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.
Replies
If we move away from or discontinue using their debt money system, we will emerge as the Masters once again. If they have less to work with, they will have less power over the people.
this US citizen [legal person] is the creation [corporate member, employee, subordinate] of the district of Columbia.
what capacity are you operating in? capacity as a man, or capacity of the legal person [US citizen]?
If its a benefit to act in your capacity as a US citizen, then you can. if it will cause you harm, then don't act in that capacity, plain and simple.
there is no law that states man has to ALWAYS operate in the capacity of the US citizen. it's always your choice.
http://www.jedipauly.com/articles/2011_04_08_summaryandproof
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPpfrIV8HmI#t=14
https://www.facebook.com/notes/10200373286474379/
Keith, I disagree with your interpretation [in ‘the importance of natural born citizenship’ ] of the 14th Amendment that "asserts" we (all) became subject to the jurisdiction of the central government and the bankers and corporations." It did no such thing, and your assertion incorrectly sets up a false [thus un-fixable] problem.
******************************************************************************14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
******************************************************************************
An amendment generally must be applied in compliance with the basic Constitution. In order for the 14th to create and designate a "citizen of the United States", it’s first phrase lays out six conditions:
(1) "All... (2) persons" [who are] (3) "born" (4) "or naturalized"... (5)"in the United States..." (6) "and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States...".
During 1868, the term United States in condition (6) was the common abbreviation for the United States of America, as named (politically and geographically) in the Articles of Confederation. The term also referred to the government of the USA (as found in both the Articles and the Constitution). As applied in condition (6), the "jurisdiction of the United States", using either definition, must be that of the federal government of the USA. Not necessarily so for condition (5), as deduced later.
An a artificial entity ‘person’ is not born, but is created into a legal existence and its attendant jurisdiction; and such a legal entity can not swear to and complete the naturalization process. On the other hand, a human individual ‘person’ is only physically ‘born’ in a geographical location (of one of the several states) and its attendant jurisdiction; and only such a human individual person may be naturalized. Thereby only a human individual person born (or naturalized) in one of the several states fits conditions (2), (3) and (4), and can have condition (1) applied.
Thereby, the first four conditions requires condition (5) must be the geographical "United States of America", since all such person’s birth must have been within the ‘metes and bounds’ of one of the several states (and in its jurisdiction), and only becomes subject to the LIMITED jurisdiction of the federal government as authorized in the’ Constitution for the United States of America’. The Supreme Court has ruled that the term "jurisdiction" used in the 14th amendment means "full jurisdiction", not merely as narrowly granted in specific instances by the Constitution. Thereby since ‘state jurisdiction’ and ‘federal jurisdiction’ are Constitutionally defined as being mutually exclusive; a person born within one of the several states is not allowed by the Constitution to have his state citizenship (under the state’s jurisdiction) involuntarily converted into the "full jurisdiction" of the federal government.
However persons dis- possessed of, or even still possessing a state citizenship can [perhaps ignorantly] voluntarily subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Once such a 14th Amendment federal citizenship was created, that federal citizenship can be conferred upon the ex-slave or other individual, upon such person clearly meeting the six conditions of the 14th amendment, or voluntarily accepting the status and designation: "citizens of the United States".
The last phrase of this first sentence... "and of the State wherein they reside" reemphasizes that the persons designated "citizens of the United States" are merely "of", (meaning "from") the state in which they reside. Nowhere in the construction of the English language can the reader of the last phrase look back a few words and snatch the word "citizens" out of the newly created term "citizens of the United States", and then arbitrarily insert that selected word into this last phrase so as to read... "and citizens of the State wherein they reside."; thus incorrectly asserting "citizenship of one of the several states" can be made concurrent with this new federal "citizenship of the United States". No, Keith, we all cannot be forcibly made federal "citizens of the United States".
On the other hand, law and court opinions have applied the more inclusive term "citizen of the United States of America" to state citizens, and used the term "American citizens" for both. But while the United States government has created an extensive definition in the law for "citizen of the United States" without applying the word "federal", our conniving government has just as carefully neglected to legally define a "citizen of the United States of America"- thus allowing the confusion of similar terms be worked into fraud.
The great revelation here is that we all were likely coerced and/or scammed into alleged federal jurisdiction to steal our money - that is criminal fraud without an expiration date for filing charges. Its remedy may come under the legal theory of quantum merit.
Sterling Wayne Wyatt
That's great Sterling,
But I respectfully and most vehemently disagree with your last point. To whit:
"The last phrase of this first sentence... "and of the State wherein they reside" reemphasizes that the persons designated "citizens of the United States" are merely "of", (meaning "from") the state in which they reside."
This is completely incorrect and I quote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
If you read this correctly, you must take the words for what they say alone and not attempt to read in to it or take meaning or the rules of English away from any unrepeated words. The grammar and structure used must be read as written and follow the rules of English to be interpreted properly. Let's look at this sentence in parts:
"All persons who ARE born or naturalized in 'The United States' (undefined term, therefore vague) AND 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' (another undefined subset of requirements which also must be met) ARE (two statements are about to follow this word) (the first?) citizens (who cares what kind)...then the word AND (followed by) of the state wherein they reside."
If the writer wished to have your two things described
1. That this "person" is a citizen, and:
2. That this "person is from the state where they live, (Huh?)
First, this doesn't make ANY sense. There is ABSOLUTELY NO reason to mention in the context of this amendement that any kind of person is from now and forever be to be hereby declared "from where the live". That's real important to mention, eh? So important we had to make sure we put it in an Amendment, so everyone would know that are form where they're from. NOT! That is ridiculous.
Not only that, but the sentence would have to be constructed entirely different to express what you say it does. To be clear it would have had to say FROM, not of. To arbitrarily redefine the meaning of the word "of" to mean "from" and not what it says, "OF" is pernicious and irresponsible of you.
It most clearly states that if you think you meet the requirements of the first parts, then you are now considered from this point forward, a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of the state wherein you "reside". (yet another undefined term)
It is not necessary in law or otherwise to tell someone that they are from where they are from. This Amendment was CLEARLY written to describe a new form of citizenship, not to tell you that you are from where your house is. Don't be so ignorant of the English language and it's construction that you begin to wear blinders and only see what you want to see.
Thanks,
Morton IX - Editor, Constitution Club
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next