Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

“Natural Born Citizen” and Coverture.

At the common law, Husband and wife were “one” and The Man was The One. The legal name of this concept is “coverture”.

Married women weren’t separate legal entities in their own right. Their legal identity was subsumed under their Husband’s. Married women weren’t “citizens” in their own right.

Vattel and our Framers had the FATHER in mind in their concept of “natural born citizen”: The Man is the one who counts!

Later on, with Married Womens’ Property Acts in various States, female suffrage with the 19th Amendment, etc., this legal fiction of the wife’s legal identity being subsumed into that of her husbands, was ended. [However, as a holdover, married women still sometimes refer to themselves as Mrs. John Smith instead of Mrs. Mary Smith.]

At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER’s citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V.  I propose an amendment saying that both the Mother and Father must be US Citizens at the time of their child’s birth for the child to be a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

So under the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 – which original intent continues until changed by amendment – IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO Barack Hussain Obama’s mother was, and it doesn’t matter WHO Ted Cruz’ mother is: Their fathers were not US citizens at the times they were born so THEY ARE NOT “natural born citizens”.

Before you gnash your teeth at this constitutional requirement which disqualifies Ted Cruz, look at Ted’s Record. Look at his connections. Look at his Wife’s connections. For Ted’s record, look at his actual position on gun control.  Look at his actual position on obamatrade. You think this guy will fix everything? You are gullible if you do.

Cruz is establishment all the way… he says what we want to hear – counting on us to ignore his record and connections.

Americans!  Will you wise up before it is too late?  No one out there will ride in to “fix everything”.

You better start getting ready for upheaval. Make plans.  Form alliances with your neighbors. Mend fences. Repent of your sins.

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

August 20, 2015 - Posted by | coverture, natural born citizen, Ted Cruz | , ,


  1. It appears, sadly, that we will not. So many freedoms and protections lost. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by prsmithsr | September 19, 2019 | Reply

  2. […] Donald was born.  Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.  [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably […]


    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen Explained – Speak Up America | March 1, 2019 | Reply

  3. I just read an article in HufPo where Rick Santorum admits his father tried to come to America when he was 7 but wasn’t allowed in for whatever reason. Wouldn’t that mean Santorum isn’t a Natural Born Citizen either regardless of being born here?


    Comment by James Crosby | December 7, 2016 | Reply

    • The key is not when Rick’s father came here, but only this: At the time Rick was born, was his Father a US Citizen?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | December 7, 2016 | Reply

  4. Hello Mrs. Huldah (Larvey1 from Youtube commentor here)
    This is what is being used to respond via a Congressional Research Service memo as their defense of non-Natural Born candidates such as Barack Obama, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
    1. Have you seen this document?

    2. What is your position for or against this document in its current form as PROOF of eligibility for POTUS candidacy/eligibility.

    By the way, I’m completely at the position that they are not natural born via your Youtube and based on the information I’ve discovered. However, if this is the response at a Congressional level, how can any American citizen respond to THEIR position?
    Thank you.


    Comment by Larvey1 | February 21, 2016 | Reply

    • Hi, Larvey1, thanks for visiting.

      I haven’t read the Report. But this is what I have to say to our People: You must STOP blindly accepting what “experts” tell you. As a People, we have abandoned the Belief that we are governed by External Transcendent Standards. Some 45 years ago, one of my law professors told us that Judges decide what result they want in the litigation before them and then write an opinion to justify that result. Their Opinions have nothing to do with the Facts of the case and the Law.

      That mindset is not restricted to Judges – it is now universal.

      Furthermore, as a People we have abandoned the Belief that our Constitution has a fixed meaning – that we are bound by the meaning the Framers and those who ratified it intended. For over 100 years, we have believed that the Constitution “evolves” to meet “changing social conditions”, etc., etc.; and the Judges, of course, are the ones who articulate (in their Opinions) these evolving new meanings of the Constitution.

      So THAT, in a nutshell, is how things stand in our collapsing Country.

      I am trying to RESTORE the original intent of our Constitution. In my papers and speeches, I PROVE that original intent.

      It is up to The People to decide which way they want to go.

      So I say the American People must act like Jurors presiding over a Trial:

      1. They must look at the arguments the other side makes and use their own heads to evaluate what is said. These Citizen Jurors must also consider whether the other side has any EVIDENCE (other than lying supreme Court decisions) to support their claims.

      2. They must look at the arguments those on the other side make and use their own heads to evaluate what is said. And since I always provide ample EVIDENCE in the form of original source documents, they should look at my Evidence.

      And above all, WE MUST RECOVER OUR VIRTUE: When we decide on the outcome we want and then embrace the argument which “gives” us the result we want, we act corruptly.

      Finally: Many “experts” conceal their lack of truthfulness by writing long, complicated & obtuse works; focus on irrelevancies to distract their readers; and other such ploys.

      But I have found that most Truths can be simply and clearly set forth.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 21, 2016 | Reply

  5. Thanks for bringing up the only Supreme court case US vs Wong 1898 the only precedence to date on the courts interpretation of natural born citizen as far as eligibility for POTUS is concerned. The majority opinion was that even though the child of 2 US citizens born abroad was NOT eligible, that just being born on US soil to non citizens was eligible. The dissenting Justice confirms that if you read his explanation as to why the courts interpretation seemed inconsistent with the founders intent since the additional “natural born” for POTUS not required of Legislature was an additional attempt to safeguard the Crown from sending loyal British couples to America and then funding their child into Presidency to subvert the New Republic. Yes politics has always been a corrupt business and it wasn’t the founders first rodeo with politics. Like Solomon said “there’s nothing new under the sun.” The courts opinion allows for any citizen that is born in the US regardless of parental citizenship to be eligible for POTUS but it clearly confirmed that the child of 2 US citizens born abroad was not eligible.


    Comment by Sonja | February 1, 2016 | Reply

    • No! The issue in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was whether Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment made Wong Kim Ark a citizen.

      The Holding was that Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment did make him a citizen because he was born here “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Even though his parents were subjects of the Chinese Emperor; they were not here in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China; they were carrying on their own business here, and they had a permanent domicile and residence here. So their child born here was “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and hence a citizen under the 14th Amendment.

      Any comments the Supreme court made about “natural born citizens” are mere “dicta” and have no precedental value.

      The Wong Kim Ark case is irrelevant to the clause (Article II, §1, clause 5) which requires Presidents to be NBCs.

      Laymen have a hard time understanding the distinctions between:
      The “issue” in the case;
      The “holding” of the case;
      and mere dicta – which has no precedental value.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 2, 2016 | Reply

      • Thanks for the clarification!!!


        Comment by sonja | February 26, 2016 | Reply

      • Ms. Huldah, I have become very interested in your research and comments about the NBC issue. It has been a thorn in my side since 2007 (for obvious reasons) and you have articulated the intent and purpose well enough for me to present a rational debate. Relative to the Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS case not providing a definition of NBC, were there any SCOTUS cases that did provide precedental value? Did anyone define it where it could be referenced today as legal standing?


        Comment by Terry | May 5, 2016 | Reply

        • The supreme court lacks the power to define terms in the US Constitution. We must always look to the original intent – and use the definitions our Framers used.
          Supreme court opinions on what the Constitution means are not authoritative. The supreme Court is merely the “creature” of the compact and is completely subject to its terms.

          The supreme Court was CREATED by Art. III of our federal Constitution. We don’t permit the “creature” – the supreme Court – to tell us what the document which created it means!!

          Thomas Jefferson and James Madison told us this over & over……

          Ie, don’t look for supreme Court opinions for authority on the meaning of the Constitution. such opinions are not authoritative. Look for the original intent. I proved the original intent in my 12 minute video.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | May 5, 2016 | Reply

  6. […] was born.  Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.  [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably […]


    Pingback by Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress | Exposing Modern Mugwumps | January 19, 2016 | Reply

  7. […] Donald was born.  Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.  [But because of the doctrine of coverture, which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably […]


    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen Status Is Inherited – It’s Not Bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress » Sons of Liberty Media | January 18, 2016 | Reply

  8. Reblogged this on standupspeakoutblog and commented:


    Comment by standupspeakoutadd | January 17, 2016 | Reply

  9. […] Donald was born.  Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.  [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably […]


    Pingback by Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress « Publius-Huldah's Blog | January 17, 2016 | Reply

  10. Let’s look at the circumstances of Ted Cruz birth and the nationality of his parents. I will start with Raphael Cruz; Ted’s father. He was a Cuban citizen in the US on a visa to attend the University of Texas in 1957. He graduated and applied for a green card to remain in the USA and it was granted. In 1964 he married a US citizen and they both moved to Canada where they remained for eight years.

    Question 1: Based upon the United States Expatriation Act of 1907 what nationality did Raphael Cruz new wife have after her marriage to a foreign national?

    Back to the father, Raphael, soon he immigrated into Canada becoming a Canadian. He has said in many interviews that both he and his new wife became Canadian citizens. It seems illogical for the spouse not to follow the actions of her new husband. A couple of years later (1970) Ted was born in Calgary, Alberta as a Canadian citizen. He has a Canadian birth certificate.

    Question 2: Many think “Dual Citizenship” applies to Ted. For that to happen requires the parents to apply with the US Embassy in Canada within a certain time frame. History indicates that it is extremely rare for anyone to be cognizant of that process and actually make that application. Did Ted’s parents make that application?

    Question 3: If Ted is, in fact, a dual citizen does that not disqualify him from qualifying to be President? Does he not have a family tie to a foreign nation by virtue of that dual status?

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Bud Parker | January 7, 2016 | Reply

    • The question is very simple – much easier than you make it: Was Ted’s Father a US citizen at the time Ted was born? answer: NO! therefore, Ted is not an NBC and is not eligible to be president. And he spits his contempt for our Constitution by seeking an office for which he is constitutionally ineligible. Of all the candidates for the R nomination, Ted Cruz seems to be the biggest hypocrite.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 8, 2016 | Reply

    • Cruz’s parents did not marry in 1964, they were married sometime between 1966-1969 (69 according to Ted Cruz, 66-68 according to Rafael). In 1964 Cruz’s mother was living in England, having just divorced her first husband Alan Wilson who confirmed they divorced in 1963. She remained in England until sometime in 1966 when, after the birth & death of her son Michael in 1966 (both in the same year) in England, she returned to Houston where she is reported to have met Rafael Cruz and then moved to Canada with him in late 1966/early 1967 and remained there until 1975 (Canadian records have an address for her in Canada in 1975).

      Cruz became a Canadian citizen in 1968 (his words). Canada did not recognize dual citizenship and Canadian law in the 1960s was simple, any spouse who is married to a Canadian and lives with him for 1-year (in Canada) is AUTOMATICALLY a Canadian citizen.

      As for Ted, Canada did not recognize Dual Citizenship until 1977 which is why Canadian legal authorities stated last year that Ted is a ‘natural-born Canadian’ citizen and nothing else.

      Ted would not have Dual Citizenship because:
      a) Per the U.S. Dept. of State Foreign Affairs Manual 7 Consular Affairs (See 2nd quoted section below) a child born abroad to a U.S. Citizen and Alien Parent is that the “U.S. citizen parent must have had 10 years of physical residence, five of which were after reaching age 14, in the United States or its outlying possessions” and must be PRIOR to the child’s birth. Cruz’s mother lived in England from 1960-1966, a few months in Texas in 1966 and then lived in Canada 1966/1967 to 1975. To confer U.S. Citizenship to her son she had to meet the requirement of living 10-years in the U.S. with 5 of those years physically present in the U.S. PRIOR TO THE child’s birth.


      b) Per U.S. law she had to report her son’s birth to the U.S. Consulate in order to convey her U.S. Citizenship to him, which is covered under the U.S. Immigration/Naturalization Act. It is then up to the U.S. Consulate to determine Cruz’s birth citizenship and if his parents went to the Consulate to report it, the Consulate may have refused citizenship based on the fact that Cruz’s parents were Canadian citizens by virtue of his father becoming one and his mother meeting the statute of being married to one and living in the country for the 1-year required time, which makes little Ted a ‘natural-born CANADIAN’ citizen just like Rand Paul stated.

      Cruz hasn’t produced a Consular Report of Birth Abroad to substantiate his U.S. citizenship because he doesn’t have one. He also hasn’t produced a Birth passport to establish U.S. Citizenship at that time as it was recently reported that he had to apply for one when he was 18 for a High School trip abroad. Per IMM/Nat he would also have had to give an oath of allegiance to the U.S. upon age 18.


      Comment by Charon | February 23, 2016 | Reply

      • Do have links to original sources proving what you have said? I see many assertions in your post, but no evidence. I’m not disputing the facts you allege – I don’t know one way or the other. That’s why it’s always good to provide EVIDENCE!


        Comment by Publius Huldah | March 9, 2016 | Reply

  11. […] are foreigners or aliens.   For more information, see Publius Huldah’s articles here and here, and Devvy Kidd’s articles here and […]

    Liked by 1 person

    Pingback by Ted Cruz, Henry Kissinger, and the Globalists — Part 1 | Capitol Hill Outsider – CHO | December 9, 2015 | Reply

  12. […] « Previous | Next » […]


    Pingback by Babies Don’t Provide Anchors! | Liberty News | November 12, 2015 | Reply

  13. You are completely missing the point of the Massachusetts Naturalization Acts. Between 1785 and 1791 the MA legislature passed Acts with identical language, context and intent that randomly used either term natural born citizen and natural born subject. The fact that they are state laws and state citizenship are immaterial. What is important is the meaning of the terms. Clearly natural born citizen and natural born subject were used in the same way with the same meaning.

    John Adams used both terms “citizen of the Commonwealth” and “subject of the Commonwealth” in his draft of the 1780 Massachusetts constitution.

    Delaware legislature pass legislation in 1788 that used the term natural born subject.

    President Washington sent the Roman Catholic clergy a letter in 1790 in which he thanked them for being good “subjects of the government United States”

    It appears the Founders were not as concerned with the difference between subject and citizen as you are.

    And it shows that we can not assume that we know the meaning of natural born citizen.


    Comment by William Rawle | August 31, 2015 | Reply

    • To William Rawle:

      1. ‘Fess up as to your true agenda: Do you support Marco Rubio for the Republican nomination for President? Or do you support someone else who was born in this country of parents who were not US citizens?

      2. As to FORMS of civil government: Do you understand the difference between a Monarchy and a Constitutional Republic? Explain the difference.

      I took the time to search the internet to find something to explain to you the distinction between “subjects” and “citizens”. It was written 10 years ago by a Brit – by someone who has no dog in the fight over who gets the Republican Nomination. I ask you to read it carefully and with an open mind:

      You must also be reminded that at the time of our Founding, The People of America were being transformed from “subjects” of the British Crown and, after the Declaration of Independence, became “citizens”. During periods of transition, people use terms interchangeably. E.g., I read where Thomas Jefferson, in one of his drafts of the Declaration of Independence, obliterated the word, “subjects”, and changed it to “citizens”. Do you see? Jefferson understood that with the Declaration of Independence, we were no longer “subjects”, but were “citizens”! But the first time, he wrote it wrong.

      So it is no wonder that lesser minds than Jefferson’s confused the profound distinction.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 31, 2015 | Reply

      • We appear to be talking past each other. You keep referring to the conceptual and philosophical differences between citizens and subjects while I’m only talking about the meaning of words and their usage in the 1780s. Here is a summary of the terms used in the Massachusetts Acts.

        Feb., 1785 – NBC
        Feb., 1786 – NBC
        July, 1786 – NBC
        March, 1787 – NBS
        May, 1787 – NBS
        Oct., 1787 – NBC
        Nov., 1787 – NBS
        Jan., 1788 – NBS
        Nov., 1788 – NBC
        Feb., 1789 – NBS
        June, 1789 – NBS
        March, 1790 – NBS
        March, 1791 – NBS

        From a strictly conceptual point of view they should have used NBC for all of the Acts but they didn’t. They switched back and forth between NBC and NBS. From a conceptual point of view the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776 and the Vermont constitutions of 1777 and 1786 should never have used the term natural born subject but they did.

        Justice Scalia has said that in interpreting the Constitution, we need to look for the meaning of the words as understood by the ordinary voters in 1788. In Massachusetts the ordinary voters would have understood natural born citizen to mean the same thing as natural born subject.


        Comment by William Rawle | September 1, 2015 | Reply

        • And others at the time of our Framing understood there was a profound distinction between the feudal concept of “natural born subject” and the Republican concept of “natural born citizen”.

          There are always some who understand and some who don’t.

          You are committing the logical fallacy of “cherry picking” – read about it here:


          Comment by Publius Huldah | September 2, 2015 | Reply

  14. There are a lot of “Conservatives” who are on the Ted Cruz is a “Natural Born” citizen bandwagon, like Wild Bill for America who sites the Harvard Law Review as proof. True I have not read the Harvard Law Review opinion but really the Harvard Law Review as your proof…the same Harvard Law Review of Barack Obama? Could you re-visit the Harvard Law Review and it erroneous findings. When I posted links to your articles on Natural Born…WB for America’s response that I was trying to sabotage Ted Cruz’s candidacy and I must be one of those John Boehner supporters…LOL>


    Comment by Tim | August 26, 2015 | Reply

  15. In the United States, it is not the parents who determine the citizenship of their children under the Constitution, but the child’s place of birth. In fact first Congress had to pass a law (The Naturalization Act of 1790) to prevent the alienage of the children of US fathers born abroad.

    The Chancery Court of New York in the case of Lynch v. Clarke (1844), in an extensive historical analysis prior to the 14th Amendment, concluded that the term “natural born citizen” derives from the English Common Law’s ancient principle of birth within the realm and within the allegiance of the King, conferring natural born subjecthood, without regard to the citizenship of the parents.

    The US Supreme Court affirmed this common law principle in the case of US v. Wong. The Court cited Dicey’s “Digest of the Law of England with reference to the Conflict of Laws” (calling it careful and thoughtful) which says “Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.” Dicey goes on in his book (in the same chapter cited by the Supreme Court) to explain that of those natural born subjects, there are two types–those who became subjects at birth under the Common Law, and those who became subjects at birth by statute.

    At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, these principles were in force in all the thirteen original states, and were the law of the land under the Constitution (except in regard to the special case of slaves and Indians) until birthright citizenship was more explicitly codified in the 14th Amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Dr. Conspiracy | August 25, 2015 | Reply

    • Yes and no to what you said.
      This links to and quotes from the relevant original source documents – and explains the HUGE distinction between “natural born subject” and “natural born citizen”. Allow the paper to correct the “no” part of what you said.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2015 | Reply

      • In your links one comment pointed out the Massachusetts Naturalization Acts. In those Acts the terms natural born citizen and natural born subject are used interchangeably between 1785 and 1791. Why didn’t the Founders in Massachusetts recognize the HUGH distinction?

        Liked by 1 person

        Comment by William Rawle | August 25, 2015 | Reply

        • I haven’t read the Mass. acts to which you refer – but have seen in various places where writers have confused the totally separate concepts of “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen”. I discuss the distinction in my earlier paper on this:

          Why do some people not understand this? Gee! Maybe they don’t think it through? People are lazy – I have found few who are willing to make the mental effort needed to think an issue through. They just repeat what they have heard – and pretend to know all about the subject.
          Mark Twain said:

          “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” Autobiography of Mark Twain

          People still do it.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2015 | Reply

          • I’m surprised that you have not reviewed the Massachusetts Naturalization Acts as they were posted in a comment to your blog (a comment to which you responded) back in April. You say you like source documents from the founding era, but apparently only those which support your theory. I suppose at this point I should direct you to a quotation from Mark Twain about people’s beliefs when religion or politics are involved but I suspect his message would be lost on you. Anyway for what it’s worth here are the Acts and links to each one.

            Massachusetts Naturalization Acts

            February, 1785, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”


            February, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”


            July, 1786, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”

            March, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”


            May, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Edward Wyer and Others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”


            October, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”


            November, 1787, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others, “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”


            June, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”


            November, 1788, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”


            February, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”


            June, 1789, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NATHANIEL SKINNER, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Nathaniel Skinner and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”


            March, 1790, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN JARVIS, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED” in which it was declared that John Jarvis and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”


            March, 1791, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JOHN WHITE & OTHERS” in which it was declared that John White and others, “shall be deemed adjudged and taken, to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges, and immunities of natural born subjects.”


            It should be obvious that the Founders in Massachusetts used natural born citizen and natural born subject synonymously. At this point I’m reminded about how we don’t have to define what a pizza is because everyone knows the definition. In Massachsuetts no one had to define a natural born citizen because they already knew what a natural born subject was. It appears that the peoples of Connecticut had the same understand as the people of Massachusetts.

            “The children of aliens born in this state are considered as natural born subjects and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.” Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: In Six Book, (1795)

            Of course we always could ask one of the Framers where to look for definitions for the terms in the Constitution.

            “… where so important a distinction in the Constitution is to be realized, it is fair to seek the meaning of terms in the statutory language of that country from which our jurisprudence is derived.” Alexander Hamilton, 1795

            Damn pesky source documents.


            Comment by William Rawle | August 28, 2015

          • You pompous ass: what is the relevance of the documents you mention?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 28, 2015

          • You are of course correct that the examples of the language Mass.used to make STATE Citizens of certain individuals in the same “Private Law” manner of Queen Anne and her predecessors and successors used did not, could not or would not have any relevance to the Constitutional Laws of U.S. Citizenship, except that those person made Mass. State Citizens prior to March of 1790 would have became U.S. Citizens upon the Ratification of the COTUS, but those that were made Mass. State Citizens after March of 1790 may well have fell short of acquiring U.S. Citizenship if they did not also comply with the procedures expressed in the 1790 Act.


            Comment by slcraignbc | August 28, 2015

          • Oh dear, I’m not quite sure of what you are saying. So I’ll point to Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4, US Constitution, which delegates to Congress the power to establish “an uniform Rule of Naturalization“.
            Congress implemented the power delegated to it by Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 4 by passing The Naturalization Act of 1790. It set forth the procedures for becoming a naturalized CITIZEN. And if you read thru our Constitution carefully, and highlight all references to “citizen”, you will see that our Framers saw “citizenship” as being with the States – not the “nation”. Remember, we were to be a “nation” ONLY with respect to those few powers delegated to the national government. In all other respects, we were a Federation of Sovereign States. And the inhabitants were citizens of the States – not of the national entity.

            Some people don’t understand the radical distinction between “subjectship” and “citizenship”. This world has always been plagued with people who don’t think clearly, but spout off about matters they don’t understand. People such as Jake Walker of Red State, various people who lived during our Founding Era, and now the William Rawles who has recently visited this site. As we go through life, we all come across Truths and Untruths. Some people prefer Untruths – and they sneer at those who present Truth.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 29, 2015

          • When it comes to historical references of this nation’s revolutionary period, I prefer Dr. David Ramsey’s American revolutionary war experience over Rawle’s family history as a loyalist antenati out of Philadelphia, who left for New York when the war started, when it was being held by the British. He spent part of the war years in England, studying law, and returned to the United States shortly after the hostilities had ended, but before the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty was signed, to proclaim his loyalty to the United States, and later that year became a lawyer.


            Comment by David Farrar | August 29, 2015

          • Well, it is not a matter of “personal preference”. Vattel, Ramsay, and the First Congress were all singing off the same sheet of music when it came to the definition of “natural born citizen”. They understood the radical distinction between the Republican concept of “citizen” and the feudal concept of “subject”.
            But some people of that era didn’t understand the distinction – just as some people today don’t understand the distinction.
            Anyone who equates “natural born subject” with “natural born citizen” is wrong and needs to find a new hobby.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 29, 2015

      • If the Constitution really intended to create something utterly different from the British Common Law term “natural born subject,” why were they silent on the question? If they intended the use of a term from a Swill philosopher BEFORE his work in French had contained the words “natural born citizen” would it not have been discussed, either in the Federalist Papers or in any of the Ratification conventions? Numerous Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that the undefined terms in the Constitution are properly understood in the context of the English Common Law (e.g. Smith v. Alabama, and Ex Parte Grossman). Those decisions are on point and very persuasive.

        You seem to ignore the fact that many of the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers trained in the English Common Law, some actually trained in England itself. You gloss over the fact that every one of the 13 original states had adopted the English Common Law (see summary in Lynch v. Clarke) and some actually use the phrase “English Common Law” in their constitutions. Nowhere to my knowledge did ANY state in 1789 require citizen parents for any kind of citizenship.

        One need not explore the entire philosophical and legal concepts of subject and citizen because the presidential eligibility clause has a limited context, specifically regarding the acquisition of citizenship. The Supreme Court in US v. Wong addressed this question directly by citing Kent’s Commentaries:

        “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”

        I took a quick look at the article you referenced. What you seem to be saying is that the term “natural born citizen” has some historical meaning which was not transferred to us. But that argument ignores the historical sources. Jurist and Historian William Rawle, a confident of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington’s choice for US Attorney for Pennsylvania wrote in his book “A View of the Constitution” (1825):

        “Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity…”

        Even the Oxford English Dictionary, the authoritative source of the original meaning of words, has only one definition for “natural born”: “Having a specified position or character by birth; used esp. with subject.” and it gives this example from historian George Bancroft who wrote a massive history of the United States and a book on the Constitutional Convention in the mid 19th century about citizenship under the Articles of Confederacy:

        “The king of England claimed as his subjects all persons born within his dominions: in like manner every one who first saw the light on the American soil was a natural born American citizen; but the power of naturalization, which, under the king, each colony had claimed to regulate by its own laws, remained under the confederacy with the separate states.”

        There is just no room in the historical record for some unspoken usage of the term “natural born citizen.”


        Comment by Dr. Conspiracy | August 25, 2015 | Reply

        • You are quite mistaken – I quote from and link to original source writings from the Framing Era showing precisely what “natural born citizen” means: READ them. Ignorance and conceit are doing us in. Not secret conspirators – but ordinary people like you who spout off about matters on which they are completely ignorant:

          I do not suffer fools – read the paper I linked to and read the original source documents I linked to. Don’t come back here to post unless you have done that. OK? I have no time for pontificating ignorant fools.

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2015 | Reply

          • Well, you choose not to post many of my comments for your own reasons and that’s fine, but two (2) quick things on my mind; 1, Dr. Conspiracy is a known and proven 0’bot troll who will relentlessly obfuscate with reams of tangential info. and I enjoyed the way you dispatched him with not “suffering fools”…

            2nd, and more important to the actual reconciliations to the LAW of a U.S. natural born Citizen was the references to the 1922 Cable Act, which was the formal & legal “abrogation” of the ancient “matrimonial doctrine of coverture”.

            It seems to me that when a child is born 100% U.S. natural born Citizen when the father IS an acknowledged U.S. Citizen and the too is the wife under the operative “matrimonial doctrine of coverture”, then that abrogation of the “matrimonial doctrine of coverture” requires a RECONCILIATION of the Law that acknowledges the legal status of a child’s citizenship status at birth.

            The Rules of Statutory Construction and Interpretation requires that when two laws conflict the EXISTING Law should be protected from unnecessary dilution while preserving the intent of the new law.

            The remedy in my thinking is to consider each parent, now holding their political status independent of the other, as possessing 50% of a child’s citizenship status at birth, which fullfills the needs of the LAW on U.S. natural born Citizens as well as the CONSEQUENCE made by the passage of the Cable Act that did NOT exist prior to it, being “dual-citizen at birth”.

            I’m just curious if you agree with the way that I construe and reconcile the law on the subject.


            Comment by slcraignbc | August 26, 2015

          • My dear, sometimes I can’t follow what you are saying – and I think you have a gift for making the simple complicated. And as I have been writing for the public, I have had to learn how to make the complicated simple. I always try to use the simplest possible terms and words.
            But know that I have developed an affection for you.

            So! How did you learn of Dr. Conspiracy?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 26, 2015

          • Your acknowledgement of affection is reciprocated in the sincerest sense.

            I find that the LAW and how it is promulgated, administered and interpreted when in conflicts of interest is, IS, complicated.

            We hold these truths to be self evident, and yet, under the Constitution, not ALL peoples were included at the time of its establishment. It took time for the Nation to establish its=self among the Nations of the World and Time to sort out the thoughts of WHY all peoples SHOULD be included.

            So going to specifics, A2S1C5 makes it explicit that AFTER the passing of the Founding Generation, that (U.S.) natural born Citizens MUST exist in order for the Office of POTUS to be LEGALLY OCCUPIED under the COTUS.

            A1S8C4 gives the enumerated “plenary power” over the subject of U.S. Citizenship by additions to the U.S. Congress, with the singular Constitutional obligation to provide amongst their considerations that U.S. natural born Citizens are provided for.

            I advance in all of my inquiries upon those premises and therefore I am compelled to reconcile ALL thoughts, information and considerations to ACTUAL U.S. Law in order to be true to my understanding of the Rule of Law established by the COTUS.

            Dr. Conspiracy has been identified by those who frequent “Birther Report. Com” and goes all the way back to the blogging days of Leo Donofrio, but under various names at various sites. I do not retain all the specifics of the Doc, but I have occasionally “foiled” with him just to see to what extent he’ll depart from reality to support his position which is in Kool-Ade Drinking support of the “0” and his unsupportable citizenship status, which is at best a U.S. dual-citizen at birth.


            Comment by Steven Lee Craig | August 26, 2015

  16. In Shanks v DuPunt the Court wrote,

    “Neither did the marriage with Shanks produce that effect, because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife. It may change her civil rights, but it does not effect her political rights or privileges. The general doctrine is that no persons can by any act of their own, without the consent of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens. If it were otherwise, then a femme alien would by her marriage become, ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband, which are clearly contrary to law.”
    “Our conclusion therefore is that neither of these acts warrants the Court in saying that Ann Shands had ceased to be a citizen of South Carolina at the death of her father. This is not, indeed, controverted in the allegations of the parties.”

    BTW, James Madison specifically said that Dr. Ramsay was wrong about birthright citizenship.


    Comment by William Rawle | August 22, 2015 | Reply

    • Ramsay was addressing “natural born citizen”.
      Can you provide the link to where James Madison said Ramsay was wrong?

      When you cite a Court’s opinion, always provide a link to the text of the Opinion and the date of the case.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 23, 2015 | Reply

      • Shanks v DuPont is rather famous case so I didn’t think a link would be necessary. Just like saying Wong Kim Ark doesn’t really need a link. But here you are,

        Madison statement on Dr. Ramsay’s dissertation is also rather famous as it was part of the first contested election (Ramsay v Smith) in the first Congress.


        Comment by William Rawle | August 23, 2015 | Reply

        • Alas, I was trying to advance your writing and thinking – it is customary to provide a link to cases and the year of the opinion, when one cites them as authority. My asking for the date of the opinion was intended to call your attention to the date of the opinion; and to steer your thinking along the lines of how are word meanings in our Constitution to be determined? Are they to be determined by writings made at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified? Or does the supreme Court get to define & redefine the words as time goes on?

          The discussion of the election dispute you cited and linked to involved the construction of Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution. It has nothing to do with the construction of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 – in which the term, “natural born citizen” appears. I read some distance into the discussion to which you linked and found no place where Mr. Madison said Ramsay was wrong in his discussion of “natural born citizen”. But, as I indicated, I didn’t read the entire report. If Madison in fact said Ramsay was wrong in his discussion of “natural born citizen” [which is, I trust you understand a different concept from “citizen”], then I trust you will be so kind as to provide the specific page number on which Madison says this. I would really like to see it if he said it.

          Some accept guidance with a smile. Others sneer when it is offered. The sneerers block their own way to learning.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | August 25, 2015 | Reply

  17. […] Source […]


    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen and Coverture » Sons of Liberty Media | August 22, 2015 | Reply

  18. I couldn’t agree with you more, at least on your nbC views. By the way, do you have a copy of Paul, Guthrie’s opus maximus (600 pages, Titled: DEMONIC POSITIVISM. Knowing Paul, what else could it had been called?) on the subject of natural law at it relates to the ncB requirement? If not, talk to me; I will ask Paul to send you a signed copy; I think. At least a copy, if not signed.

    ps: I bought one myself ($24.99), knowing Paul’s trials and tribulations in the production his of work of art.


    Comment by davidfarrar | August 21, 2015 | Reply

    • We have the words of Vattel; proof that he was extremely influential here at the time of our Framing; and we have original writings from the time of our Framing – David Ramsay’s 1789 Dissertation & and the Naturalization Act of 1790. They prove the original intent of “natural born citizen”. I’d win a trial on those 4 points alone.
      I never found any writings from that period which contradict the foregoing.
      Though there have always been those who confuse the English feudal concept of “natural born subject” with the Republican concept of “natural born citizen”.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2015 | Reply

      • Ah, so you don’t have a copy of Paul’s work; I thought not. I’ll speak to Paul.


        Comment by davidfarrar | August 21, 2015 | Reply

  19. Perhaps you should do more studies and read the history and Naturalization acts.

    Snopes checks the facts too.


    Comment by deweyy | August 21, 2015 | Reply

    • Why don’t you take a few minutes and list my errors, dear. Go on, do it!


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2015 | Reply

  20. The concept of coverture extends back to the Bible. “…the two shall become one flesh.” The same concept applied to the fall of man and the spiritual death of humans.
    I have been sharing that Cruz is not eligible to be president, but no one wants to listen. I strongly suspect that it will not be an issue until, if and when, he were to win the Republican nomination. Once the convention is over the Democrats will challenge his eligibility and throw the general election process into turmoil on the Republican side.


    Comment by Mike Foil | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • For 100 years, it hasn’t mattered who got elected – we have moved consistently to the Left. Sometimes faster – sometimes slower. But always in the same direction.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • I hope you are right. But I can’t see the DNC going after Cruz on this issue. Cruz, not being a slouch when it comes to SCOTUS decisions himself, also knows it, too: SCOTUS not only will not, but cannot, take up the issue without exposing themselves and Obama. In this regard, it will be a lose/lose situation for them all, as Cruz well knows. In this regard, he’s home free if he can just get those crazy birthers off his case.


      Comment by davidfarrar | August 21, 2015 | Reply

      • Americans have been conditioned to expect the Calvary or the man in the White Hat to ride in at the last moment and rescue them. But in real life, that doesn’t happen. So Americans think the right President will fix everything.
        Yeah, right! If the right person did come along, they’d revile that person. They want someone who tickles their ears.


        Comment by Publius Huldah | August 21, 2015 | Reply

        • But the right person did come along, once. Put your hat on, girl, and get ready for some democracy, Trumptonian style.

          Did I ever tell you about why Pisistratus reminds me of Trump?


          Comment by davidfarrar | August 21, 2015 | Reply

          • Yes, and they crucified Him. Which is what the mob always does to those who tell them the Truth.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | August 22, 2015

  21. As a right to carry permit holder and staunch 2nd Amendment advocate I have no problem making it more difficult for the mentally ill and convicted felons to buy guns. Did I miss something in this link? I also question the Cruz vote on Obamatrade and would like to hear him try to defend it. John Mullins PS If Cruz is part of the establishment RINO crowd he is doing an awful job of getting along with them but a great job of alienating them. Being so smart why would he be doing these things? Giving up lots of money in the process.


    Comment by John Mullins | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • 1. The federal government has no authority to get involved in who may and who may not possess arms. Whether States may do so depends on how their State Constitutions are written.
      2. WHO decides who is mentally ill? In the former Soviet Union, the gov’t decided. The soviet gov’t routinely decided that dissenters were mentally ill and treated them with drugs. WHO decides what crimes are felonies? WHO decides what to make a crime? We already live in a time where the fed. gov’t criminalizes actions where they have no authority to act. See this for an explanation of the criminal jurisdiction of the fed. gov’t:
      3. You said, “I have no problem…”. That’s the standard? Your personal opinion trumps the Constitution? I suggest that is a major problem in our Country: People elevated their own personal opinions above the Constitution.
      4. Cruz is putting on a show – and it works! But compare his record with his words and stunts. Look into his associations. Look into his Wife’s connections.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  22. Are there any candidates that you feel good about at this early stage? I’m waiting to see who the Constitution Party selects in October. I agree that we really need to know the candidates’ voting records if they have one, and not just go with what they say.


    Comment by Teri of NC | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • Nope. None of them. But more important, we are putting our eggs in the wrong basket when we look for a presidential candidate who will “fix everything”. It is impossible to fix things on the national level. It’s probably too late to fix our corrupt State governments. We must concentrate on our County offices, especially County Sheriff. We must prepare for the worst, form alliances with our neighbors, mend fences, make plans with family members, and become skilled in self-defense and such.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  23. I wrote a wedding announcement for one of my children using Mrs & Mr with my wife’s first name first, and my first and last names last, the proud parents. It caused quite a stir, in fact my son and new daughter-in-law were quite pleased with me.
    I never meant to be rebellious, people just kept calling me a rebel. Break the molds around us.


    Comment by styersbd | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  24. Madam:
    You are a mind reader. This is perfect for my work.


    Comment by styersbd | August 20, 2015 | Reply

    • Ask me when you want something. My post today was b/c someone contacted me this morning with a question about the mother’s status. So I wrote this post. See? All YOU have to do is ask when you want something.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  25. Keep these posts coming and I will keep spreading the word.


    Comment by Stephen Lawson | August 20, 2015 | Reply

  26. Thanks. Forwarding this on to those who still decide to place constitutional limitations in the second drawer instead of the top drawer.



    Comment by Bob Hilliard | August 20, 2015 | Reply

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: