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



                                     and the

   Source and Meaning of the Natural Born Citizen Clause


    Plutarch's Lives of Solon, Themistocles, and Pericles


           Ancient Roman Statutes and Citizenship Law

     In the translation of Xenophon's The Expedition of Cyrus into Persia and the Retreat of the Ten Thousand Greeks done by Edward Spellman and published in 1776, Mr. Spellman points out on numerous occasions why he has translated a word from Ancient Greek to English using the particular English word he does.  He will show how other Ancient Greek writers used the word and how it has been translated by other translators to English.  He is critical of a French translator who writes in French using words that do not carry an accurate translation and have then been translated into English and present a completely different meaning from what Xenophon wished to convey.  

     The General History of Polybius in five books translated from Greek by Mr. Hampton and published in 1772, Polybius is frequently critical of other Historians who are not always accurate in their writings.  He finds particular problems with Quintillanus Fabius who though a Roman Senator was not able to understand the finer points for writing a proper history.  His history did not look for the root but only skimmed the obvious as his conclusion. 

     Polybius writes in Book III, Chapter I, that some writers assign two causes for the start of the Second Punic War between Carthaginians and the Romans.  The siege of Saguntum and the crossing of the Iberus River, which broke existing treaties, are frequently stated.  These may have been the first battles but were not the cause of the War.  Such mistakes arise from not remembering, that a distinction should be always made between the cause and pretext, and the beginning of a war; and that the first of these are in order always antecedent to the latter

     It was the opinion of Roman Historian Senator Fabius that it was all because Annibal (Hannibal) was acting in his own interests and not of his country.  That Annibal in his youth was instilled with an extreme hatred of Rome by his father Amilcar and was acting contrary to the Senate of Carthage.  But Polybius points out that following the destruction of Saguntum, the Roman Senate sent Ambassadors to Carthage demanding Annibal be surrendered into their hands.  If Annibal had been acting contrary to the Carthaginian Senate, this would have been a perfect time to rid Carthage of a troublemaker by handing him over to Rome.  But that did not happen and indeed Carthage supported Annibal during his seventeen years in Italy fighting for the destruction of Rome.  He gave up that effort to return to Africa to protect the Carthaginian Senate from Roman invasion.  Is that the actions of a man thinking only of himself?

     Having read numerous writer's theory on the source and meaning of the Natural Born Citizen clause, (some saying it comes from English Common Law and others from writings by some French Philosopher), that have all been found deficient in logic, history or fact, I found it necessary to dig deeper for understanding why the Supreme Law of the Constitution requires the Chief Executive of the United States to be a Natural Born Citizen.

     Having already done the research, I present my conclusion to you as the Introduction and the remainder of the book as the proof for my conclusions.  You will not like the message.  It is very disturbing to realize that the Executive Branch of the United States is occupied by a person who does not qualify for the position.  It is equally unsettling to know there are some members of the Legislative Branch lacking the first requirement for membership, manhood.  That no manhood eligible member honors his oath to uphold the Constitution because he does not know the formation of the Constitution well enough to dispute and deny those ineligible persons.  The Senate of the United States, required by the Constitution to act as a check to unqualified persons nominated by the Executive to a position in the National Government, including the Supreme Court, has allowed persons in the absence of Constitutional Law, those appointments.  I am dumbfounded to know that ineligible persons on the Supreme Court are interpreting our Constitution while they themselves are in violation of Constitutional Law.   

     Do I recommend this book to every American?  Yes, I do.  Will the book help you be more knowledgeable about the process the Debates undertook to ensure our Constitution would be the best that Americans could support?  Yes, it will.  But the question I am not able to see the answer to is what will Americans do with the knowledge?  What I would like to see is a lawful National Government, organized under the Constitution.  And, when opinions change, a Congress that will act to pass Articles to forward to the States for ratification and Amend the Constitution so our Government is under the Law and not above the Law.