Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Original Birther Document







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?”

Sometimes truth proof references, such as John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 1787 note to George Washington, will be used to emphasize the perpetual original intent of the original Founders, the original Framers, the original Ratifiers, aka the original birthers who wrote the perpetual original intent words for themselves, of course, on September 17, 1787, and perpetually for "WE the Posterity" from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

“WE the Posterity” must “speak out” to defend the “original intent” of the “original birthers”, aka “WE the People” who were the “original authors” who wrote the “original words” of the “original birther” document of America, the U.S. Constitution.

All of “WE the Posterity” must “speak out”about what the Article II words “…natural born Citizen, or a Citizen … time … Adoption … Constitution … eligible … Office … President…” meant to the original birthers, the original Convention delegates from the thirteen states, who accepted the original intent of ALL of the words in the U.S. Constitution, Article II and also Article V.


All of “WE the Posterity” must “speak out” about why a “natural born Citizen” and an “… or a Citizen” were both “…eligible to the Office of President” in 1787, but since the last “…or a Citizen” died sometime in the 1800s, ONLY a “natural born Citizen” is “…eligible to the Office of President” since then and into perpetuity, into the 21st century and beyond, God willing, until the return of the “Son of Man”.









Introduction in a Nutshell

What and Who is a “Natural Born Citizen”
What and Who is an “…or a Citizen”
What and Who is a “Citizen”

What is the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” and “…or a Citizen” issue in a nutshell?

Who is a 21st century “Citizen” but NOT a 1787 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen?”

Who is a 21st century “Citizen” but NOT a 1787 Clause 5 “…or a Citizen?”

What was the 1787 common sense understanding and definition of “natural born Citizen?”

What was the 1787 original intent of the original birthers, the Framers, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, who accepted and adopted the “natural born Citizen” words in Article II Section 1 Clause 5?

The 1787 definition of “natural born Citizen” is not vague; it is there, right THERE, in the word “born” itself.

The 1787 definition of “born” is found in the sixth word of the presidential eligibility Article II.








Article II Section 1 Clause 5

No person except
a natural born Citizen,
or a Citizen …
United States, 
time 
Adoption …
Constitution …
eligible …
Office …
President.






Since the 1787 (and into perpetuity) child had to be born on the US soil that was “already” there after the war of independence, to the 1787 Constitution Framers, the original birthers, the natural law word “born” either meant ONLY being born on 1787 U.S. soil, or “born” ALSO included being born on 1787 foreign soil.

The word “born” meant either one or both, but the common sense original intent certainly did NOT include being born ONLY on foreign soil. Right? Well, THAT is the common sense presupposition that the original intent of the 1787 original birthers meant ONLY being born on U.S. soil with ONLY TWO U.S. citizen married parents.

EVERYBODY'S opinion is valid,  and the original genesis of the opinion expressed here is the original intent of ONLY the 1787 U.S. Constitution. The issue is not our 21st century opinions of what the original birthers “should” have meant, but ONLY the original genesis opinions of the original birthers.

That's all.

The issue is the original intent of the original birthers, the original Framers who wrote the original words of the original birther document of the republic, the 1787 U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, and the contrast between “natural born Citizen” and “...or a Citizen” in the SAME Clause 5, in the SAME sentence, separated by a comma and the word “or” that was put there for a very 1787 practical reason.

The reason in 1787 America was that there was NOT a “natural born Citizen” old enough between July 4, 1776 and September 17, 1787, ONLY 11 years 3 months, who had been born ON U.S. soil and was 35 years old with 14 years residence on the SAME U.S. soil, to qualify to be “...eligible to the Office of President,” so the original birthers in 1789 had to choose an “...or a Citizen” who was naturalized on July 4, 1776 as a “citizen” by adhering to the revolution and the war of independence.

The first naturalized citizen who was the first “...or a Citizen” citizen to be elected president was General George Washington, followed by 6 more 1776 naturalized citizens as “...or a Citizen” citizens as president, until president # 8, Martin van Buren, born 6 years 5 months AFTER 1776, on December 5, 1782.

The point is that the best place to start to analyze and clarify the perpetual meaning of the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizens” is with the original intent of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers, the original birthers.

That's all this is about, the original intent of the original birthrs, not the states, not the SCOTUS, not the amendments to the Constitution or the acts of Congress.

If we ALL start with the original intent of the original birthers, it will be easier to analyze and clarify the original intent of the original birthers themselves who, only one year after the inauguaration of George Washington as the first President, wrote the confusing 1790 Naturalization Act with the “natural born Citizen” designation for a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents and, even though naturalized, possibly, since it was never attempted, they were “…eligible to the Office of President.” The Congress then corrected the language and rectified the confusion with the 1795 Naturalization Act and the “Citizen” designation for a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents. The change from “natural born Citizen” to “Citizen” meant that the the child would NOT be “…eligible to the Office of President.”

If we ALL start with original intent it will be easier to analyze the Acts of Congress, such as the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts, and amendments of Congress, such as such as the 14th amendment ‘citizen’ designation, and more recent naturalization acts such as the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ designation, and the SCOTUS opinions about what makes a citizen a ‘citizen’ of the U.S. The SCOTUS has NEVER opined as to why EVERY “natural born Citizen” child is ALSO a “Citizen” child but NOT every “Citizen” child is a “natural born Citizen.”

The SCOTUS has NEVER opined about how being born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents relates to POTUS eligibility, and the connection to the original intent of original birther John Jay and his concern about protecting access to the executive office and control of the U.S. military.

Original intent, what a concept, right?

Original intent, what an original genesis place to start to analyze and clarify the original words of the original birthers, right?


ONLY or BOTH

Question #1

Did the 1787 original birthers have ONLY one (1) original intent definition of “natural born Citizen” as ONLY born on U.S. soil with ONLY TWO US citizen parents?

ONLY one (1) original intent definition makes common sense. Right?

Question #2

Did the 1787 original birthers have ONLY one (1) original intent definition of “natural born Citizen” expressed in two parts?

(1) Born on U.S. soil to ONLY TWO US citizen parents AND
(2) Born on foreign soil ALSO, to ONLY TWO US citizen parents

One (1) “original intent” definition in two (2) parts does NOT make common sense. Right?

Question #3

Did the 1787 original birthers have two (2) original intent definitions of “natural born Citizen?”

(1) Born on U.S. soil ONLY to ONLY TWO US citizen parents AND
(2) Born on foreign soil ONLY to ALSO TWO US citizen parents

Two (2) original intent definitions definitely does NOT make common sense. Right?

The major point is the fact that original birther John Jay suggested to original birther George Washington that the natural law word ‘natural’ should be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law word ‘born’ and associated with Hamilton's positive law words ‘a Citizen.’


The Original Genesis of the Original Intent Umbrella Point

The original genesis of the original intent umbrella major point here is the common sense original intent of original birther John Jay to protect 1787 America into perpetuity from foreign influence over the executive office and control of the military.

“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check
to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and
to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be
given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

[‘born’ was underlined in the original —  see the original here ... and here]


The major point is the historical fact that original birther John Jay suggested to original birther George Washington that the natural law word “natural” should be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law words “born” and associated with Hamilton's positive law words “a Citizen.”




The POTUS eligibility quote below is the June 18, 1787 Alexander Hamilton suggestion.

Alexander Hamilton said
“be now a Citizen” … “or” … “be born a Citizen”

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

The 1787 original intent of Alexander Hamilton is obvious, right?

Obviously “be now” = the grandfather words to make the 1776 patriots POTUS eligible
Obviously “or” = one ‘or’ the other, NOT both are the same as the other
Obviously ‘born’ = ONLY born on U.S. soil in 1787 America
Obviously ‘Citizen’ = ONLY citizenship from two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents
Obviously ‘United States’ = ONLY U.S. Citizen born on U.S. soil



Included in the major point is the acceptance by the 1787 original birthers at the 1787 Constitutional Convention with NO comment about the 1787 original intent meaning of “natural born Citizen” because the 1787 delegates were obviously already aware that to be “natural born” in 1787 America meant ONLY being born on 1787 U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents and “natural born” in 1787 America did NOT mean being born on 1787 foreign soil.

Included in the major point is that the U.S. “natural born Citizen” status of the child derived from the U.S. citizen status of BOTH parents who were U.S. Citizens BEFORE their child was born on U.S. soil, NOT born on foreign soil.

What “born” obviously meant to the original birthers was ONLY “born” on the U.S. soil of the 1787 original thirteen colonies, NOT “born” on the 1787 foreign soil of England—Canada, NOT “born” on the 1787 foreign soil of Spain—Florida, NOT “born” on the 1787 foreign soil of Spain—Louisiana colony from the gulf waters to the Canadian border, and NOT “born” on the foreign soil of Mexico, or Central America, or South America, or Europe, or Africa, or etc., around the world.

The 1795 Naturalization Act “Citizen” designation replaced the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” designation.

So far, since the 1795 Naturalization Act, the original intent of the original birthers has been confirmed by the SCOTUS which has NEVER opined that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents and ALSO a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

The SCOTUS has been consistent since the 1790 Naturalization Act that said that a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents was a “natural born Citizen” was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act that states that a child born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents was ONLY a “Citizen” and consequently NOT “...eligible to the Office of President.”

Finally, the SCOTUS has also NEVER opined that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born on foreign soil with ONLY ONE (1) U.S. Citizen parent, married or not married to a foreign citizen.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does say that a child born on foreign soil with one (1) U.S. Citizen parent married to a foreign citizen definitely IS a ‘Citizen.’ That “citizen” is consequently NOT “...eligible to the Office of President,”because the 1952 INA “Citizen” is NOT a 1787 U.S. Constitution Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen.”


Common Sense Original Intent Conclusion

The original intent definition of “natural born Citizen” was either ONLY being born on 1787 U.S. soil or ALSO being born on 1787 foreign soil.

Since September 17, 1787, to be “natural born” in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 is a natural law reference to the natural law physical union of two (2) persons and then the child being physically born on U.S. soil, with the original intent that the children of their posterity will fulfill the original intent of the original birthers, the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers, to protect and defend U.S. soil, NOT to protect and defend foreign soil.

Since September 17, 1787 and the 1795 Naturalization Act, to be “natural born” is obviously NOT a reference to the physical union of two (2) U.S. Citizen married persons and then the child being born on foreign soil to protect and defend U.S. soil AND to protect and defend foreign soil, right?

Since September 17, 1787 and the 1795 Naturalization Act, to be “natural born” is obviously NOT a reference to being naturalized by ‘oath’ to protect and defend U.S. soil AND to protect and defend foreign soil, right?

The Article II positive law word “Citizen” in “natural born Citizen” is a positive law reference to deriving U.S. Citizen status from two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, NOT only one (1) U.S. Citizen parent.

The Article II positive law word “Citizen” is obviously NOT a positive law reference to deriving U.S. Citizen status from foreign citizens.


Introduction in a Nutshell

Mnemonic Intent

The common sense of the original birthers in 1787 America is the original genesis of our own common sense understanding in 2013 America about the original intent of the original birthers.

Yes, the word “original” and the word “intent” with various words is a play on words, with mnemonic intent,  repeat—repeat—repeat until it sinks into the subconscious. Otherwise, what is a memory aid for, right?

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously meant ONLY born on U.S. soil, NOT foreign soil.

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously meant ONLY born as the result of the union of two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously did NOT mean ALSO born as the result of the union of two (2) persons who were NOT married to each other.

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously did NOT mean ALSO born as the result of the union of ONLY one (1) U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent who did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen, whether or not they were married to each other.

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously did NOT mean the same thing as the 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen” because the 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen” citizens were ALREADY born BEFORE the U.S. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787.

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously did NOT mean the same thing as the 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen” because the LAST 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen” died sometime in the 1800s.

To the original birthers in 1787 America, “born” in “natural born Citizen” obviously did NOT mean the same thing as a foreign born person naturalized by “oath” as a “Citizen” of the United States.

Common sense, right?

To the original birthers in 1787 America, a child “born” a “natural born Citizen” on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen parents obviously did NOT mean the same thing as a child born on U.S. soil with a foreign born father who had NOT naturalized by “oath” BEFORE his child was born on U.S. soil.

Every 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” is a U.S. “Citizen” at birth, but not every U.S. “Citizens” is at birth a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Common sense, right?

When 1787 original birther, Founder and Ratifier John Jay suggested to 1787 original birther George Washington that to prevent foreign influence over the executive office and foreign control of the military that the natural law word “natural” should be added to 1787 original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law word “born” and to Hamilton's positive law words “a Citizen,” was it Jay’s original intent to suggest to Washington that “natural born Citizen” was a reference to ONLY being born on 1787 U.S. soil or to ALSO being born on 1787 foreign soil?

Obviously, a reference to ONLY being born on 1787 U.S. soil.

Did John Jay mean to say to George Washington that the positive law word “Citizen” in “natural born Citizen” was a reference to ONLY being born with TWO U.S. citizen married parents or to ALSO being born with ONLY one U.S. citizen parent who was married or not married to a foreign citizen?

Obviously, in 1787 America, John Jay’s original intent was that “natural born Citizen” was a reference to ONLY being born with TWO U.S. citizen married parents who were U.S. citizens BEFORE their child was born on U.S. soil.

John Jay, George Washington and the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were NOT confused about the natural law original intent meaning of Jay's word “natural” and Hamilton's words “born a Citizen” as a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil, so they NEVER had the need to discuss the meaning of “natural born Citizen” before Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 was adopted on September 17, 1787.

Original intent, what a concept, right'

Original intent, what a way to start to analyze the original words of the original birthers, and to analyze the difference between the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen” designation that was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act and was replaced with the “Citizen” designation.

Original intent, what a way for the original birthers to start to “...form a more perfect Union” for themselves and for their posterity... into perpetuity, right?

Original intent, what a way to STILL continue to analyze the original words of the original birthers. Right? Right.


Introduction in a Nutshell

Senator Ted Cruz

The newest original intent issue at this time concerns the POTUS eligibility of Sen. Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz since he is a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “Citizen” and not a 1787 U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 Clause 5 U.S. “natural born Citizen.”


“Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem.

“Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident
that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility.

“Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and
he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen.”


“Ted Cruz is eligible to be president under almost any reading
of the Constitution—except his own”

Although I do not know everything about everything to know everything about any one thing, one thing I do know is that while there are four seminal Birth documents of the “Union,” as President Lincoln called it in 1861, only one – ONLY 1 – the 1787 U.S. Constitution, is being ridiculed as a nuisance and restrictive because of its negative libertiy original intent.

It is a nuisance because, with negative liberty language that stipulates what the Federal government can NOT do FOR and TO citizens, that negative liberty language impedes the expansion of Federal government power over the states and the people.

With 18th century (1787) original intent the original birthers, the Framers who were the original authors of the original words, restricted the new tripartite government with negative liberty language for the good of the 1787 “We the People” who understood original intent, and for the good of “We the Posterity” in the 21st century (2013) who also understand the original intent of the original words.

What Democratic and Republican “progressives” want is positive liberty language that stipulates what the tripartite government MUST do FOR and TO citizens, by increasing Federal government power over the states and the people who created the Federal government in the first place, in 1787.




FOR = free health care from womb to tomb
(for those lucky to get out of the womb)

TO = buy health care insurance – or else – you will be punished
(ultimately ‘death paneled’—even if you need a lung transplant at age ten)





To the positive liberty proponents who oppose the negative liberty original intent of the U.S. Constitution, it is just an outdated document for that negative liberty reason.


Introduction in a Nutshell

Laura Ingraham:
“Pretty Sure” Canadian-Born Ted Cruz is Eligible to be President

Here is a July 15, 2013 BirtherReport.com three minute audio snippet of a Laura Ingraham interview with Rafael Cruz, the father of Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz.

Laura, by her use of the words “I’m pretty sure,” reveals that she is really not sure of the original intent of the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “…or a Citizen,” and if Senator Ted Cruz is, according to Article II, “…eligible to the Office of President.” [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz ]

     BirtherReport.com – YouTube 3min. 8 sec. [ http://youtu.be/eC4CCraQtuw ]–

At 1min. 53 sec.

Rafael Cruz –
“So, we moved back to Texas when Ted was four years old, and then started the [oil] business again, here.”

Laura Ingraham –
“And then you became a citizen, a U.S. citizen in 2005, something like that?”

Rafael Cruz –
“There about.”

Laura Ingraham –
“Some people say that Ted can’t become president because he wasn’t born in the United States.”

[…]

Rafael Cruz –
“From what I understand, most constitutional scholars agree that if someone is born of a U.S. citizen who was born in the U.S., that person is a U.S. citizen by birth, regardless of where they’re born.”

Laura Ingraham –
“And your wife was a U.S. citizen, right?”

Rafael Cruz –
“Yes, she was born in Delaware.”

[…]

Laura Ingraham –
“I get all these emails, ‘Oh, you’re such a good friend of Ted Cruz’s, but, he can’t become president.

“I don’t think that’s….

“I’m pretty sure that’s not right.

“I’m focusing on killing this immigration bill, so, that’s what I’m focusing on right now.”


~ ~ ~



Things to Remember:
Place & Parent – Jus soli & Jus Sanguinis
Perpetual and Temporary Original Intent

Place & Parent – Jus soli & Jus Sanguinis

For the common sense non-lawyers some historical writings, law terms and SCOTUS decisions referenced by lawyers when discussing citizenship and naturalization are not used in this “table talk” style original intent conversation.

For example, without constantly making reference to them, it is important to remember two law terms that distinguish birth parents and birth place, jus sanguinis (birthright by blood – birthright citizenship) and jus soli (birthright by soil – birthright jurisdiction).

The two Latin law terms refer to parent and place, and the right by law (jus) that belongs (by natural law) to the child by right of blood (sanguinis – birthright citizenship) and by right of soil (soli – birthright jurisdiction).

The natural law related to parent (blood) and place (soil) determines the application of the positive law status of the child.

Here is a short definition from Wikipedia – for “we the people” who are not legal scholars –

Jus sanguinis

(Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not
determined by place of birth but by having instead one or both parents who are
citizens of the state or more generally by having state citizenship or membership
to a nation determined or conferred by -ethnic, cultural or other- descent or origin,
e.g. by belonging to a Diaspora, i.e. without necessarily having progenitors that
are or were citizens of that state per se.

It contrasts with jus soli (Latin for right of soil).

Jus sanguinis – a right by birth and blood (birthright citizenship) –
the child is a born citizen of a country with the reference to the blood relationship with the parents.

Jus soli – a right by birth place (birthright jurisdiction) –
the child is born with citizenship acquired from the soil on which one is born with reference to the blood relationship with the parents.

The 1787 U.S. Constitution
The 1795 Naturalization Act
The 1868 14th Amendment
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act

The 1787 U.S. Constitution

The primary document considered is the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, in this “table talk” conversation specifically Article II Section 1 Clause 5, with a focus on the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words (a)natural born Citizen,” and how the ORIGINAL words (b) “... or ... time ... Adoption...” are relevant ONLY to the ORIGINAL words (c) “…or a Citizen.” No person who had been born after July 4, 1776 on U.S. soil  to TWO (2) U.S. citizen married parents had reached the age of 35 by 1787.

The 1795 Naturalization Act

The 1795 Naturalization Act of the third Congress limited “natural born Citizen” ONLY to children born on the soil of the United States AFTER the 1790 Naturalization Act of the first Congress was repealed because the 1790 Act DID designate children born on foreign soil as a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

The Naturalization Acts of 1795 and 1790 confirm that “citizen” is not the same as “natural born Citizen.”

See The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 for brief descriptions of the 1790 Naturalization Act and 1795 Naturalization Act that repealed it.

The 1868 14th Amendment

The 14th amendment, adopted and ratified in 1868, limited a born “citizen” to persons born on U.S. soil.

By John C. Eastman

“The notion that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, when
seeking to guarantee the right of citizenship to the former slaves,
also sought to guarantee citizenship to the children of enemies of
the United States who were in our territory illegally, is simply
too absurd to be a credible interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.”

By John C. Eastman March 30, 2006 – download the free PDF at Heritage.org –

“It is today routinely believed that under the Citi­zenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain
U.S. citizen­ship.

However strong this commonly believed inter­pretation might appear,
it is incompatible not only with the text of the Citizenship Clause
(particularly as informed by the debate surrounding its adoption),
but also with the political theory of the American Founding.”

John C. Eastman, Ph.D., is Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law
and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Another way of saying what John Eastman said is related to the original intent of the original authors of the 14th amendment.

When they were guaranteeing the new rights of former slaves, including the right of citizenship, did the original authors of the 14th amendment have the original intent of including as “citizens” 100 years later the foreign invaders who break-and-enter America to “plop-and-drop” their anchor babies?

[  ] Yes
[X] No

The obvious original intent answer is NO; of course NOT.

So, when will the 21st century U.S. Congress and SCOTUS get their 1866 14th amendment original intent facts together and correct their silly citizenship absurdity of automatic citizenship to “plop-and-drop” anchor babies of foreigners who “break-and-enter” our country?

Do the Congress and the SCOTUS really want to promote the absurdity that to “break-and-enter” into their country, aka THEIR home, is NOT a legal entry into their “home” but the baby automatically IS a legal U.S. citizen?

Huh? Is THAT dumb, or what. How dumb is that?

Come on Congress and SCOTUS… WAKE UP!!! America is waiting—WAKE UP!!!

WAKE UP!!! America, the “Union” belongs to “We the People” and NOT to “we the OCCUPIERS,”  and NOT to “we the TRANSFORMERS,”  right?

President Abraham Lincoln agrees, RIGHT!


Perpetual and Temporary Original Intent

Just because both a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 Article II “or a Citizen” are positive law declarations does not mean that both can be changed by an Act of Congress.

A perpetual 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” designation can ONLY be changed by a Constitutional Amendment to change its original intent and origina genesis meaning.

The perpetual 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” designation was NOT changed by the 1868 14th amendment  “citizen”designation, nor was it changed by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” designation for the same reason that the temporary 1787 Article II “or a Citizen” was NOT changed by the 1868 14th amendment “citizen” designation nor by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” designation.

Both the perpetual “natural born Citizen” designation and the temporary “or a Citizen” designation were written with original intent that is immutable.

A 1787 “…or a Citizen”

In the case of a 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen,” the immutable fact is that it was a TEMPORARY designation at that time AND for as long as a 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen … at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was alive. The LAST “…or a Citizen” probably died in the mid 1800s.

Since all 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen” citizens who were alive “… at the time of the adoption …” are now dead, a 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen” can NEVER again “occupy” the office of POTUS.

That’s obvious.

A 1787 “natural born Citizen”

In the case of a 1787 “natural born Citizen,” the immutable fact is that it was a PERPETUAL designation at that time AND for as long as a 1787 “natural born Citizen,” who was so designated “…at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…,” was alive, and it applied as well to their posterity into perpetuity. According to natural law, that means for as long into the future as children are born on U.S. soil to TWO (2) U.S. citizen parents.

In 1787, YES, definitely – parents MUST be married for the child to be considered a ‘natural born Citizen.’

Since all persons who were a 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5  “natural born Citizen” and alive “…at the time of the adoption…” are ALL dead now,  the last one having died in the 1800s, ONLY children from September 17, 1787 and forever into the future who are born on U.S. soil to TWO (2) U.S. citizen parents married to each other, citizens either by birth or by their naturalization, and who were U.S. citizens BEFORE the child is born, only that child can be a “natural born Citizen…eligible to the Office of President.”

~ ~ ~







OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com ©