Who Have Always Been Accustomed To Think And Feel As “Subjects”

From a letter to George Washington, from John Jay,

New York, 7 January, 1787, an observation:


it is not easy for those to think and feel as sovereigns, who have always been accustomed to think and feel as subjects.

Indeed.  In fact we have endless examples in history of the attempts by many newly sovereign United States citizens and Government officials to cling to many of the old ways and customs.  To this day if you travel to England you will find it’s people so confined by tradition that they can’t bring themselves to change a centuries old “favorite” recipe by adding some much needed herbs or spices.  I’m serious.  Some long dead Queen or King declared that a particular dish served to them was wonderful, or a favorite, and the recipe was forever moribund. 

Anyway, I wanted to pop up a “refreshment” post with some reminders of how we found ourselves with the Article ll Presidential eligibility definition battle, and the related documents.  A one stop shop for the wording and images of the two (Constitution) variations setting forth the eligibility restricitons.

First up is the ORIGINAL wording for citizenship eligibility requirements for all US Presidents.

Pink Link

Original wording

..The above screenshot is a snip from The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 v.3

This prompted John Jay to suggest stronger restrictions:


John Jay mention


Wording John Jay letter


Image of John Jay letter


And as we all know, that resulted in a change to the wording. 

.Image of  US Constitution, Article ll, section 1

Crop of image Article ll Section 1 US Constitution


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; 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.

Here is the Afterbirthers standard basic “argument”:

One can read the argument from the Supreme Court decision in US v. Wong to see why subject and citizen are convertible terms in this context, but I think that it’s a mistake to look to English Common Law for a definition of “natural born subject.” A dictionary suffices. What we get from English Common Law is that those persons born in the country, without regard for the parentage of their parents qualify as subjects at birth (i.e. natural born subjects) and what we got from subsequent US legislation is that certain others are also citizens at birth (natural born citizens). And of course, the 14th Amendment cemented the Common Law notion of citizenship by birth in the country.

In the first sentence the writer says: ” but I think that it’s a mistake to look to English Common Law for a definition of “natural born subject.”  In the last sentence they say: “And of course, the 14th Amendment cemented the Common Law notion of citizenship by birth in the country.  Heh.

What do the two sentences have in common?  Common law – English Common Law.  Born on the soil, irregardless of the citizenship of the parents, makes one a “natural born subject/citizen”.  It seems that the Afterbirther argument is supported by the way the eligibility requirement was originally written,

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States. (emphasis mine) 

That wording was changed.  John Jay had suggested a strong check to Foreigners, and that the Presidency not devolve on any but a natural born Citizen.  This indicates that to simply “be born a citizen” was too broad in meaning.

Next you will typically find how the argument they use moves to naturalization.  The definition of naturalization?

“To confer the rights of a national on; especially: to admit to citizenship”

To CONFER, as in to BESTOW something on someone that did not have it before.  Congress regulates naturalization.  Prior to that the individual Colonies each had their own rules for naturalization, Because we had no central government yet, each “State” (Colony) did it’s own thing when conferring citizenship on persons who wished to become citizens of that Colony/Commonwealth.   After the Revolution you were a US citizen, became a naturalized citizen of  a particular State/Commonwealth, or you retained the nationality you started out life with. It was not until the Constitution was signed and ratified that the power to regulate naturalization was assigned to Congress.

Back in the day (mid-late 1700’s) there was NO dual citizenship.  English Common Law didn’t allow for it, nor did the US.  The US still does not formally recognize, by law, dual nationally.  That would require treaties with every other nation on earth.  And that just ain’t gonna happen.  To address the “situation” Acts were passed (1790’s) giving citizenship rights to children of US parents, so that the children were not aliens in the country that  their parents were citizens of.  At the time the Constitution was signed that was actually a bit of a problem as you can imagine.

How can we now claim that a person born with dual citizenship status in 1960 (barack obama) would qualify as the “natural-born Citizen” the signers of the Constitution intended?  In 1787 there was no such class of citizenship in the United States.   Article ll has never been amended to include such children.  Dual citizenship always includes a foreign entanglement as well as domestic citizenship.  Always.  It can’t be helped and it cannot be gotten around.  And the citizenship at the moment of birth can never be ignored when one considers the limitations laid out in the Constitution.  Else any naturalized person could be called “natural-born Citizen” at will.

But you knew that already

Say……….with all the criminal overreaching going on in our government lately – I actually AM beginning to feel like a SUBJECT.



~ by ladysforest on May 20, 2013.

30 Responses to “Who Have Always Been Accustomed To Think And Feel As “Subjects””

  1. Are you aware of the undead revolution group?

  2. Thanks, I’ll check it out. I have just been reading a bit of old “stuff” in my spare time, LOL, I get very distracted because I find a lot of it fascinating.

    • It’s my understanding that those in the undead revolution, which were Zapem and which I talked to them all the time on their website, they started it for the purpose of Leo Donofrio.

      • The undead revolution people were of course aware of Donofrio and apparently there was interaction and cooperation between the group and the individual. Kamira and Donofrio had some heated arguments on Donofrio’s website. Donofrio published one Undead Revolution article on his website. I also heard that the Undead Revolution people gave Donofrio the idea that a natural born citizen was born on the soil to two citizen parents.
        Who knows what exactly transpired in the beginning? In the end Donofrio was harassed by a judge with sanctions and Zapem was harassed by obots on Twitter. Neither the Zapem nor the NaturalBornCitizen websites are active now. I wonder if the undead revolution’s research produced any “permanent” results besides the writing on their website.
        Hi Kittycat.

        • I don’t know. But it’s worth a try asking them. I did write them on comments once, and I think it was Kamira that wrote me back. Well, using her real name. They are very decent folks. I really did like them.

  3. The Constitution may not tell us explicitly the definition of natural born Citizen, but, by its very phraseology, it very explicitly tells us that “natural born Citizen” cannot simply be the same as “born citizen.”

    It is absurd beyond dispute to claim that the founders would have vainly or incompetently inserted a superfluous, meaningless word into one of the primary sections of such a painstakingly deliberate document, our country’s very own birth certificate, our Constitution. If they had meant to allow the broader category of “born citizen” they would have succinctly stated such and not bothered to include the further restrictive qualification of being a natural born Citizen, which clearly excludes many types of mere “born citizens.”

    Who are by far the most common, everyday ordinary type of citizens that naturally populate and perpetuate our great country, the type of citizens who, by their very nature, can only be U.S. citizens and nothing else? The answer is obvious – those born exclusively in country jurisdiction to existing U.S. citizens. These are the only type of citizens who are born with 100 percent, red-blooded exclusive allegiance to no other country but America. These are the natural born Citizens.

    By blood and by dirt – and the criminal fraud known as obama simply does not qualify.

  4. Please post the link to the original wording document.

    • Done. I’ll put it in here as well. It’s a link to one source I use to look for old works. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433081908448;view=1up;seq=637

      Usually I post all of those things when I do screenshots. I had this particular post sitting around in drafts and I didn’t look it over very well for omissions like that link before I posted it through.

      • You’ve made a mistake. This version was never officially before the Convention. It is merely Hamilton’s personal opinion. It says so on page 619.

        • Go to page 617 and read carefully through pg 619.

          Hamilton actually originally desired a “British Plan”, but got on board with what eventually became the Constitution. That isn’t on pg. 617, but is accurate.

          The men that attended had proposals – the proposals were debated and the US Constitution is the result. Simplified. “Hamilton’s Plan” does not represent what Hamilton presented as his proposal. A “style” committee arranged the final agreed upon Constitution into what we see today.

        • On page 617 it says “this plan was not formally before the Convention in any way”. It’s interesting, but saying it was the “original” wording is disingenuous at best.

  5. No, this was not written by Hamilton to be presented as a proposal. This is an index of the Articles prior to being sent to be “styled”. Although Hamilton originally wanted a much different model, he supported the final version of the Constitution and worked diligently to see it ratified.

    Explain how the final wording of Article ll section 1 was so similar to this line in the Indexed Articles? It is not disputed by anyone but yourself that I know of.

    Try putting YOUR time into researching this. I’m sure you are able.

    And you missed something on pg. 617.

    • I still don’t think this is an official draft. It says right on page 619 right before the articles begin:

      “…the following, which was not submitted to the Convention…”

      I’m no English major but I understand the phrase, the following was not submitted. How can something not submitted be given to the style committee? Not to mention most of the Articles aren’t even close to the final version. I don’t see anything on 617 that supports your argument. Point it out. I do see the heading “The Hamilton Plan” which would include everything from page 617 to 633.

      • You do appreciate that you are the only person I have ever found that disputes this wording was in the original draft, right? The “records” are just that – records of what was proposed and what was eventually decided upon. These are not full records, as the only one who really took those was Madison, in his own particular shorthand. He had an interesting reason for neglecting to ever fully transcribe those minutes.

        Hamilitons’ actual proposed “Plan” was the British Plan/English Plan, which got zero backing. It was not at all like the indexed Articles from this volume ( a 1911 edit), which is in this screenshot.. The reason the Yale Prof. arranged this particular section this particular way, I do not know.

        I do know that Hamilton was one who worked tirelessly to gain public acceptance for the finished product. He wrote some 50 essays/articles for publication promoting the new Constitution.

        I presented the evolution of the eligibility clause. I did not misrepresent any thing at all. It is there in black and white, and has been known and accepted right along.

        • You must not argue with many Obots then. I assume the author included this section as an aside to flesh out and add some insight into what was happening during the Convention. When he says twice within two pages that none of this was submitted in any way to the Convention I take it to mean it was in no way, shape or form official. If it ain’t official, it ain’t original. BTW, I wasn’t calling you a liar, I believe you believe you’re right.

        • OK. So, it is in print. It is not disputed by the Yale professor that compiled the vol. I never attributed it to a particular author, in fact I said that Hamiliton had proposed a much different plan.

          Yet you condescend to tell me that I “believe I am right”. Hey, why don’t you try to debate HOW that wording ended up in that record? If it was not in any way introduced by someone there, HOW does it end up in the records?

          In your position the only words that matter were the final words in the final version, right?

          So, all of the debating, all of the proposals, all of the various changes, all of the discussions and decisions made during the Federal Convention were just NOT official. Essentially, they don’t matter, eh?

          You are why no one “argues” with obots. No logic.

  6. And oh yes, IceTrey, it does not escape me that you are trying to call me a liar.

    You may explain exactly how I misrepresented a RECORD of the Convention printed in 1911? Certainly there must be older and more accurate accounts, but I doubt this was “planted” back in 1911 by a professor at Yale just to trap me into making a false claim.

  7. Hi, LF, wherever you are,

    Read all of this about Edward Snowden, a real hero in my way of thinking. Even read the Q&A’s:


    • LOL, I’m still here. But with trying to put my garden in – all by hand – and all the crazy ass scandals popping up every day, I don’t even know what to pay attention to!

      Snowden, humm, well I am glad and grateful that we now know these things. I believe we have every right to expect privacy except for content that we post on public forums. Naturally that sort of content could be collected and tracked – it’s 100% public after all.

      The government saying that we can have no expectation of privacy when we use a service that is available (typically as a selected and paid-for service) is the same to my mind as saying that since cable TV is transmitted via free air we should be able to steal it legally. Yes, I know people that say that – and DO it.

      Basically the gov. claims that if you share a moment or a thought through the air, or wires, it’s their right, and DUTY to collect it, analyze it, catalog it, and store it. Just in case. Oh, and the same with your credit and debit purchases also. Someone, somewhere, keeps track of how heavy a menstrual period random women have by how many times they purchase chick sanitary items, and what type they are.

      Clearly the eavesdropping “system” functions not at all the way we are being told by DC. Else the Boston bombing could not have happened. Fort Hood could not have happened.

      Everyone should just “calm down – don’t over react”. The government is just doing this to protect you from the bad guys. The ones they never seem to get before hand.

      Which they should be able to do if they were collecting the data for the reasons that they claim. If they were able to interpret the data in the way they claim.

      Shhhhhhhhh. Just nod off to sleep Americans.

  8. LF, this is cross-posted from ORYR, then from WTPOTUS. Thought that you might be interested.

    Go to OBRYR. This is what Falcon posted for us about the audios of Chief Kessler about BO. He went to the closed-door meeting the sheriffs had in MO. We asked what the audios were about because of various reasons. Below is what Falcon said:

    “Some of this is from an earlier post.

    Chief Mark Kessler sat in on the closed door session and said Barry is a totally fraud, America was duped. Kessler has heard all of the evidence most of the evidence and is going apocalyptic in his radio podcast. He did not know Zullo before the event. He’s going to Washington D.C. with Zullo. He will be carrying a gun even though politicians in D.C do not want him and other law enforcement to carry guns. Kessler had a flight and missed the last hour or hour and a half but from what he heard – it was enough to know that Obama was a fraud. He said Obama is not Kenyan and not American and when the truth comes out your blood will boil.

    He said this investigation is gonna bring Washington to a screeching halt. Says he doubts Congress will act, but you will see the next American revolution. Says he will do what’s right for America, you’re with us or against us. Choose sides.

    Then there were callers – and they were pretty good – they didn’t believe anything Obama has said or offered as proof – further, knows that Zullo will release what has been established. “

    • Hummmmmm. Humminy hum hum hum. I’ll have to pop over and have a read. Thanks for the heads up. I was busy today trying to plan a surprise for the Mr. and washing up after his home made- from scratch- seafood and herb pizza. You have no idea how long that takes.

  9. Another thing that someone said was that the ones he portrays as his parents are not, and he didn’t live in the US for the first 5 years of his life.

    • OK – for anyone interested, do not bother to listen to the first three audios. It is just him ranting and swearing, and has no real content.

      The first two minutes of “Part 4” is where he actually begins to discuss the Zullo info.

  10. OKAY! On “Part 4” audio at the 4:50 min mark a Don Jeffery calls in and proceeds to INFORM Kessler that he is misleading the public about some march and having the backing of Maricopa Co. and Sheriff Joe. Don J. LAYS IT OUT on Kessler.

  11. Hello LadyForest, I believe you may find these documents interesting. At UnDeadRevolution in the comments section there were links to a scribd account that contained Law Review articles by George D Collins(a must read) and a couple of others. I thought you might find these interesting, especially concerning Citizenship issues. I’m going to paste the comment that contained the links…You’ll get a gist of the comments context and I hope you can find and read the documents. As you’ll see UR answered some questions and explained how some muddied up the water but you can see that the absolute truth concerning citizenship is self-evident. So without further ado…
    here. Contact me if I can be of help.


    On November 30, 2011 at 3:28 am rxsid said:

    UR team,

    Please check this out:

    “Protecting Obama: Congressional Research Service Releases Another Error-Ridden Report on Natural Born Citizen Requirement” Tuesday, November 29, 2011

    In part, it says:

    “The Congressional Research Service releases another error-ridden report on the natural born citizen requirement, by legislative attorney Jack Maskell. The document is full of contradictions. (Maskell writes, “There is no provision in the Constitution and no controlling American case law to support a contention that the citizenship of one’s parents governs the eligibility of a native born U.S. citizen to be President.” Two sentences later he states, “…the eligibility of native born U.S. citizens has been settled law for more than a century…” If there is no controlling case law, how can the issue have been settled law for more than a century?) Maskell intentionally treats the terms citizenship at birth and natural born citizenship at birth as equivalent, when they are not. Predictably, Maskell misinterprets and misstates the Supreme Court cases United States v. Kim Wong Ark and Minor v. Happersett. Further, Maskell ridicules those who rely on the use of the term natural born citizen in Emerich Vattel’s Law of Nations, arguing that an English translation of the book was not published until after the adoption if the U.S. Constitution. The Founding Fathers did, in fact, rely on Vattel but, unlike Maskell, they understood French. (Maskell apparently believes that history is relevant only if written in English.) ”


    Please tell us that you have that additional information (that show’s what the natural born Citizen requirement means) you’ve stated you have, ready for release very soon?

    The subversion of our history, laws and soverignty must be exposed. We need the truth and the factual records to back it up.

    Will you be releasing information soon?

    How does Maskell account for Barry v. Mercein 46 U. S. 103 (1847) then? We gave that case to Leo way back when we found it. Don’t tell me there isn’t any case law. What kind of crap research group made that statement? http://supreme.justia.com/us/46/103/case.html

    Look, there’s two lines of thought here: Common Law vs. Law of Nations. There always has been. For anyone to say it’s always been understood one way or the other is talking out of their ass. The simple truth is that it’s never been settled. Both the common law interpretation and the law of nations have been applied, back and forth, many times over. Barry vs. Mercein in 1847 favors international law. Lynch vs. Clarke in 1844 swings the pendulum the other way. It just always depended on who was applying it. The law reviews directly after the Wong Kim Ark case prove that it’s never been “settled”. That was the entire reason for giving the bulk of our research to those who are supposed to make decisions based on interpreting the Founders’ intent.

    I can give you docs, but I’m telling you right now they will confuse you. There are things that happened that tilt the scales back and forth, in both directions. Our group’s personal opinion was that the data tilted in favor of the law of nations as to intent of the Founders with regard to the Constitution. So if you took all the data and weighed it, it would land in your favor. And the deciding factor lies with an understanding of this phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. But we’re not the Supreme Court. We’re also very mindful of the fact that certain cronies are going to take one doc and raise only that as their weapon against you. In a word, they aren’t qualified to interpret what suits their fancy and vice-versa. Neither are we at UR for that matter. If we were to choose one person qualified to interpret these old docs, at least for public consumption, I’m sure we’d all have to agree it would be Leo.

    In any event, I’ll toss these out to you to show you exactly what I mean about the pendulum. These are directly from the time period after the Wong Kim Ark decision. They’ll be on our scribd account where we’ll put more. Right now, I don’t want to overwhelm people. This is an example of the discord you’re going to face and illustrates how far back this divided thought goes. It in no way, however, demonstrates what we’ve neglected to put out there. It’s simply to show you that once you do, certain people are going to cherry-pick it the way they see fit. The first document at least says, you can’t do that because this removes all doubt that anything has been “settled”. Wong Kim Ark didn’t settle anything. It confused more people than it did enlighten them.





    But understand one thing. No matter how much we put out there, the ultimate problem is going to be where the doubts are removed. It may be the SCOTUS but ultimately it’s probably going to wind up as an amendment. That would require the Congress to update matters and don’t think that they don’t know it. They do. The Congress knew damn well they had a problem and ZAPEM’s blog is literally a congressional confession that they did know and always have known.

    Careful who you vote for in the next election. 😉

    P.S. heh, someone started reading those things before I even had the chance to post this.

    – ADAM

  12. Sorry, the UndeadRevolution’s comment/answer starts at…
    How does Maskell account for Barry v Mercein… hope this is useful.

  13. […] Who Have Always Been Accustomed To Think And Feel As “Subjects” […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: