The Importance of Natural Born Citizenship

[Keith Broaders]

When the Constitution was written, it was understood that to be a natural born citizen, the child's father was required to owe 100% of their allegiance to the state of their birth. They did not want the son of anyone with even the slightest allegiance to a foreign power to be able to serve as the President of the United States.

Citizenship of the United States did not exist until the fraudulent passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. With that event, Federal Citizenship replaced State Citizenship and we became "subject to the jurisdiction" of the government, the Central bankers and the "corporations".

The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship and asserted that anyone born on our soil and "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is a citizen of the United States and the State in which they "reside". It created a whole new way to look at citizenship; as a duality.

This would make it possible for agents with foreign allegiances to be elibilbe to run for the office of President. Do you think if Sadam Hussein had married a woman who was an American citizen and had children born in America that they should be eligible for President of the United States?

Lawyers realized they couldn't change the Constitution without the consent of the people, but they could change the meaning of words in order to turn the sovereign people into debt slaves "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Wall Street Bankers.

[Sterling Wayne Wyatt]

You argue that the persons meeting the 6 conditions of the amendment (ie, compound subject of the sentence) before the verb "are" is thereafter described or designated both a "citizen of the United States and" a [added word] citizen "of the state wherein they reside" (compound objects of the verb) - correct?

Then how can that person have two citizenships - and thus be under two jurisdictions - at the same time - and still have "mutually exclusive" citizenships?

A federal amendment is without authority to do ANYTHING to a person under state jurisdiction - except as specifically already allowed in the Constitution. Thus the amendment can not create/designate a (full) federal jurisdiction on a state citizen that detracts from the state powers exerted upon a state citizen by authority of the state's full jurisdiction over ITS OWN CITIZEN.  The only way the 14th applies to anyone is IF the designated person is NOT within the jurisdiction of one of the several states. That's what makes the two citizenships mutually exclusive and keeps the amendment's designation Constitutional.

That is why the word "of" is properly defined within its several old 1829 Webster's Dictionary definitions as '"from'" or "out of" or "proceding from"... that lets the amendment's application of federal jurisdiction be compatible with the Constitution and the juridiction of the several states.

That's not "ridiculous" - that's proper understanding of the SPECIFIC words of the amendment - without adding something that was not put there by Congress. Yes, putting a comma before the last phrase would have made it better, but not having it does not change the meaning of the words in that phrase in context with the rest of the amendment.  Mis-use of the comma is a common minor error!

[Morton Thomson Jr.]

Oh Sterling,

"Then how can that person have two citizenships - and thus be under two jurisdictions - at the same time - and still have "mutually exclusive" citizenships?"

If only you could listen to yourself say those words before you hit the send button. The fact that there are two citzenships described, each with a different inference is what makes them mutually exclusive.

I don't see a cogent argument for anything except what you wish to be there. You ignore the words written and try to replace them with another word, then you attempt to diminish the use of specific punctuation which was intentionally used to express to the reader a very specific thought. Commas are not simple errors or typos.

I don't want to argue on whether or not the Amendment makes sense or is Constitutional or changes the Constitution or "jurisdiction". I only wished to point out that the first sentence describes a dual-citizenship.

I find the whole Amendment full of problems constitutionally, which we could go on about perhaps forever, but I prefer My Solution.

[Sterling Wayne Wyatt]

OK, enjoy your end result... that much, you got right.

[Robert C. Laity]

A "Citizen" is NOT tantamount to a "Natural-Born" "Citizen". Fourteenth Amendment "citizens" are granted jus soli citizenship. To be a NBC,however, one must ALSO HAVE 100% American Jus sanquinis, An NBC is "One born IN the United States..." (Jus soli or 'of the soil" of the USA) IN ADDITION TO being born "...of parents who are BOTH Americans themselves". This was affirmed in Minor v Happersett, U.S. Supreme Court.  ALL Natural-Born Citizens are Citizens but all citizens are NOT Natural Born citizens. To be POTUS one MUST BE 100% American by soil and by blood. See: There is no 'President" Obama by Me. http://www.thepostemail.com/09/17/2010/there-is-no-president-obama/

[Robert C. Laity]

Obama has never been the bona-fides POTUS since he has never been a Natural-Born Citizen and can never be. One cannot change the circumstances of one's birth. Likewise, Cruz,Rubio,Jindal,Swarzenegger,McCain and Santorum are equally disqualified to be POTUS. NONE of those named are Natural-Born Citizens for one reason or another. NOT ONE of those named. Any of these people who attain to the Presidency are criminals.