Tweet
A Brief History of Natural Citizenship
h2ooflife
A.R. Nash
7/13/2012
Excerpt:
The Constitution & Presidential Eligibility
"The legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama is predicated on the assumption that he was constitutionally eligible for the office at the time of his election. While he fulfilled the 2nd and 3rd requirements for the office, (the requirements of age [maturity], and residency [familiarity & attachment] ) a fallacy has been unquestioningly embraced that he also fulfilled the elements of the 1st -and primary, requirement; namely that he be a “natural born Citizen”. That fallacy is the result of an erroneous substitution of a tangential circumstance (location of birth) in place of the oldest tradition of all human societies, which is membership acquired from member parents.
This error is the result of the historical circumstances of the American British colonies, which were not founded as equal members of the King’s domain, but rather as properties which were outside of the umbrella of legal rights that had been established through centuries of “push-back” against royal despotism, beginning with the Magna Carta. This inequitable relationship with the mother country was not made manifest until England was stuck with the large costs of waging the war against the French & Indians in America. England was loath to bare the costs to defend others so far away while they (the colonists) escaped from paying a sizable share. And so began a campaign to squeeze money from the colonies even while they were given no representation in Parliament nor before the King’s counselors. This revealed that the attitude of England was that the colonies were the property of England, and its subjects were not co-equals with the rights of English freemen.
The view that the colonists were not equal members of the British nation, but rather were mere property of the King, changed how the inhabitants were connected to the government. As subjects of England, with all the rights of freemen, they would have had to have been treated differently than if they were merely foreign human property of the Crown. While English society had gained many legal rights over time, they had not escaped from the prevailing political philosophy of “The Divine Right of Kings” on which the legitimacy of all the monarchs of the “Holy Roman Empire” was based. Under the extension of that philosophy, the aristocracy of the landed gentry and the nobility viewed, all off-spring of the plant domain, animal domain, and human domain (soil, cattle, and serfs) as being the property of the land owner by the fact of coming into being on his property.
That principle was known as “jus soli”, or “the law of soil”. Children of foreigners who were born within the Kings domain were deemed to be his subjects by his and, later, judicial and Parliamentary decree since their parents had abandoned their previous country and joined that of the King. They were not natural born subjects since their parents were not subjects of the King but were subjects of a foreign monarch. But since they were born on his land, he had a right to claim them as his subjects.
But a different principle applied for those with wealth, -those with an estate, in particular the nobility. They were not viewed as the subjects of the King because of their English birth location, but because they were born to English fathers. They inherited from their fathers their English nationality, including their rights & responsibilities as British subjects, and that principle is known as “jus sanguinis” or “law of blood”.
Since the colonies were the property of the King, its inhabitants were viewed as belonging to the mother country by jus soli, not jus sanguinis, because they were born on the land of the owner and were therefore the property of the owner (England and her Monarch). That is how the feudal estate, or plantation-based idea of native birth came to be seen as the principle that bestowed membership in some American colonies. It’s concept was; “We were born on the land, we belong to the land owner (the British-owned colony where one was a subject) rather than “We are citizens because we were born as citizens by being born to citizens, and we are no ones property.” Most of the founding fathers realized that the model based on membership by descent had to be adopted and the colonial model of Monarch–subjects, or Lord of the Shire–serfs/ Plantation Master–slaves had to be abandoned, but some were not cognizant of the natural membership model because they had spent their entire lives under the colonial model and it was the only tradition that they knew (and which had existed for well over a century). They thought that citizenship was a result of where one is born, rather than to whom one is born.
The term “natural born citizen” is composed of three words which represents a different historical reality. Before understanding what they mean as a whole, one must first be clear what they mean individually. “Natural” refers to the natural realm. “Citizen” refers to the political realm. “Born” refers to birth, which embodies two separate and distinct legal concepts, -human ownership, and birthright inheritance, -both of which relate to the source of group membership. These concepts serve as a bridge to connect the natural realm with the political realm, and combine them all into an indivisible unity.
............................................
View the complete article at:
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/...f-citizenship/
h2ooflife
A.R. Nash
7/13/2012
Excerpt:
The Constitution & Presidential Eligibility
"The legitimacy of the presidency of Barack Obama is predicated on the assumption that he was constitutionally eligible for the office at the time of his election. While he fulfilled the 2nd and 3rd requirements for the office, (the requirements of age [maturity], and residency [familiarity & attachment] ) a fallacy has been unquestioningly embraced that he also fulfilled the elements of the 1st -and primary, requirement; namely that he be a “natural born Citizen”. That fallacy is the result of an erroneous substitution of a tangential circumstance (location of birth) in place of the oldest tradition of all human societies, which is membership acquired from member parents.
This error is the result of the historical circumstances of the American British colonies, which were not founded as equal members of the King’s domain, but rather as properties which were outside of the umbrella of legal rights that had been established through centuries of “push-back” against royal despotism, beginning with the Magna Carta. This inequitable relationship with the mother country was not made manifest until England was stuck with the large costs of waging the war against the French & Indians in America. England was loath to bare the costs to defend others so far away while they (the colonists) escaped from paying a sizable share. And so began a campaign to squeeze money from the colonies even while they were given no representation in Parliament nor before the King’s counselors. This revealed that the attitude of England was that the colonies were the property of England, and its subjects were not co-equals with the rights of English freemen.
The view that the colonists were not equal members of the British nation, but rather were mere property of the King, changed how the inhabitants were connected to the government. As subjects of England, with all the rights of freemen, they would have had to have been treated differently than if they were merely foreign human property of the Crown. While English society had gained many legal rights over time, they had not escaped from the prevailing political philosophy of “The Divine Right of Kings” on which the legitimacy of all the monarchs of the “Holy Roman Empire” was based. Under the extension of that philosophy, the aristocracy of the landed gentry and the nobility viewed, all off-spring of the plant domain, animal domain, and human domain (soil, cattle, and serfs) as being the property of the land owner by the fact of coming into being on his property.
That principle was known as “jus soli”, or “the law of soil”. Children of foreigners who were born within the Kings domain were deemed to be his subjects by his and, later, judicial and Parliamentary decree since their parents had abandoned their previous country and joined that of the King. They were not natural born subjects since their parents were not subjects of the King but were subjects of a foreign monarch. But since they were born on his land, he had a right to claim them as his subjects.
But a different principle applied for those with wealth, -those with an estate, in particular the nobility. They were not viewed as the subjects of the King because of their English birth location, but because they were born to English fathers. They inherited from their fathers their English nationality, including their rights & responsibilities as British subjects, and that principle is known as “jus sanguinis” or “law of blood”.
Since the colonies were the property of the King, its inhabitants were viewed as belonging to the mother country by jus soli, not jus sanguinis, because they were born on the land of the owner and were therefore the property of the owner (England and her Monarch). That is how the feudal estate, or plantation-based idea of native birth came to be seen as the principle that bestowed membership in some American colonies. It’s concept was; “We were born on the land, we belong to the land owner (the British-owned colony where one was a subject) rather than “We are citizens because we were born as citizens by being born to citizens, and we are no ones property.” Most of the founding fathers realized that the model based on membership by descent had to be adopted and the colonial model of Monarch–subjects, or Lord of the Shire–serfs/ Plantation Master–slaves had to be abandoned, but some were not cognizant of the natural membership model because they had spent their entire lives under the colonial model and it was the only tradition that they knew (and which had existed for well over a century). They thought that citizenship was a result of where one is born, rather than to whom one is born.
The term “natural born citizen” is composed of three words which represents a different historical reality. Before understanding what they mean as a whole, one must first be clear what they mean individually. “Natural” refers to the natural realm. “Citizen” refers to the political realm. “Born” refers to birth, which embodies two separate and distinct legal concepts, -human ownership, and birthright inheritance, -both of which relate to the source of group membership. These concepts serve as a bridge to connect the natural realm with the political realm, and combine them all into an indivisible unity.
............................................
View the complete article at:
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/...f-citizenship/