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

Hillary Rodham Clinton - Gender Ineligible - Amendment Required

                  GENDER INELIGIBLE

 

     It has always been said by men and women intent on deception and deceit, that the Constitution does not define the term "natural born citizen" and it is necessary to look to English law for a definition of that term.  What they want you to forget about is the fact that no words are defined by the Constitution.  It is necessary to define all the words by the method frequently observed by investigators and lawyers in seeking facts and truth.  Eliminate the impossible and whatever remains must be the truth. 

 

     Look at the Constitution.  Look to the notes of James Madison.  In addition, look to the actions of the first Congress to understand the intent of the words used in the Constitution.  The Supreme Court had looked at Constitutional issues this way.  When the Court accepted a case with Constitutional concerns, the Court has historically and lawfully, looked at these three sources to decide what was the intent of the words of the Constitution and what the words then mean.

 

     To make the statement that a person of the Feminine Gender, regardless of Race, is ineligible to the Office of President on the basis that that Gender is not included in the Constitutional definition of "natural born citizen," will not be understood by women of the 20th or 21st Century.  The women of the 18th Century, 1787 to be precise, understood, because their values and responsibilities were in another direction.

 

     Mention needs to be made that the first Democracy in Athens, Greece, the Feminine Gender were not participants in any vote.  Women were denied the privilege of suffrage.  Women of Republican Rome also were denied the privilege of suffrage.  They had initially been women taken by conquest, subject to the will and under the protection of the man who held them in coverture.

 

     The Greek poet Hesiod tells of the myth of Pandora ("All-Gift"), the ancient Greek equivalent to the Biblical Eve, who was created by Zeus and the other Gods and Goddesses.  She was sent down to earth to punish wretched humans for their presumptuousness.  Out of uncontrollable curiosity, the classic flaw in women's nature, she opened a large storage jar (pithos), which contained both goods and evils, so that the life of hapless mortal men was and eternally is plagued by evils.  Only one quality was left shut firmly within the jar when she finally managed to stopper it up again, and that quality was profoundly ambiguous: Elpis---"Hope" (or "Expectation"). 

 

     Women in 18th Century America were not educated in any school setting the way boys were.  Greek and Latin was taught to boys along with an understanding of government that was denied to girls.  Men were the educators and boys were the students.  Women sought a man to provide for their needs and those of the children so were given an education at home in those necessary areas.  

 

      Greek and Latin were studied and the culture that they represented, being that of Greece and Rome, both Democratized. These two empires, that had begun as a pure Democracy in Athens and a representative Democracy in Republican Rome, should be where we should be looking for examples in our search for understanding words in our Republican Constitution.  Anyone who has read the Papers of James Madison can accurately state that the English Constitution and laws were not relied on in any respect in the formation of the Constitution of the United States. 

 

      Women in 18th century America may have heard their husband speak of Jean-Jacques Rousseau who wrote in The Social Contract, "The most ancient of all societies, and the only one that is natural, is the family: even so the children remain attached to the father only so long as they need him for their preservation.  As soon as this need ceases, the natural bond is dissolved.  If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally, but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention.  The family then may be called the first model of political societies: the ruler corresponds to the father, and the people to the children; and all, being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage."

 

     It is noticeable that Rousseau and other philosophers of the 18th Century were not considerate of values held by women as being relevant.  Female writers in the 21st Century complain that those men praised the Masculine Gender as men of feeling, but denied women comparable authority by representing their feelings as inferior, pathological, or criminal.

 

     John Locke was different in his Two Treaties of Government.  He wrote, "The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children; to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added: and though all these might, and commonly did meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family; each of these, all together, came short of political society, as we shall see, if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these."

 

     To understand the differences between the Masculine Gender and the Feminine Gender, it is necessary to understand history and development of the Species, Homo Sapiens.  The Species is divided into two Genders, Masculine and Feminine.  Each Gender of the Species has developed over millions of evolutionary years a set of values that are distinct and different from each other.  The Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus theory is evidence of that evolutionary distinction.

 

     Along the journey after separating as distinct from other warm-blooded mammals, the homo sapiens developed different body structure and skin pigmentation that was conditioned by the specific climactic conditions of the area they inhabited.

 

     Those living in a cool northern climate developed a narrow long nose to warm the cold air before reaching the lungs.  The opposite is evident in warm climates.  Dominant skin pigmentation was conditioned by either long exposure to the sun or lack of sun exposure.  Lung capacity increased for those living at high altitudes and differs from those living at sea level.  Body hair still provides protection from the elements in some areas of the world.  All these modifications of the species homo sapiens have created what can be described as Race.  In addition, along with divisions in Race as seen in body structure and pigmentation, language distinguishes national divisions. 

 

     A visit to a museum will show our human development as being that of a hunter-gatherer existence, the Masculine Gender being the hunters and the Feminine Gender being the gatherers.  The gatherers stayed close to the camp area while the hunters searched for game, sometimes for long periods.  The males and females developed a different skill set that became an ingrained instinctual and hereditary set of values for their gender.  

 

     Male values developed around the hunt where a male with excellent peripheral vision, able to detect motion at a distance, was valued as a hunter. Those stronger in physical stamina to chase the prey, coordinate the attack  to bring down this sustenance and fortitude to return to the camp, provide for the females and children of the individual and groups of fellow hunters, was seen as a position of respect and responsibility.  Males developed values that included loyalty to a better hunter or, warrior leader, as time progressed.  A vision for the future and how to develop that future were part of the training and education granted to and implemented by males.

 

     The alliances formed with other men and allegiance given and received by chosen leaders, developed into a hereditary system.  Men became Monarchs of Kingdoms.  Under a Monarchy, allegiance is given by the male for the female he covers under his protection along with his offspring.  His allegiance covers the entire family and those that hold allegiance to him.  

 

     The females developed values centered on gathering of foods nearby, directing their focus close and immediate rather than at a distance or for a future.  Females saw their needs as paramount to their own survival and developed a set of values that proved to be self oriented, distinctly different from the male value of providing for the group.  Females relied on males to provide and protect which encouraged rivalry among women rather than comradery.  

 

     The Feminine Gender was trained and educated with a home setting environment as the focus, raising offspring and caring for the goods provided by the male they became attached to.  The female of the species became subject to the guidance and leadership commands of the male.  Allegiance to a male became the sought after goal of every female of the species and status or position was secondary.

 

     Henry de Bracton compiled a book titled On the Laws and Customs of England.  He was an English Jurist in the years 1245 thru 1265, dying in 1268.  In the translation from Latin by Samuel Edmund Thorne, law professor at both Yale and Harvard, there is this section titled, "Who may be called free and  who freeborn.  He may be called free and freeborn who immediately at birth is free, whether he is the offspring of two free and freeborn parents, or of a freedman and a freedwoman, that is, persons manumitted from lawful bondage, or of one freeborn parent and one freed, or if he is born of an unfree mother and a free father, provided he was born outside a villein tenement and in a free bed, and provided he was born in wedlock.  It suffices [for him to be free] that the mother, though she [afterwards] was made a bondswoman [by the marriage], is free either at the time the offspring is conceived or at the time it is born, or at least at some time during the interval, for the misfortune of the mother ought not to injure him who is in her womb."  

 

    The woman who married an unfree man became a bondswoman herself was the foundation for the Congress of the United States to enact the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940.  These Acts were upheld by Supreme Court decisions for Savorgan v. United States (1950) and Mackenzie v. Hare (1915).  The Acts provided for the woman to be expatriated of her citizenship in the United States during her marriage to a foreign national in allegiance to a foreign country.  The Nationality Act of 1940 was capable of revoking a woman's privilege to vote even after ratification of the 19th Amendment. 

 

     The Nineteenth Amendment passed by Congress June 4, 1919 and ratified August 18, 1920 stated this; "The right of  citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.  Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."  Congress had the right to deny a woman the right to vote if she married a male foreign national who would hold her political rights under his citizenship or subject status under a Monarchy.  

 

     Males owned property while the female was not permitted property ownership, lacking the strength and education to manage the difficulty of property ownership.  History indicated female dependence on males to provide, or marriage, was but another name for the system of coverture.

 

     Coverture is defined thus; In law, the state of a married woman, who is considered as under cover, or the power of her husband, and therefore called a feme-covert, or femme-covert.  The coverture of a woman disables her from making contracts to the prejudice of herself or husband, without his allowance or confirmation. 

 

     The Coverture system has been systematically dismantled over the past 40 years by Supreme Court decisions, most notably by the recent decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, and as the root cause for the destruction of the American family.  Women have been favored to obtain increased privileges due to political correctness and when privileges are awarded, freedoms are obliterated. 

 

     Coverture has been dismantled at the insistence of feminist for political correctness and to attempt to deny the historic facts showing the Feminine Gender to have been under the protection of the Masculine Gender.

 

     The Bible needs to be considered as a source for understanding why our Constitution denies female suffrage.  The Bible was taught, read and understood not only by males, but females as well, taught in the home, family by family.  People accepted the Biblical story that Eve, as the representative of the Feminine Gender, proved she was the weak link between the commands of God and Man.  Eve, represented collective womanhood, and was easily susceptible to the influence of deception by evil and the cause for which all men must suffer.

 

     These historic facts were surely on the minds of the 55 Anglo-Saxon men who wrote our Constitution.  These men were the guardians of the women living under their protection who raised their children.  Women did not require the privilege  of the vote.  As it was determined in Minor v. Happersett (1875), the Supreme Court found women did not, in 1787, or at the time our Constitution was ratified, have the privilege of suffrage.  The  Constitution of no State granted by law the privilege or right for women to vote.  Indeed, some Western State Constitutions in the 19th Century permitted female suffrage; the United States Constitution did not, by law, grant that privilege. 

 

     What the decision also pointed out to the observant Constitution expert is that women would not logically or lawfully be included as having the right to hold any elected position in this government.  The women would remain the responsibility of their father or husband.  They did not have the education or the value system capable of responsibility for others.  Women were self centered , incapable of compassion, vicious and vindictive, toward other women notably.  They could not be trusted with responsibility. 

 

     What went contrary to the Constitution was permitting the elected female Representative from Montana, Jeannette Rankin, to take a seat in the House of Representatives in 1917.  She was not eligible to hold a seat in the House in the absence of a Constitutional Amendment to provide the law necessary.

 

     Nor is it logical or lawful to conclude the Feminine Gender would be included in the definition of "natural born citizen."  In the absence of a Amendment to the Constitution, women are not eligible to the Office of President because the Feminine Gender is not included in the definition.

 

      The women's movement has unfinished business on the agenda.  Women are the majority of registered voters in 2015, a privilege granted to women by ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920.  In less than 100 years, there have been beneficial changes and changes for change sake.  Each person has to decide for themselves if change to our Constitution that will provide law necessary for females of the species the exception, by Amendment, providing law for women to hold office in the government.  And, to the Office of President, provided they meet all other requirements of a Masculine Gender "natural born citizen."

 

     Sources for the call to support our Constitution can be obtained upon request.   


Richard Carl Shellhorn

Executive Director