The United States Freedom Army does not endorse any political candidates. The United States Freedom Army does endorse the United States Constitution!
In a previous post (“A letter to Charles Krauthammer regarding Citizenship”) we exposed some of the problems with our current Constitutional definition of citizenship and showed some of the problems it poses for individuals who are having difficulty getting their eligibility. We discussed in that post some of the difficulties Ted Cruz is having with his eligibility to be President. We also believe Marco Rubio, although he is a citizen, is not at present under the Constitution a natural born citizen and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be President since at the time of his birth neither of his parents were citizens. Having said all of this, we believe the peoples’ representatives now need to look at the Constitution and redefine citizenship in a way that is more appropriate for the modern world.
In 1787 when citizenship was defined a family was making great progress if they could travel 20 miles per day. In 1868 when Amendment XIV, which further redefined citizenship, was adopted, a family was making great progress if they could travel 50 miles in a day. Today a family can travel almost anywhere on planet Earth in one day. What made sense in 1787 and 1868 to lawmakers does not make as much sense today, particularly with the disintegration of the nuclear family that we now, unfortunately, see so often.
The Constitutional Amendment we are seeking should have as a minimum these four points included and specified in detail:
* The criteria for citizenship should to be changed. We will discuss this in more detail below.
* Dual citizenship should be made illegal. Dual citizens should declare for one country or another or their citizenship may be automatically revoked.
* A person’s citizenship may be revoked. This should only be in extreme cases and may require a jury trial. For example, the U.S. citizen that fought for the Taliban against the United States should have had his citizenship revoked.
* It should be reaffirmed that non-citizens are not necessarily guaranteed protection under the U.S. Constitution, particularly if they have acted illegally.
The general criteria for citizenship should be that if your mother (the female contributor of your DNA) is a citizen at the time of your birth then you are a citizen and a natural born citizen. At the time of your birth if you do not meet this criterion you are not a citizen. Without getting into all the complications (adoptions, naturalization, test tube babies, etcetera) that may arise later and may allow an individual to become a citizen this should be the fundamental rule for citizenship.
So why do we exclude the male contributors? It takes a female approximately 9 months to produce a child so a female is limited as to how many children she can produce in her lifetime. A male can produce several children in a 9 month period and, if he is a good talker, probably several more. Furthermore, it is much easier to determine who the mother is and often not as easy in today’s world to determine who is the father.
This is a fundamental problem with our political system namely that the Constitution is never updated to reflect conditions in the modern world and so we are always having to use rules that may be outmoded or obsolete. The only way to modify these rules is by amendment and because it is not easy to amend the Constitution our politicians try to sneak around the rules by ignoring the Constitution, writing laws that amend the Constitution, or by getting their ideological friends placed in the court systems to find clever legal ways (legal sophistry) to change the meaning of words and circumvent the rules. This is why we see chaos in government, why our system of government is out of control, and why we refer to it as a rogue government.