homilies on us natural born citizen original ism

8/3/2019 Homilies on US Natural Born Citizen Original Ism

1/43

Part 1:American History Restored: The 13 Presidencies of the Confederacy of the United States

of America. John Hancock was our First President?

First appearing on January 17,2011 @

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/american-history-restored-13.html

Why did John Hancock sign his name so largely on the Declaration of Independence? The

answer may surprise you. It was because the Continental Congress called him their "President",

and as the President of the Continental Congress at the time the Declaration of Independence was

signed, I would argue that the de facto and de jure first President of the United States as aConfederacy, on July 4, 1776, was John Hancock.

There are those who have mislabeled two others as forgotten Presidents of the United States.This is not so. They were Presidents of the Continental Congress prior to the signing of the

Declaration of Independence, that legal document by which the US Supreme Court has

repeatedly cited as marking the origins of this nation, the United States of America.

The list of negative (non-extant) Presidents:

-3 Peyton Randolph served as the First President of the United Colonies formulated into theContinental Congress from September 5, 1774 at the approximate age of 53 years old, and served

a little over a month as President until October 21, 1774. His election was by those of actual

members and participants of the First Continental Congress.

-2. Henry Middleton served as the Second President of the United Colonies, in absentia of

Peyton Randolph's presence. He was elected by those Colonial State representatives collectedinto the political body of the Continental Congress. His election in absentia was probably a

motivating factor as to why when the Constitution was drafted 13 years later that the office of the

Vice-President was required by our Constitution. It went back to the "in absentia" experience thatnecessitated Middleton to assume the Presidency of the Continental Congress, even if for a much

shorter duration than his predecessor. Henry Middleton was stated to be some 57 years old at his

election, and served that body as its President for less than a week, from October 22, 1774 until

October 26, 1774, to the conclusion of the Continental Congress business for that session.

It may be that those of the Continental Congress did not view Middleton so much as its second

President, as much as a President pro tem, and that Peyton Randolph was still in the capacity asbeing its legal President, even if absent at the time.
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/american-history-restored-13.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/american-history-restored-13.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/american-history-restored-13.html


2/43

-1 . Peyton Randolph was able to resume as the office as President of the Continental Congress

when it reconvened. He served again as its President from May 10 to May 24, 1775. Bad healthtook its toll, and he resigned and died the same year.

0. John Hancock, born January 12, 1737 in Quincy Massachusetts, was at the age of 38 electedthe same day that Continental Congress President Randolph felt obligated to resign by

incapacitation due to ill health. This "resigning or replacing by incapacitation" consideration

would also eventually make its way into the US Constitution. John Hancock assumed the officeof President of the Continental Congress (i.e., the United Colonial States) on May 24, 1775 and

served as what I call "negative President zero" until July 3, 1776. He would live until October 8,

1793.

The List of the Legislative Presidents: the Presidents of the Confederacy of the United

States of America:

Before I begin, it must be noted that these first de facto and de jure Presidents of the

United States were NOT EXECUTIVE positions. They were equivocal to the Speaker of

the House, and absent a US Senate and absent an Executive Branch of Government. These

Presidents must be viewed in that context. Therefore, the use of Presidents of the Confederacy

of the United States, the weak centralized Government being subject to the Articles of

Confederation, is accurate. However, unlike other historians who leave out many of thePresidents of the Confederacy, some citing two or three, some as many as eight, I instead choose

to list all of them, including the preceding office: President of the Continental Congress. While

some Presidents of States had their title changed to "Governor", it was the body politic under thePresidency of the United States that evolved from Colonial to Sovereignty, until its evolving

changed required a change to the title that oversaw it from a Legislative Leader to that of an

Executive.

However, even in their weakened Confederate State, these men were, for the purposes of history,

non-executive Presidents of the United States, nevertheless. Again, prior to the United States as

a Republic, and in its formative and transition years, the United States of America existed as aconfederacy. It was these kind of weakened (almost "Speaker of the House") Legislative styled

and arbitrator role Presidencies that the Southern States had later seemed to advocate in a

demand of a return to when they called for a return to a recognition and autonomy of operatingmore like a "Confederacy" of "free and independent states" as if by contract from the 1776

Declaration of Independence in the early to mid 1800s...with stronger states and a weakened

central Government acting as a benign overseer and arbitrator between the States of such a

Confederacy.

1. John Hancock on July 4, 1776, still as President of the ContinentalCongress, de facto and de jure became President of the United States with the signing of theDeclaration of Independence. He signed the Declaration of Independence first in large and bold

writing because he was the New President of a New Nation. He also signed in his representation


3/43

in behalf of Massachusetts, for which representation, he also signed the Articles of

Confederation. He continued to serve as the first President of the United States in its body politicas a Confederacy, until October 29, 1777.

2. Henry Laurens, born on March 6, 1724 in Charleston of South Carolina,was a signer of the Articles of Confederation for South Carolina, and served as the secondPresident of the Confederacy of the United States from November 1, 1777 until December 9,

1778. Henry Laurens stepped down to take an ambassadorship to the Netherlands, and was

captured by the British while en route. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London until prisoner

exchanged weeks after the October 19, 1781 end to the battle of Yorktown (which battle beganon September 29, 1781).

3. John Jay, born on December 12, 1745 in New York of New York, became thethird President of the Confederacy of the United States of America from December 10, 1777

until September 27, 1779. He neither signed the Declaration of Independence, nor the Articlesof Confederation, nor the US Constitution, because he did not serve in that State capacity of

representation at the time those documents were signed. However, because of the depth of his

influences and participations, he is also a "Founding Father" of this nation, and his time spent asPresident of the United States, even though a Confederacy at the time, affirms his place as a

Founding Father of this nation, the Republic of the United States of America.

After serving as this nation's third de facto and de jure President, John Jay would find himself as

ambassador to Spain, the Secretary of State in July of 1784, and finally Chief Justice of theSupreme Court of the (new) Republic of the United States of America in 1789 as appointed by

George Washington. In his brief tenure as Chief Justice, among his most notable decisions wasthat ofChisholm v. Georgia, 2 US 419 (1793)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0

which is believed to have been the same basis used to grant the United States its 11th

Amendment to the US Constitution on State's Rights.

The 11th Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794 and ratified on February 7,

1795, and reads:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law orequity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State,or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Although the amendment was challenged, including over that it was not signed by the President -

- Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 378 (1798) -- the Amendment challenges wererejected by the US Supreme Court. It reads (in blue):
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1793/1793_0


4/43

Syllabus

The amendment of the Constitution of the United States by which the judicial power ofthe United States was declared not to extend to any suit commenced or prosecuted by a citizen or

citizens of another state or by foreign subjects against a state prevented the exercise of

jurisdiction in any case past or future.

The decision of the court, in the case of Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U. S. 419, produced aproposition in Congress for amending the Constitution of the United States according to the

following terms:

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit inlaw and equity commencedor prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another

stateor by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

[Something the illegally appointed (via Obama) DOJ US Attorney General Eric Holder in 2010

has cast to the wind, inviting any Latin American Foreign Power to come in and help him sue

Arizona over its Immigration Law. Even though Arizona's Immigration 2010 Law was simply

mirroring the Federal Law on the books, Holder sued and brought in foreign interest

representation, in violation of the 11th Amendment among other egregious disregards to the USConstitution by the Department of "Justice" under the Obama the Usurper Administration.

Again, by inviting Mexico, Venezuela, and other foreign states to weigh in on the case on thePlaintiff side which Holder represents v. Arizona, he is de facto and de jure suing a State on

behalf on non-citizen foreigners and subjects of foreign states. This has already been ruled

against by this case decision from 1798.-- Brianroy]

The proposition being now adopted by the constitutional number of states, Lee, Attorney

General, submitted this question to the Court whether the amendment did or did not supersede all

suits depending, as well as prevent the institution of new suits against any one of the UnitedStates by citizens of another state.

Page 3 U. S. 382

The Court, on the day succeeding the argument, delivered an unanimous opinion that the

amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction in

any case, past or future, in which a state was sued by the citizens of another state or by

citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

John Jay retired from public service in 1801, became a President of the American Bible Society,

advocated against slavery, and died on May 17, 1829.

4. Samuel Huntington, born on either July 2nd, 5th or 16th of 1731 inWindham, Connecticut. His birth date according to Charles A. Goodrich Lives of the Signers tothe Declaration of Independence. New York: William Reed & Co., 1856, was allegedly the2nd of July, but other biographers have differed on the exact birth date. Samuel Huntington,

signer of the Declaration of Independence for Connecticut, served as the fourth President of the

Confederacy of the United States from September 28, 1779 until July 9, 1781. Like Peyton

Randolph, he was forced to resign due to bad health and incapacitation. Unlike Randolph,Huntington went on to recover, and did not pass away until January 5, 1796.


5/43

5. Thomas McKean was born on March 19, 1734 in New-London ofPennsylvania in Chester County, and served as the fifth President of the Confederacy of theUnited States from July 10 to November 4, 1781. McKean was an avid reader of Latin and

Greek classics in their own languages. He died on June 24, 1817. Thomas McKean was a signer

of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation for the State of Delaware.Thomas McKean is especially notable for a couple reasons. One is, that while a Delegate for

Delaware, he was also an active Colonel in the Militia. He had barely arrived in time for the last

argument before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, which he had already made uphis mind to sign beforehand...and is the only one to have signed that document while still

wearing spurs on his boots. The very next day, he was dispatched with his militia to Perth

Amboy, New Jersey, to effect a relief action for George Washington. Not long after, his militia

was disbanded, and he ascended to the pinnacle in Delaware public office.Of a note, we find that the biographies of the period during the lifetimes of the founders (like

Thomas McKean) were sometimes neglectful by omission. In Thomas McKean's letter of

September 26, 1796, he writes the ff. to a Mr. Dallas of Pennsylvania:

"Sir,

"Your favour of the 19th instant, respecting the Declaration of Independence, should not have

remained so long unanswered, if the duties of my office of chief justice had not engrossed my

whole attention, while the court was sitting.

For several years past, I have been taught to think less unfavourably of scepticism than formerly.

So many things have been misrepresented, misstated, and erroneously printed, (with seeming

authenticity,) under my own eye, as in my opinion' to render those who doubt of every thing, not

altogether inexcusable: The publication of the Declaration of Independence, on the 4th of July,

1776, as printed in the second volume of the Journals of Congress, page 241; and also in the

acts of most public bodies since, so far as respects the names of the delegates or deputies, who

made that Declaration, has led to the above reflection. By the printed publications referred to, it

would appear, as if the fifty-five gentlemen, whose names are there printed, and none other, were

on that day personally present in congress, and assenting to the Declaration; whereas, the truth

is otherwise. The following gentleman were not members of congress on the 4th of July, 1776;

namely Matthew Thornton, Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, and

George Ross.

The five last named were not chosen delegates until the 20th day of the month; the first, not until

the 12th day of September following, nor did he take his seat in congress, until the 4th of

November, which was four months after. The journals of Congress, (vol. ii. page 277 and 442.)

as well as those of the assembly of the state of Pennsylvania, (p. 53.) and of the general assembly

of New-Hampshire, establish these facts. Although the six gentleman named had been very activein the American cause, and some of them, to my own knowledge, warmly in favour of

independence, previous to the day on which it was declared, yet I personally know that none of

them were in congress on that day.

Modesty should not rob any man of his just honour, when by that honour, his modesty cannot be

offended. My name is not in the printed journals of congress, as a party to the Declaration of

Independence, and this, like an error in the first concoction, has vitiated most of the subsequent


6/43

publications; and yet the fact is, that I was then a member of congress for the state of Delaware,

was personally present in congress, and voted in favour of independence on the 4th of July,

1776, and signed the declaration after it had been engrossed on parchment, where my name, in

my own hand writing, still appears. Henry Misner, of the state of New-York, was also in

congress, and voted for independence. I do not know how the misstatement in the printed journal

has happened. The manuscript public journal has no names annexed to the Declaration ofIndependence, nor has the secret journal; but it appears by the latter, that on the 19th day of

July, 1776, the congress directed that it should be engrossed on parchment, and signed by every

member, and that it was so produced on the 2nd of August, and signed. This is interlined in the

secret journal, in the hand of Charles Thompson, the secretary. The present secretary of state of

the United States, and myself, have lately inspected the journals, and seen this. The journal was

first printed by Mr. John Dunlap, in 1778, and probably copes, with the names then signed to it,

were printed in August, 1776, and that Mr. Dunlap printed the names from one of them.

I have now, sir, given you a true, though brief, history of this affair; and, as you are engaged in

publishing a new edition of the Laws of Pennsylvania, I am obliged to you for affording the

favourable opportunity of conveying to you this information, authorizing you to make any use ofit you please. "I am," &c. "

6. John Hanson, born in Charles County of Maryland on April 3, 1715,signer of the Articles of Confederation for Maryland, served as the sixth President of theConfederacy of the United States of America from November 5, 1781 to November 3, 1782. He

died on November 15, 1783. His family was one of distinction, with nephews who were

singularly signers of the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution, Governor of

Maryland, and a direct military aide to George Washington. After the US Constitution wasratified, one of his grandsons served as a Representative in Congress, and another as a Maryland

State Senator. Because his grandfather co-founded New Sweden along the Delaware River, and

the aforementioned relations, he was considered among the American alternate version toaristocracy.

7. Elias Boudinot, born on May 2, 1740 in Philadelphia of Pennsylvania,like John Jay, had not signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or

the US Constitution. He moved to New Jersey and had a law practice in Elizabethtown. He

served as the seventh President of the United States of the Confederacy from November 4, 1782,

to November 2, 1783. He was a signer of the 1783 Peace Treaty with Great Britain as the

representative President of the United States of America.Again, like John Jay, Elias Boudinot served as Secretary of State, then titled as the Secretary

of Foreign Affairs". He was a Congressman of the House of Representatives, the first director ofthe US Mint, and the first admission of advocate to the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.

He also served as a trustee at Princeton University.

Also like John Jay, Boudinot served as President of the American Bible Society, butpreceding Jay to that distinction in 1816. Elias wrote a book titled "Star of the West", where he

explored the notion of whether it were possible that some of the Indians (Native Americans by


7/43

designation today) might have been descended from the Lost Tribes of Israel, based on similar

customs and primitive archaeological observations. Elias Boudinot died on October 24, 1821.

8. Thomas Mifflin, signer of the US Constitution for Pennsylvania, wasborn on January 10, 1744 in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, and served as the eighth President of theConfederacy of the United States of America from November 3, 1783 until November 29,

1784. While in Office he accepted the resignation of commission from his old boss, George

Washington; and as President, Mifflin also signed the ratification of the Treaty of Paris onJanuary 14, 1784. On behalf of Pennsylvania, Thomas Mifflin was a signer of the US

Constitution.

Mifflin began the Revolutionary War as a Major and an aide to George Washington, who

soon after had him appointed to be the Armys first Quartermaster General, by order of theContinental Congress, on August 14, 1775. He resumed battlefield duties simultaneous with that

position, and graduated to Brigadier General. He held various Pennsylvania Public Offices,

including that of its President when the titled was transmuted to Governor of the State of

Pennsylvania in 1790, and continued as Governor until 1799. He died on January 20, 1800.

9. Richard Henry Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence andof the Articles of Confederation for the State of Virginia, was born on January 20, 1732 inWestmoreland County, Virginia, and served as the ninth President of the Confederacy of the

United States of America from November 30, 1784 to November 22, 1785. After being briefly a

Justice of the Peace in 1757, Lee was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1758, andremained there until 1775; leaving that office because he became a delegate to the Continental

Congress in 1775, serving until 1779.

On June 7, 1776, his resolution stating that these United Colonies are, and of right

ought to be, Free and Independent States made its way into the Declaration of

Independence. And it was later cited by the Southern States for justification of secessionfrom the Union that led to the Civil War of 1861-1865. Lee finished his career in politics as a

US Senator for Virginia, serving from March 4, 1789 until October 8, 1792. Lee died on June 19,1794.

10. John Hancock served a second time, serving this time as the tenthPresident of the Confederacy of the United States of America from circa November 22, 1785 toJune 6, 1786.

11. Nathaniel Gorham, a signer of the US Constitution, was born inCharlestown, Massachusetts on May 27, 1738, and served as the eleventh President of the

Confederacy of the United States of America from June 6, 1786 to February 1, 1787. Under hiswatch, the Confederacy of the United States was almost lost, as Republicans had to quash the

demand by those in Congress who took it upon themselves to push the notion that America

become a monarchy under foreign royalty: either the brother of Frederick II of Prussia, PrinceHenry; or the Scottish Stuart Royal and rebel leader, Prince Charlie. Nathaniel Gorham, though


8/43

of Massachusetts, also took the same line as Richard Henry Lee, that the individual states ought

to be free to plot their own courses as if individual nation-states allied with one another, ratherthan as a merged and unified singular nation with a strong unifying central government.

Concerns about these events were raised by Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the US

Constitution.

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-336.htm

In 1833, in Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 1473

It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States;

or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for 14 years before his election. This

permission of a naturalized citizen [to speak of those to who fought the Revolutionary War] to become

President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude

foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it

has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of

respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land, and yet

had entitled themselves to high honors in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of themfrom the office would have been unjust to their merits and painful to their sensibilities.

But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be

doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might

otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corruptinterferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most

serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even thepontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from

this source.

See Storys bio:http://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htm

Nathaniel Gorham died on June 11, 1796.

12. Arthur St. Clair was born in Thurso, Scotland, on March 23, 1734, andbecame the twelfth President of the Confederacy of the United States from February 2, 1787

until January 2, 1788. As a Scot, Arthur St. Clair became a British Army officer. While on tourof duty in Boston, Massachusetts, he met and married a well-off Colonial of Boston Society,

Phoebe, and resigned his commission as a lieutenant in 1762. He and his wife moved to a 400

acre homestead in Pennsylvania on the money offered as a gift by his father-in-law, the Governorof Massachusetts, Governor Bowdoin. At the outbreak of the Revolution, he was appointed to

the rank of Colonel by the continental Congress, and led a regiment, fighting in Canada during1775, and actions such as Trenton and Princeton, New Jersey in 1776-1777. He faced disgracewhen as a brigadier general; he yielded and withdrew from Fort Ticonderoga in the Spring of

1777, letting it fall to the British. In 1785, he was elected to the Congress of the Confederacy for

Pennsylvanias representation. Considering that his appointment to the Presidency on February

2, 1787 followed the debate as to whether to begin a Scottish /Stuart monarchy in America, theappointment of Arthur St. Clair was a curious choice. He would also go on to suffer a massacre

of nearly half his 1400 man force in an expedition against the Indians, resign his commission for
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-336.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-336.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htmhttp://www.constitution.org/js/js_001.htmhttp://www.lonang.com/exlibris/story/sto-336.htm


9/43

that loss, become Governor of the Northwest Territories, and was a founder of the city of

Cincinnati, Ohio. He was never recompensed for his costs as Governor of the NorthwestTerritories, and lost most of his land in order to pay his debts. Arthur St. Clair died on August

31, 1818.

It was because of(or primarily because of) St. Clair that the proviso of the PresidentialEligibility Clause WAS INCLUDED INTO THE US CONSTITUTION.

In 1762 he became married into Massachusetts legience, and at the out break of war, he was 14years a resident on July 04 of 1776, and a Citizen of Massachusetts. He is the only one of the

Legislative Presidents who was foreign born prior to the Declaration of Independence and before

and after the US Constitution, which specific 2.1.5 clause reads:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, ora Citizen of the United States, at the time of the

Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any

Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and

been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

13. Cyrus Griffin, the thirteenth and last President of the United States ofthe Confederacy, was born in Farnham, Virginia on July 16, 1749, served as President from

January 22, 1788 to March 4, 1789, when the US Constitution was ratified, and GeorgeWashington became the first President of the (new) Republic of the United States of America.

Cyrus Griffin had received his Law Degree at the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and

eloped with the Christina Stewart, the daughter of James Stewart, Earl of Traquair. In 1774, and

until at least 1777, Cyrus Griffin was living in Virginia practicing law as an attorney. He was inpublic office for Virginia and to the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1781, and then assumed

the career of a Circuit Judge until his election on January 22, 1788. Following his stepping aside

for George Washington, he was appointed a District Judge by George Washington, and remainedso until his death. He judicially oversaw the Creek Nation, and also specialized in Maritime

Laws, at one point in his career was also overseeing cases of the Admiralty. Cyrus Griffin died

on December 14, 1810.

----------------------So armed with this knowledge, can anyone truly say that after the Founders who were citizens at

least 14 years at the time of July 04, 1776, etc, when these passed away, those coming later born

with foreign fathers who never naturalized to the USA as its citizens with legience, that thesewere allowed by the Constitution to be called Natural Born Citizens? Don't forget to cite US

Supreme Court Case Law if you should say yes. Not Circuit Court...US Supreme Court CaseDecisions. In each one, the father must always be a US Citizen with the child born on USSovereign Soil to be a Natural Born Citizen in US Supreme Court Case Law.

Obama says his father was a Kenyan National his entire life and never a US Citizen. That

automatically disqualifies him for NOT having sole legience and sole citizenship to the USA atbirth, not to mention that he held two other international citizenships from birth to age 23, only

the British Commonwealth Citizenship having been known to expire...while Kenya's Parliament


10/43

infers his Kenyan Citizenship still exists (twice in its records of Parliament). You might also

wish to re-read the emboldened print I posted on January 12, 2011 of John Locke's SecondTreatise of Government Chapter 6 ('Of Paternal Power'):

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.html

Locke being a major influence on the Founders in regards to the NBC Clause.
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.html


11/43

Part 2:First appearing on January 12, 2011 @

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.html

John Locke was a major influence in the discussions of the Founding Fathers. For those

unfamiliar with Locke, they may either wish to first start by reading these links from StanfordUniversity: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/

or to read his works, such as the Two Treatises of Government (and others) at:http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1

725

In regards to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, those who are well familiarized with Chapter 6

of Locke's second Treatise on Government, labeled "Paternal Power", at once know what aNatural Born Citizen is...the natural product of his Citizen Father who rears the child up in his

own Citizenship. It is not from the mother, but from the father...or as Locke puts it, "of PaternalPower."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&cha

pter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27

CHAP. VI.

Of Paternal Power.

. 52.

IT may perhaps be censured as an impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to findfault with words and names, that have obtained in the world: and yet possibly it may not be

amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal

power probably has done, which seems so to place the power of parents over their childrenwholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or

revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title. This may give one reason to ask, whether this

might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature and the right

of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of

it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without

distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother,

Exod. xx. 12. Whosoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Ye shall fear every man his

mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1. is the stile of

the Old and New Testament.

. 53.

Had but this one thing been well considered, without looking any deeper into the matter, it might

perhaps have kept men from running into those gross mistakes, they have made, about this power

of parents; which, however it might, without any great harshness, bear the name of absolute

dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.htmlhttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1725http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1725http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=222&chapter=16297&layout=html&Itemid=27http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1725http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=1725http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2011/01/john-locke-second-teatise-of-government.html


12/43

to the father, would yet have sounded but oddly, and in the very name shewn the absurdity, if

this supposed absolute power over children had been called parental; and thereby have

discovered, that it belonged to the mother too: for it will but very ill serve the turn of those men,

who contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it,

that the mother should have any share in it; and it would have but ill supported the monarchy

they contend for, when by the very name it appeared, that that fundamental authority, fromwhence they would derive their government of a single person only, was not placed in one, but

two persons jointly. But to let this of names pass.

. 54.

Though I have said above, Chap. II. Thatall men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to

understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency ofparts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance

or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects,

may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect

of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as

proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his naturalfreedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.

. 55.

Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their

parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for

some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling

clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason

as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free

disposal.

. 56.

Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and

reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and

preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God

had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born

infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this

imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and

after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and

educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of

their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.

. 57.

The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of

reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him,by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the use of reason, they were notpresently under that law; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and

this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his


13/43

reason, cannot be said to be under this law;and Adams children, being not presently as soon

as born under this law of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its true notion, is not so

much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and

prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier

without it, the law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of

confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it may bemistaken,the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for

in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom:

for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where thereis no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who

could be free, when every other mans humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to

dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within

the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will

of another, but freely follow his own.

. 58.The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent

on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the

mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non-age, till reason shall take its place, and

ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God

having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and

liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But

whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not

to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must

prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his

father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.

. 59.

This holds inall the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law ofnature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property,

according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturitywherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions

within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that

law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it;till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a

liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make

his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to

have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the

permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law,at the

age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall

make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to beguided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die,

and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son,

during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other

must govern him, and be a will to him,till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his


14/43

understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are

equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together,

without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they

be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established

government.

[Simply put:

A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is then defined for us as being that ofa Son of his Citizen

Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the

land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil

of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension

of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the

citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off.

Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the

child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature

AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that

"citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that wecannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the

later United States Constitution. -- Brianroy]

. 60.

But if, through defects that may happen out of the ordinary course of nature, any one comes not

to such a degree of reason, wherein he might be supposed capable of knowing the law, and so

living within the rules of it, he is never capable of being a free man, he is never let loose to the

disposure of his own will (because he knows no bounds to it, has not understanding, its proper

guide) but is continued under the tuition and government of others, all the time his own

understanding is uncapable of that charge. And so lunatics and ideots are never set free from the

government of their parents; children, who are not as yet come unto those years whereat they

may have; and innocents which are excluded by a natural defect from ever having; thirdly,

madmen, which for the present cannot possibly have the use of right reason to guide themselves,

have for their guide, the reason that guideth other men which are tutors over them, to seek and

procure their good for them, says Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sect. 7. All which seems no more than

that duty, which God and nature has laid on man, as well as other creatures, to preserve their

offspring, till they can be able to shift for themselves, and will scarce amount to an instance or

proof of parents regal authority.

. 61.

Thus we are born free, as we are born rational; not that we have actually the exercise of

either: age, that brings one, brings with it the other too. And thus we see how natural freedomand subjection to parents may consist together, and are both founded on the same principle. A

child is free by his fathers title, by his fathers understanding, which is to govern him till he

hath it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of discretion, and the subjection of a child to

his parents, whilst yet short of that age, are so consistent, and so distinguishable, that the most

blinded contenders formonarchy, by right of fatherhood, cannot miss this difference; the most

obstinate cannot but allow their consistency: for were their doctrine all true, were the right heir


15/43

of Adam now known, and by that title settled a monarch in his throne, invested with all the

absolute unlimited power Sir Robert Filmer talks of; if he should die as soon as his heir were

born, must not the child, notwithstanding he were never so free, never so much sovereign, be in

subjection to his mother and nurse, to tutors and governors, till age and education brought him

reason and ability to govern himself and others? The necessities of his life, the health of his

body, and the information of his mind, would require him to be directed by the will of others, andnot his own; and yet will any one think, that this restraint and subjection were inconsistent with,

or spoiled him of that liberty or sovereignty he had a right to, or gave away his empire to those

who had the government of his nonage? This government over him only prepared him the better

and sooner for it. If any body should ask me, when my son is of age to be free? I shall answer,

just when his monarch is of age to govern. But at what time, says the judicious Hooker, Eccl.

Pol. l. i. sect. 6. a man may be said to have attained so far forth the use of reason, as sufficeth to

make him capable of those laws whereby he is then bound to guide his actions: this is a great

deal more easy for sense to discern, than for any one by skill and learning to determine.

. 62.Common-wealths themselves take notice of, and allow, that there is a time when men are to

begin to act like free men, and therefore till that time require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance,or other public owning of, or submission to the government of their countries.

. 63.

The freedom then of man, and liberty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his

having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him

know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loose to an unrestrained

liberty, before he has reason to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to

be free; but to thrust him out amongst brutes, and abandon him to a state as wretched, and as

much beneath that of a man, as theirs. This is that which puts the authority into the parents

hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their business to employ this

care on their off-spring, and hath placed in them suitable inclinations of tenderness and concern

to temper this power, to apply it, as his wisdom designed it, to the childrens good, as long as

they should need to be under it.

. 64.

But what reason can hence advance this care of the parents due to their off-spring into an

absolute arbitrary dominion of the father, whose power reaches no farther, than by such a

discipline, as he finds most effectual, to give such strength and health to their bodies, such

vigour and rectitude to their minds, as may best fit his children to be most useful to themselves

and others; and, if it be necessary to his condition, to make them work, when they are able, for

their own subsistence. But in this power the mother too has her share with the father.

. 65.

Nay, this power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is

guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them, he loses his power over them,


16/43

which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed; and

it belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child, as to the natural father of another. So

little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue; if all his care ends there,

and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father. And what will become of

this paternal power in that part of the world, where one woman hath more than one husband at a

time? or in those parts of America, where, when the husband and wife part, which happensfrequently, the children are all left to the mother, follow her, and are wholly under her care and

provision? If the father die whilst the children are young, do they not naturally every where owe

the same obedience to their mother, during their minority, as to their father were he alive? and

will any one say, that the mother hath a legislative power over her children? that she can make

standing rules, which shall be of perpetual obligation, by which they ought to regulate all the

concerns of their property, and bound their liberty all the course of their lives? or can she

inforce the observation of them with capital punishments? for this is the proper power of the

magistrate, of which the father hath not so much as the shadow. His command over his children

is but temporary, and reaches not their life or property: it is but a help to the weakness and

imperfection of their nonage, a discipline necessary to their education: and though a father may

dispose of his own possessions as he pleases, when his children are out of danger of perishingfor want, yet his power extends not to the lives or goods, which either their own industry, or

anothers bounty has made theirs; nor to their liberty neither, when they are once arrived to theinfranchisement of the years of discretion. The fathers empire then ceases, and he can fromthence forwards no more dispose of the liberty of his son, than that of any other man: and it must

be far from an absolute or perpetual jurisdiction, from which a man may withdraw himself,

having licence from divine authority to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

. 66.

But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and

command of his father, as the father himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else,

and they are each under no other restraint, but that which is common to them both, whether it be

the law of nature, or municipal law of their country; yet this freedom exempts not a son from that

honour which he ought, by the law of God and nature, to pay his parents. God having made the

parents instruments in his great design of continuing the race of mankind, and the occasions of

life to their children; as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourish, preserve, and bring up

their offspring; so he has laid on the children a perpetual obligation of honouring their parents,

which containing in it an inward esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions,

ties up the child from any thing that may ever injure or affront, disturb or endanger, the

happiness or life of those from whom he received his; and engages him in all actions of defence,

relief, assistance and comfort of those, by whose means he entered into being, and has been

made capable of any enjoyments of life: from this obligation no state, no freedom can absolve

children. But this is very far from giving parents a power of command over their children, or an

authority to make laws and disposs as they please of their lives or liberties. It is one thing to owe

honour, respect, gratitude and assistance; another to require an absolute obedience andsubmission. The honour due to parents,a monarch in his throne owes his mother; and yet this

lessens not his authority, nor subjects him to her government.


17/43

. 67.

The subjection of a minor places in the father a temporary government, which terminates with

the minority of the child: and the honour due from a child, places in the parents a perpetual right

to respect, reverence, support and compliance too, more or less, as the fathers care, cost, and

kindness in his education, has been more or less. This ends not with minority, but holds in all

parts and conditions of a mans life. The want of distinguishing these two powers, viz. that whichthe father hath in the right of tuition, during minority, and the right of honour all his life, may

perhaps have caused a great part of the mistakes about this matter: for to speak properly of

them, the first of these is rather the privilege of children, and duty of parents, than any

prerogative of paternal power. The nourishment and education of their children is a charge so

incumbent on parents for their childrens good, that nothing can absolve them from taking care

of it: and though the power of commanding and chastising them go along with it, yet God hath

woven into the principles of human nature such a tenderness for their off-spring, that there is

little fear that parents should use their power with too much rigour; the excess is seldom on the

severe side, the strong byass of nature drawing the other way. And therefore God almighty when

he would express his gentle dealing with the Israelites, he tells them, that though he chastened

them, he chastened them as a man chastens his son, Deut. viii. 5. i. e. with tenderness andaffection, and kept them under no severer discipline than what was absolutely best for them, and

had been less kindness to have slackened. This is that power to which children are commanded

obedience, that the pains and care of their parents may not be increased, or ill rewarded.

. 68.

On the other side, honour and support, all that which gratitude requires to return for the benefits

received by and from them, is the indispensible duty of the child, and the proper privilege of the

parents. This is intended for the parents advantage, as the other is for the childs; though

education, the parents duty, seems to have most power, because the ignorance and infirmities of

childhood stand in need of restraint and correction; which is a visible exercise of rule, and a

kind of dominion. And that duty which is comprehended in the word honour, requires less

obedience, though the obligation be stronger on grown, than younger children: for who can

think the command, Children obey your parents, requires in a man, that has children of his own,

the same submission to his father, as it does in his yet young children to him; and that by this

precept he were bound to obey all his fathers commands, if, out of a conceit of authority, heshould have the indiscretion to treat him still as a boy?

. 69.

The first part then of paternal power, or rather duty, which is education, belongs so to the father,

that it terminates at a certain season; when the business of education is over, it ceases of itself,

and is also alienable before: for a man may put the tuition of his son in other hands; and he that

has made his son an apprentice to another, has discharged him, during that time, of a great part

of his obedience both to himself and to his mother. But all the duty of honour, the other part,

remains never the less entire to them; nothing can cancel that: it is so inseparable from them

both, that the fathers authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right, nor can any mandischarge his son from honouring her that bore him. But both these are very far from a power to

make laws, and inforcing them with penalties, that may reach estate, liberty, limbs and life. The


18/43

power of commanding ends with nonage; and though, after that, honour and respect, support

and defence, and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a man to, for the highest benefits he is

naturally capable of, be always due from a son to his parents; yet all this puts no scepter into the

fathers hand, no sovereign power of commanding. He has no dominion over his sons property,

or actions; nor any right, that his will should prescribe to his sons in all things; however it may

become his son in many things, not very inconvenient to him and his family, to pay a deference toit.

. 70.

A man may owe honour and respect to an ancient, or wise man; desence to his child or friend;

relief and support to the distressed; and gratitude to a benefactor, to such a degree, that all he

has, all he can do, cannot sufficiently pay it: but all these give no authority, no right to any one,

of making laws over him from whom they are owing. And it is plain, all this is due not only to the

bare title of father; not only because, as has been said, it is owing to the mother too; but because

these obligations to parents, and the degrees of what is required of children, may be varied by

the different care and kindness, trouble and expence, which is often employed upon one childmore than another.

. 71.

This shews the reason how it comes to pass, that parents in societies, where they themselves are

subjects, retain a power over their children, and have as much right to their subjection, as those

who are in the state of nature. Which could not possibly be, if all political power were only

paternal, and that in truth they were one and the same thing: for then, all paternal power being

in the prince, the subject could naturally have none of it. Butthese two powers, political and

paternal, are so perfectly distinct and separate; are built upon so different foundations, and

given to so different ends, that every subject that is a father, has as much a paternal power

over his children, as the prince has over his: and every prince, that has parents, owes them asmuch filial duty and obedience, as the meanest of his subjects do to theirs; and can therefore

contain not any part or degree of that kind of dominion, which a prince or magistrate has over

his subject.

. 72.

Though the obligation on the parents to bring up their children, and the obligation on children to

honour their parents, contain all the power on the one hand, and submission on the other, which

are proper to this relation, yet there is another power ordinarily in the father, whereby he has a

tie on the obedience of his children; which tho it be common to him with other men, yet the

occasions of shewing it, almost constantly happening to fathers in their private families, and the

instances of it elsewhere being rare, and less taken notice of, it passes in the world for a part of

paternal jurisdiction. And this is the power men generally have to bestow their estates on those

who please them best; the possession of the father being the expectation and inheritance of the

children, ordinarily in certain proportions, according to the law and custom of each country; yet

it is commonly in the fathers power to bestow it with a more sparing or liberal hand, according

as the behaviour of this or that child hath comported with his will and humour.


19/43

. 73.

This is no small tie on the obedience of children: andthere being always annexed to the

enjoyment of land, a submission to the government of the country, of which that land is a part;

it has been commonly supposed, that a father could oblige his posterity to that government, ofwhich he himself was a subject, and that his compact held them; whereas, it being only a

necessary condition annexed to the land, and the inheritance of an estate which is under thatgovernment, reaches only those who will take it on that condition, and so is no natural tie or

engagement, but a voluntary submission: for every mans children being by nature as free as

himself, or any of his ancestors ever were, may, whilst they are in that freedom, choose whatsociety they will join themselves to, what common-wealth they will put themselves under. But

if they will enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they must take it on the same terms theirancestors had it, and submit to all the conditions annexed to such a possession. By this power

indeed fathers oblige their children to obedience to themselves, even when they are past

minority, and most commonly too subject them to this or that political power: but neither of these

by any peculiar right of fatherhood, but by the reward they have in their hands to inforce andrecompence such a compliance; and is no more power than what a French man has over an

English man, who by the hopes of an estate he will leave him, will certainly have a strong tie on

his obedience: and if, when it is left him, he will enjoy it, he must certainly take it upon the

conditions annexed to the possession of land in that country where it lies, whether it be France

or England.

. 74.

To conclude then, tho the fathers power of commanding extends no farther than the

minority of his children, and to a degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age;and tho that honour and respect, and all that which the Latins called piety, which they

indispensibly owe to their parents all their life-time, and in all estates, with all that support and

defence is due to them, gives the father no power of governing, i. e. making laws and enacting

penalties on his children; though by all this he has no dominion over the property or actions of

his son: yet it is obvious to conceive how easy it was, in the first ages of the world, and in places

still, where the thinness of people gives families leave to separate into unpossessed quarters, and

they have room to remove or plant themselves in yet vacanthabitations, for the father of the

family to become the prince of* it; he had been a ruler from the beginning of the infancy of

his children: and since without some government it would be hard for them to live together, itwas likeliest it should, by the express or tacit consent of the children when they were grown

up, be in the father, where it seemed without any change barely to continue; when indeed

nothing more was required to it, than the permitting the father to exercise alone, in his family,that executive power of the law of nature, which every free man naturally hath, and by that

permission resigning up to him a monarchical power, whilst they remained in it. But that this

was not by any paternal right, but only by the consent of his children, is evident from hence, that

no body doubts, but if a stranger, whom chance or business had brought to his family, had there

killed any of his children, or committed any other fact, he might condemn and put him to death,

or otherwise have punished him, as well as any of his children; which it was impossible he

should do by virtue of any paternal authority over one who was not his child, but by virtue of


20/43


21/43

The Mother brings the seed of her head of the marriage and family she has joined to by vows, the

husband (who thereby becomes a father). The Mother brings the seed of that husband into thisworld by G-D's design as a human, and the Father of that same child is thus charged in

Nature (and hence by G-D the Creator of all things, including Nature/Creation) with rearing him

up into a natural and productive member of society. He, the natural born child, is clearly inferred

to be born to the same land and governance as that of his father

Again, we may confidently conclude that in the minds of the framers of the US Constitution

who most all would have studied and discussed and incorporated this chapter of Locke, that a"natural born citizen" is he who is born in the country of or the same dominion as that of

his father, and is instilled with the love of country, ability to reason, and loyalty / legience to that

same government as that of his father -- as though inherited from his father. The child inherits amembership into that same society of his father and then takes his place in society when he

matures, so that when the father dies off, his genus is naturally extended both in Nature and in

Government. At the age of 21, the child of the Father, being a natural born citizen, thereby

enters into the same society - land dominions and Government of his father as a participating

citizen of society (paying his taxes, voting, adding to the general welfare, etc.).

Again, the Citizen Child is born without the ability to reason until his Citizen Father instills theability to reason as a citizen of that same Government he was born into, into the mind processes

of the child. Once the child has matured, he enters into society as a natural citizen extension of

the father, so that even as in nature, as we can infer from the extended argument made from

Locke, that if the parent were to die off, there is an offspring having the ability to reproduce with"seed" who is able both to plant and to rule in the government of his household after the same

genus as that of the Citizen Father (now grandfather) and to carry on. Thus the merging of

Nature (G-D's Creation) and Citizenship into the phrase of what constitutes "Natural BornCitizenship" to the Founding Fathers, who were taught this principle for the entirety of the 1700s

until they wrote the US Constitution's "Natural Born Clause".

There is no way in hell or on Earth that Barack Obama can ever be truthfully declared a UnitedStates Natural Born Citizen, or US Constitutionally eligible because of the Natural Born Citizen

Clause of Article 2.1 of the US Constitution. The Left and other Obama supporters or justifiers

instead of being honest and transparent so as to debate US Supreme Court and ConstitutionalLaw on Cases, Merits and Facts, instead always would rather resort to (on their part) ever having

to lie, excuse, obscure, cover up, and attack the messenger in order to justify Barack Obama's

unConstitutional usurpation of the Office of the United States Presidency.Go figure


22/43

[[[[Addendum, Update: added January 13, 2011

Thomas Hobbes, former secretary to Francis Bacon, was also discussed in the Colonies amongst

the Founding Fathers, and his work Levithan is still extant for us to read as well. In regards to

Nature and Civil Law, as well as that of Paternal Power, I refer to two portions of that work:

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0014

Chapter 26: Of Civill Lawes

The Law Of Nature, And The Civill Law Contain Each Other

4. The Law of Nature, and the Civill Law, contain each other, and are of equall extent. For the

Lawes of Nature, which consist in Equity, Justice, Gratitude, and other morall Vertues on these

depending, in the condition of meer Nature (as I have said before in the end of the 15th Chapter,)are not properly Lawes, but qualities that dispose men to peace, and to obedience. When a

Common-wealth is once settled, then are they actually Lawes, and not before ; as being then the

commands of the Common-wealth; and therefore also Civill Lawes: for it is the Soveraign Power

that obliges men to obey them. For in the differences of private men, to declare, what is Equity,

what is Justice, and what is morall Vertue, and to make them binding, there is need of the

Ordinances of Soveraign Power, and Punishments to be ordained for such as shall break them;

which Ordinances are therefore part of the Civill Law. The Law of Nature therefore is a part of

the Civill Law in all Common-wealths of the world. Reciprocally also, the Civill Law is a part of

the Dictates of Nature. For Justice, that is to say, Performance of Covenant, and giving to every

man his own, is a Dictate of the Law of Nature. But every subject in a Common-wealth, hath

covenanted to obey the Civill Law, (either one with another, as when they assemble to make a

common Representative, or with the Representative it selfe one by one, when subdued by the

Sword they promise obedience, that they may receive life And therefore Obedience to the Civill

Law is part also of the Law of Nature. Civill, and Naturall Law are not different kinds, but

different parts of Law; whereof one part being written, is called Civill, the other unwritten,

Naturall. But the Right of Nature, that is, the naturall Liberty of man, may by the Civill Law be

abridged, and restrained: nay, the end of making Lawes, is no other, but such Restraint; without

the which there cannot possibly be any Peace. And Law was brought into the world for nothing

else, but to limit the naturall liberty of particular men, in such manner, as they might not hurt,

but assist one another, and joyn together against a common Enemy.

Chapter 30: Of the Office of the Soveraign Representative

And To Honour Their ParentsAnd because the first instruction of Children, dependeth on the care of their Parents; it is

necessary that they should be obedient to them, whilest they are under their tuition; and not

onely so, but that also afterwards (as gratitude requireth,) they acknowledge the benefit of their

education, by externall signes of honour. To which end they are to be taught, thatoriginally the

Father of every man was also his Soveraign Lord, with power over him of life and death; and
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0014http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm#2HCH0014


23/43

that the Fathers of families, when by instituting a Common-wealth, they resigned that absolutePower, yet it was never intended, they should lose the honour due unto them for their education.

For to relinquish such right, was not necessary to the Institution of Soveraign Power; nor would

there be any reason, why any man should desire to have children, or take the care to nourish,

and instruct them, if they were afterwards to have no other benefit from them, than from other

men. And this accordeth with the fifth Commandement.

As I have previously noted, in 1651 the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1651 was recognized in a

Treaty with Great Britain, and from that time forth, America's Colonies, though many Common-wealth and Colonies of Great Britain, began to be distinctive in its operation, coarse, and laws.

However, America mirrored Britain in many of its reasoning processes, and adapted those

processes to a unique monarchy-free society.

With the signing of the Virginia Treaty of March 12, 1651, when the Virginia Colonys House of

Burgesses entered into a Free Trade Treaty (et al.) with Great Britain (cf. Thomas Jeffersons ASUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA), America's legal relationship

was by precedent established as distinctively unique from those laws (including those CommonLaws) that governed the United Kingdom and other English citizens and subjects, and this all

began (as Jefferson recorded for us to know) with the unique Treaty and political experience

between the Virginia House of Burgesses and England in 1651. Natural and Divine Law mergedin Christian Interpretation in the American Experience of Jurisprudence -- Rector, etc. of Holy

Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 456 (1892); School District of Abington TP. V.

Schempp, 374 US 203 (1963); Van Orden v. Perry, 545 US 677 (2005) -- to such an extent that

we must include such a perspective as true Founder's Intent and Founders' ConstitutionalOriginalism.

From America's beginnings, just 16 years after the mass migrations to this part of the NewWorldbegan, Massachusetts in 1646, and other of Americas Colonies instituted Natural andDivine Law to supplement and fill in where Magna Charta (et al. Constitutional) and Common

Law allowed. This was retained up and until the times of the Declaration of Independence and ayear before the drafting of the US Constitution.

By examples:

The Constitution of Vermont, July 4, 1786@ 2.12 and the Constitution of Pennsylvania -September 28, 1776 @ 2.10 requires all its representatives to swear they "acknowledge the

scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration...." The Constitution

of Delaware; September 21, 1776 @ Article 22 requires its representatives to swear: " I, A B.

do profess faith in G-D the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one


24/43

G-D, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New

Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

In relation to the modern issue at hand, as to the Natural Born Citizen Clause, the argumentneeds to change direction now to the acknowledgement and admonition that Paternal Power was

a recognized fact in US Civil Laws to well after Barack Obama was born. With the rise ofWomen's Liberation, only after Obama was born and from the latter 1960s and well into the 70's,

the pre-eminent place of the father in the home was only then decimated in US Society.

Barack Obama is accepted to have been born in August of 1961, although there is no hard copy

proof, hospital records, or witnesses to the birth to say that he was. Until his original Long Form

Hospital Birth Records are released, he could be accused of being born in June or July of 1961,

and he could not sue for libel about it because he has intentionally hid his records contrary to 333US 640 @ 653 and 533 US 53 @ 54,62. By Law he is required to produce such proof of birth

identity with hospital records and witnesses to the birth. It is a fact of law that Barack Obama has

never been legally vetted according to what the US Supreme Court requires.

Only 2 US Supreme Court Justices are currently (as of January 2011) willing to examine the

issue.

I have 51 Cases to cite before the US Supreme Court by which the Obama usurpation is taken

apart at the seems and exposed for the Criminal Action to violating the NBC Clause of the US

Constitution, and I may yet include a half dozen more (not to mention the dozens of theCONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS & STATUTES & the Miscellaneous that would

have to be summarized in a 10,000 word or less brief). If any one had just petitioned a Writ of

Mandamus or Certiorari with the intro citation of these below listed US Supreme Court Cases

alone, I believe we may have had not only the required 4 Justices to proceed, but perhaps5. Further any successful acceptance of the Petition must be followed with another addendum

petition that Sotomayor and Kagan recuse themselves based on legal prejudice, etc.

Current Table of Authorities for citation in future US Supreme Court Brief

Afroyim v. Rusk 387 U.S. 253 (1967)#


25/43

American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U.S. 156 (1932)#

Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 @ 204 (1962)..#

Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665 (1944)#

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)..#

Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948).#

Chicago & S. Air Lines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948) ...#

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)..#

Dames & Moore v. Regan , 453 U.S. 654, (1981)

District of Columbia v. Heller ...US... (2008)#

Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1856)..#

Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)..#


26/43

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) ...#

Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280 (1981)..#

Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)..#

Jackson ex Dem. People of State of New

York v. Clarke 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 1 (1818)..#

Kennedy v .Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963)..#

Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654 (1946)#

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 550 (1992)..#

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913).#

Marbury v.Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).#

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)..#

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)...#


27/43

Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1874).#

Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)..#

Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 (1915) #

Nguyen ET AL. v. INS, 533 US 53 (2001).#

Nishikawa v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 129 (1958)#

Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958)..#

Rector, etc. of HolyTrinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892) ..#

Reid. v. Colvert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).#

School Dist. of Abington TP. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963) ..#

Rogers v. Bellei 401 US 815, 826 (1971)#

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 (1830)..#

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, (1969), dissent..#


28/43

Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465 (1888)...........#

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).#

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905).#

Steel Co. v. Citizens, 523 US 83 (1998)#

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814)..#

Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).#

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929)#

United States v. Villato, 2 U.S. 370 (1797)#

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).#

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans

United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464 (1982)..#


29/43

Vance v. Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252 (1980)#

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005)..#

Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927)..#

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).#

In the mean time, we must continue on a greater in depthunderstanding on this, until we reignite a new era of

enlightenment in the consciousness of the American People, and

rediscover what our founders knew at the time the Declaration

of Independence and the US Constitution was written and

ratified.

End of update 01/13/2011 ]]]]]


30/43

Part 3:Obama supporters have called George Washington a defacto

"Natural Born Citizen". Can the case be made?

First appearing May 04, 2010 @

http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-supporters-have-called-george.html

Can a case be made for NBC (Natural Born Citizen) as applying to Presidents born before the

ratification of the US Constitution, instead of simply just labeling these Presidents as 'Original

Citizens"?

My answer is prefaced on the conditions of the Law of Nature, the Law of Nations, US FoundersOriginalist views, and US Supreme Court cases, etc., unlike the irrationality of Obama

supporters who haven't the reasoning to get the Law right. But in order to keep on point, I willhave to summarize and generalize for the reader.

Again: Can a case be made for NBC as applying to Presidents born before the ratification of the

US Constitution, instead of simply just labeling these Presidents as 'Original Citizens"?

Yes, if the NBC status is a transmutation by being born on the very same geographical soil as jus

soli, and is by parents who were citizens of the land and that citizenship status is attached to thesucceeding Government by themselves directly or by their child indirectly (who thereby directly

as the natural-born citizen child attaches them-self to the succeeding Government...in that case,

jus sanguinis via the citizen father can be established and transmuted to the successive

Governance.

In the Declaration of Independence, this transmutation reads as:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress,

assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in

the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and

declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that

they areabsolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connectionbetween them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and thatas free

and independent states, theyhave full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,

establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of rightdo."

"...to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which theLaws of Nature and of Natures God entitle themhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-supporters-have-called-george.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-supporters-have-called-george.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.htmlhttp://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.htmlhttp://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/05/obama-supporters-have-called-george.html


31/43

Thus, a natural born citizen of the colony of Virginia in the Old Governance, remains and is

transmuted as a natural born citizen of the State of Virginia (and its Government attachments;i.e., Federal) in the New Governance.

Hence, even though George Washington was born a British Natural born citizen, by being a

natural born citizen of a specific and geographic colony state that was transmuted into the

Government of the United States, the direct attachments can be made both jus soli and jussanguinis for George Washington as well.

Problem is, Barack still would NOT qualify to the Presidency of the United States because

of his alien national father.

Barack's father was attached to the land of Kenya as a citizen of Kenya (and Great Britain) on theContinent of Africa, when Kenya was a British colony or "Commonwealth". There is no citizen

father attachment (jus sanguinis) to the United States. By marriage, Barack's mother has

temporarily given up her primary US Citizen status to that of her husband at the time of the

child's birth, and fell under the primary nationhood of her husband (becoming a dual national).

She regained her primary US citizen status when she divorced years after Barack's birth.Therefore, the nation of Great Britain and the Commonwealth of Kenya had 75% preeminence

upon Barack, no matter where he was born. Barack was born a natural-born citizen of Kenya,and was born a British citizen/subject. He has never renounced that British citizenship formally

(even if we include his allowing his Kenyan Citizenship to lapse in 1984).

We do not even know if Barack is legally a United States citizen yet, or if he is an immigrant, asformer Clinton official Bill Richardson said that he is. And naturalized or illegal as an

immigrant, immigration of citizenship is an automatic dis-qualifier to the US Presidency.

In any case and in every case, even if Barack was born in the US, by the marriage of his mother

to a Kenyan National as his biological father, it is impossible for Barack to to be a US Natural

Born Citizen.

In regard to the Colonial and pre-Constitution born US Presidents:

The TRANSMUTATION of natural-born citizenship to the United States was

relegated to those who were born in the 13 State colonies before July 4, 1776, as well as

those born before the writing and ratification of the US Constitution. It applies only to

those in that period of history that were citizens by jus soli and jus sanguinis before the

Revolution, and made a transitional allegiance to the New Government that would be the

United States AFTER the war was over.

Those who were Tories and loyal to the Crown and chose NOT to attach themselves to the

allegiance of the State in which they lived, chose NOT to attach themselves to the Confederacyof United States, nor the Federalization of the United States as a Republic with the ratification of

the Constitution...these became as aliens and foreign citizens, even if aliens in the lands of their

birth because their allegiance was to a foreign crown or foreign sovereign power.

The Original Citizenship being transmuted as a duality of being Natural-Born under the

conditions of a Citizen Father attached to the soil by location and blood lineage (inheritance) and


32/43

Governa

homilies on us natural born citizen original ism

Documents