Are Loopholes Legal…?

I have described the FACT that there is no acknowledged “legal” definition of the Constitutional idiom of natural born Citizen as a “legal loop-hole”

The attacks on that proposition come from a variety of positions, most of which tries to distract from the implications of the premise rather than explore the truth of it.

Let’s dispense with the linguistic objections over my use of “idiom” and agree that the use of a “term of words” used in a specific manner to achieve a specific purpose within a specific document under a specific heading denoting a specific proscription upon any not meeting the specific criteria of the specific “term of words” fits the linguistic definition of the word “idiom”.

In this instance, natural born Citizen is made a wholly “American Idiom” by its usage in the distinctly American document, the Constitution of the United States.

The more prevalent attack comes from the citations of various ‘dicta’ of Judgment Opinions, speeches, treatises and debates.

To which I am left to advise that the Constitution was only a proposition until Ratification, but upon Ratification it was ‘Adopted” as the Supreme Law of the Land proscribing the intrusion of any other source of Law from intruding upon its Supremacy.

The Congress is advised to perform certain functions, among which is to appropriate monies to populate the Executive and the Judiciary Branches as well as to formulate and promulgate various other Rules, Laws and Regulations.

The point of the instructive is to isolate the premise that if a “law” does not emanate from the authority of the Constitution it is not “legal”.

The specific “law” that is subject here is that “…no person except …. shall be eligible….”, given that the Constitution is “Statutory” in its construction.

The only ‘law’ emanating from the authority of the Constitution laid upon the Congress regarding the subject idiom is found within the 1st Congress’ “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790);

“…[A]nd 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:…”

But the question arises, did the Congress have the authority to “enlarge, abridge or otherwise modify’ the Constitutional idiom by use of its plenary power over naturalization?

It is not necessary to belabor the discussion here over that question given that the Congress of 1795 “repealed” the 1790 Act by substituting that such a child identified in the previous Act would be a “citizen”, thereby re-establishing the distinctive status of natural born Citizen.

Distinctive in the sense that not even two natural parent Citizens can bestow the Constitutional nature of natural born Citizen upon a child born ‘beyond the seas’, (abroad).

It is here that the attacks commence on the grounds of “jus soli”, (of/by the soil).

So I am left to instantly agree that “jus Soli” is an integral element of the combined circumstances requisite to being born a Constitutional natural born Citizen.

Then I grow quite weary advising that there were no LAWS emanating from the Constitution, nor among any of the various States, that conferred State and/or U.S. ‘citizenship’ upon a child of non-citizen parents prior to the “naturalization” of the parents, (father) prior to the 14th Amendment.

Notwithstanding various Judicial Judgements that would seem to contradict that observation prior to the 14th Amendment, each were local in consideration and determined as local opinions with none rising to the level of Constitutional interpretations.

And, too, each of such cases was to determine “citizenship” for one purpose or another and did NOT turn on the determination of the definition of the idiom of natural born Citizen.

Given that the “local”, (District/Circuit), Courts provided the Governmental imprimatur for processing of “letters of intent” and “applications for naturalization”, the Courts had vested interest in making determinations of “citizenship”.

Even today the various District and Circuit Courts provide vital functions in the administration of immigration and naturalization matters.

But that does not dilute the previous statement of fact that, “Notwithstanding various Judicial Judgements that would seem to contradict that observation prior to the 14th Amendment, each were local in consideration and determined as local opinions with none rising to the level of Constitutional interpretations.”

Which brings us to “post 14th Amendment” considerations.

As the attacks come, most famously the WKA Case, I ask 1st for the words or the words that would require the Amending, enlarging, abridging or otherwise modifying the idiom of natural born Citizen within the language of the 14th Amendment.

The errors in the WKA Opinion and the misinterpretations emanating from it are profound and have been and continue to be a source of great concern, but in the end it ONLY answered the question whether the ‘little’ Wong was or was not a “citizen”.

I posit the WKA decision made the ‘little’ Wong a “judicial citizen by an act of judicial kidnapping”, (tongue in cheek), it being made in contravention of the duly enacted Burlingame Treaty, specifically Article VI of the Treaty.

But the “Post 14th Amendment” Supreme Court Opinion that was also cited in WKA and that is most on point is the Minor v Happersette case brought by a woman claiming the right to Federal Suffrage by virtue of the “born citizen” declaratory language of the Amendment.

Within the orbita dictum of the Opinion Justice Waite opined;

“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 [p168] 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. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]

As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States, and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [n10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or [p169] who should be married to a citizen of the United States, should be deemed and taken to be a citizen.”

Notwithstanding the error of Justice Waite in not acknowledging the change made to the 1790 Act by the “repealing” 1795 Act, the points made in these paragraphs paint an accurate depiction of the statutory construction of the laws pertaining to citizenship from the adoption of the Constitution to the date of this Opinion, March 1875.

It also validates and points to the rationalization of the Scott v Sanford, (Dredd Scott), decision that many believe was the “legal basis for the line in the sand” that hastened the War between the States, (American Civil War, North vs South, Union vs Confederacy) .

But two passages of dicta point to the correctness of the Dredd Scott decision, under the Rule of Constitutional Law.

First, the Constitutional confines of the Judiciary;

“It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The decision of that question belonged to the political or lawmaking power, to those who formed the sovereignty and framed the Constitution. The duty of the court is to interpret the instrument they have framed with the best lights we can obtain on the subject, and to administer it as we find it, according to its true intent and meaning when it was adopted.”

Second, offering insights into the Constitutional definitions of citizenship, including natural born Citizen;

“It is true, every person, and every class and description of persons who were, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, recognised as citizens in the several States became also citizens of this new political body, but none other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity, but for no one else. And the personal rights and privileges guarantied to citizens of this new sovereignty were intended to embrace those only who were then members of the several State communities, or who should afterwards by birthright or otherwise become members according to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles on which it was founded. It was the union of those who were at that time members of distinct and separate political communities into one political family, whose power, for certain specified purposes, was to extend over the whole territory of the United States. And it gave to each citizen rights and privileges outside of his State [p407] which he did not before possess, and placed him in every other State upon a perfect equality with its own citizens as to rights of person and rights of property; it made him a citizen of the United States.” ((emphasis added)

Birthright is enlarged above to put a stake in the heart of “jus soli Citizenship” sans a “jus sanguinis relation”.

It did not exist before the 14th Amendment and it does not exist Constitutionally now.

A thorough and intellectually honest analysis of the Title 8 USC reveals that the ONLY persons that acquire the benefits of U.S. Citizenship via the “Declaratory Born Statement” of the 14th Amendment are the children born on U.S. soil to ‘alien foreign nationals’ whether admitted legally or otherwise present.

It is here, in order to close the circle around the circumstances that make a person a natural born Citizen at birth, it is necessary to look to the “Expatriation Act” which expounds the natural law right of any person to expatriate from any country by affirmative actions.

Although it may at first consideration seem counter-intuitive to connect expatriation to allegiance, but in fact allegiance is at the fundamental level of both citizenship and the natural right of expatriation.

When a person possess no allegiance to a “country” there is no positive law that can force it, at the fundamental level, any more than a “country” can force expatriation upon a person who adheres to their allegiance to the “country”.

So what do the concepts of allegiance and expatriation add to the fence around the circumstances of being a natural born Citizen…?

When a person is born to natural parents of differing allegiances that child can not legally choose between them before obtaining the age of majority when they gain the right to expatriate from one or the other. But the act of choosing is not be considered retroactive as if the right to choose never existed or that it ever ceases.

Even though the right to expatriate is extended to any person the person born into that circumstance can only be recognized as what they were at birth, a native born Dual-Citizen.

So how does this answer the question “Are Constitutional Loopholes Legal…?

It doesn’t.

Like nature, the Constitution abhors a vacuum and relied on the Sovereign States and the 4th Estate to maintain the atmospheric pressure necessary for cognizant governance.

The “loop-hole” is NOT “legal”, nor is it real, but rather contrived in the minds of deceptive persons and foisted upon a trusting populace aided by the infiltrated institutions of Government and the machinations of the bought and paid for 4th Estate.

A simple statement from the Supreme Court would plug the loop-hole in an instance, restoring its own legitimacy and paving the way to foreclosing the possibility of the public being duped again by such a deceptions of the devious ambitions of corruptible men.

This post is intended only as a vehicle to clear my thoughts as I continue my effort in plugging the “legal loop-hole” by forcing the Federal Guv’mnt to acknowledge that the “loop-hole” exists and that the Supreme Court is obligated to “close the loop”.



(Credits); I respectfully acknowledge that my thoughts and efforts are guided by the research, analysis and articles of the many Patriots and interested persons that have expended their energy and attention to the myriad of details found in the historical record of this Great Nation and the works that inspired and shaped its Founding.

I have intentionally left off links to the authoritative sources and/or names of authors of works upon which I rely. Any and all are welcome to claim the seeds or dispute the fruit at http://www.nbcfund.com/chatforum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1050