An “Apologetic” on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen

An Apologetic * on the subject of U.S. natural born Citizen as construed under the Federal Laws of the  Constitution of the United States of America 

The one essential Constitutional element of Article II Section I Clause V is the “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”, i.e.,

” … 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 ; … ”

The “definition”, or the means to identify a (U.S. {implicit}), “natural born Citizen”, is currently ASSUMED to be “ambiguous”, and that ambiguity creates a “legal-loop-hole”  that at once makes the provision unenforceable and indistinguishable from any and ALL other conditions of U.S. Citizenship.

The intellectual dishonesty and incompetence of the assumption is astounding given that immediately following the Ratification of the COTUS the 1st Congress, in March of 1790, expressed the “attendant circumstances” required to be considered as a U.S. natural born Citizen at birth within the Constitutionally mandated plenary power over the subject of U.S. Citizenship naturalization at A1S8C4.

Unfortunately any discussion on the subject of “citizenship” requires a primer in order to establish certain FACTS in order to comprehend how the various distinguishing circumstances of acquisition of citizenship can be identified.

ALL “citizens” are “made” in the 1st instant, without which there can be no “natural” perpetuation of citizenship giving rise to “natural born citizens”. (See Aristotle, Politics, Bk III, Pt II).

In order for “natural perpetuation” to occur its acknowledgement must be provided for within the particular society, whether by “doctrine” or “private law decrees”, i.e., a provision of law codified as a statute.

The “attendant circumstances” of the acquisition of citizenship must be identifiable for notable legal purposes such as Executive Office and other elected office’s eligibility, right to vote in national elections and other Constitutional rights and privileges reserved to “citizens”.

Now, let’s see how this plays out under the Constitution in regard to the acknowledgement of U.S. natural born Citizens.

The Preamble to the Constitution says, in parts pertinent to the subject, ;

” … We the people of the United States, in order to  … secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” …

… which implies that those persons, being existing citizens of the various States, then considered themselves as being the “Citizens” referred to within the document establishing this new nation among the nations of the world, ergo, the Ratification served to “collectively naturalize” those Founding Generation State Citizens as U.S. Citizens for all Constitutional purposes and intents.

(Or it could be said that the Preamble was an “oath” given as a “self-naturalizing” ceremony called the Ratification”)

Within the COTUS, at A1S8C4 of the ENUMERATED POWERS sections, it says; … ” …. The Congress shall have power  … To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, … throughout the United States; “

As noted above the 1st instant U.S. Citizens were “made” upon Ratification, so this provision is meant to deal with the perpetuation of citizenship, at birth, ( aka, our posterity), or otherwise, ( aka, naturalization).

Before looking into the 1st Act of Congress under this Clause it is necessary to consider the additional requirement placed on the Congress by the Article II Section I Clause V “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision” which REQUIRES the existence of U.S. natural born Citizens and to be identifiable beyond the Founding Generation of the body politic of the newly formed U.S.A. and that they MUST be identifiable as being distinct from a “(U.S.) citizen”

By this Constitutional provision such a form of Citizenship, therein identified as a (U.S.{implicit}) natural born Citizen, MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied, ergo, the Congress is obligated to provide for their existence within any uniform Rule the Congress might devise.

In March of 1790 the Congress did establish an uniform Rule of U.S. Citizenship as applied within the processes of naturalizing persons, at birth and otherwise.

That established “uniform Rule” can be characterized as being; ” … Once a person is a U.S. Citizen, then so too are their children, at birth or otherwise, anywhere in the world.” (slc) as construed from the three (3) pertinent parts of the 276 word Act, numbered here for ease of analysis;

(1) And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

(2) And 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:

(3) Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:

The MOST important of the three (3) provisions is the third (3rd) which ESTABLISHES the “right of Citizenship” as a “doctrine” being attached to any and all persons who ARE U.S. Citizens, at birth or otherwise.

The 1st provision makes the Right of Citizenship” effective at the moment that a person becomes a U.S. Citizenship and affects the minor children of that new U.S. Citizen, naturalizing them concurrent with the father.

The “Right of Citizenship” is ALSO acknowledged to be in effect upon those who were made U.S. Citizens at the Ratification of the COTUS and is seen to be operative anywhere in the world.

The “Citizenship” acquisition at birth is identified as that form of “Citizenship” that fulfills the existence requirement of the A2S1C5 (U.S.{implicit}) natural born Citizen, that also must be distinguishable from any and all other conditions of U.S. Citizenship under the statutory formulation of the Clause..

As noted above that can only be done by identifying the specific  “attendant circumstances” at the time of the acquisition of  U.S. Citizenship.

In the 1st provision above the existing “minor children present” are “naturalized” concurrent with the parent (father), regardless of their status at birth.

In the 2nd provision a child born to the wife of a U.S. Citizen father is born as a U.S. natural born Citizen anywhere in the world.

Although many will say that the provision ONLY addresses those children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. I suggest that it takes a specious interpretation to say that while children born to U.S. Citizens when out of the limits of the U.S. that the children born within the limits of the U.S. are not also being born as U.S. natural born Citizens.

Consider a moment the newly naturalized Father takes his wife’s hand, who is now also “considered as” a U.S. Citizen under the matrimonial doctrine of coverture, and walks directly to the midwife’s house where the wife immediately gives birth to a child. That child is born to two (2) U.S. Citizen parents within the limits of the U.S.. Is THAT child NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen?

So the 2nd provision needs to be looked at a bit closer in order to see if clarity can be found in it’s existing language.

To be entirely clear and legally precise on this point consider, within the statutory construction of the “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen provision the words “considered as” are used. That term of words, identified in the rules of grammatical syntax, is known as a “comparative adjective”, which then requires a “counter part” by which to compare the “subject” that is being addressed. Under the specific attendant circumstances the only counter part available would be those children born anywhere except “out of the limits of the U.S.”, which leaves the only other “place” of birth to be “within the limits of the U.S.”


The words “considered as” are, in that combination, known as a “comparative adjective” under the rules of grammatical syntax,  which requires that a counter part to the subject must exist, that is comparable within the context, purpose and intent of the provision, in order for the subject to be compared to something other than its-self.

The subject of the provision is the “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen, therefore the only plausible “counterpart” in light of the :right of Citizenship” and its self actuating function, would be the children born to U.S. Citizen parents “within the limits” of the U.S..

This interpretation of the statutory construction of the 1790 Act is vindicated by the 1795 Act which repealed and replaced the 1790 “foreign born” U.S. natural born Citizen Provision and thereafter LIMITING where a U.S. natural born Citizen may be born, i.e., within the limits of the U.S.

Therefore, those “foreign born” “considered as” were in FACT the “counterparts” to those who were being born “within the limits of the U.S.” unambiguously born as U.S. natural born Citizens.

The perpetuation of U.S. natural born Citizens continued uninterrupted under those attendant circumstances, being born to the legal wife of a U.S. Citizen father within the limits of the U.S., until the passage of the 1922 Cable Act, aka, the Women’s Independent Citizenship and Citizenship Retention Act.

This Act abrogated the ancient matrimonial doctrine of coverture” completely under U.S. Law, insofar as U.S. Citizenship is concerned. (Any residual effects of the doctrine of coverture are confined to the concerns of probate and or “parental rights”)

The effect of the Act was to establish a new form of U.S. Citizenship that could not previously exist, that is, “dual-citizenship at birth”.

Prior to the Act a woman was considered as the SAME Citizenship as the husband from the moment that the marriage became “legal”, regardless of her previous citizenship status.

After the Act the woman RETAINS her own Citizenship regardless of what her new husbands Citizenship is,

Under the Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation AND Judicial reconciliation of conflicting laws, it is required to preserve the desired effects of each law and to impose the least destructive reconciliation in the process.

In this instant, where the Constitution REQUIRES the existence of U.S. natural born Citizens in order for the Office of POTUS to be legally occupied and where U.S. natural born Citizens are acknowledged as being the result of a specific set of attendant circumstances the lest destructive reconciliation to impose in light of the intents of the 1922 Cable Act is to require that BOTH parents be U.S. Citizens INDEPENDENT of each other’s citizenship in order to produce the effect of giving birth to a U.S. natural born Citizen within the limits of the U.S.

This then IS all that needs be known, insofar as the LAW is concerned, on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen and all other considerations only adds to the AMBIGUITY which this proposition of Constitutional Law seeks to undo.

{* Apologetic: adj.; … of the nature of a formal defense or justification of something such as a theory or religious / political doctrine.}

An “Apologetic” on the subject of a U.S. natural born Citizen