Ambassador Keyes’ Unconstitutional Amendment to Article II

This is a synopsis of Keyes’ opinion that a woman contributes to a ‘natural born citizen’ jointly AND severably, i.e., equally to that of the father. Note the quotes from Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Ginsberg, Keyes, the Barnett vs. Obama case, . . .

With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821)

In the case of Obama’s eligibility, it is assumed that even the son of a British subject is a ‘natural born citizen,’ just because he claims U.S. ‘native birth.’ If that is a sticking point, they bring up his U.S. citizen mother.

1) The ‘natural born citizen’ clause was written into the Constitution to avert powerful and wealthy ‘titled’ families in Europe from claiming one of their sons, born on U.S. soil, but raised and educated in Europe, could return to the U.S. at age 21, fulfill the 14-year residency requirement, and claim eligibility to the Presidency at age 35! In 1790, the first Uniform Naturalization Act confirmed that citizenship required a U.S. citizen father, born or naturalized, for the child to be a U.S. citizen. Finally, until the Cable Act of 1922, and subsequent additions to our nationality acts, a woman’s nationality was not a factor because, upon marriage, she automatically assumed the citizenship of the husband.

2) As for a U.S. citizen mother creating a ‘natural born citizen,’ that belies the fact that there exists alien nationality from an alien father. Sadly, even Ambassador Keyes has assumed this as valid law:

. . . some people are trying to   contend that it requires both parents to be citizens in order to be natural-born. I happen to think, by the way, that argument is incorrect, but there’s a serious argument to be made on both sides. I, myself, believe the Court would conclude that his mother being a citizen satisfies the natural-born citizen requirement, and he would not be in any danger . . .

April 29 edition of Fox Business Network’s America’s Nightly Scoreboard with David Asman

A Woman’s Place is Behind her Husband

For one-hundred thirty five years from the founding of the U.S., a woman marrying a U.S. citizen became a U.S. citizen. If she married an alien, she automatically became the citizenship of the husband. In the 1920’s, laws were written to protect women marrying unscrupulous or unreliable foreign men. This, however, did not change ‘natural law,’ or laws of inheritance and marriage, making the contribution of a woman’s maiden citizenship to her children equal to that of the legal father.

That aside, any interpretation of Article II’s ‘natural born citizen’ must rely on the laws and perceptions of that time. Otherwise, subtle changes in laws or morays can unintentionally ‘revise’ or ‘amend’ the constitution. Justice Ginsberg described the century’s old tradition of a wife adopting derivatively he husband’s citizenship the ‘bad old days.’[1]

Is the Definition of ‘Natural Born Citizen’ Established Law, or Have We Been Collectively Brainwashed?

In the Barnett vs. Obama case Order to Dismiss, a former Perkins, Coie attorney freshly hired as a clerk by the presiding Carter court cited this case law:

[I]f a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory or general law, the Court will decide only the latter.

Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297U.S. 288, 347, 56S. Ct. 466 (1936)

If one assumes that the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is established law, by statute or common law, then the matter is settled. However, there is no case law or legislated act that defines a ‘natural born citizen. Therefore, the matter is one of constitutional law and, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, the case must be heard.

I made this point in the Barnett Motion to Reconsider, but I don’t think Judge Carter even read the damn thing.

This Issue is Bigger than Presidential Eligibility

From the first debate over citizenship and eligibility, May 22, 1789, in the Case of Mr. Smith ( to the passage of the first Uniform Naturalization Act ten months later, the element of ‘native-birth,’ or jus solis, contributing to U.S. citizenship was debated; it lost to the concept of jus sanguinis, or citizenship directly devolving only from a U.S. citizen father.

This concept continued as the law of the land until a supreme court judge violated constitutionally defined subject matter jurisdiction in Wong Kim Ark (1898). This judge ascribed to the medieval concept of jus solis and opening expressed disbelief that existing legislated act did permit citizenship based solely on being born on U.S. soil, and proceeded to bypass and subvert existing law in order to create ‘native-born’ citizenship.

He did this by only recognizing half of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment as significant to the subject, completely ignoring the second clause and its legislative history.

The result of this judge ignoring the subject matter jurisdiction (Art III, Sec 2, Cl 1) of existing law and treaty is our rampant illegal immigration problem, and the nomination and election of the son of an alien to the presidency.

Yes, Barack Hussein Obama is a citizen of the United States, but because his father(s) introduced alien nationality and citizenship from his birth, to when an adult at age nineteen, he is not a ‘natural born citizen’ as required by Art II, Sec 1, Cl 5.


We have a man of Marxist and Muslim heritage, and foreign citizenship, in the highest office of the land, and he is blithely favoring foreign interests in matters of energy, economics, law enforcement, and war. This is precisely what the framers intended to avoid.

[1] Justice Ginsberg made the following  statements in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS affirming that the world recognizes “birthrights” of the Father (not the mother), and bloodline rather than birth place as the foundation for inherited citizenship by birthright, i.e., natural-born citizenship:

Mr. Kneedler, I have a problem with it [Kneedler’s argument]. You would surely have a huge statelessness problem if you didn’t recognize that the child born abroad to U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen because, as you point out, in most countries in the world, they go by blood, not by land of birth.”—“You call the child born abroad an alien, but in most places in the world that child would NOT be a citizen of the place in which that person is born; isn’t that so?” “Well, I thought you said in your brief that in most places, and I think it’s right, they do not go on just solely, they go on parentage.”
“Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934, suppose congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of
U.S. mothers where the father is an alien. That’s the way it used to be in the bad old days.” “Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our nation’s history, that the father’s citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother’s?” “You are talking to children not born to a marriage…”

“Mr. Kneedler, If Congress went back to the way it was when everything was determined by the father’s citizenship, go back to before 1934…”Lord Chief Justice Coke in his opinion in the Calvin’s Case in 1608 enunciated the common law rule for a child born to aliens within the protection and allegiance of sovereignty is that he or she is a natural born subject. Moreover, Chief Justice Coke’s legal authority was “most admired and most often cited by American patriots” Anastasoff v. United States, 223 F.3rd 898, 900 fn. 6, (8th Cir. 2000)


2 Responses to “Ambassador Keyes’ Unconstitutional Amendment to Article II”

  1. JQ Says:

    I think some proofreading is required in the ‘This Issue is Bigger than Presidential Eligibility’ section, second paragraph, second sentence (‘This judge ascribed’).

    • paraleaglenm Says:

      From James Madison in 1789 to Trumbull, and more congressmen debating in the congressional record . . . to Justice Horace Gray in Wong Kim Ark, there exists an almost religious ascription to soil citizenship . . . to some, a feudal concept perpetuated in English common law.

      In a free Republic form of government, the citizen is soveriegn, not the state. Therefore, jus sanguinis is the rule of law.

      Dr. Ramsay argued with James Madison, and his Petition was a well-reasoned analysis of jus sanguinis. The law that Madison relied on in the Smith Case was rendered supreseded and void by passage, ten months later, by the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act, which is purely jus sanguinis.

      Yet, the mystique of jus solis sticks in smaller minds, and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark figured out a way, in his diseased mind, to interpret the 14th Amendment as his Manifesto of Jus Solis . . . and our nation is suffering greatly now because of his sickness.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: