other. Politicians, even up to and including the president, were intended to be the servants of We the People, the exact opposite of the system natural born subjects suffer under. The founders were familiar with the term "natural born subject" and they rejected it in its entirety.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous on its face to assume that the founders, who were articulately deliberate and elegantly succinct in their writings, inserted an entirely superfluous word into the phrase "natural born Citizen." If they had meant only "born citizen" that is exactly what they would have written, but they did not. As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840):
"In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood."
The purpose of the presidential eligibility requirement was to ensure that those born with a naturally divided allegiance be excluded from ever becoming our commander-in-chief. For this reason, qualification as a natural born Citizen was like a logical AND operation, thus one must born one hundred percent exclusively American, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).
Common freaking sense!!!
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03...en-is-not.html