By
Michael LeMieux
August 21, 2011
NewsWithViews.com
There has been much discussion about Barrack Obama’s birth certificate. Why has he spent millions of dollars covering it up? Why has every document produced/provided as proof of his birth place ended up being a fraud? What they are really trying to do is a bit of nationwide sleight of hand – look here but pay no attention to the real issue – he is NOT a natural-born citizen as understood by those that wrote that phrase into the Constitution regardless of where he was born.
The requirement for President of the United States is outlined in the Constitution and states the following:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of the President… ” [1] (Emphasis added)
There are those that tend to dismiss this stating the Constitution does not define what the term “natural born Citizen” means therefore we will assume it must mean born within the physical United States boundaries vice a naturalized citizen. They would be in error.
Throughout the Constitution the writers used the term citizen numerous times but only here did they differentiate a specific classification of citizen even different than a naturalized citizen identified elsewhere. The founders would not have identified a specific kind of citizen unless it was for a specific reason.
One of the failings of the Constitution, highlighted by this controversy, is the lack of definitions for certain terms. As some terms were thought to be of common knowledge, by educated men, it was thought unnecessary to include them. One such definition that has garnered much controversy was the Militia; likewise is the term “natural born citizen.” So who in our Federal form of government make the laws? Of course that would be the Congress; and within the Constitution the founders placed guidance that may assist us in determining where we may find this information.
Article 1, Section 8 defines the enumerated powers of Congress and within that we find: “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” (Emphasis added) Probably many of you have never heard of such a thing, but Ben Franklin did.
In a correspondence between Benjamin Franklin and Charles William Frederic Dumas, Franklin stated:[2] “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.” (Emphasis added) So not only where they familiar with the “Law of Nations” but they consulted it frequently.
It should not be surprising that within Vattel’s Law of Nations the term “natural-born Citizen” was defined as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” (Emphasis added) Notice the plural use for parentage.
This was based upon the idea of a singularity of allegiance. The position being that if a person whose father was born outside the country and the son inside the country it would put the son in a position of dual allegiance between his birth country and the country of his father. Vattel stated it this way: “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.”
The implication is that if circumstances placed the country at odds with the country of a president’s father the president may not be able to bring himself to wage war, if necessary, against a nation that he has a direct relationship with. How could a man expect to defend against or wage war with the country of his father?
Which brings us to the issue at hand – how do we interpret the constitutional meaning of “natural-born citizen?” As the Constitution is the basis of our law and is law in and of itself we should look at the Constitution through statutory construction.
Advertisement
First; a review of the “plain meaning” of the text has probably been the greatest contention in determining the meaning as the term is not used in general language today, outside of this context, and obviously being overlooked by those in political power, so it is of little use.
Second; should the “plain meaning” not prevail then one must determine the original intentions of the person or people that wrote it. This is not always an easy task; as time progresses the nuances of language and even meanings of words change. A prime example is the word “welfare,” when used today most everyone thinks of grants from the government in the form of money, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. But back in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s welfare meant simply “Happiness; Success; Prosperity.”[3] (Now read the section in the Constitution that directs government to “promote the general welfare.” Takes on a whole new meaning doesn’t it?)
But having documentation from those that wrote the Constitution telling us that they consulted a resource “frequently” and one of the few, if only, use was that of Vattel giving the meaning as that of a singularity of citizenship of the parents, and especially the father, we must give weight to this meaning.
Third; should the prior two methods not be productive then one must look outside of that to the historical, and contemporary writings of the time to see if anything supports a particular point of view. And though there are very few writings dealing with the term “natural-born citizen” we do have a number of writings dealing with the concept of “dual allegiance” that aligns with Vattel’s definition of “natural-born.”
In 1794 President Washington in a letter to John Adams stated: “the policy…of its [immigration] taking place in a body (I mean settling them in a body) may be much questioned; for, by so doing, they retain the Language, habits and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them. Whereas by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures and laws: in a word soon become one people.”[4] Here we see a distinct ideal of ensuring a nation that was not plagued with divided or dual allegiances that people coming to America should “in a word soon become one people.” This is the exact sentiment that Vattel was driving with the “natural-born citizen,” a single allegiance to the United States.
Finally we must turn to any legal precedence that may aid us in our determination. In the case of Minor v. Happersett (1874) we find the following:
“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. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." [5] (Emphasis added)
I bring this case up as it so clearly highlights the need for singularity of allegiance and the striking verbiage that relates directly back to Vattel’s “Law of Nations” definition that parents (plural) must be citizens.
If we contrast this with the total lack of evidence to the contrary then this evidence becomes overwhelming that Vattel’s definition must clearly be the defining voice.
So wherein lays the deception you may ask? The deception lies in that over 500 politicians, and countless government and academic lawyers would have you believe that there is no way to determine the meaning of a phrase used by our founders in the Constitution of the United States, the basis of the Law of our Nation, and operative for over two hundred years. Yet, I and scores of other lay people all around the nation have been screaming this simple truth and no one listens. In truth I totally believe they know exactly what is going on, but it does not serve their purposes and to them the end justifies the means.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
Politicians and government do not care what individuals know because they have come to understand that unless a massive up swell happens they can simply dismiss it as a bunch of conspiracy theorists – "who are you going to believe some kook or your own government?" – will be their reply. Or they may just try and vilify people who believe in strict adherence to the Constitution, or are against Abortion, or for gun rights, or believe in Constitutional Militias, or have Ron Paul bumper stickers, or “natural-born citizen” adherents are all potential terrorists… oh wait – they’ve already done that!
Footnotes:
1.
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
2.
Benjamin Franklin to To: Charles William Frederic Dumas
3.
Dictionary
of the English Language Third Edition, Samuel Johnson, 1828.
4.
Dual Allegiance: A
Challenge to Immigration Reform and Patriotic Assimilation.
5.
Minor
v. Happersett, 88 US 162 - Supreme Court 1875.
� 2011 Michael LeMieux - All Rights Reserved
Share
This Article Michael
LeMieux was born in Midwest City, Oklahoma in 1956 and graduated from
Weber State University in Utah with a degree in Computer Science. He
served in both the US Navy and US Army (Active duty and National Guard)
and trained in multiple intelligence disciplines and was a qualified
paratrooper. He served with the 19th Special Forces Group, while in
the National Guard, as a Special Forces tactical intelligence team member.
He served tours to Kuwait and Afghanistan where he received the Purple
Heart for injuries received in combat.
Mr. LeMieux left military duty at the end of 2005 after being medically
discharged with over 19 years of combined military experience. He currently
works as an intelligence contractor to the US government.
Michael is a strict constitutionalist who believes in interpreting the constitution by the original intent of the founding fathers. His research has led him to the conclusion that the republic founded by the Constitution is no longer honored by our government. That those who rule America today are doing so with the interest of the federal government in mind and not the Citizens. Michael believes that all three branches of government have strayed far from the checks and balances built into the Constitution and they have failed the American people. A clear example is the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court and the founders have all said was an individual right and could not be "infringed" upon, now has more than 20,000 state and federal laws regulating every aspect of the individuals right, a definite infringement. He has traveled around the world living in 14 States of the Union including Hawaii, and visited (for various lengths of time) in Spain, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, Scotland, Pakistan, Mauritius, Somalia, Diego Garcia, Australia, Philippines, England, Italy, Germany, and Puerto Rico.
Michael now lives in Nebraska with his wife, two of his three children, Mother-in-Law and grandchild. His hobbies include shooting, wood-working, writing, amateur inventor and scuba diving when he can find the time.
Contact Michael through his Website: www.constitutiondenied.com
