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

Marco Antonio Rubio is a Naturalized Citizen

    

      The population of the United States is estimated at about 322 million plus in 2015.  A survey by the American Bar Association found the number of lawyers in the United States in 2015 at fewer than 1.4 million.  This puts the number of practicing lawyers in the United States, as a percentage of the population at less than 1%.  The number of practicing attorneys accepted to the Bar of the Supreme Court and having some training and knowledge of the Constitution is even fewer, in the 5,000-6,000, range.
     
     Students of law receive an education in English Common Law because that law has been retained as State Law.  Courts in the Colonies used English Common Law and the States adopted that law upon becoming Independent States.
 
     Law students are made aware that English law derived from Roman law during the 400 years Rome ruled England.  Students may be aware that because Scotland was never conquered or occupied by Rome, Scotland's law is not the same as English Common Law.  State Law is the extent of English Common Law as it applies in the United States.  
 
     The longest serving Justice on the current Supreme Court is Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.  In his Constitution Day speech delivered to the students of Rhodes College he expressed his dismay for judges who believe the Constitution is a "living" document, saying they amount to policy makers who are rewriting and making moral decisions for the entire country about same-sex marriage and other issues. 
 
     Justice Scalia points with distinction to those who adhere to the original text for the meaning and intent behind the Constitution, and refers to that lawful process as "originalism."  The intent in the Constitution is clearly to require the Amendment process be utilized whenever change is required of the Law of the Constitution. 
 
     Those wishing to destroy the written law of our Constitution use the theory of a "living" Constitution, which views the document as one that evolves and changes over time without being amended.  Law does not change over time by itself to satisfy "Political Correctness."   
 
     Students are being taught incorrectly that our Constitution derived from English Common Law and that is where the deception begins.  If students were taught correctly, they would learn that Constitutions of various ancient Democracies, such as Athens and Republican Rome were studied for ideas.  Other Democracies, more recent to 1787, also were studied, to see what should and ought to  be incorporated into our Constitution.  
 
     Law students should be assigned to read the notes that James Madison took at the Constitutional Convention.  They could read for themselves that the Deputies at the Convention understood that the American people, having just revolted against abusive English Law, would never tolerate a Constitution deriving from that same abusive English Monarchial Law.    
 
     It is suggested all Federal Judges read these notes and learn, so as a Jurist, they do not dismiss valid cases because of a lack of understanding of the foundation of our Constitution.  The United States Constitution did not derive from English Monarchial or Common Law but Democratic Athens Constitutional Law.  English Common Law is unlawfully used to dismiss valid Constitutional issue cases.  Federal Jurists need to change their thinking from the State level where English Common Law prevails to the level of Federal Constitutional law, derivative of Constitution of Athens Democracy Law. 
 
     Law students do take a course in Constitutional Law.  It includes a common set of decisions of the Supreme Court.  These decisions are read and discussed to show the student certain points of law about the case.  As in any classroom, the professor grade a test according to what he says is a correct answer.  The student that questions, because he thinks, does not pass and will not graduate.  And a professor that thinks looses their tenure. 
 
     Take the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393, (1857).  The decision included overturning an Act of Congress, the Missouri Compromise of 1820, as unconstitutional, and declared that Dred Scott, as a person of the African Race, was not a citizen, but property.  This decision is in keeping with the Constitution and an Amendment was necessary to change the Constitution. 
    
     The Thirteenth Amendment ratified December 6, 1865 ended slavery and the status of the African Race people changed to undocumented aliens, native born.  The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified July 9, 1868, provided for citizenship by naturalization to the native born former slaves of the African Race.  The people of African Race only because Congress, under the power granted, intended to refuse citizenship to people of Chinese, Mongolian and the Malaysian Races.  
 
     It would not have been necessary to fight a civil war that could have been prevented had the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments been ratified and became part of the Constitution in 1860?
 
     As of today, Congress has not proposed an Amendment to provide an exception to the definition of "natural born citizen" provided by the Constitution.  Because African Race people were not citizens at the founding of our Constitution, men and women of the African Race are not included in the definition for "natural born citizen" and are ineligible to the Office of President.
 
     The Supreme Court has never accepted a case that has determined who is or who is not, a "natural born citizen." Former Presidential candidate and natural born citizen Senator John McCain could have taken a case to the Court.  Former Governor and natural born citizen, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, could have taken a case to the Court.
 
     At present, the United States could have as presidential contenders an ineligible candidate due to Gender against a Naturalized citizen or a candidate ineligible due to Race or Gender.  One contender needs to prove he registered within 30 days following his eighteenth birthday with Selective Service to prove he is a naturalized American citizen, having chosen between his father's citizenship and that of his expatriated mother.  When tyrants are to be leaders, they should follow the law, which by definition, they do not do. 
    
     Congress adds to Articles proposed as a future Amendments a section which reads "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" or similar.  This phrasing appears in the 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th, 19th, 23rd, 24th, and 26th Amendments.
 
     With that authority, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 wanting to prevent other Races from becoming citizens of the United States.  The Chinese Exclusion Act expired in 1892 and was extended an additional ten years as the Geary Act.  Congress intended to prevent any person of the Mongolian or Chinese Race from citizenship in the United States. even when native born. 
 
     The Supreme Court accepted the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 469 (1898), and the Court decision denied Congress authority to prevent people of any Race from citizenship at their age of majority after birth in territory controlled by the United States.  Why Congress continues denial of citizenship to persons born in territory controlled by the United States is a continuing problem that need to be addressed.  
 
     Mr. Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service, in his paper of November 14, 2011 titled "Qualifications for President and the 'Natural Born' Citizenship Eligibility Requirement" points out in the Summary that the Supreme Court has never accepted a case to determine the issue of who is a "natural born citizen."  That is the one true and accurate statement made by Mr. Maskell with which every American citizen should concur.
 
     When you accept Mr. Maskell's statement, the decision in the Wong Kim Ark case was not a decision that determined Mr. Ark to be a natural born citizen because the Supreme Court has never taken a case to determine the meaning.  The Court decision determined that because he was born on United States territory that Congress can not deny him his right to choose, because of that birth, citizenship in the United States at his age of majority. 
 
     What Mr. Maskell points out is that the Court will indicate in a decision if a case is a Constitutional question.  The case of Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, (1875), is a good example.  Chief Justice Waite delivered the unanimous decision starting with these words; "The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question (Female Gender suffrage) decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination."  A clear decision requiring Amendment to the Constitution for resolution.
 
     Persons of the Female Gender were not constitutionally eligible to vote in Federal elections because the citizenship of the Female Gender did not include that privilege.  The decision also includes the Female Gender ineligibility to hold any elected or appointed seat in the Federal government. 
 
     To date, only the Nineteenth Amendment has been ratified on August 18, 1920, granting the Female Gender the privilege of suffrage.  No other Amendments have been proposed by Congress that will provide the law necessary for the Female Gender to hold any office in the Federal Government.  An Amendment providing an exception from the "natural born citizen" requirement for inclusion by a person of the Female Gender is necessary. 
 
     A point frequently overlooked in the decision of Minor v. Happersett is that each State, as part of the principle of States Rights, sets their own requirements of citizenship for the State and the rights and privileges associated with that citizenship.  One State may call any person born in that State by any designation the State chooses.  Citizenship in a State provides for citizenship in the United States under rules of the Federal Constitution. 
 
     Some points the law student and citizens should keep in mind.  Before ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, or decision in the Wong Kim Ark case, birth in territory controlled by the United States was not a method of obtaining citizenship in the United States.  The fact that persons who are of the Native born Indian Race were denied citizenship is a prime example.  The jure soli principle of citizenship, legislated law providing eligibility to citizenship due to place of birth, started with the Fourteenth Amendment. 
 
     Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the jus sanguinis principle, citizenship passed by blood to children, was the natural way to citizenship.  While jure soli is limited to a specific area of soil or land, jus sanguinis can take place on any land in any country.
 
     The Amendment process is needed to establish the written law of the Constitution.  The entire history of law establishes the major principle of law requires the law be written so all can know the law.  When written law is not adhered to due to ignorance or deception, chaos is sure to follow. 

Richard Carl Shellhorn
Executive Director