a point in time

7/31/2019 A Point in Time

1/4

A Point in Time

To understand Article 2 Section 1 Clause 4, one must simply look at it through

the prism of the time it was written. At the time of the ratification of the

Constitution, 1789, the time referred to in the clause, there were only 2 sets ofcitizens in America, and all were eligible to be President. Those two sets were

the citizens of the new states in 1789, and the natural born Citizens, or those born

of the citizens of those new states since the Declaration of Independence.

From the American perspective the ante nati, the time when those born in the

colonies were British, and adhered to perpetual allegiance to the Crown, ended

on July 4, 1776. The British perspective is that the Treaty of Peace, ending the

Revolutionary War, in 1783, ended the ante nati. (28 US 99, 121). The Treaty ofPeace released all British subjects from perpetual allegiance who were resident in

the colonies and adhered to the Revolution (they were given until 1789 to leave if

they desired), and the Americans adopted law of nations orthe Law of Nature

and Natures God on July 4, 1776.

The case of Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830), only

41 years after ratification, illustrates that point in time of 1789. The reason that

case is annotated to Article 2 section 1, clause 4, by the 43rd

Congress, in the

Revised Statutes 1873, is because of that illustration. It proves that Congress, in

1873, thought that natural born Citizens were born in the US of 2 US Citizen

parents. The clause has never been amended, and must mean exactly what it did

then. Any blurring, clouding, or obfuscation of the meaning of natural born Citizen

is thwarted by the simple logic of examining the point in time the clause was

ratified.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38

According to the holding of the majority in Sailors v. Trustees (1830), John

Inglis, even if born within the United States after the Declaration of

Independence, would have been considered a British subject, because he
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38


2/4


3/4

Peace, 1783, and were grandfathered in to eligibility by Article 2. Barack H.

Obama was born 172 years too late to take advantage of that clause.

The Inglis case illustrates perfectly that point in time when law of nations, and

the right of election, replaced British Common Law and perpetual allegiance tothe Crown. The fact that Congress annotates Article 2, section 1, clause 4 with

Inglis tells us that the thought that no one knows what natural born meant, or

that it was not defined is utter nonsense.

British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America

after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our doctrine

is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British government,

they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of

American citizens.

This right of election must necessarily exist in all revolutions like ours, and is so

well established by adjudged cases that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an

examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is to determine

the time when the election should have been made. Vattel, B. 1, ch. 3. Id., 122

The law of nations is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of

equity and natural justice. The Venus, 12 US (8 Cranch) 253, 297 (1814)

Justice Gray, in Wong Kim Ark, cites Diceys Conflict of Laws that, "'British

subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown

'Natural-born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British

subject at the moment of his birth.' 169 US 649, 658

Citizens are not subjects (isnt that what the Revolutionary War was about?),

and have the right of election according to the Inglis case. The new US Citizens

threw off perpetual allegiance, which in the eyes of the laws of nations is thebane of all freedom loving people.

Natural Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance

in the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that

rule of law. Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231


4/4

The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled

by the Revolution. Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2, pg.

1280 (William Cushing served on the first Supreme Court).

There is no British Common Law in America. It ended in 1776. If the right ofelection supplanted perpetual allegiance at that point,then to say that natural

born Citizen is the same as natural born subject is a nonsensical lie.

a point in time

Documents