“We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” (October 30, 2008)

Many among my conservative friends took that to be so much fluff; pretty much liberal boilerplate consistent with his whole “Hope and Change” campaign message.  Given, however, Obama’s background, cutting his teeth with the radical leftists/communists of his day (i.e., Frank Marshall Davis, Bernadine Dorn, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) I believe I was one of the relative few that took him at his word.  Unlike most of America, conservatives such as myself and others who actually took the time to vet Obama, knew that background and worldview mattered, and that Obama’s past gave more than a glimpse of how he intended to govern in the present.

When Obama uttered those words, “.. fundamentally transform America” I knew he meant it. It was Obama himself who stated (emphases added),

“As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.  It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least, as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the States can’t do to you; says what the Federal Government can’t do to you, but doesn’t state what the Federal government or State Government must do on your behalf.”  (Barack Obama, June 18, 2001).

There is no question that Barack Obama was unhappy with his perception of unequal distribution of wealth that America so unfairly championed, and that he wanted to transform this nation into something more ‘equitable’ in his eyes.  The question was how, and to what extent.  Just how does one “fundamentally”  transform a nation whose very basis for existence is freedom, itself?  The only feasible answer is to transform that already-free nation, into a nation with fewer freedoms.  Given Dinesh D’Souza’s brilliant insights as to Obama’s worldview engendered by his past, one knew that Obama’s absolute contempt for what he saw as America’s unequal distribution of wealth would result in his promoting policies that would necessarily stifle economic growth.   Obama’s America would no longer be one of unbridled economic opportunity; rather, America would be a nation of egalitarian outcomes, regardless of effort; to coin a phrase, to each, according to his needs; from each, according to his means.  

As a means of bringing about this transformation, America could no longer be a free nation.  No where as free, at least, as it was at the time of he assumed his presidency.  Liberties would need to be forsaken to bring about his vision of utopia.  The free market system would need to be reined in, and done so in no small measure.   Obama would have four years, eight at most, to make this happen.  This transformation would need to be done quickly, and in a big way.

Enter Obamacare, America’s first stop on its train ride to Utopia. Against the wishes of 60-70 percent of Americans, and without the vetting of congressional legislators who rammed through the legislation, the United States Federal Government took control of a full one-seventh of the American economy, which had the net effect of driving up the cost of health care for all involved,  taking away freedom of choice, relegating freedom of conscience incompatible with the party line to irrelevancy, while at the same time having the no-doubt intended effect of casting a chilling pall on America’s ability to sustain economic growth and prosperity.  For those who wish to argue regarding this latter point, how better to right the wrongs of the perceived injustice of unequally-distributed wealth than to stifle the engine that creates such wealth?

As I’ve said, Obamacare is but stop one on America’s train ride to Obama’s Dystopia.  Obama’s seeming assault on everything traditional America has held dear for centuries appears to have taken on epidemic proportions.  Remember- Obama only has three and three-quarter years left.  Those who haven’t yet felt the pinch of his “transformations,” most likely have not yet realized that they, too, have been pinched.   Obama’s willing media accomplices can only cover for him for so long before a critical mass of Americans, admittedly as dull as many of them are, will start to put two-and-two together and finally determine that the hopey-changey unicorn jockey they voted for may actually have had something to do with the plight in which they suddenly find themselves.

Then what?

When the critical mass of Americans finally wake up one morning, to find that they have been played as chumps, they are liable to get a bit–shall we say, testy. When this inevitability finally does come home to roost, The TEA party protests that grew out of Rick Santelli’s historic February, 2009 rant will no doubt look like a series of school pep assemblies.   Such civil unrest would certainly be difficult to quell, and will no doubt be yet another bump in the tracks on the way to Obama’s Dystopian dream.

What to do, what do do? You can’t just sick the military after the troublemakers. Well, you could, I suppose, but then you risk pissing off your fellow travelers who have had a history of contempt for men and women in uniform.

What to do??

Since, at least philosophy- and policy-wise, one can take Obama at his word, one may get a clue as to Obama’s plans by again, studying his own non-TelePrompter inspired rhetoric:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.  We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”   -Barack Obama, July, 2008.

Yeah- remember that phrase?  Neither did a lot of other people.  Like the rest of Obama’s sordid past and rhetoric that if brought to the light of day would have rendered his election impossible, The media (true to their sycophantic nature) pretty much glossed over that little tidbit.  A powerful Civilian security force. Remind you of anyone?

So when you see articles like this, or like this, or like this, and then think, aww–Leo–take off that tinfoil hat!  You’re just blowing smoke.  That would never really happen here.  There’s no way.

Just remember.  I didn’t put those words into Barack Obama’s mouth.

He did.

Now are there things that government can do to affect economic growth? You bet, and our lack of economic growth is largely due to uncertainty in the market place caused by things governments have done over the last 4 years. And no amount of stimulus or QE infinity can erase the negative effects of bad fiscal, monetary and regulatory policy.  Government can’t just say to a private company: here’s some money — go hire someone.  The purpose of business is not to provide jobs.  Business exists to make money, and employees are nothing more than a by-product of a successful business.  Progressive Democrats (I know — redundant), by and large, don’t seem to be able to grasp this simple concept.  A President Romney may not be able to do any better, but a growing number of people think he couldn’t do any worse.

I know we have business people who frequent this blog — I’m one myself.  Let’s have a discussion about the circumstances under which you’ve hired people, how government actions, tax policy and regulations affect your business, and what changes a President Romney could make that would have a positive effect on the growth of your business.

Natural-born, Native-born, and Naturalization

Let’s start this discussion with some definitions, dispel some assumptions, and request some civility in the follow-up discussion. This discussion is going to be, as much as possible, restricted to the qualifications for the Office of President of these United States and the portion of U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1 which states “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President”.

Please note that even though the remainder (age and residency requirements) was left out for this discussion that all of the Constitution is extremely precise in the usage of language. This is easily demonstrated in the 60-plus votes it took during the Constitutional Convention just to get the wording and agreement from all parties on the qualifications of, and method for, the election of the President. One final note is that the citizens made the Constitution and their government. The Constitution and government did not make the citizens. The citizens had the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness granted to them by nature and their Creator and not by the Constitution or government.

Definitions & References

The two primary concepts involved with the founders version of natural-born citizen are; Jus soli (the law of the soil), a rule of common law under which the place of a person’s birth determines citizenship, and Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline), a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. There are also two primary legal cases brought before the SCOTUS; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) [voting rights case] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) [birthright citizenship clause]. Add in references to the 14th (Citizenship following Reconstruction; ratified: July 9, 1868) & 19th (Women’s Suffrage; ratified: August 18, 1920) amendments in addition to other documents and rulings of the time of the Constitutional Convention should provide us solid grounds for discussion.

Eloquently stated by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. ‘When determining whether a child born in the U.S. is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the question is not whether the parents of the child are foreign born. Rather, the question is whether they are “citizens of the United States” at the time of the child’s birth in the United States ‘ and he continues “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.’

The John Jay Letter (Constitutional Convention)

During the Constitutional Convention, the most direct evidence about the origins of the “natural born citizen” clause comes from a letter that John Jay (1) wrote to George Washington, who was at the time serving as President of the Constitutional Convention. In this letter, dated July 25, 1787, Jay wrote (emphasis in the original): Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american [sic] army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. At the point this letter was written Jay had no knowledge that the convention would make the President the Commander-in-Chief; nevertheless, this document explicitly argues for a “natural-born” citizen a requirement of a high executive position.

The Electoral College

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention were deeply concerned about foreign influence on the national government, and in particular on the President therefore selection of the President by the legislature was abandoned for selection by an Electoral College. On March 25, 1800, Charles Pinckney made the only documented statement by one of the Founders connecting the Electoral College and the presidential eligibility clause. The Founders “knew well,” he said “that to give to the members of Congress a right to give votes in this election, or to decide upon them when given, was to destroy the independence of the Executive, and make him the creature of the Legislature. This therefore they have guarded against, and to insure experience and attachment to the country, they have determined that no man who is not a natural born citizen, or citizen at the adoption of the Constitution, of fourteen years residence, and thirty-five years of age, shall be eligible…” These beliefs are reiterated in several of the Federalists papers but none so clearly as Federalist No. 68 “The Mode of Electing a President” by Hamilton

Another founder, Benjamin Franklin, made the point of foreign influence clearly and within his own family when he left none of his assets to William (eldest living son) that were linked to America because of William siding with the British during the revolution whereas his will states in part “The part he [William] acted against me in the late war, which is of public notoriety, will account for my leaving him no more of an estate he endeavoured [sic] to deprive me of” referring to all of his lands and owning’s within the boundaries of the new United States of America. This point is made in part to show that Jus sanguinis and Jus soli were weighted heavily including loyalty to the new America—this was solemn according to the final cost to Franklin’s eldest living son.

The Naturalization Act of 1790

Provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were “free white persons” of “good moral character”. It thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free blacks, and later Asians. While women were included in the act, the right of citizenship did “not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States….” Citizenship was inherited exclusively through the father. This was the only statute that purported to grant the status of natural born citizen.’…’ The Act also establishes the United States citizenship of children of citizens, born abroad, without the need for naturalization: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”. (2)

The Naturalization Act of 1795

Repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790. The 1795 Act differed from the 1790 Act by increasing the period of required residence from two to five years in the United States, by introducing the Declaration of Intention requirement, or “first papers”, which created a two-step naturalization process, and by conferring the status of citizen and not natural born citizen.

Minor v. Happersett (1875)

In Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), our U.S. Supreme Court, providing the same definition of a “natural born citizen” as did Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758), but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, stated:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.” (3)

Wong Kim Ark & the 14th Amendment

Two quotes from Justice Grey on this matter should suffice to give the general gist of this SCOTUS case;

Question: But doesn’t the Constitution use the term “citizen” rather than “subject?”

Justice Gray: “The term citizen, as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term subject in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of governments” hence “subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives.” Accordingly, “[a]ll persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.”

Question: So what was existing law under the original Constitution?

Justice Gray: Well, “[t]he Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words ‘citizen of the United States,’ and ‘natural-born citizen of the United States.” However,”[t]he Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words.” Hence, “[i]t must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution….” as “[t]he interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

What is a “Natural-born” citizen?

Under the language used at the time of the founding this would require two hurdles to be met; 1) Jus soli (the law of the soil) whether within the confines of ‘America’ at the time of adoption, or within the laws as adjudicated later, and 2) Jus sanguinis (law of the bloodline) which in the case of American jurisprudence is the rights of the father transferred to the children (normally the eldest living son.) With consideration that, at the time, the wife received her “rights” from the husband and “rights of the father” also required that he was an active “Citizen of the United States” there are still many questions to be answered and it is a personal belief that the SCOTUS take any case in order to answer once and for all this question.

Footnotes
1. John Jay, although not a delegate to the Convention was a President of the Continental Congress, author of several Federalist Papers, and first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court among other notable positions. It seems reasonable, therefore, that his letter carried some weight.
2. http://www.ask.com/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
3. http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-44-presidents.html