WHY IS THE RIGHT HELPING OBAMA REWRITE THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN?
By J.B. Williams
January 20, 2011
Definitions are easy, they are found in the dictionary. Yet, millions of Americans remain stuck in a quagmire of dissenting views and alleged expert opinions over the simple term natural born citizen, one of only a few strict constitutional requirements for the highest office in our land, President and Commander-in-Chief.
According to dictionaries dating as far back as Webster’s 1828 Edition, the term natural born citizen has a very simple and specific common meaning, and according to the framers of the US Constitution, a very important distinction.
Natural – Pertaining to nature; produced or effected by nature, or by the laws of growth, formation or motion impressed on bodies or beings by divine power.
Born – To be born, is to be produced or brought into life.
Citizen – In the United States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.
Based upon the official definition of these words, we know immediately that the term natural born citizen is not based upon statute or any form of man-made law. It exists in nature, the result of natural law, by divine power, only able to be recognized or ignored by legislative process, but still inalienable via legal processes.
Many self-proclaimed experts insist that the US Constitution was written in some secret code, which can only be deciphered for the common folk, by legal scholars of the highest order. Yet on the basis of simple definitions, we know that if we are discussing any form of man-made law requiring the analysis of legal scholars, we are NOT discussing natural-born.