Sunday, January 11, 2015

Time to Change the Natural Born Citizen Conversation—Time to Choose



Time to Change
The "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation
Time to Choose




CONTENTS
  1. Introduction
  2. Original Genesis Original Intent ("can you pass the salt")
  3. Since the 1787 "Union" of America a John Jay "Natural Born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing
  4. The Conversation
  5. U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
  6. A Few Text Construction Lawyers and Professors
  7. A Few Text Construction Terms and Phrases
  8. Who are John Jay Original Intent Birthers?
  9. Who are Obama Birth Narrative Neo-birthers?
  10. Who are "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" Neo-birthers"?
  11. Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance
  12. John Jay's Letter to Benjamin Franklin About British Subject Mr. Vaughan
  13. John Jay Got His Wish
  14. John Jay Letter to Del Campo about British Subject Mr. Vaughan
  15. Mario Apuzzo—John Jay Note To George Washington Suggesting "Natural Born Citizen"
  16. Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—the Question is How to do It
  17. John Jay meant ONLY One thing:
    "Natural Born Citizen" has ONLY One Original Genesis and ONLY One Original Intent
  18. Neo-birther's Mean Many Things:
    "Natural Born Citizen" has Many Original Genesis Possibilities and Many Original Intent Meanings
  19. The Question is How to Do It
  20. Time to Change the Conversation and Move on to Agreement
  21. A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments
  22. Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?
  23. What President Abraham Lincoln said about the “Union”
  24. Barack Obama—the U.S. Constitution is a Charter of "Negative Liberties" not a Charter of "Positive Liberties"
  25. Move On to what "Natural Born Citizen" Should Mean
  26. Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"
  27. Questions about Place and Parents and Naturalization
  28. Jus Soli—Right of Soil/Place
  29. Jus Sanguinis—Right of Blood/Parents
  30. 4 Questions about U.S. Soil
  31. 4 Questions about Foreign Soil
  32. 1st Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents
  33. 2nd Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents
  34. Grandfather Them All
  35. Heterosexual and Homosexual Adoption and POTUS Eligibility of U.S. Born and Foreign Born Children
  36. U.S. Born Children
  37. Foreign Born Children
  38. How to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify
  39. Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment
  40. Article V Convention of the "Several States" to Propose an Amendment
  41. Statute by U.S. Congress
  42. Opinion by U.S. Supreme Court
  43. My Choice: Codify with an Article V Convention of States
  44. Draft Amendment XXX:
    An Amendment to Permit Only a Natural Born Citizen to be Eligible to the Office of President of the United States of America
  45. 2nd Generation Child—An Idea Whose Time Has Come
  46. Time to Choose
  47. Time to Change the Conversation—Time to Choose
  48. An Idea Whose Time Has Come
  49. Draft Amendment XXX:
    A Sample Amendment to Permit ONLY a 1st Generation or a 2nd Generation Natural Born Citizen to be Eligible to the Office of President
  50. A Title and Text Draft for 1st Generation Eligibility:
    For first generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.
  51. A Title and Text Draft for 2nd Generation Eligibility:
    For second generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.
  52. Draft language to clarify the Original Intent of Amendment XIV—Citizenship for Persons Born or Naturalized
  53. Article V and Nullification are WE the People "Kin Folk"
  54. The Text of Article V
  55. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
  56. John Jay v Neo-birthers
  57. Original Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers
  58. Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers
  59. Etiology and Teleology of Natural Born Citizen
  60. Application to Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen"
  61. United States of America v. United Soviet States of America v. United Ummah States of Islamerica
  62. 134 Glossary Words—Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A Garner)
  63. 70 Sound Principles of Interpretation
  64. #37—Absurdity Doctrine
  65. #38—Constitutional-Doubt Canon
  66. A Friendly Hat Tip to Prof. William Jacobson
  67. Patrick Henry said: "Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this..."


Introduction



Let's start this "natural born Citizen" conversation at the beginning—September 25, 1787.


After reading this conversation about John Jay's "original genesis original intent" meaning of "natural born Citizen," you will say this was the BEST explanation that you have ever read anywhere. You will learn the ONLY meaning that "nbc" has ever had since 1787, and why "nbC" has ONLY one "original genesis original intent" meaning from the moment John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.


The conversation on this page titled "Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—Time to Choose" is about removing the confusion surrounding John Jay and what he meant in his "natural born Citizen" phrase as he understood it in 1787, 228 years ago in the 18th century. The conversation considers the ONLY one common sense inference of the underlined word "born" in "natural born Citizen," a phrase that is found in only one place in the seminal birth documents of the "Union," the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the birther document of the "perpetual Union" as President Abraham Lincoln identified it in his first inaugural address in 1861.


John Jay wrote a short thank you note to George Washington dated July 25, 1787 which had the word "born" underlined* in his "natural born Citizen" suggestion. Almost two months later, September 17, 1787, the phrase was included in the POTUS eligibility clause, Article II Section 1 Clause 5.


*See a picture of "born" underlined about half way down the page here - ( http://originalbirtherdocument3.blogspot.com/ )


New York 25 July 1787


Dear Sir,


I was this morning honored with your Excellency's Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.


Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born* Citizen --- [bold emphasis added here]


Mrs. Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard—with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere I remain


Dear Sir
Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay


*The Papers of John Jayclick on "view page images" to see the picture of "born" underlined:
>> ( http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay/ )
>> ( http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/search?mode=search&action=search&match=all&p=1&aut=john+jay&submit=Search&recip=george+washington&keywd=natural+born+citizen&rep=&jayid=&y1=&m1=&d1=&y2=&m2=&d2=&sort=date&resPerPage=25 )
>> ( http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1 )


Here is another excellent source* for papers by American founders and other historic figures: John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 4 vols. [1893].


*( http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2327 )


John Yinger, Professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, has an excellent summary of the history of the inclusion of the "nbC" phrase into Article II. His 2000 article* with 62 footnotes, after citing the history of the uncertainty of John Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC," promotes grandfathering foreign born adopted children into POTUS eligibility with an amendment to the Constitution. Some of my comments about proposing an amendment to the Constitution are found on my blog here** and here***.


*The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?
( http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm )
**( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )
***( http://originalbirtherdocument2.blogspot.com/ )




Original Genesis Original Intent ("can you pass the salt")


The positive law word "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" is associated with the natural law words "natural born," and the "original genesis original intent" is understood by implicature.


Here is an easy to understand "can you pass the salt" definition of "implicature" from the American Heritage Dictionary.


implicature n.
1. The aspect of meaning that a speaker conveys, implies, or suggests without directly expressing. Although the utterance "Can you pass the salt?" is literally a request for information about one's ability to pass salt, the understood implicature is a request for salt.


2. The process by which such a meaning is conveyed, implied, or suggested. In saying "Some dogs are mammals," the speaker conveys by implicature that not all dogs are mammals.


In "can...pass...salt," there is ONLY one implicature although "pass" can be inferred two ways, a literal meaning ("can you") and the ONLY intented meaning (the original intent of "will you"). There is ONLY one implicature, NOT two; NOT "can" you AND "will" you, but ONLY "will" you pass the salt. The "understood implicature" has ONLY one meaning that the question asker expects to be understood by the salt passer—"will" you pass the salt.


In "can" there are two meanings, the literal meaning of the word "can" and the ONLY implicature, the ONLY implied or suggested meaning, the ONLY intended meaning (original intent). In "born" as underlined in "natural born Citizen" by John Jay, there is ONLY one literal meaning and ONLY one implicature. There is ONLY the natural law literal meaning and the ONLY natural law implicature that also has a positive law aspect. Natural law = "natural born" and positive law is "Citizen."


So, in the context of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, it looks like two contradictory meanings of "nbC" may be possible by implicature, singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S. /alien citizenship. However, since "original genesis original intent" can have ONLY one "understood implicature," not two, and ONLY that one implicature is to be inferred, not two, "nbC" can have ONLY one meaning, not two OR more. Since "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born, "nbC" can NOT mean ALSO born on U.S. OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents married OR not married to each other BEFORE their child is born.


Just as it is obvious by common sense implicature that the national soil must exist before a birth can take place on that specific native soil, it is obvious by implicature that the singular citizenship that is acquired by the child is ONLY acquired by "natural birth" because, under the common law of 1787 America, the U.S. citizenship of the husband that determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents that they had BEFORE their child is born was by birth passed to their "natural born Citizen" child. By implicature, if the parents had different citizenships, one U.S. and one alien, and the child was born on U.S. soil BEFORE, for example, the marriage of the U.S. citizen husband conferred on the alien wife the U.S. citizenship on the husband, the child would also have two different citizenships. Dual citizenship is NOT the implicature of "natural born Citizen" as originally intended in 1787 by "original-genesis-ONLY-on-U.S.-soil" birther John Jay in his note to George Washington. If singular AND dual citizenship was the tacit implicature of John Jay, George Washington and the delegates to the 1787 convention would probably have challenged Jay and the implicature of ALSO dual citizenship, and they probably would NOT have adopted and passed on the the states for ratification A2 S1 C5 and "natural born Citizen" with the implicature of dual citizenship being one of two qualifications, singular AND dual citizenship, for POTUS eligibility.


It is obvious that the proactive point of John Jay’s original genesis original intent was that “natural born Citizen,” specifically the underlined word born,” was a 1787 common law understanding with the implicature ONLY to be perpetually, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, associated with natural law (nature and birth), NOT associated with positive law (law and naturalization), specifically the first two naturalization acts for our purpose here, the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts and the 14th Amendment of 1868.


It is obvious that nature AND birth, by common law extrapolation n 1787, only four years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 ending the war of independence, "nature and birth" meant to John Jay, and to George Washington who agreed with Jay's implicature, birth ONLY ON U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, NOT birth ALSO on foreign soil to non-U.S. citizen parents. Right?


If it is not obvious yet, it will be obvious before you finish reading that John Jay’s original intent included an implicit reference to (1) birth ONLY on U.S. soil, NOT to birth ALSO on foreign soil, and (2) birth ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, NOT birth ALSO to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents..


There it is right there. The "higher hurdle" essence of John Jay’s clear and coherent "original genesis original intent" IS simple:—ONLY U.S. soil—ONLY birth on U.S. soil—ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents—ONLY married to each other—BEFORE their child is born—ONLY single U.S. citizenship. The "lower hurdle" essence of neo-birther's confusing and incoherent "new meaning" is NOT simple:—U.S. soil OR foreign soil—birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil—to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents—married OR NOT married to each other—BEFORE their child is born—EITHER single U.S. citizenship OR dual foreign citizenship.


All that the "birth-on-U.S.-soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers need to do to refute the above paragraphs is to cogently articulate why the lower hurdle of birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil with DUAL citizenship with ONLY "one U.S. citizen married OR NOT married parent" IS good 'nuf, and why the John Jay higher hurdle of ONLY birth on U.S. soil to ONLY "two U.S. citizen parents married ONLY to each other" is NOT the ONLY John Jay "original genesis original intent" and NOT good 'nuf.

Simple. Right?




Since the 1787 "Union" of America
A John Jay "Natural Born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing


The "higher hurdle" essence of John Jay’s clear and coherent
"original genesis original intent" IS simple:


1.
ONLY U.S. soil
2.
ONLY born on U.S. soil
3.
ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents
4.
ONLY U.S. citizen parents married to each other
5.
ONLY married to each other before their child is born
6.
ONLY born with single U.S. Citizenship


vs


The "lower hurdle" essence of neo-birther's confusing and incoherent
"new meaning" is NOT simple:


1.
U.S. soil OR foreign soil
2.
Birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil
3.
Born to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents
4.
Married OR NOT married to each other
5.
Before OR after their child is born
6.
Dual citizenship—U.S. AND foreign




The Conversation


This conversation titled "Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—Time to Choose" is about John Jay and his phrase as he understood it in 1787 in the 18th century.


Here are two simple "intent" questions for you.


If YOU wrote that "natural born Citizen" suggestion in a note to your friend George Washington, what would YOU have meant by underlining the word "born," ONLY singular U.S. citizenship OR ALSO dual citizenship? (1) Would YOU have meant ONLY U.S. soil—ONLY born on U.S. soil, ONLY to two U.S. citizens parents, ONLY married to each other BEFORE the child is born, and ONLY single U.S. citizenship? (2) Would YOU have meant BOTH U.S. soil AND foreign soil—being born EITHER on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents married OR NOT married to each other BEFORE the child is born, AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship?


Here are a few more "intent" questions for you.


If the United States were to have a national conversation in a convention of the legislatures of the "several states" as Article V authorizes to amend the Constitution to specifically clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, which meaning of "natural born Citizen" would YOU want your state legislature to propose and be ratified? Would YOU want #1, the "original genesis original intent" meaning of John Jay in 1787 in the 18th century, or would YOU want #2, the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birther new meaning of 2015 in the 21st century? Which meaning of "nbC" would YOU want for future U.S. presidents and for YOUR natural born children and grandchildren? Which meaning would you NOT want for future U.S. presidents?


Here are the "intent" questions again.


(1) Would YOU want an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an amendment to clarify that the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" means excluding all other possibilities, and that "natural born" means ONLY born on U.S. soil, ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents married ONLY to each other BEFORE their child is born, and that being "natural born" to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE their child is born determines the singular U.S. citizenship of their child?


(2) Would YOU want an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an amendment to clarify that the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" means including all other possibilities, and that "natural born" means EITHER birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil, birth to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents married OR NOT married to each other before OR after their child is born, and that being "natural born" to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents married OR NOT married to each other before OR after their child is born determines the U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship of their child?


Which meaning of "natural born Citizen" makes perpetual common sense to YOU? The neo-birther "new meaning" of 2008-2015, or the John Jay "original genesis original intent" meaning of 1787-2015?



It is time to choose.


On December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, I posted a comment on Mario Apuzzo's blog* which is titled here as Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—the Question is How to do It. I have added more essays that have expanded the original essay but the whole is essentially the same as the part, discussing how to "change the conversation" from the historical meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 into a discussion about removing the confusion associated with the meaning of "nbC," and to remove the confusion with an Article V "...Convention for proposing amendments..." to be conducted by the legislatures of the "several states" as Article V explicitly says, since the U.S. Congress, the only other entity authorized by Article V to convene to propose amendments, is derelict in it's duty from 2008 to 2015 to stop the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen."


*( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16 )


The U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court and the entire federal court system have chosen to not look at clarifying the meaning of "natural born Citizen" as it relates to the eligibility of "citizen" President Obama and how it could relate to other potential "citizen" candidates for POTUS such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov Nikki Haley and Gov. Bobby Jindal.


Absolutely nobody in the American media, print, radio, tv, including the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers, NEVER ask what a "natural born Citizen" is and never consider to adduce John Jay to understand what Jay REALLY meant by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."


The point of the original posts on Mario's blog and here is to consider Article V of the Constitution that authorizes the "several states" to convene to propose amendments, and to propose an amendment to Article II Section1 Clause 5 with language that removes the confusion surrounding John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" that will be agreeable to the John Jay original intent birthers and the neo-birthers, the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers, and what I call the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers.


I coined and minted the "neo-birther" phrases and put them together and use them constantly because the appellation works and is not demeaning, "neo-birther" is simply descriptive as are "birther," "original birther," "original intent birther," "birther John Jay," "John Jay birther," "original genesis birther," original birther document."




U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union


This site title is "U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union." The url is http://OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com/, and the title of this conversation about the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is:


U.S. CONSTITUTION:
the Original Birther Document of
"WE the PEOPLE...WE the POSTERITY"


A “Table Talk” Conversation About the Original Intent of the 1787 Original Birthers,
the Original Authors, the Original Framers who Adopted the Perpetual Soil & Birth
Office of President” Eligibility Words “natural born Citizen”


A Conversation
about the Original Intent of
"Natural Born Citizen"


This original intent conversation about the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 Clause 5, is written in a table talk style, as if we are sitting at the kitchen table and someone asks “what does THAT mean?”


This is not written for the professional lawyers or law school professors who may write books and write reviews about books that deal with originalism, textualism, living constitution, constitutional construction, etc., see the list below. Judges will sometimes appeal to original intent, original meaning, structural considerations, plain meaning, animating moral principles, and so on.


What we will consider here is ONLY one thing: what did John Jay REALLY mean when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."


We will NOT define ANY of the words in the list below that lawyers and professors use to explain how to construct ("construe") a statute like the U.S. Constitution, or a clause in a statute like Article II Section 1 Clause 5. To "construct" a text is another way of saying to "construe," to "interpret," to "explain" the "meaning," the "sense" of a text.


That's all we will be doing here. The only "constructin' goin' on aroun here" will be to infer what the ONLY one (1) original genesis and ONLY one (1) original intent was almost 228 years ago when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and George Washington agreed with the common law understanding of John Jay's original genesis original intent.




A Few Text Construction Lawyers and Professors


_Lawrence Solum
_William Jacobson
_Randy Barnett
_Jack Balkin
_Michael Dorf
_Michael Rappaport
_John McGinnis
_Stephen Griffin
_Raoul Berger
_Bruce Fein
_Ronald Dworkin
_Bruce Ackerman
_Akhil Reed Amar
_Antonin Scalia
_Bryan Garner
_Robert Bork
_etcetera


A Few Text Construction Terms and Phrases


_formalism
_textualism
_formalist
_new-formalist
_original-meaning originalist
_strict construction
_judicial activism
_literal rather than purposive interpretations
_common law constitutional interpretation
_original intention originalism
_original meaning originalism
_originalism in good faith
_original understanding
_expectation originalism
_plain meaning
_liberal originalism
_conservative originalism
_original meaning vs. original expected application
_original intentions originalism
_original meaning originalism
_framer's meaning
-ratifier's meaning
_objective original meaning
versus
_subjective original intent
_adopter's intentions
_ratifier's intentions
_antisubordination principle
_equal citizenship principle
_constitutional principle
_original public meaning and original expected applications
vs.
_original public meaning and contemporary expected applications
_original purpose
_original expectations.
_semantic originalism
_normative originalism
_moderate intentionalism
_strict intentionalist
_moderate textualist
_natural meaning
_exclusive normative originalism
_inclusive normative originalism
_skyscraper originalism
_framework originalism
_semantic originalist
_semantic originalism
_“constitutional interpretation”
vs.
_“constitutional construction”
_etcetera




Who are John Jay Original Intent Birthers?


John Jay original intent birthers promote the proposition that what Jay REALLY meant when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention, who, although there are no known documents recording it, Washington, or some say that maybe it was Jay's friend Hamilton, who conveyed Jay's suggestion to the convention delegates, the framers, who accepted the three word phrase and adopted it without a recorded dissenting voice about its common law meaning, and then the framers passed it on to the states for ratification, where it was obviously ratified with the same understanding that Jay and Washington had, which is that "born" has ONLY one meaning and NOT two or more meanings: ONLY U.S. soil, ONLY born on U.S. soil, ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born, ONLY single citizenship.


Is there any "original intent" other than that which could be Jay's original intent for underlining the word "born" in his note to Washington?


Well, yes, the 21st century neo-birthers say there is one "original intent" that includes other possibilities; or maybe it should be called one "original intent" with a different meaning that allows for alternative possibilities; or maybe it should just be called a second "original intent" that simply allows multiple possibilities. Who knows what the neo-birthers mean. Some of them are confusing 'cause they are, what, simply confused or are they, well, and this may apply only to the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers, are they being intentionally confusing, and simply throwing Saul Alinsky style political spaghetti to see what sticks to the walls in the arena of ideas such as the theory that "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen-'cause-he-was-born-naturally-on-U.S.-soil-to-one-U.S.-citizen-parent-and-that's-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility-PERIOD".




Who are Obama Birth Narrative Neo-birthers?


The Obama birth narrative neo-birthers are defenders of the Obama birth narrative theory that being born naturally on U.S. soil AND being born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, since one U.S. citizen parent is all he had, AND one non-U.S. citizen parent, whether they are married to each other or not, with dual citizenship, is sufficient to qualify for POTUS eligibility.




Who are "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" Neo-birthers"?


The "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers are proponents of the theory that ALSO being born naturally on U.S. soil (and jurisdiction on foreign soil) AND foreign soil that is NOT under U.S. jurisdiction, AND being born to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, who may OR may not be married to each other, is sufficient to be eligible to be POTUS.


Was John Jay confused? Did he intend for "natural born Citizen" to be understood to have ONLY one original intent or ALSO be understood to have two original intents?


1+1—Did Jay have ONLY one "original intent" with ONLY one meaning?


1+2—Did Jay have one "original intent" with two equally plausible meanings?


2+2—Did Jay have two "original intents" with two OR three equally plausible meanings?


John Jay was and still is today, almost 228 years later as of December 2014, obvious in his one and ONLY one original intent meaning.


By underling the word "born" in his note to Washington, it is obvious that Jay had ONLY one meaning and ONLY one original genesis original intent meaning (birth ONLY on U.S. soil with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship), NOT two meanings (singular AND dual citizenship) AND two original intents. The more than one "intent" is obvious, right? There can be ONLY one original intent—right?


It is obvious that "natural born Citizen" can mean ONLY U.S. soil—ONLY born on U.S. soil—ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents—ONLY married to each other—ONLY married BEFORE their child is born.


It is obvious that Jay was NOT saying that "natural" and "born" and "Citizen" meant that citizens of other nations could come to OUR U.S. soil and have THEIR children on OUR U.S. soil and THEIR children with dual citizenship could be eligible to be POTUS—right?


Jay was obviously NOT saying that THEIR dual citizenship children would be POTUS eligible simply because their child was born on OUR soil, right?


What Jay WAS obviously saying in 1787, four years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris, of which he was a signatory, finalized the war of independence from England, was that ONLY OUR U.S. citizens, ONLY married to each other, who had THEIR children on OUR U.S. soil would produce THEIR OWN U.S. "natural born" child, and THEIR "natural born" child would ALSO be a U.S. "Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship because BOTH of the married parents were U.S. citizens BEFORE their child was born.


Jay WAS obviously saying THAT in 1787, right?


Yes, and here's why.


In 1787 America, as in England and other countries in Europe, the common law was that the citizenship of the wife was acquired by marriage. If the husband was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the U.S. born wife lost her U.S. citizenship and acquired the citizenship of the husband. If the husband was a U.S. citizen and his wife was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the wife lost her alien citizenship and acquired the U.S. citizenship of her U.S. citizen husband.


The common law was that the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents married to each other determined the singular U.S. citizenship of their child. The child was recognized by the common law of America in that era as a citizen of the nation and an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" eligible to be POTUS because of birth to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents who were married ONLY to each other BEFORE their child was born.


In 1787 America, to acquire U.S. citizenship, marriage to a U.S. citizen father before the birth of the child on U.S. soil was a common law prerequisite. Period.


Here's why.


The U.S. citizen husband and his alien wife, for example, had to be married to each other BEFORE their child was born so that THEIR child would ALSO acquire the singular U.S. citizenship of the father. By marriage the singular citizenship of BOTH parents could now be passed to the child who would be recognized by the common law of the 1700s as not only a U.S. "citizen" but ALSO a U.S. "natural born Citizen" under A2 S1 C5 of the U.S. Constitution and so be eligible to be POTUS.


An "alien wife" was a person born on either foreign soil to alien parents, or was born on U.S. soil to alien parents who had not become U.S. citizens by naturalization before children were born on U.S. soil. Both parents were considered to be aliens until the husband became a naturalized U.S. citizen and his wife automatically acquired U.S. citizenship by her husband's naturalization. The children born before the father naturalized were also considered to have acquired U.S. citizenship by the father's naturalization, at least until they reached their age of majority, and were ONLY considered to be a U.S. "citizen" and NOT considered to be a "natural born Citizen" because the father (and his wife) had NOT naturalized BEFORE the children were born on U.S. soil. The "nbC" status was permanent because it was from birth on U.S. soil by natural birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, and "nbC" status did not end when minority ended or begin when majority began. U.S. "nbC" status could not be lost, but it could be renounced. Once renounced, U.S. "nbC" status (natural law/positive law--"natural born" = natural law birth, "Citizen" = positive law declaration) could not be returned by repatriation (positive law declaration) alone or at all, since U.S. "nbC" status could ONLY be by natural birth (natural law birth) to two U.S. citizen (positive law declaration) married parents, but U.S. "citizen" (positive law) status could be acquired by naturalization (positive law) oath.


Under the common law of the 1700s in America, if the alien mother gave birth while not married to the father, whether or not the father was an alien or a U.S. citizen, her child born on U.S. soil was recognized as an alien and not a U.S. citizen, as well as definitely not a "natural born Citizen" under A2 S1 C5 of the U.S. Constitution. Also under the common law of 1700s America, if the U.S. citizen mother was NOT married to the U.S. citizen father, her child born on U.S. soil was NOT recognized as a "natural born Citizen" and so was NOT eligible to be POTUS since the parents were NOT married to each other BEFORE the child was born. The child WAS recognized as a U.S. "citizen" because of the U.S. citizenship of the father. If the U.S. citizen mother was not married to the alien father, their child born on U.S. soil was considered an alien, and not only NOT recognized as a "citizen" but was also NOT recognized as a "natural born Citizen" since the father was an alien and NOT a U.S. citizen.


If the U.S. citizen husband married a U.S. citizen wife, well, of course, both are a singular U.S. citizen before marriage to each other, but they are ONLY recognized to be under the U.S. citizenship of the husband if married, and so they would still need to be married to each other BEFORE their child was born for the child to acquire a singular U.S. citizenship from two U.S. citizen parents. If the U.S. citizen father married the U.S. citizen mother AFTER their child was born, the child would be a "citizen" because of being born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, the father, who was not married, and so the child of the U.S. citizen single father would NOT be recognized as a "natural born Citizen" for purposes of eligibility to be POTUS.


And as Article II Section 1 Clause 5 clarified, POTUS eligible was ONLY recognized after residence on the SAME U.S. soil of birth for a minimum of 14 years by age 35, or, as some say, before reaching age 35. That lack of clarity can be fixed with an Article V convention of Congress to propose an amendment or a convention of states to propose an amendment.




Since the 1787 "Union" of America
A John Jay "Natural Born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing


ONLY U.S. soil
(and U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil by statues since 1790)
ONLY born on U.S. soil
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
ONLY married to each other
ONLY before their child is born
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship



Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance


Here is a quick look at the background about the unity of citizenship and allegiance implicit in John Jay's underlinging the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" as understood by the delegates to the 1787 convention according to the common law of that 1787 era, the common understanding about the citizenship of the husband determining the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular citizenship of BOTH parents determining the singular citizenship of the "natural born" child, who as a "citizen" is recognized as a "natural born Citizen" because of being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.


On May 31, 1781, about five months after Jay wrote to Ben Franklin about Mr. Vaughan, an Englishman who wanted to become a U.S. citizen, Jay wrote another letter to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Count de Florida Blanca at the Spanish court, on November 3, 1781. Both letters are included here to understand Jay's understanding of who is and is not a citizen and why.




John Jay's Letter to Benjamin Franklin About British Subject Mr. Vaughan*


Aranjues 31st May 1781


Dr Sir


Your favor of the 20th. Inst reached me two Days ago. The Intelligence transmitted with it had reached us by the Way of Cadiz. I am nevertheless much obliged by this Mark of your friendly Attention. The Packet from america abt which you enquire came safe to Hand. It contained only some old Letters of Jany last from govr. Livingston & his family— The Vessel which lately arrivd at Cadiz from Pha. brought several Letters. I have not however recd. a Line from Congress since Jany last, tho some of my Correspondents inform me that the Prest had written. I am much perplexed for Want of regular Intelligence, & expect to continue so till some other than the usual mode of conveying it is adopted. The enclosed extracts of Letters from Mr Harrison to me shew that this Remark is not without Foundation— These Extracts are from Letters of 8. 11 & 0 Days of may 1781 abt Letters brought by the Virginia & stopped. Bills upon me have lately arrived dated in March. How can this be reconciled to the obvious Dictates of Prudence & Policy?— I hear Mr. Laurens has left you to return to Am. He promised to give me previous Notice of it—but not a Line. I have lately recd. a Letter from Mr Adams requestg but not containing, Intelligence— it is the first I have had from him these six Months— I wait only for a proper Opportunity to reply particularly to your Letter by my Courier.


Mr. Vaughan who brought a recommendatory Letter from you to mr Carm. is here— He desired me on his arrival at Madrid to administer to him an Oath of Allegeance to the United States, in order to justify his calling himself an American and to facilitate his pursuing his Objects in this Country & his passing from hence to america— I have no Doubt but that his Character & Intentions are fair— he seems to be a sensible Young Gentleman & I wd. with pleasure do him Service—but as I knew he was not an american I could not represent him as such—nor could I comply with his Request as to administring the Oath, haveg no power for that purpose, either expressed or implied in my Commission or Instructions.


He told me you had advised him to take such an Oath at Bordeaux and had appointed a person there to administer it, but that prudential Considerations had induced him to postpone it till his arrival here— I advised him to wait on the Minister and communicate to him a true State of his Case, being of opinion that such a Step supported by your Letter to Mr Carm. wd. have silenced Doubts & Enquiries & enabled him to obtain such Passports as might be necessary for his travelling in this kingdom— He nevertheless thought it best to delay it for the present and to go & stay at Toledo till I shd. recieve your Answer to a Letter I promised to write to you on the Subject of administring the Oath. He accordingly went to Toledo, but not having a Pasport the govr wd not permit his re-maing there— this Circumstance brought him here, I shall endeavour to obtain a Pasport for him to return there on the Ground of yr Letter in his favr.


I believe it to be the Inclination as well as the Interest of America to augment her Number of Citizens but still her Consent to admit a Foreigner must be as necessary as his consent to be admitted besides, it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all [the emphasis on "one" and "all" is in the original]I wish these Difficulties did not oppose my complying with the Request of Mr Vaughan whom I am the more desirous of servg as he appears to possess your Regard.


Be pleased to present my Compliments to your Grandson and be assured that I am with sincere Esteem & Attachment Dr Sir Your obliged & obt Servt


To Dr Franklin 31 May 1781



*Emphases are added here. On the Franklin Papers page linked to below, click on the date "Thu, May 31, 1781" to read the letter to Franklin from Jay.
( http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp?ssn=001-66-0009 )



John Jay Got His Wish


"...it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them allI wish these Difficulties did not oppose my complying with the Request of Mr Vaughan whom I am the more desirous of servg as he appears to possess your Regard."


John Jay got his "wish" six years later: "...I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them allI wish ... ."


Jay got his "...a Citizen of one of the states...be born or be made a Citizen of them all—I wish..." fulfilled at the September, 1787 Constitutional Convention when his suggestion to Washington was accepted and adopted by the delegates that the Command in chief authority "not be given to, or devolve on" anyone but a "natural born Citizen," and not as his friend Hamilton favored, a person merely "born a Citizen" of the entire Union. In 1787 America, according to the common law of the era, the common understanding of the wife acquiring U.S. citizenship by marriage,to be "born a Citizen" would imply being born to only one U.S. citizen father, whether he was married or NOT married to a U.S. citizen mother or an alien mother of the child.


In 1787 Jay wanted a higher hurdle of being born a "natural born" citizen of the Union instead of the lower hurdle of merely being "born" a citizen of the Union, i.e., merely a "native" of the Union by birth to a single father or a single mother. The "lower hurdle" includes the single father being a U.S. citizen OR an alien, and the single mother being a U.S. citizen OR an alien.


Under the common law of the founder's era in 1787 America, If born to the single U.S. citizen father not married to the U.S. citizen mother or the alien mother, the child would be a "citizen" because of not being born to two U.S. citizen married parents.


Under the common law of that1787 era BEFORE the future naturalization acts such as, for example, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1855, the 1922 Cable Act and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, if born in 1787 America to a single alien father not married to the U.S. mother or the alien mother, the child in 1787 America would be ONLY an "alien" and NOT a U.S. citizen. THAT was the common law, the common understanding which informed the John Jay word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and the understanding of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention and of the delegates who adopted "natural born Citizen" and passed it on to the states' ratifiers.


If there was any other "common understanding" of "born" in 1787 America, maybe 2015 neo-birthers can articulate it.


The "lower hurdle" is what the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers aro promoting in 2015 America. The nascent Cruz neo-birthers are starting to promote the "lower hurdle" of one-U.S.-citizen-parent that is similar to the "lower hurdle" of people like William Rawle in the 1820s and others since Rawle who "believed" and wrote that birth on U.S. soil with one or two alien parents made a person a "natural born Citizen." Rawle may have "believed" the zero ("0") U.S. citizen parent proposition, but the unanimous opinion of the 1875 Happerset v Minor Court and the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment certainly did not suggest believing in the "lower hurdle" of the 2015 version of the "birth-on-either-U.S.-soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers.




John Jay Letter to Del Campo about British Subject Mr. Vaughan


John Jay wrote a brief letter on November 3, 1781 to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish court. Jay was writing about an Englishman named Mr. Vaughan who wanted to become a U.S. citizen, and who asked Jay to administer the oath of allegiance. Jay was was in Madrid, Spain in 1781 prior to the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by J. Jay, B. Franklin, and J. Adams.


The letter to Del Campo indicates that in November of 1781, six years before the adoption of the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution, the common law understanding of John Jay and other founders, framers and ratifiers of the constitution about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child. In this case, the citizenship was about the son, born to a British "subject" father and an American "citizen" mother, who wanted Jay to give him, Mr. Vaughn, the oath of allegiance to America.

The father was an Englishman, the mother was an American, and their son Mr. Vaughn was considered by Jay to be ONLY an Englishman who did NOT have dual citizenship. He was an Englishman, the son of an Englishman father, subject to the English monarch, and the son of an American citizen mother.


Jay's letter was written to Del Campo in November 3, 1781, about five months after Jay wrote to Ben Franklin about Mr. Vaughan on May 31, 1781.


John JAY To Del Campo*
Madrid, November 3, 1781.


Sir:

I have received the letter you did me the honour to write on the 2d instant.


As Mr. [John] Vaughan was favored last spring at Aranjuez with a passport from his Excellency the Count de Florida to go to and reside at Toledo, I omitted to enumerate in my last the circumstances requested in your letter.


The gentleman’s father is an Englishman, his mother is an American; he himself was born I think in England; he means to become a citizen of and to settle in one of the United States, and is by profession a merchant. He has been a considerable time in France learning the language and acquainting himself with the commerce of that country. From thence he came last spring to Spain, for the same purposes; he brought with him a warm recommendation from Dr. Franklin; he spent the summer at Toledo learning the Spanish language; he visited Ildefonso while the Court was last there, and he is now desirous of going to Cadiz that he may during the winter form proper commercial connections there, and in the spring embark for North America. He has offered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States before me. I advised him to postpone it until he arrived there, as well because I thought it more proper in itself as because I did not conceive myself authorized to administer it.


This is a short but very candid account of what I know of this gentleman. I may indeed add that in my opinion he possesses a good share of understanding and much useful knowledge. I for my part confide in the sincerity of his professions, and shall accordingly do him good office in America by recommending him to my friends there.


Be pleased to accept my thanks for your polite attention. I have the honour to be, with great consideration and respect,


Your most obedient and most humble servant,


John Jay
16th November, 1781
Madrid,
Florida Blanca


*All empheses are added here. See the original here: ( http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html )



Even in 1781 my new best friend John Jay was affirming that
ONLY the citizenship of the father determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child.BOTH parents.

The
"unity of citizenship and allegiance"—what a 1700s concept that is still applicable to the 2000s because singular U.S. citizenship was the "original genesis original intent" of John Jay and the original intent was that the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was to be perpetual for the posterity of the new nation, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.


BOTH parents.



If the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers insist that John Jay was NOT obvious in saying by implicature ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born, well, just how do the neo-birthers KNOW THAT—if Jay was NOT obvious? 


Just how do the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay did NOT obviously mean ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born?


Conversely, just how do the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay obviously, and Washington obviously agreed with Jay, that Jay obviously DID mean ALSO born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents,whether they were married to each other or not? How do the neo-birthers know THAT—if Jay was NOT obvious?


At this point the neo-birthers may have an obvious question: Just how do John Jay original intent birthers KNOW that original birther John Jay had ONLY one meaning for "natural born Citizen" and NOT two or more?


It is obvious that Jay WAS obvious in 1787. If Jay was NOT obvious, how could John Jay original birthers KNOW what Jay REALLY meant, and how could John Jay neo-birthers KNOW what Jay REALLY meant? Right?


(1) Original birther John Jay either ONLY meant birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, or he did NOT mean ONLY that. Right?


(2) Neo-birther John Jay either ALSO meant birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents, or he did NOT mean ALSO that. Right?


Jay either meant ONLY what John Jay original birthers mean or what John Jay neo-birthers mean.


John Jay original birthers mean ONLY single citizenship by birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born.


John Jay neo-birthers mean ALSO dual citizenship ALSO by birth on U.S. soil OR foreign to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or NOT married to each other BEFORE the child is born.


Neo-birthers say many things in various ways. Here are four things they say:


(1) Oh yeah, sure single citizenship is good, but dual citizenship is just as good if not better, uh, for POTUS eligibility.


(2) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil is good, but birth also on foreign soil is just as good if not better, uh, for POTUS eligibility.


(3) Oh yeah, sure, being born to two U.S. citizen parents is good, but being born to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is just as good if not better, uh, for POTUS eligibility.


(4) Oh yeah, sure, being born to parents who are married to each other BEFORE the child is born is good, but being born to parents who are married AFTER the child is born is just as good, and it might ever be better for POTUS eligibility—if that is the only way a POTUS candidate can be eligible.


The neo-birthers insist that John Jay meant that "natural born" in "natural born Citizen" ONLY means being born naturally and not naturalized, and a child can be born naturally before OR after the parents are married.


An obvious question is why do neo-birthers, and the Obama neo-birthers specifically, assert with 21st century certainty that in 1787 John Jay ONLY meant what the Obama neo-birthers mean in 2008-2015? Could it be 'cause Obama, THEIR GUY, had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent that he is willing to claim? At least he says Stanley Ann Dunham was his ONLY U.S. citizen parent, so it must be true. Right?


Well, those and similar questions are what I am referring to in this essay as a way to change the conversation from one of intractable assertions about past history and to move on to future history. That is why it is Time To Change the Conversation.


That is why we need an Article V convention of states legislatures, to change the conversation to clarify what John Jay REALLY meant in 1787, and why we want an amendment to clarify for our posterity in 21st century America that we agree with what John Jay REALLY meant, which is so obvious now. Right?


Since the 1787 "Union" of America a John Jay "natural born Citizen" means ONLY one thing: ONLY on U.S. soil (and U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil by statute since 1790)ONLY birth on U.S. soil—ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents—ONLY married to each other—BEFORE their child is born.


We John Jay original intent birthers simply want for a child to be recognized to be a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS when born ONLY on U.S. soil (including U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents. That's not too much to ask for from an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen." Is it? Right?




John Jay Note To George Washington Suggesting "Natural Born Citizen"


On March 11, 2011, Mario Apuzzo wrote an essay on his blog* titled The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. In the essay Mario mentions the note by John Jay to George Wasnington with the hint (suggestion) that the control of the military should only be allowed for a "natural born Ctizen" and not a naturalized citizen.


*( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html )


Here are paragraphs 11-13, with #13 (2) opened up for quick scanning:


"The Constitution does not provide a definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause. Nevertheless, the states can define the “natural born Citizen” clause based on:


"(1) the text and structure of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution;


"(2) the Founders’ and Framers’ intent in inserting the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution which was for the safety and preservation of the nation by excluding foreign allegiance, influence, and attachment from the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.


"On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote a letter to General Washington, who was acting as president of the Constitutional Convention, stating:


' "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original)." http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29 .


"On September 2, 1787, George Washington wrote a letter to John Jay the last line of which read: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter."


"On September 4, 1787, about 6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay, the "natural born Citizen" requirement appeared in the draft of the Constitution. The proposal passed unanimously without debate which does not mean that the proposal was not discussed, for the convention meetings were conducted in secrecy.


"From the chronology of these events, we can conclude that it was probably Jay’s letter to Washington and his concern about foreign influence infecting the office of the Commander in Chief which motivated the Founders and Framers to insert the clause as part of the eligibility requirements to be President and Commander in Chief."




(Posted here on December 25, 2014 and also on Mario's blog)


Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversationthe Question is How to do It


On Mario's blog I wrote:


A few days ago you posted a response to a previous post of mine on your blog* that prompted me to consider a short answer, but it has turned into a long answer** to your statement at the end of your first paragraph:


"Because the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that no one who is not a natural born citizen shall be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and the Framers inserted this requirement into the Constitution to preserve and perpetuate the nation, the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do it."


*December 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16 )
**December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM


You wrote,


"The courts, washing their hands of the question"
"we cannot trust the political parties"
"Looking to Congress is also unrealistic"
"problem is compounded by a media"
"you have the makings of a dangerous situation for the nation."
"This is not just some hypothetical situation...this very scenario come to life with de facto President Barack Obama, someone who is not a natural born citizen, who told the world that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the United States..."


My response to your statement, "the question is how to do it" is, and maybe it is too simple, maybe it is just time to change the conversation? Change the conversation from what we on both sides assert to what we on both sides want for 21st century America. Maybe it is time to change the conversation from what we all on both sides believe the founders and framers wrote, and what we all on both sides believe they meant in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, to what we all on both side believe that "natural born Citizen" could and should ONLY mean today to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for our own posterity?


On Mario's blog I wrote:


Mario, although I am including a short reference to your previous comments* directed at Slartibartfast, and which I reposted here on your blog previously, this is not about him, it is about what he reveals about himself and others in his comments, what he and the Democratic Party cadre do and ultimately represent—they ignore what doesn't fit into their neo-birther single parent/dual citizenship meme while they continue with their agenda of protecting Obama's administration of OUR federal government to try to "transform the United States of America" from within the oval office, and to infect the entire federal government, legislative, executive and judicial, and ultimately the "several states," with an ideological cancer, an ideological ebola virus, the progressive idea** that the 1787 U.S. Constitution is ONLY a charter of negative liberties, explicitly enumerating what the federal government is limited to do and also what it can NOT do to the American people, so Obama is attempting to "transform" the constitution by Executive Order into, what, ONLY (?) ALSO (?), yes ONLY a charter of positive liberties, what the federal government MUST do FOR the people, such as redistribution of private wealth in the "commune" from those who work for a living (work for income) to those who vote for a living (vote for income), and to eventually require every American in the "commune" to receive government single payer health care welfare, whether they want it or not, or they will be punished and then sent to a reeducation camp to change their stinkin' thinkin'—individualism bad, ugh—collectivism good, umm.


*November 13, 2014 at 12003 pm


**The "progressive idea" is really a Saul Alinsky style anarchist reiteration of an (inter-)national "commune" idea to bring equality in the political "commune" by force, for the good health of the people in the commune, of course. There are also Islamic rumblings of the equality of forced submission into the religious/political "ummah" (the "commune") of Islam, or live as a dhimmi in your own country, a second class citizen who is required to pay the jizya (tax) of submission and humility with bowed head—or die. Ummah is an Arabic word meaning "nation" or "community"—or "commune."


This "transformation of the United States of America" by changing the U.S. Constitution from a charter of negative liberties into a charter of positive liberties by Executive fiat and a complicit Congress and Supreme Court is the child telling the parents that the parents will be punished if they do not join the national commune and pay for the eventual single payer health care welfare, which is the ultimate goal, that the "child" wants to provide for the "parents." The "child" is the Federation, the federal government, the bicameral Congress, House and Senate, the Executive President, the Supreme Court, the creature that was NOT a party to the 1787 compact of the "several states" which were the creator of the Federation. Now the Federation, the "child" has matured to the point that the "child" of WE the People of the "several states" thinks that it can threaten the creator "parent" with financial punishment if the "parent" does not join the national commune and pay for what is not wanted, for example, the eventual single payer health care welfare that the Executive of the Federation wants to provide for ALL the people of the "several states."


The "federal government" is the creature of the creator, WE the People of the "several states." We must change the conversation. WE the People of the "several states" must start to speak to our "creature," our "child," the Federation, our federal tripartite government, with Article V constitutional authority, and tell the creature originally created in 1787 by the "several states," the ONLY parties to the compact between the "several states" because the U.S. Constitution and the Federation did NOT exist at the time of the compact between the "several states," that the "child" can NOT nullify the Article V authority of WE the People of the "several states" to amend the constitution, and that WE the People of the "several states" definitely can NOT nullify OURSELVES out of Article V constitutional authority to amend the constitution. The Article V authority of the "several states" to convene to amend the constitution is perpetual and can NOT be nullified by the "several states" or by the tripartite Federation, including transformer Executives of the Federation.


Since the Federation, the tripartite federal government, was NOT a party to the compact made by the "several states" in 1787 to "form a more perfect Union" to protect the interests of the "several states" for themselves and their posterity, the federal government can NOT nullify an Article V convention of the "several states" to amend the constitution.


Here is why Article V is relevant today.


Many times the 1787 original birthers, the 1787 original "citizens" who framed and ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution included themselves in it. A few places to note for our purpose here are: In the Preamble they identified themselves as WE the People; in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as "citizens" and "natural born Citizen"; in Article V as "several states"; in the Bill of Rights ratified four years later in 1791, in Amendments #2, #4, #9 ("the people"), and in #10 ("the States" and "the people").


The original birthers, the original "citizens" who were naturalized as "citizens" on July 4, 1776 by the war of independence, and who no longer thought of themselves as "natural born subjects" of England, they grandfathered themselves into POTUS eligibility as "citizens" on Sept. 17, 1787 with the words "...or a Citizen of..." in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the POTUS eligibility clause. It was the original birthers in 1787, WE the People of the "several states," who included themselves in the U.S. Constitution in Article V as the "several states" so that they and their posterity, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, could amend the Constitution when necessary. Under Article V, "when necessary" can be determined by the Congress OR the "several states," and it can be to either prohibit alcohol consumption in 1919 and then to repeal that prohibition amendment 14 years later in 1933 with another amendment, or to remove the confusion surrounding the meaning of "natural born Citizen" before another resident "citizen" who is NOT a "natural born Citizen" tries to OCCUPY the oval office.


Which is more important to the stability of the perpetual "Union" of America, prohibition of alcohol OR prohibition of another dual citizenship POTUS wannabe? Removal of confusion surrounding John Jay's original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility is definitely more important.


So, if we want to, WE the People of 21st century America can ALSO amend the Constitution to remove the confusion surrounding the John Jay original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" and clarify that "nbC" had in 1787 America and still has today in 21st century America ONLY one John Jay original intent meaning, NOT two or more, OR "nbC" has today in 21st century America and has always had since 1787 more than one original intent meaning as defined by Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the nascent "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers who are promoting the POTUS candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley, all good American patriots but none is a "natural born Citizen."


So, if the "several states" legislatures never go loopy and agree to consider an asinine proposition to remove the entire phrase "natural born Citizen" from Article II, then the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "nbC" must be dealt with. If it is honestly considered, that means that the "several states" legislatures in convention must decide that "natural born Citizen" has had since 1787 America and still has in 21st century America ONLY one John Jay original intent meaning, OR "nbC" has MORE than one neo-birther meaning.


Here are the many neo-birther original genesis possibilities and new meanings to choose from compared to the ONLY one meaning in original birther John Jay's original genesis original intent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.



John Jay meant ONLY One thing—"Natural Born Citizen" has ONLY One Original Genesis and ONLY One Original Intent


(1) ONLY U.S. soil
(2) ONLY born on U.S. soil
(3) ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
(4) ONLY married to each other
(5) ONLY before their child is born
(6) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship


Neo-birther's Mean Many Things—"Natural Born Citizen" has Many Original Genesis Possibilities and Many Original Intent Meanings


(1) EITHER U.S. soil
(2) OR foreign soil
(3) EITHER born on U.S. soil
(4) OR born on foreign soil
(5) AND born to two U.S. citizen parents
(6) OR born to one U.S. citizen parent
(7) OR born to zero U.S. citizen parents
(8) Married OR NOT married to each other
(9) Before OR after their child is born
(10) Dual citizenship—U.S. AND foreign


The ultimate question for an Article V convention of the "several states" legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is very simple: in order to maintain the perpetual "...more perfect Union" of America as expressed by the 1787 original birthers, and which President Lincoln clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861*, which "original intent" meaning of "natural born Citizen" will the American people agree is John Jay's "original intent" meaning and choose for their own "natural born Citizen" children?


It's time to choose.


*See Content #8: Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?




The Question is How to Do It


While Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent and everyone agrees that he has dual citizenship from birth, the meme of the Obama neo-birthers includes the incoherent proposition that "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" simply because he is a U.S. "citizen" because he was born naturally and not naturalized, in fulfillment of the first part of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, "... born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens...." So, yes, Obama, born on U.S. soil, so he says, to only one U.S. citizen parent, so he says, is a citizen and not a naturalized citizen at birth* or by oath, but for some reason the Obama neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "Obama-is-an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen" just like 42 of the 44 presidents. However, contrary to the assertions of the Obama neo-birthers, ALL 42 previous presidents were recognized as eligible to be POTUS by either being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility in A2 S1 C5, presidents #1 to #7 and #9, or by being authentic A2 S1 C5 "nbCs" because they were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The two exceptions in 44 presidencies are #21, Chester Alan Arthur, and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.


*See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at USCIS.gov. ( http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents )


This incoherence about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is important to clarify because, along with Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and nebulous Anarchists, there are Republicans who are getting into the redefinition game and are promoting the same meme, "birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility". See the essay, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, that was posted by William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 9:05 am at his excellent blog*. He wrote, "I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz to be “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. Here’s why," and also, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth."


*"Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law" ( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )


As with the Democrat neo-birthers, the Republican "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen-ALSO-applies-to-ALL-children-born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents". The neo-birthers NEVER assert that John Jay implied ALL of that in his note to George Washington and that Washington agreed with Jay about ALL of that. Why? A2 S1 C5 is a no-go-zone for neo-birthers to adduce the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" in A2 S1 C5 where "natural born" = natural law, and "Citizen" = positive law. That distinction between natural law and positive law reveals that natural law precedes, informs, guides and protects the application of positive law.


Here is an example of natural law preceding, informing, guiding and protecting the application of positive law.


Why is it true that an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents can not lose "nbC" status simply by adoption (positive law)? It does not matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual adoptive parents. The natural law birth and the positive law citizenship take precedence over the positive law adoption because natural birth can NOT be annuled and made void by positive law adoption. The perpetuity of the A2 S1 C5 natural law "natural born" from two persons status protects the perpetuity of the positive law "Citizen" from two U.S. citizens status, not vice versa. The U.S. citizenship of the child does NOT protect the natural birth of the child. That is incoherent. It is the "natural born" status of the child, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, that protects the U.S. "Citizen" status of the child. Unless there is a future statute (a positive law) that legally removes the natural law authority of "nbC" status from adopted children, such as statutes do that give legal credence to requiring naturalization to those who legally renounce U.S. citizenship and then want to repatriate, the child remains an "nbC" for life even if both U.S. citizen married parents die before or after the child is adopted. Of course, it is assumed that the "nbC" status is verified before adoption.


It is obvious that John Jay was NOT memeing what Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, and what William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor and others are memeing. The most prominent meme of the neo-birthers is in two parts, with a nascent third part waiting to be adduced onto the stage in the arena of ideas to make foreign born adopted children POTUS eligible: (1) Whether born on U.S. OR foreign soil, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is necessary and sufficient for POTUS eligibility. (2) Two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for POTUS eligibility. (3) The constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility foreign born children adopted by U.S. citizens, married or not married, heterosexual or homosexual.


No wonder the American people, including Phd mathematicians and Professors of law at prestigious schools of law are confused about John Jay's original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in his 1787 note to George Washington. They NEVER consider and then adduce John Jay's 1787 original intent perspective. They admit that there has been uncertainty since September 17, 1787 when A2 S1 C5 was adopted at the convention, and so they are not really sure what "nbC" REALLY meant since July 25, 1787 when John Jay suggested the words to George Washington, but, and it's amazing, they ARE 100% sure that Obama IS a "natural born Citizen" and they ALSO are sure that Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley are "nbC" and eligible to be POTUS. They seem to think that "natural born Citizen" means the same thing as "natural born" or "natural citizen" or "born a citizen" or "a born citizen" or "citizen by birth" or "born" or simply "a citizen."



On Mario's blog I wrote:


Mario, on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the blog of make believe about open borders immigration being good for the GOP and a free America and how the positive law about citizenship defines natural law and natural born citizenship—but for some reason never adduced is the natural law foundation of positive law, e.g., U.S. natural law soil and the natural law birth on that U.S. soil precedes U.S. positive law citizenship—you posted the /#comment-80239 above to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka Phd mathematician.


As a mathematician Kevin must have a logical reason* to promote the proposition that parents with two different citizenships can produce a child with dual citizenship that can somehow, ipso facto, fulfill John Jay's original intent of a child born with singular U.S. citizenship. The meme/mantra of the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers, the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen" cadre, is that natural birth and dual citizenship is of equal relevance to natural birth and singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility. Why? 'Cause he was born naturally (of course, open right palm to the forehead), and besides, Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, of course (John Jay spins in his grave every time the "one U.S. citizen" meme/theory is uttered by the neo-birthers).


*Or could it be as simple as cadre, paid or unpaid, that he would spend years to "try" to debate you to defend the Obama birth narrative of one U.S. citizen parent/dual citizenship with neo-birther original intent to ultimately promote the Obama greater agenda of "transforming the United States of America" into a community organizer's (inter)national "commune"?


Kevin, while he is probably a natural born citizen himself, probably born on U.S. soil, probably born to two U.S. citizen parents, he promotes, without historical foundation, the proposition that to be eligible to be POTUS only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because he and other proponents of "birth-on-U.S.-soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-married-OR-unmarried-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" such as William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor believe that a child who is a 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" is ipso facto sufficient to fulfill John Jay's 1787 natural law/positive law understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant to Jay in 1787. That was three years before the 1790 Naturalization Act used the words "natural born Citizen" and eight years before the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the words "natural born Citizen" and replaced the three word unit with the single word "citizen" so that the 1795 Naturalization Act (and 100% of ALL subsequent naturalization acts of Congress, all positive law) would conform to the natural law part of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, "natural born", which gives natural law credibility to the positive law part of A2 S1 C5, "Citizen."The third Congress corrected its error as understood in 1795 that a naturalization act, a positive law, can not "make" a person eligible to be POTUS. The two natural law parents produce a natural law child, and the same two natural law parents who are positive law U.S. citizens produce a positive law singular citizen, not a positive law dual citizen. The word "born" in "natural born Ctizien" can ONLY refer to singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual citizenship.


A hypothetical scenario, an alternative way of looking at what the Congress did in 1795, eight years after John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," shows the irrefutable true original intent of John Jay in 1787. If Jay had originally intended that "nbC" meant NOT ONLY being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, but ALSO being born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, as the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly said about foreign birth to U.S. citizen parents, plural, that would have meant that the third Congress changed Jay's original intent meaning about birth ALSO on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, with the 1795 Naturalization Act. The implication of the third Congress is that "nbC" status was reserved ONLY for children born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to U.S. citizen parents, plural.


Of course, that hypothetical scenario about the third Congress changing John Jay's original intent for "natural born Citizen" is not so. However, even though it is NOT so, the Obama neo-birthers could still obfuscate about it. So, what is it that has stopped the Obama neo-birthers from obfuscating about the 1787 original intent meaning of John Jay and asserting with neo-birther original intent that what Jay REALLY meant was birth on U.S. OR foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural? Well, maybe two things. (1) They would have to promote the proposition that in 1795, eight years after 1787, the third Congress in Pres. Washington's second term changed Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC" from meaning being born EITHER on U.S. soil OR being born on foreign soil, to being born ONLY on U.S. soil, and (2) they would have to admit that, yes, in 1787, Jay did originally mean ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, plural, as explicitly written in both the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts.


For some reason the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers shy away from the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" (positive law) language and hover around the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen," (a positive law*) language when they're not hovering around the 1868 14th Amendment "citizen" (positive law) language. They don't seem to understand that the words "natural born" are natural law language and not positive law language, and the word "citizen" is a positive law word and not a natural law word.


*The entire three word unit "natural born Citizen" is positive law only in this one instance since it is incluede in a naturalization statute, and the only time Congress used the phrase in a statute.


The entire three word unit "natural born Citizen" is positive law language because the first Congress included the entire phrase in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a statute, positive law. This is an example of how positive law can not "make" natural law, and conversely, how natural law defines, informs, clarifies, guides and protects the "making" of positive law. In A2 S1 C5, "natural born" = natural law and "Citizen" = positive law. The positive law "follows" and is guided by natural law, not vice versa.


A 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" can not be "made" by a positive law amendment or a positive law statute or a positive law, so to speak, court opinion into an A2 S1 C5 natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born" child and born naturally on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married OR unmarried parents can NOT make that "natural born" child into an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" child who is born naturally ONLY on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents.


Positive law dual citizenship can not produce positive law singular citizenship in fulfillment of John Jay's common sense original intent in underlining the natural law word "born" in the natural law/positive law phrase "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, who agreed with Jay. Neither Jay, Washington or the 1787 convention delegate framers and the subsequent states ratifiers of "natural born Citizen" could agree with the neo-birthers of 2008-2015 America, the Obama neo-birthers, the Cruz neo-birthers, the Rubio neo-birthers, the Haley neo-birthers, the Jindal neo-birthers, or any future "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers who may promote persons born (natural law) with only one OR zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents, whether born (natural law) on OR off U.S. soil (natural law) OR U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil (natural law).


The soil is "natural law" soil because by the natural law right of conquest, the soil is what it is by natural law, the law of nature, and natural law, nature, is not changed by conquest. The soil is simply, well, soil, it is not "made" soil by positive law after conquest. In other words, to get an affirmative tip of the hat from the deists and atheists who do not believe there is a God who created the soil, the soil is 100% natural "made" and is defined by natural law, not man "made" soil defined by positive law. The soil is a natural law entity independent of whether or not a natural law birth happens on the natural law soil. The soil, being a natural law entity, is not a positive law idea and creation. Natural law, nature, can not be changed by positive law, which is simply a declaration in a congressional statute or judicial opinion.


Sen. Cruz had only one U.S. citizen (positive law) parent at his birth (natural law) outside of U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil (natural law), Canada; Sen. Rubio had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law); Gov. Haley had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at her birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law); Gov. Jindal had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).


Mario, you, I and other A2 S1 C5 "born-ONLY-on-U.S.-soil-to-ONLY-two-U.S.-citizen-parents" John Jay original intent birthers who have posted here on your blog probably can NOT and NEVER will agree, for basic common sense and John Jay original intent reasons, with the neo-birther proposition that being born on U.S. OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero .S. citizen parents was included by implicature in John Jay's original intent meaning in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and conversely, the "born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers can not and NEVER will agree, for political and "transform the United States of America" agenda reasons, that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, and ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction came later), and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents was John Jay's ONLY common sense original intent. How could they? Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent at birth on U.S. soil, or so they say he was born on U.S. soil. They only say so 'cause Obama says so, without authentic and irrefutable verification. So who can believe the same guy who says, if not EVERY time then MOST of the time when something bad happens in his administration, that he didn't learn about it until he heard it on the news, uh, well, just like everybody else did.




Time to Change the Conversation and Move on to Agreement


So, how do we change the conversation and move on to agreement about a solution to clarify the perpetual "Union" meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America for ourselves and for our posterity?


It is time to change the conversation with questions. The John Jay original intent birthers, the Obama neo-birthers and the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers have been making assertions since 2008 that are retrospective in nature and so are intractable. However, our questions can be prospective and open to coherent input from ALL of WE the People and not just the few who have been engaging in the POTUS eligibility debate since the 2008 election cycle when BHObama was nominated as the Democratic choice for POUTS.


It is time to move on from what we think "natural born subject" meant to Coke, the Calvin's Case in the 1600s, Blackstone, Tucker and Vattel in the 1700s, etcetera, and what "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers in the 1700s, 18th century America, etcetera, and Congressional acts and statutes, and Supreme Court opinions in the 1800s, 1900s and the 2000s. It is time to agree about what we, all of WE the People, think "natural born Citizen" should mean today in 21st century America. What should "natural born Citizen" mean to us and to our posterity? Which meaning of "natural born Citizen" listed below will best preserve for us and for our posterity the perpetual "Union" as Pres. Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861.




A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments


Maybe WE the People, through our state legislatures and an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose amendments, should take the clarification of the meaning of "natural born Citizen" out of the hands of the "See-no-evil-Hear-no-evil-Speak-no-evil-about-POTUS-eligibility" Congress and the Supreme Court, and bring to heel the progressive lap-dog media.


We can let the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers and the "transform the United States of America" cadre claim victory after victory in the court of public opinion and in the courts that did not deal with the merits of POTUS eligibility, while we John Jay original intent birthers can lose every battle in the law courts and the court of public opinion and still win the bigger war of ideas in the arena of ideas. We can evntually claim a Pyrrhic victory with an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an A2 S1 C5 amendment to clarify what we all want. The "born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers and and the John Jay "ONLY-born-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" original intent birthers want the same thing. We all want "natural born Citizen" to mean something definite to help us assess and vet future POTUS candidates who will not be able to obfuscate about their eligibility.


The "birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers can win every battle in the lower courts and in the uninformed court of public opinion, but they will most likely lose the ideological long war in the court of informed public opinion in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.


The John Jay "ONLY-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" original intent birthers can lose every battle in the lower courts and in the court of public opinion but will most likely win the ideological long war with an Article V convention of states.


At this point it is an open question, and the federal congress and the federal court system is of no help in clarifying the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility. See The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? by Daniel P. Tokaji, published in 2008*, "Conclusion: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates' eligibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter."


*( http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-justiciability-of-eligibility-may-courts-decide-who-can-be-president )


In an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify what WE the People of 21st century America want the meaning of "natural born Citizen" to be, which definition of "natural born Citizen" listed below will the people choose as their own preferred definition for their own posterity?




Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?


Are there any who do not want clarity about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and what "natural born Citizen" could, should or will mean in our 21st century American future? If there are any who do not want clarity, why? Do they want to "transform" and to "break" the "Union" of America? If so, they are an enemy of the state. If so, they are an enemy of the perpetual "Union" of America. If so, they are an enemy of Pres. Lincoln who fought to save the perpetual "Union" of America from the civil war transformers of 1861-1865.


If he had lived, Pres. Lincoln probably would have fought to defeat the third phase of 1800s Reconstruction transformers who wanted to remain separate and resisted being equal for decades, about 100 years, after the negro Republican politicians were removed from public office in the south; he would have fought the Woodrow Wilson era and the FDR New Deal era "living constitution" transformers whose judicial progeny still don't believe that original intent is applicable in constitutional construction and so cannot inform judicial opinion; and finally, Pres. Lincoln would have fought the "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" transformers who want to change the U.S. Constitution from a charter of "negative liberties" into a charter of "positive liberties;" to "break it, so to speak."


To read what Pres. Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who would try to "break" the perpetual "Union" of America, and what he said about the "Union" and the U.S. Constitution, see paragraphs 12 to 16, specifically #13 & #14, at Bartleby.com*or here **.


In President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861, he traced the origin of the United States back to the 1774 Articles of Association, the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1778 Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and clarifies the original intent of a "more perfect Union" and the seminal original intent for perpetual existence under the 1787 U.S. Constitution.


What
President
Abraham Lincoln
said about the "Union"


“…general principles the Union is perpetual
confirmed by the history of the Union itself.


The Union is much older than the Constitution.
1774
It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.
1776
It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
1778
It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted
and engaged that it should be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
1787
And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing
the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.”



general principles
the Union is perpetual [original intent]
confirmed by the history of the Union itself.


The Union is much older than the Constitution.


It was formed [seminal], in fact, by
the Articles of Association in 1774.


It was matured and continued by
the Declaration of Independence in 1776.


It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States
expressly plighted and engaged
that it should be perpetual [original intent],
by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.


And finally, in 1787,
one of the declared objects [original intent]
for ordaining and establishing [seminal] the Constitution was

"to form a more perfect [stronger to be perpetual] Union."



*( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )
**( http://originalbirtherdocument14.blogspot.com/ )


In paragraph #13 Pres. Lincoln said "One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" In paragraph #14 he said "The Union is much older than the Constitution."



The implicature of the two sentences together suggests that, not only is the perpetual "Union" much older than the Constitution, it is also much older than Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and much older than the words "natural born Citizen" with the meaning as understood in 1787 America. However, the "Union" is not older than the natural law that is the original genesis foundation of positive law. Natural law protects, informs, guides and is the teacher directing the construction of a positive law constitution, and of the original intent of the natural law/positive law words "natural born Citizen" to mean ONLY birth of a child on the soil claimed by U.S. citizen parents, plural. This was applied ONLY in A2 S1 C5 to the Chief Executive of our new tripartite Federation. 


While the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" apply to the executive of the federation and do not apply to the several sovereign states who are the only creator, singular, of the creature that they created, the written constitution, specifically A2 S1 C5, and the entire tripartite federal government, natural law does apply to the several states. The several states have the natural law right to determine their own sovereign future, as they did in 1787 with the construction of the federal Constitution and the Federation, the tripartite federal government. It was formed to preserve for the several states at that time their perpetual "Union" of America, and to secure for their posterity the perpetual "Union" of America from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, who would try to "violate it—break it, so to speak" and "transform" the perpetual "Union" of OUR America by transforming the constitution from a charter of "negative liberties" into a charter of "positive liberties" to equalize the people in the (inter)national "commune."




Barack Obama — the U.S. Constitution is a Charter of "Negative Liberties" not a Charter of "Positive Liberties"


Listen as Obama expresses his "negative liberties" explanation in a 2001 public radio interview.
1min. 45 sec. Youtube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs )
4min. 17 sec. Youtube video, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM )


The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.


"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.


"It says what the states can’t do to you.
"It says what the federal government can’t do to you,
"but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”


Barack Obama


Although Obama does not use the charter of "postive liberties" phrase, after listening to the audio of the above quote, people will understand the "positive liberties" reason why single U.S. citizen parent and dual citizenship child Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, as found in the National Review Online article by Ed Whelan about the longer Wall Street Journal article by Jess Bravin.


Kagan: Constitution as Charter of “Positive Liberties”, by Ed Whelan on May 17, 2010, NationalReview.com.*


"According to this Wall Street Journal article**, during her service as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, Elena Kagan took the position that the Constitution confers so-called “positive” rights to governmental aid, not just “negative” liberties protected against governmental interference or penalty. Specifically, with respect to one certiorari petition she expressed her “worry that a majority of this court will agree with Judge Posner that ‘the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties.’” [emphasis added here]


"The project of re-interpreting the Constitution to confer a broad array of as-yet unrecognized “positive” rights (rather than leaving such matters to the processes of representative government) has long been a part of the Left’s agenda."


*( http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/55696/kagan-constitution-charter-positive-liberties/ed-whelan )
**( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248620872377444.html )


Kagan Backed Broad Interpretation of 14th Amendment, By Jess Bravin May 16, 2010, Wall Street Journal—WSJ.com.*


"As a Supreme Court law clerk in 1987, Elena Kagan read the 14th Amendment as permitting lawsuits against reckless state officials who ignore their duties—reflecting the liberal view that the constitutional guarantee of liberty should be read broadly. [...]


"Many liberals consider the ruling profoundly flawed, while conservatives praised it for denying recognition to what they call new rights. [...]


"In a September 1987 memo to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan observed that the issue was important, and that lower courts had split on whether state officials, who can be sued for wrongful acts, also could be sued for wrongfully failing to act. [...]


' "The state does not have a duty enforceable by the federal courts to maintain a police force or a fire department, or to protect children from their parents," Judge Posner wrote. [emphasis added here]


"Ms. Kagan believed the Seventh Circuit got it wrong, but advised Justice Marshall to vote against hearing the appeal unless he was certain to have four other justices—making up a majority—on his side. Without such assurance, "I only worry that a majority of this [Supreme] court will agree with Judge Posner that 'the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties' and will thereby preclude the approach" of the Third and Fourth circuits. [Supreme and emphasis added here]


"Ms. Kagan took a similar position on a related issue, advising Justice Marshall to let stand a ruling from the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, that a local welfare department could be sued for placing a foster child in an abusive home, where beatings left the seven-year-old girl in "an apparently permanent coma." [...]


"In a November 1987 memo to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan characterized that position as "considerably more tenuous" than liability based on an explicit statute. "Some members of this [Supreme] Court will doubtless object" to the holding that the 14th Amendment "imposes such affirmative obligations on state officials." Nonetheless, she concluded, "I think the holding is correct and that this court should let it stand." [emphasis in original]


"The justices ultimately left Judge Hatchett's ruling intact. In the DeShaney case, however, the court agreed with Judge Posner.


"The 14th Amendment was intended "to protect the people from the state, not to ensure that the state protected them from each other," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. It provided "no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." [emphasis added here]


*( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248620872377444.html )


Here is another example of how natural law informs and guides the construction of positive law.


The "several states" mentioned in Article V who ratified the "negative liberties" constitution can not nullify their own natural law right as parties to the compact between the states and as creator to direct its creature, the Federation, the tripartite federal government, to correct the problem caused by confusion about the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. There are several ways to correct the problem and eliminate the confusion. Two ways, statute and opinion, are, as directed in the constitution, in the domain of the legislature (Congressional statutes) and the judiciary (Supreme Court opinions). The third way, with references in Article V to both the U.S. Congress and the "several states," is by natural law common sense, the natural law right and in the domain of the "several states" who are the singular creator of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire Federation, U.S. Congress, Executive President and U.S. Supreme Court.


WE the People of the "several states" are the natural law supreme law of the land with natural law rights since we are the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution, the written supreme law of the land. WE the People, by natural law rights, predate the constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire tripartite Federation. If WE the People want our "several states" to conduct an Article V convention of states to propose one amendment or multiple amendments because the other Article V designated member of the Federation, the U.S. Congress, will not resolve the confusion surrounding "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility, then, so let it be written, so let it be done according to the will of WE the People of the "several states" in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.




Move On to what Natural Born Citizen Should Mean


How do we in 21st century America resolve the confusion about the original meaning and original intent of "natural born Citizen" and its application today? Let us move on with sensible questions. Let us move on beyond what "nbC" could have or should have meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers in 1787 America, and agreed with by the ratifiers of the thirteen states, and rectified by the 3rd Congress in 1795.




Meaning of Natural Born Citizen


What do we in 21st century America want "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") to mean for ourselves and for our posterity?


Some of the questions below are dumb, dumb, dumb, but are included for continuity of thought to show the absurdity of some of the "Obama-Cruz-Rubio-Jindal-Haley-are-all-a-natural-born-Citizen" reasoning proposed by some "birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers


Prof. William Jacobson, Esq. Jacobson wrote on his blog*, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth."


*( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )


Is Prof. Jacobson correct? Is his definition of "citizens by birth" the meaning that we want to be affirmatively decided by an Article V convention of the several states, or decided by Congressional statute, or decided by Supreme Court opinion? The nebulous "citizens by birth" does NOT have original birther John Jay's implicit meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, but "citizens by birth" does have the implicit neo-birther meaning of dual U.S. AND foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents.


Which of the following questions best deals with the nebulousness of "citizens by birth" of the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers?


Which of the questions best deals with the original intent of original birther John Jay?




Questions about Place and Parents and Naturalizartion
Jus Soli—Right of Soil/Place
Jus Sanguinis—Right of Blood/Parents


4 Questions about U.S. Soil


1a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions only to two U.S. citizen parents?


There have been a total of 44 U.S. Presidents so far, and for 42 of them there has been no doubt that they ALL have met the eligibility requirement to be POTUS, the first 7 and the 9th, 8 in all, by being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility since they were born before the accepted national naturalization date of July 4, 1776, and the remaining 34 have ONLY been born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents.


1b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to only one U.S. citizen parent?


The two U.S. Presidents who were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, and were born to one U.S. citizen parent are #21, Chester Alan Arthur and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.


1c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to zero U.S. citizen parents?


Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley currently, as of December 2014, are three Republican potential candidates for POTUS who were born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.


1d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?




4 Questions about Foreign Soil


2a- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?


Being born on foreign soil to citizen parents, plural, was included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a positive law, but it was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act, and has never been included in any subsequent Congresses. It has never been the opinion (positive law, so to speak) of the Supreme Court.


2b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?


Sen. Ted Cruz currently, as of December 2014, is one Republican potential candidate for POTUS who was not born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, who was born on the foreign soil of Canada to one U.S. citizen parent.


Sen. Cruz's "citizen" status is defined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)].* See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at USCIS.gov.**


*( http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html )
**( http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents )


2c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?


2d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?




1st Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents


3a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should "nbC" continue to mean ONLY born to 1st generation U.S. citizen children who are born on U.S. soil to two naturalized U.S. citizens?


The 1787 framers and ratifiers were obvious in denying natural law/positive law "nbC" status to positive law naturalized citizens. Implicit since 1787 in A2 S1 C5 is that the 2nd and following generations of the naturalized persons would also be eligible since the grandchildren would be persons born to two U.S. citizen married parents who were both already citizens by natural birth (natural law).


3b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?


3c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?


3d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of either two OR one OR zero naturalized U.S. citizens?




2nd Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents


4a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" be updated to ONLY mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren who are U.S. soil born children of two U.S. soil born children of two naturalized U.S. citizens? This is more strict than eligibility for 1st generation children in 1787. Implicit is that the 1st generation children of naturalized citizens are excluded from POTUS eligibility for national security reasons*, and the 3rd and following generations are eligible since "nbC" children are only born to two U.S. citizen married parents.


*4a is more strict than than 3aand A2 S1 C5 since1787. A naturalized "citizen" was NOT allowed to be POTUS for national security reasons, as John Jay recommended in his short note to George Washington, and the national security reason was accepted by the framers and the "several states" ratifiers.


4b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?


4c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?


4d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of either two OR one OR zero naturalized U.S. citizens?




Grandfather Them All


1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should Barack Hussein Obama, the current "citizen" President who has said that he was born on U.S. soil, and who has admitted that he had only one U.S. citizen parent, and he was still elected President by misguided Electoral College electors and accepted as eligible to be POTUS by an uninformed electorate, should he be retroactively grandfathered by a Congressional statute, a positive law that would apply ONLY to him, into POTUS eligibility before he leaves office? Would that promote national tranquility?


Some may ask why Obama should be retroactively grandfathered into POTUS eligibility before he leaves office (—because it cannot be done AFTER he leaves office) since POTUS eligibility is a constitutional issue?


Others ask why not retroactively grandfather him by Congressional statute with a special Naturalization Act clause with "... or a Citizen of..." status that would apply to ONLY one person in American history, Barack Hussein Obama? This could be done by statute just as the first Congress did in Pres. Washington's first term when it added "natural born Citizen" status in the 1790 Naturalization Act (a statute, a positive law) for ALL children born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, and then done again by statute when the third Congress repealed the "nbC" status in Pres. Washington's second term and changed "nbC" status to "citizen" status in the 1795 Naturalization Act (a statute, a positive law) for ALL children born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural.


So, why—from original birther John Jay's original intent perspective?


There is no natural law prohibiting a positive law that would have a retroactive grandfathering effect for "citizen" President Obama.


Sure, he is a single U.S. citizen parent/dual citizenship child, but retroactively grandfathering him by statute into "... or a Citizen of..." status does not amend A2 S1 C5 of the constitution. Also, it does not mean that he is being given by positive law what can ONLY be acquired by natural law, which is singular U.S. citizenship by birth ONLY to two married parents who are U.S. citizens before the child is born.


Just as there was not in 1787 natural law prohibiting a positive law with proactive effect for future "...or a Citizen of..." POTUS candidates (1-Washington, 2-Adams, 3-Jefferson, 4-Madison, 5-Monroe, 6-Adams, 7-Jackson, 9-Harrison), there is ALSO no natural law prohibiting a positive law with proactive effect for future "citizen" POTUS candidates such a Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley, etcetera.


So, why not—from the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birther perspective?


'Cause the Obama birth narrative neo-birthrs would not want the asterisk* footnote stigma of their "MY GUY" being the ONLY "citizen" President in American history who was certified as eligible to be POTUS while in office, and the ONLY "citizen" President who was retroactively grandfathered into POTUS eligibility.


To Obama neo-birthers, maintaining the neo-birther original intent of the Obama birth narrative of one U.S. citizen parent/dual citizenship is more important for future expansion of the "(inter)national commune" transformation under future U.S. administrations who will strengthen the collectivist "positive liberties" agenda than is the perpetual national defense of the American people and their individual property rights and all of their individual liberties originally intended to be perpetually protected by the 1787 charter of "negative liberties," the U.S. Constitution, written by "citizens" of the "several states"—"WE the People...to form a more perfect Union," NOT to "...(trans)form the more perfect Union" by transforming the Constitution into a charter of "positive liberties" with the intention of expanding the collectivist commune.


Well, here are two more reasons why "citizen" Obama should be grandfathered, if it can be done before he leaves office.


(Reason #1) In an Article V convention of states to propose amendments (positive law), WE the People can grandfather into POTUS eligibility anybody we want grandfathered. We can do it retroactively with only one retroactive application for a "citizen" President who is still in office (a one time act of Congress would be better), or proactively for future "citizen" POTUS candidates, to terminate at a certain date. In "citizen" Obama's case, to set the record straight and clean the slate. In the case of future "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" "citizen" candidates, only Republicans at this point, it could include other Democrats in the near future, to make them adhere to the constitution in a legal way that everybody on earth would know the intent and the conclusion, and there would be no animus directed toward any person or political party.


(Reason #2) It could spur an Article V convention of states legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 with proactive clarifying language that whould produce agreement from the Obama birth narrtive neo-birther camp (but not retroactively for Obama—see above), the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birther camp and the original birther John Jay original intent birther camp.


2- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should current "citizens" such as Republicans Sen. Cruz, Sen., Rubio, Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal and future "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" "citizens" be grandfathered proactively into POTUS eligibility just as the first seven and the ninth presidents were? Again why not?


Here is the reason why.


The "... or a Citizen of..." patriots grandfathered themselves in 1787 into POTUS eligibility because they participated in and were loyal to the successful resolution of the revolution and the war for independence that was declared on July 4, 1776. As "... or a Citizen[s] of..." from the nagturalization date of 1776, the "... or a Citizen of..." patriots wrote the words that grandfathered themselves as "citizens" into the U.S. Constitution in Article II for their own POTUS eligibility in 1787 and for theperpetual POTUS eligibility of their posterity. WE the Posterity of WE the People can do it again for our own "citizens" before the next national election cycle in 20?? (2016? 2020? or whatever the date will be) to cut the "natural born Citizen" Gordian knot of confusion as if with Alexander's sword.


Personally, I like this idea of an Article V convention of the "several states" legislatures to propose an amendment (positive law) to proactively grandfather (positive law) into POTUS eligibility exceptional American patriots who may be a "citizen" (positive law) and not an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" (natural law/positive law), because I really like Sen. Cruz, my favorite federal Senator and my state of Texas junior Senator. I also like Florida Senator Rubio (amnesty aside—for now), as well as Gov. Haley and Gov. Jindal. All would be excellent patriotic Commanders in Chief if elected POTUS.


3- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the current "citizens" who announce their candidacy for POTUS be the last "citizens" to be grandfathered into POTUS elibibility?


4- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility by "citizens" be limited to those who announce their candidacy for the 20?? (whatever the first date will be) national election cycle?


5- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the 20?? (whatever the second date will be 8 years later) election cycle be the last national election cycle that current "citizens" can participate in?




Heterosexual and Homosexual Adoption and POTUS Eligibility of U.S. Born and Foreign Born Children


Some are saying that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the U.S. born or foreign born adopted children of EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents.




U.S. Born Children


1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open only to U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction born children, who are verified as having been born only to two U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


The purpose is to maintain the continuity of two, not the natural law and positive law aspects of heterosexuality or homosexuality. The point is the protection of the verified A2 S1 C5 "nbC" (natural law/positive law) status of the adopted child, (1) the natural law birth to two heterosexual persons, the two original birth parents married to each other before the child is born, and (2) the positive law singular citizenship derived from the same two singular U.S. citizen married parents.


The continuity of the natural law "natural born" status derived from two heterosexual parents married to each other before the child is born is the natural law protector of the positive law "Citizen" status that should be carried over to the not "one" but "two" adoptive parents, heterosexual (natural law) or homosexual (positive law), whether or not they are married (positive law) to each other, since the A2 S1 C5 "nbC" (natural law/positive law) status of the adopted child has already been verified for POTUS eligibility purposes as (1) being born only on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction (2) only to two U.S. citizen parents who were married to each other before the child was born.


2- [ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by one U.S. citizen adoptive parent who is heterosexual or homosexual?


3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?




Foreign Born Children


1- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of one U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?




How to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify


How should we codify our agreement about our perpetual meaning of and our perpetual intent for "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America?


1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified ONLY with an Article V amendment that can only be nullified and repealed if ratified by 75% (in 2014 it is 38) of the states, and which can not be touched or affected by the U.S. Congress and its statutes or by Supreme Court opinion?


2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified ONLY with a statute by one Congress that can be nullified and repealed with another statute by a following Congress, and by an Article V amendment?


3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified, so to speak, ONLY with a Supreme Court opinion that can be nullified and overturned by a following Supreme Court opinion, and by an Article V amendment?




Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress solution to the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" be an Article V amendment that is initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds of both House and Senate, which is sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths (in 2015 it is 38) of the states, and then implemented by Congress?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with an Article V amendment to clarify "natural birth" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in contrast to the positive law of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law birth ("natural born") and positive law citizenship ("Citizen")?




Article V Convention of the "Several States" to Propose an Amendment


[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the "several states" legislatures' solution to the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" be an Article V amendment initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds (in 2015 it is 34) of the state legislatures, ratified by three-fourths (in 2015 it is 38) of the state legislatures or ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state conventions, and then implemented by Congress?


[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the "several states" legislatures resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with a positive law constitutional amendment initiated by the "several states" to clarify "natural birth" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in contrast to the positive law of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?


[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should, can, the "several states" use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law birth ("natural born") and positive law citizenship ("Citizen")?


Yes, we can.


We "several states" can do what Article V authorizes BOTH the U.S. Congress AND the legislatures of the "several states" to do, because the "several states" included themselves into Artivle V. The inclusion of the "several states" into the U.S. Constitution can NOT be nullified by EITHER the Federation, the tripartite government who was NOT a party to the compact between the "several states" in 1787, AND the inclusion of the "several states" into the U.S. Constitution ALSO can NOT be nullified by the "several states" themselves, even if they wanted to, and they do not.What is original intent inclusion into Article V for if Article V is not used for it's intended purpose of the "several states" to maintain ultimate control of their Federation, including WE the People supreme control of the Executive of OUR government.


Yes, we can—Si, se puede. Pronounced "see se pweth eh," it is Spanish for "yes, it's possible" or, roughly, "yes, we can."




Statute by U.S. Congress


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Is the solution a "what does THAT mean" statute by Congress that can be nullified and replaced with a succeeding statute, and by an Article V amendment?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the "nbC" confusion be resolved with a positive law statute?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute clarify natural law and natural law birth?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a statute clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?




Opinion by U.S. Supteme Court


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Is the solution a nebulous "what does THAT mean" opinion by the Supreme Court that can be nullified and overturned by a succeeding Court, and by an Article V amendment?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the "nbC" confusion be resolved with a Supreme Court opinion?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Supreme Court opinion clarify natural law and natural law birth?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Supreme Court opinion clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~