The National Society of Natural-Born Citizens of the United States


     By September 17, 1787, the 55 delegates working to write a Constitution for the United States had been at the process since the scheduled starting date of May 14, over four months earlier.  A quorum had not been met until May 25 and even with Sundays and Holidays off, it was still a long hot summer of debates. 
     On that final day, the engrossed Constitution having been read, Dr. Benjamin Franklin from Pennsylvania, was given the floor for a speech to be read by Mr. James Wilson, also from Pennsylvania, that the Doctor had written.  Following that speech, Mr. Nathaniel Gorham from Massachusetts asked if it was not to late for lessening the objections to the Constitution, that the clause declaring, "the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty thousand," be stricken out and insert "thirty thousand."  Mr. Rufus King from Massachusetts and Mr. Daniel Carroll from Maryland seconded and supported Mr. Gorham.  
     President of the Convention and Deputy from Virginia, George Washington, rose and spoke for the first time.  He acknowledged that it had always appeared to many members of the Convention the smallness of the proportion of Representatives as insufficient security for the rights and interests of the people.  And late as the moment was for admitting amendments, he thought this of such consequence that it would give him much satisfaction to see it adopted.  The proposition of Mr. Gorham was unanimously agreed and fixed the ratio of Representatives at 1 to 30,000.  
     As an experience on Constitution Day it would be interesting to look at how well the Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branch are adhering to the supreme law established by our Constitution.  Go to web site home page and then go to, The House Explained.
     At this point you will see that Congress has changed the Constitution without following the required procedure for amending the Constitution.  Congress has now fixed the number of Representatives at 435 and requires the President to proportionately divide the total population to fit within that total.  This violates the Constitution.
      There are a number of cases that have been heard before various Courts.  District Judge Edward Weinfield dismissed Wendelken v. Bureau of the Census, N.Y. with the following comment; "The decision to limit the size of the House of Representatives to 435 members is expressly committed to the discretion of Congress."  He had not been taught, or learned for himself, much about our Constitution because his conclusion is unsupported by the facts.
     Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788 (1992), is an instance where the final decision evades a decision.  "We conclude that appellees' constitutional challenge fails on the merits" and the District Court judgment was reversed for being considered a Political Question.  
     Not deciding and calling the case a "Political Question" in a unanimous decision decided Department of Commerce v. Montana, 503 U.S. 442 (1992).  The failure of the Supreme Court to rule based on the Constitution reflects the unwillingness of the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution.
     What the Justices do not consider in any of these cases is the fact that Congress knows by the Acts of Congress that the 1 to 30,00 ratio is a fixed number that can not be changed or modified by Congress and requires an Amendment to the Constitution.  The first  Congress understood the requirement, initiating action when the first Articles to amend the Constitution were passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification.  
     On September 25, 1789, just over two years from the date our Constitution was completed on September 17, 1787, Congress having passed, then proposed, 12 Articles to the States to be ratified.  Ten of those Articles became the first ten Amendments ratified on December 15, 1791.  The eleventh was ratified May 7, 1992 as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.  The twelfth Article proposed has still not been ratified by enough States to become the Twenty-Eighth Amendment.  Encourage your State to ratify. 
     The Article states; "After the first enumeration, required by the first article of the constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand persons."  
     The Article could be continued, by future amending, to say that after 300 representatives the proportion shall be one representative for every 60,000 persons, and after 400 representatives a proportion of one to every 70,000.  What the first Congress knew was that the ratio is a fixed number and if changed, required that the change be by Amendment.
    The Supreme Court by not ruling that the ratio is fixed at 1 to 30,000, the Court is not benefiting the people of the United States.  The Judicial Branch is ruling in a manner as to avoid conflict with the Legislative Branch, which would require enforcement by the Executive Branch.  
      Highlighted in blue starts the phrase "Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provides for both the minimum and maximum sizes for the House of Representatives."  That statement is ambiguous or just plain wrong because it can be interpreted several ways.  Does it mean that the stated maximum number of Representatives, based on a maximum of a 1 to 30,000 ratio and that it could be less than that, say 1 to 20,000?  Or, does the statement refer to another part of Article 1, Section 2?  
      This phrase is prominent in Article 1, Section 2; "No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."  This takes us to the next incorrect statement on the page, The House Explained. 
     If you look at the next paragraph on "The House Explained" page, you will see what the House calls the requirements to be eligible to be a Representative.  The page incorrectly states that  for the person to be eligible to be a Representative they "must be at least 25 years old, a United States citizen for at least seven years and an inhabitant of the State he or she represents."  The House statement differs from the Constitution in several respects.  
     The Constitution clearly states that the person "shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."  I say again, "Not" an Inhabitant in the State "he" shall be chosen.  Only persons of the Male Gender are eligible to hold office in the government.  There has been no Amendment to the Constitution providing law for a person of the Female Gender to hold a seat as a Representative, Senator or Justice. 
     The House has exceeded its authority by permitting persons of the Female Gender to occupy a seat in the Federal government without the required law permitting that act.  In the records of the debates made from the notes of James Madison, Deputy from Virginia, two references were made by Deputies to "her" when they referred to the State they called home.
     The only time a reference was made to a person of the Female Gender and the term "she" was used was on Wednesday, August 29, when Mr. Pierce Butler from South Carolina moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor."  Mr. Butler's motion was agreed to, nem. con.  [Nem. con. is an abbreviation for the Latin, "nemine contradicente" meaning "with no one objecting" and is a tag for any decision reached unanimously].  
     This clause was changed to read in the Constitution; "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."  That was the only reference to the Female Gender during the debates.  At no time were women considered as eligible for any position in the forthcoming government.  
     Beside the unconstitutional permission to persons of the Female Gender by granting of a seat in either the House of Representatives, Senate or Supreme Court, there is another concern.  The Executive Branch is in the sights of the Female Gender and in the absence of an amendment to the Constitution, a person of the Female Gender, not being included in the definition of "natural born citizen,"  is ineligible to the Office of President.
     The House is confused about the different meaning of the words "Inhabitant" and "Resident."  While a "Resident" is also an "Inhabitant," an "Inhabitant" is not always a "Resident."  This confusion came about on June 14, 1967.
     Representative Dowdy from Texas, held a brief titled Natural Born Citizen written by the Honorable Pinckney G. McElwee, of the bar of the District of Columbia, and asked it to be inserted into the Congressional Record - House, for the benefit of the members.  Mr. McElwee attempts to convince the undereducated Representatives that "Inhabitant" and "Resident" mean he same thing, which is not accurate.
     Mr. McElwee did no look at the complete Constitution and see how the words were used which could have been useful.  For the enumeration or census, all "inhabitants" except non-citizens, people of the Indian Race, were counted.  The people of the Ethiopian or African Race were not citizens either, so were counted as 3/5 person for representation purposes.  Non-citizens are not entitled to representation in the Congress of the citizens of the United States.  The youths, in their minority and women are citizens, and are inhabitant citizens.  What made the youths and women inhabitants and not residents is that they did not have the privilege of suffrage. 
     Suffrage is the distinction between an inhabitant and a resident.  A resident is a male in his majority with the privilege of suffrage but his children and wife are inhabitants only.  Following the ratification of the 19th Amendment women in their majority are now residents, also.  Non-citizens are to be uncounted for representation purposes and counted for statistical purposes only, if possible. 
     The wording for eligibility to the Senate or House requires the person "not" be an "inhabitant" which requires the person to be a "resident."  The person eligible to be President has to be a "resident" within the United States for fourteen years. 
     This phrasing allows for the possibility that the male child of American citizen parents lawfully wedded, being born outside the United States.  As an inhabitant during his minority in a foreign country, he still is eligible after being a resident within the United States for 14 years to the Office of President, due to his being a "natural born citizen."  The age of majority had been 21 until the passage of the 26th Amendment, ratified July 1, 1971, reducing that age to 18. 
     In the effort to have these statements corrected, the Site Master was emailed along with the Secretary for the House.  The Representative from our District was mailed a letter requesting the corrections be made.  House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor also received a letter asking the corrections be made.  The National Constitution Center was also made aware of the inaccurate statements and requested to become involved with seeing them corrected.  No on cared enough to do anything.   
      So, will you spend an hour today to support your Constitution by some act?  A letter, phone call, or email.  Do you see any relationship between the lawlessness of our government and the lawlessness on the streets of the cities of our nation?  The rule of law, has to be supported by Congress before the people can respect the law.