Wednesday, February 4, 2015

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


Time to Change
the "natural born Citizen" Conversation
Time to Choose




CONTENTS


| Page 1 | | Page 2 | | Page 3 | | Page 4 |


  1. The 1787 U. S. Constitution Eligibility To Be President By Birth—Time (or)—Age—Residence—Soil
  2. Article II Section 1 Clause 5
  3. John Jay Note To George Washington With A "natural born Citizen" Hint
  4. John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 4 vols. [1893]
  5. U. S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Perpetual Union of “We the People—We The Posterity”
  6. The Conversation: Time to Change the "natural born Citizen" Conversation—Time to Choose
  7. Time to Change the "natural born Citizen" Conversation The Question is How to do It
  8. The 1787 U. S. Constitution: Article V
  9. Since the Time of the 1787 Constitutional "Union" of America A John Jay "natural born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing
  10. Emanation and Penumbra
  11. The Polynomial Math & Logic of ONLY 1
  12. Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance of Parents by Marriage and Continuity of Citizenship and Allegiance of Children by Birth Alone
  13. Grandfather Foreign Born Adopted Children Into Presidential Eligibility
  14. Original Genesis Original Intent ("can you pass the salt?")
  15. A Few Text Construction Terms and Phrases
  16. Who are John Jay Original Intent Birthers?
  17. Who are "MY GUY" / "MY GAL" neobirthers?
  18. John Jay's Letter to Benjamin Franklin About British Subject Mr. John Vaughan
  19. John Jay Got His Wish
  20. John Jay Letter to Del Campo about British Subject Mr. John Vaughan
  21. Who are Obama Birth Narrative Neobirthers?




ORIGINAL INTENT COMMON SENSE

Eligible to be U. S. A. President

Only U. S. Soil
Only U. S. Citizenship
Only Two U. S. Citizen Parents
~
After studying the Original Words of the
Constitution, the Original Birther Document of
United States Presidential Soil and Birth Eligibility
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
After analyzing
the original intent
of the original words
of the original birthers
of the original Framers of
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
After considering original intent
relevance to the authors of the words
natural born Citizen” & “or a Citizen”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I now understand that original genesis means
I am definitely not an Article II “or a Citizen of”
I am Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone
I am also Article II eligible to be President of America
I am only U. S. Soil Born to TWO U. S. Citizen Parents
||
WE the People of …”
1787 U. S. A. Constitution
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
Soil and Birth Requirements
Common Sense by America’s
Authors and Framers of the
Seminal & Perpetual words
natural born Citizen … ”
eligible to the Office
of President”

The Liberty Bell is ringing again—do you hear it?

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com©





ORIGINAL INTENT COMMON SENSE

Not Eligible to be U. S. A. President

Dual Citizenship
One U. S. Citizen Parent
One Foreign Citizen Parent
~
After studying the Original Words of the
Constitution, the Original Birther Document of
United States Presidential Soil and Birth Eligibility
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
After analyzing
the original intent
of the original words
of the original birthers
of the original Framers of
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
After considering original intent
relevance to the authors of the words
natural born Citizen” & “or a Citizen”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I now understand that original genesis means
I am definitely not an Article II “or a Citizen of”
I am not an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth
I am not Article II eligible to be President of the U. S. A.
I am also not U. S. Soil Born to TWO U. S. Citizen Parents
||
WE the People of…”
1787 U. S. A. Constitution
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
Soil and Birth Requirements
Common Sense by America’s
Authors and Framers of the
Seminal & Perpetual words
natural born Citizen … ”
eligible to the Office
of President”

The Liberty Bell is ringing again—do you hear it?

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com©




The 1787 U. S. Constitution Eligibility To Be President
By Birth—Time (or)—Age—Residence—Soil

Article II Section 1 Clause 5

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Part 1: Birth, Time
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Part 2: Age, Residence, Soil
neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and
been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Let's start this "natural born Citizen" conversation at the beginning—September 25, 1787, the date on the note that George Washington received from his friend John Jay.

After reading this conversation about John Jay's living originalist 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 what John Jay meant in his "natural born Citizen" phrase as he understood it in 1787, 228 232 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 Note To George Washington With A "natural born Citizen" Hint

John Jay, founder, New Your ratifier of the U. S. Constitution who knew what "devolve" and "natural born Citizen" meant ("nbC" = ONLY singular U. S. citizen, NOT dual U. S. and foreign citizenship) because he wrote the words, and first Supreme Court Chief Justice, underlined the word "born" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington who presided over the convention.

The word "born" is italicized here:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251

Original note here – zoom in to see the word "born" underlined:
https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_field=all_text_teim&q=july+25%2C+1787+note+to+washington


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 & 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—

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

On March 11, 2011, Attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote an essay on his Natural Born Citizen blog* with this title: 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

Here is part of the essay which mentions the note by John Jay to George Washington with the “hint” that the control of the military should only be allowed to “devolve” (be passed on by birth alone) on ONLY a "natural born Citizen", implying ONLY birth in the country to two U. S. citizen married parents, not implying “given” to a naturalized citizen.
"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."
____________________
* http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html


Part 1: Eligibility by Birth, Time

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of
the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

John Jay was the author on July 25, 1787 of the presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen” which he wrote with the word “born” underlined in his note to George Washington, the president of the constitutional convention. Jay's three word suggestion was accepted without public debate about the original genesis meaning of the word “born” since the convention delegates understood the common law of the 1700s to the 1900s about the unity of citizenship, continuity of citizenship, and unity of allegiance which is, by marriage, the U. S. citizenship of the husband determined the U. S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U. S. citizenship by marriage of BOTH parents determined the singular U. S. citizenship by birth of the “natural born” child “Citizen.” Almost two months later, September 17, 1787, the presidential eligibility phrase was included in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 when the entire U. S. Constitution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification.

It is obvious by the language itself that original birther John Jay had ONLY one, NOT two, ONLY one living originalism thought in mind, only one original genesis original intent thought in mind when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to his friend George Washington.

It is obvious that in 1787 Jay had in mind protecting the new federal government from friend or foe foreign influence over the military, and he thought that the best way to protect against foreign influence was to make sure that “...Command in chief of the american army...”, would “devolve” ONLY on a “citizen” who was a “natural born Citizen” with ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, NOT dual U. S. and foreign citizenship by being born in the U. S. or anywhere else on earth to a U. S. citizen parent and a foreign citizen parent, ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, which is possible ONLY by birth alone, ONLY birth on U. S. soil, ONLY birth to two U. S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other, ONLY BEFORE the birth of the new “citizen” child.

Thoughtful neobirthers who read the previous sentence may ask how we living originalists, the original genesis original intent birthers, how can any of us possibly “know” what John Jay had in mind, and that he had “ONLY singular U. S. citizenship” in mind in 1787?

Well, that’s a very good question that deserves a very good answer in the form of a question.

How do they, the neobirthers themselves, aka living constitutionalists, aka Obama birth narrative neobirthers, aka “MY GUY” / “MY GAL” neobirthers, or anybody in 2015 2019 America, how can they possibly “know” what Jay did OR did NOT have in mind in 1787?

How do living constitutionalism neobirthers themselves “know” that Jay had in mind NOT ONLY singular citizenship but ALSO dual citizenship? How do the neobirthers themselves “know” that Jay had in mind U. S. citizenship AND foreign citizenship?

That is why after analysis of the internal coherent language it is obvious that John Jay had ONLY singular U. S. citizenship in mind in 1787, and ONLY singular U. S. citizenship was to be perpetual singular, NOT perpetual dual U. S./foreign citizenship.

So, it seems that analysis of the language itself is the only way we can “know” what original birther John Jay meant when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”, and to “know” what the other original birthers, the framers, the delegates to the convention thought Jay meant when the new constitution was sent to the states for ratification.

It is obvious that Jay meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship and he did NOT mean dual U. S./foreign citizenship.

It is obvious that the framers of the entire constitution agreed with Jay's singular U. S. citizenship intent when the framers included “...or a Citizen of...” after the comma.

It is obvious that John Jay and the framers of the Constitution meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship when they included “...or a Citizen of...” after the comma, and they did NOT mean dual U. S./British citizenship or dual U. S./French citizenship or dual U. S./Canadian citizenship or dual U. S./Spanish citizenship or dual U. S./Mexican citizenship or dual U. S./whatever citizenship. The framers meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship which began, for all Britishsubjects” born in the thirteen British colonies, from the cutoff date of July 4, 1776, the day the war of independence began.

That is obvious, right?

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act* (INA: ACT SEC. 301. [8 U. S.C. 1401 (g)]**) specifically and explicitly identifies persons born on foreign soil to only one U. S. citizen definitely as ONLY a U. S. “citizen” and NOT a U. S. “natural born Citizen.”

The status of Senator Ted Cruz is that of a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen,” NOT a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was NOT born with singular U. S. citizenship by being born on U. S. soil to two U. S. citizen married parents. Sen. Cruz is also not a 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen of...” because the LAST 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen of...” died sometime in the 1800s.

Under SEC. 301. [8 U. S.C. 1401 (g)]*, an Act of Congress, a positive law, a person born on foreign soil to only one U. S. citizen married parent is by birth a positive law “citizen” and not by birth a natural law “natural born Citizen.”

The 1952 INA: ACT SEC. 301. [8 U. S.C. 1401 (g)]** positive law declaration of “citizen” is determined by the natural law birth to only one U. S. citizen on foreign soil. The 1952 INA: ACT (g) “citizen” language does not influence or affect the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” language which requires ONLY singular U. S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents.

____________________
* Immigration and Nationality Act
http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act

** INA: ACT – Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375


It is obvious that under natural law as the foundation of positive law, the natural law physical union of two persons is required for natural law conception, AND natural law birth before positive law singular U. S. citizenship can be derived ONLY by birth alone to two U. S. citizen married parents.

That is obvious, right?

It is also obvious that the FIRST natural law required is the natural law of soil BEFORE the SECOND natural law of birth can take place ON that soil—natural law soil precedes natural law birth on that natural law soil—and t positive law U. S. citizen parents precede natural law U. S. birth with singular U. S. citizenship that the “natural born” child derived from the two singular U. S. citizen parents.

That is obvious, right?

Is there any thing other than singular U. S. citizenship that in 1787 was (and still is in the 2000s) John Jay’s original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? Can the “living constitutionalismneobirthers articulate a coherent reason for the idea that dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship was ALSO, not ONLY, but ALSO Jay’s original genesis original intent for eligibility to be president?


Part 2: Eligibility by Age, Residence, Soil

neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and
been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

As Article II Section 1 clause 5 says, in addition to being a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president since the last “…or a Citizen of…” died sometime in the 1800s, eligibility is also to be recognized three more ways, by age, residence, and soil.

In 2019, 232 years after 1787, there are three still undisputed requirements: to be “eligible” to be president. A U. S. “natural born Citizen” must be at least 35 years of age to be eligible to be elected on day 1 of age 35, NOT waiting for day 365 of age 35, and must reside “within” the country for 14 years total residence, NOT 14 years continuous residence.

For those who may say that it is not clear what the word “beenimplies, or what the “original intent” of “beenis, here are eight thought questions.

Q – Could / Doesbeenimply residence within” the country is possible for all 35 years before being eligible to be elected president on day 1 of age 35?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Q – Could / Doesbeenimply ONLY residence within” the country from birth until day 1 of age 35 before being eligible to be elected president?

[ ] Yes [x] No

Residence “within” the country from age 1 day old until day 1 of age 35 automatically results in the required 14 years of residence on the U. S. soil of birth ending on day 1 of age 35.

However, there’s a liberty issue to consider.

Residence from age 1 day old until day 1 of age 35 does not allow for residence outside of the country while pursuing higher education in another country for one or two or more years. That is what Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch did at age 25 when went to study at Oxford University in England (1992-93). Later, in 2004 when he was 37, he received his PhD in legal philosophy from Oxford.

Q – Could / Doesbeenimply residence for the first year, from age 1 day old until day 365 of age 1 year old (all 365 days until the day before age 2), then, as an example, living outside of the country for 20 years until day 365 of age 21, then, to continue the example, returning to the U. S. for 14 years of continuous residence from day 1 of age 22 until day 1 of age 35 before being eligible to be elected president?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Q – Could / Doesbeenimply possible residence for the first 14 years, from age 1 day old until day 365 of age 14 years old (all 365 days until the day before age 15) and this would satisfy the requirement of 14 years residence “within” the country and being eligible to be elected president?

[x] Yes AND [x] No

Yes:Residence “within” the country for the first 14 years, from age 1 day old to day 365 of age 14 automatically satisfies the 14 years of residence on the U. S. soil of birth before day 1 of age 35.

No:However, seriously, it is obvious common sense that the first 14 years of development from infant to teenager would NOT have satisfied the 1787 original genesis original intent of having a mature understanding that allegiance and loyalty to family and country and allegiance to the purpose of the war of independence is inherent in the requirement of 14 years residence “within” the country for eligibility to be president.

Q – Could / Does “beenimply ONLY 14 continuous years residencewithin” the country starting on day one of age 22 and ending on day one of age 35?

[ ] Yes [x] No

Q – Could / Does “beenimply 14 continuous years residence is possiblewithin” the country starting on day one of age 22 and ending on day one of age 35?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Q – Could / Does “beenimply 14 continuous years residence within” the country for any amount of time before reaching age 35? For example, 14 years from day one of age 20 to day one of age 34?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Q – Could / Does “beenimply a total of any 14 years residence before reaching age 35?

[x] Yes [ ] No

For example, residing in the country from birth for 7 years, from age 1 day old until day 365 of age 7 (all 7 years until the day before age 8), then residing outside the country for 10 years until day 1 of age 18, and then residence again “within” the country from day 1 of age 18 until day 1 of age 35. From birth a person would have 7 consecutive years of residence “within” the country, plus 18 more years of consecutive residence “within” the country for the last 18 years until day 1 of age 35, for a total of 25 years residence “within the country.

That is clear and easy to understand.

The lack of clarity about 14 years of residence “within” the country can be fixed with an Article V convention of both houses of Congress or a convention of the “several states” to propose an amendment.


John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 4 vols. [1893]

LibertyFund.org* is an excellent source for papers by American founders and other historic figures.
____________________
* http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2327

Editor: Henry P. Johnston

Author: John Jay

The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 1 (1763-1781)

The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 2 (1781-1782)

The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 3 (1782-1793)

The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 4 (1794-1826)


U. S. Constitution:
The Original Birther Document of the Perpetual Union of
We the People—We The Posterity”

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

A Conversation about the Original Genesis 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 constitutionism, constitutional construction, etc. 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 that lawyers and professors use to explain how to construct ("construe") a law document like the U. S. Constitution, or a clause in Article II Section 1 clause 5, or a clause in a statute of Congress or a clause in a business contract. To "construct" a text or a single word in a text is another way of saying to "construe" or "interpret" or "explain" the "meaning" of the "sense" of a text.

John Jay’s original intent is all we will be talking about here. The only constructn' goin' on aroun’ here will be to discover by inference what the ONLY one (1) original genesis and ONLY one (1) original intent was 228 232 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 “hint” about “born”.

____________________
* The "perpetual Union" was clarified by President Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861.
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com – http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html


The Conversation
Time to Change the "natural born Citizen" Conversation
Time to Choose

This conversation is about John Jay and his “natural born Citizen” phrase as he understood it in 1787 in the 18th century. If YOU wrote a "natural born Citizen" suggestion in a note to your friend George Washington, what would YOU have meant by underlining the word "born" in “natural born Citizen”, ONLY singular U. S. citizenship OR dual U. S. and foreign citizenship?

# 1)Living Originalism
Would YOU have meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, ONLY by birth alone, ONLY birth on U. S. soil, ONLY two U. S. citizens parents, ONLY married to each other ONLY before the child is born?

# 2)Living Constitutionalism
Would YOU have meant EITHER singular U. S. citizenship OR dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship, EITHER birth on U. S. soil OR birth on foreign soil, EITHER one OR zero U. S. citizen parents, EITHER married OR NOT married to each other, EITHER married before OR after the child is born?

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 above of "natural born Citizen" would YOU want your state legislature to propose and ratify?

Would YOU want #1 above, the original genesis original intent meaning of John Jay in 1787 in the 18th century, or would YOU want #2 above, the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neobirther new meaning of 2015 2019 in the 21st century?

Which meaning of "natural born Citizen" would YOU want for future U. S. presidents and for YOUR natural born children and natural born grandchildren?

Which meaning would you NOT want for future U. S. presidents?

# 1) Concerning eligibility to be president, 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 ONLY married 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) Concerning eligibility to be president, would YOU want an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an amendment to say that the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" means including other possibilities, and that "natural born" means EITHER birth on U. S. soil OR foreign soil, birth to EITHER 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 one OR zero U. S. citizen parents married OR NOT married to each other before OR after their child is born determines dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship of their child and the EITHER singular OR dual citizenship qualifies a person to be “...eligible to the Office of President” of the United States?

Which meaning of "natural born Citizen" makes perpetual common sense to YOU? The “living constitutionalism” of the neobirther new meaning from 2008 to 2015 2019, or the “living originalism” of John Jay’s original genesis original intent meaning from 1787 to 2015 2019?

It’s time to choose.


Time to Change the "natural born Citizen" Conversation
The Question is How to do It

On December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, I posted a comment with that title on Mario Apuzzo's blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16

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 2019 to stop the confusion surrounding the "living originalism" and original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen."

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 president such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov Nikki Haley and Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Absolutely nobody in the American media, print, radio, tv, 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 now is to consider Article V of the Constitution that authorizes the 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 neobirthers, the Obama birth narrative neobirthers, and what I call the "MY GUY" / "MY GAL" neobirthers.


The 1787 U. S. Constitution: Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of
the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the
Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that
no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight
shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Part 1
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall
deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this
Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures
of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention
for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall
be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three
fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Part 2
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the
Year One thousand eight hundred and eight [1808] shall in any
Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section
of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall
be deprived of its’ equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Since the Time of the 1787 Constitutional "Union" of America
A John Jay "natural born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing

The higher hurdle of “living originalism and original birther John Jay’s clear and coherent “natural born Citizen” original genesis original intent IS simple.

ONLY singular U. S. citizenship which is possible
ONLY by birth alone
ONLY on U. S. soil

ONLY two U. S. citizen parents
ONLY married to each other
ONLY before a child is born

The lower hurdle of “living constitutionalism” neo-birthers and their confusing and incoherent “natural born Citizen” new meaning IS NOT simple.

EITHER singular U. S. citizenship
OR dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship

EITHER birth on U. S. soil
OR birth on foreign soil

EITHER two U. S. citizen parents
OR one U. S. citizen parent
OR zero U. S. citizen parents

EITHER married to each other
OR NOT married to each other

EITHER married BEFORE their child is born
OR married AFTER their child is born


Emanation and Penumbra

In this table talk conversation original birther and neobirther” and related words are used constantly because they work and are not demeaning to people or their ideas. Also used are originalismand living originalismto represent original birther John Jay’s original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” as implying ONLY singular U. S. citizenship for eligibility to be president, andconstitutionalismand living constitutionalismto represent the neobirther new meaning of “born” implying ALSO dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship for eligibility to be president.

1) Neobirther and new meaning neobirther are simply descriptive of living constitutionalism– “living constitutionalist – “living constitution”, phrases that express changing by Supreme Court fiat of the original meaning of the original words of the Constitution according to the implicit penumbra and emanations that a Supreme Court Justice may need to justify a novel opinion, for example, such as a “rightof a human being to kill a nascent human being in the womb of a female of the human species while in the beginning or final stages of coming into being.

2) Birther, original birther, original genesis birther, original intent birther, are descriptive of “living originalism– “living originalist – “living original genesis –“living original intentliving originalist birther are phrases that express keeping the original meaning of the original written words of the Constitution, similar to the written words of a business contract, until the original intent of a section of the Constitution is changed by the amendment process, not by an unelected Supreme Court Justice who may find by inferred serendipity helpful implicit “penumbra and emanations.

Emanation:
An abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.

Vocabulary.com
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/penumbra

Penumbra:
When you measure your shadow to calculate the angle of the sun in the sky, be sure to measure to the edges of your shadow, to the penumbra, the part of a shadow that is not as dark as the center.

You're likely to come across penumbra most often in astronomy, as with an eclipse, where shadow is a defining feature.

In a lunar eclipse, the edge of the earth's shadow — the part that isn't fully dark — is its penumbra.

Sun spots also have a penumbra, the outer edge that's not quite as dark as the center.

The word comes from the Latin root umbra, which means "shadow."

The pen part means "almost," so a penumbra is "almost shadow."

Definitions of penumbra
n. a fringe region of partial shadow around an umbra


Wikipedia.org
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

Penumbra:
Umbra, penumbra, and antumbra [can be seen when they are] formed through windows and shutters. Jurists have used the term "penumbra" as a metaphor for rights implied in the constitution.[1]

In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2]

These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea[s]" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3]

Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.[4]

[...snip...]

Commentators disagree about the precise origin of the use of the term penumbra in American legal scholarship, but most believe it was first used in the late nineteenth century.[5]

Burr Henly, for example, traces the first use of the word to an 1873 law review article written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, in which he argued that it is better for new law to grow "in the penumbra between darkness and light, than to remain in uncertainty".[6]

Luis Sirico and Henry T. Greely, on the other hand, trace the term to Justice Stephen Johnson Field's 1871 circuit court opinion in Montgomery v. Bevans, where Justice Field used the term to describe a period of time in which it was uncertain whether an individual could legally be considered deceased.[7]

Other commentators, including Glenn H. Reynolds and Brannon P. Denning, note that elements of penumbral reasoning can be found in much older cases that precede the first use of the term penumbra; they trace the origins of penumbral reasoning to United States Supreme Court cases from the early nineteenth century.[8]

For example, Reynolds and Denning describe Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland as "the quintessential example of penumbral reasoning".[9]

[...snip...]

Helen Hershkoff has described penumbral reasoning as "an important feature of American constitutional practice in cases involving individual rights and government power",[36] and J. Christopher Rideout notes that many scholars have defended the "conceptual integrity" of penumbral reasoning.[37]

Likewise, Burr Henly has described the penumbra as "the most important" metaphor in American constitutional jurisprudence.[38]

Other scholars, including Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and historian David J. Garrow, also note that Justice Douglas' identification of the right to privacy in Griswold ultimately served as a doctrinal stepping-stone to Roe v. Wade, where the United States Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy protects the right to terminate a pregnancy.[39]

Glenn H. Reynolds has also observed that courts routinely engage in penumbral reasoning, regardless of their location on the political spectrum.[40]

However, former Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski and UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh note that the use of penumbral reasoning by courts "cuts both ways" because it can be used to both expand individual liberties and to expand the powers of the government at the expense of individual liberty.[41]

Richard E. Levy also argued that penumbral reasoning, fundamental rights analyses, and political-process theory can justify judicial intervention on behalf of individual liberty as well as judicial intervention to advance economic interests.[42]

Despite the "pivotal" role that penumbral reasoning has played in American constitutional jurisprudence, the Supreme Court's use of penumbral reasoning has also generated controversy.[43]

District of Columbia Circuit Judge Robert Bork, for example, was a particularly vocal critic of Supreme Court rulings that identified rights that are not explicitly enumerated in the text of the constitution.[44]

Likewise, in his dissenting opinion in Griswold, Justice Hugo Black stated his concerns with finding a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution and that he disagreed with the majority's attempts to "stretch" the Bill of Rights.[45]

Additionally, Louis J. Sirico Jr. has described the term as "intellectually confusing",[46] and William J. Watkins, Jr. wrote that the penumbra of the constitution is "a seemingly strange place to discover constitutional guarantees".[47]

Robert J. Pushaw Jr. also described penumbral reasoning as a "transparently fictional" process,[48] and Jennifer Fahnestock has cautioned that "implicit constitutional rights" are vulnerable to being lost "due to their lack of permanency".[49]”


The Polynomial Math & Logic of ONLY 1

"The Polynomial Math & Logic of ONLY 1" deals with "natural born Citizen" and what it means to neobirthers who assert with definite certainty that “natural born Citizen” includes singular U. S. citizenship OR dual U. S. and foreign citizenship, and also that ONLY one U. S. citizen parent is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be president, whether born on either U. S. soil, as were Nikki Haley, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Sen. Marco Rubio, or born on foreign soil as was Sen. Ted Cruz.

The "natural born Citizen" “living constitution” new meaning neobirthers who assert that ONLY one U. S. citizen parent is good 'nuf to be eligible to be president sometimes express thoughts like this:

_ The word natural in front of born has no codified meaning in US Law.
_ No one has standing in a federal court to dispute someone's eligibility because natural born Citizen has not been defined and the definition has not been codified.
_ It's the way the law works, if a person is a citizen by and at birth, then they will be able to get on the ballot.
_ A natural born Citizen is one that does not have to be naturalized to be a citizen. Why is that so difficult to understand?

I am not a mathematician, Ph.D. or otherwise, so below is a quote about the math logic of “1”, ONLY one. "Algebra: The x and y of Everyday Math" is a quick read about the history and basics of algebra (Barnes & Noble, author Michael Willers – 176 pages). On page 32 in the chapter titled "The Power of Polynomials" is an easy to understand definition that busy moms and dads and students who are not mathematicians can understand, and which can be applied to "natural born Citizen" as meaning only 1: ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation.


What Is a Polynomial?

First let's introduce some terminology: a polynomial is a collection of terms. In elementary mathematics a "term" is a collection of variables raised to exponents and multiplied by a coefficient. An example of a term is 3x2 where 3 is the coefficient, x is the variable, and 2 is the exponent. Another example of a term would be 5xy3; where 5 is the coefficient, x and y are the variables, and 1 and 3 are the exponents. Note that although there is no exponent on the x it's implied that there is a 1 there.”

The polynomial quote above has nothing to do with "natural born Citizen" and how or why "natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of "citizen” or “born citizen," but it is math logic support for the Minor v. Happersett Court's "nomenclature"* statement which implies that the unanimous Court understood that "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 had ONLY one meaning, which is John Jay's original meaning of ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation.

____________________
* Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. 162, 167-68 (1875)

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction
without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts,
but never as to the first.

[“first” = children born on U. S. soil to U. S. citizen parents, plural]

For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children,
born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

The math significance question is, why does the “x” in the second example, 5xy3, NOT have a (1) exponent? The math answer in the Algebra book is that it is not needed. As the author of the text says, “Note that although there is no exponent on the x it's implied that there is a 1 there”. The (1) is implied. So, the two (2) and three (3) exponents are written and explicit, but the number one (1) exponent is implicit. More than one must be explicit and ONLY number one (1) is "implied."

In underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”, ONLY one citizenship was implied by John Jay as being necessary to be eligible to be president, as in ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation. For that simple math reason the word “born” did not need to be debated by the constitutional convention delegates. If John Jay had been implying ONLY two or even ALSO two, the number two would have to have been explicitly stated, as in ALSO dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship of two nations OR three nations.

For example, consider governors. Bobby Jindal (Louisiana) and Nikki Haley (N. Carolina), and federal senators Marco Rubio (Florida), Ted Cruz (Texas), and now in 2019, Kamala Harris (California).

Governors Jindal and Haley, whose parents were citizens of India, and Sen. Rubio, whose parents were citizens of Cuba, represent the “two nations” by being born on U. S. soil to two married parents who were not U. S. citizens and both parents were citizens of one nation.

Senator Cruz, whose parents were citizens of the U. S. and Cuba, and Senator Harris, whose parents were citizens of India and Jamaica, represent the “three nations”; Sen. Cruz by being born in Canada which, under U. S. immigration and naturalization rules, is considered foreign soil that is not under U. S. jurisdiction, and by being born to two married parents with different citizenships, his mother was a U. S. citizen and his father was a citizen of Cuba, and Sen. Harris by being born in the U. S. to two married parents with different citizenships, her mother was a citizen of India and her father was a citizen of Jamaica.

Applied to original birther John Jay and hisliving originalismmindset, his perpetual original genesis original intent mindset, there is the issue, no pun intended, of why "natural born Citizen" “living originalismbirthers insist that the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a wife by marriage (naturalization by marriage) in 1787 America to a U. S. citizen male husband implies that, to Jay, a "natural born Citizen" meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation possible ONLY by birth alone ONLY on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents ONLY married to each other ONLY before the birth of a child.

What the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court tacitly implied with the “nomenclature” language is that “natural born Citizen” implies ONLY singular U. S. citizenship.

Neobirthers ask how “living originalismoriginal birthersknow” what Jay meant?

Well, that’s a good question, but the burden of proof is on “living constitutionalismneobirthers.

The issue, no pun intended again, requires that a few obvious questions be asked of and answered by 2015 2019 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote “living constitutionalism”.

How do neobirthersknow” what they know, and that they “know” what Jay implied?

How do “living constitutionalismneobirthersknow” what Jay meant when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”?

How do neobirthersknow” that Jay did NOT mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?

How do neobirthersknow” that Jay meant dual U. S. citizenship AND ALSO foreign citizenship for eligibility to be president when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”?

How do neobirthers get “dual” citizenship from the context of “natural born Citizen”, followed, after the comma, with “...or a Citizen of…”?

"No Person except a natural born Citizen,
or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of ….”


Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance of Parents by Marriage and
Continuity of Citizenship and Allegiance of Children by Birth Alone

Here is a quick look at the background about the unity of citizenship and allegiance implicit in John Jay's underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" as understood by the delegates to the 1787 convention according to the original public meaning of the common law of the 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 birth on U. S. soil to two U. S. citizen married parents.

How do neobirthers get “dual” citizenship from history, including the history of Emer de Vattel and John Jay who indicated that he agreed with Vattel by underling the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”?

How do neobirthers get “dual” citizenship from the “common law” of the 1787 era (until the 1922 Cable Act changed naturalization) concerning “unity of citizenship” by marriage (essentially naturalization by marriage) of a U. S. citizen male and a female with foreign citizenship, followed by the “continuity of citizenship” of a child with the same citizenship of the parents which is made possible by the “natural law” of “born” which is foundational to “positive law” “citizenship”?

A child with the “continuity of citizenship” is born with singular U. S. citizenship made possible ONLY by birth alone Only to two U. S. citizen married parents?

How do neobirthers get “dual” citizenship from “natural born Citizen” and the “continuity of citizenship” that a child derives by birth to two U. S. citizen legally married parents?

Why do neobirthers insist that "natural born Citizen" was not defined by the 1787 delegates to the constitutional convention?

Why are neobirthers absolutely sure that a “natural born Citizen” can have singular U. S. citizenship and ALSO have dual U. S. and foreign citizenship, citizenship of two or three nations by being born on either U. S. soil to either one OR zero U. S. citizen parents, or born on foreign soil to either one OR two U. S. citizen parents?

Whatever the answers to “how” or “why” may be, Democrat “living constitutionalism” “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers supported Pres. Obama, and Republican “living constitutionalism” new meaning neobirthers supported Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, and will probably support any Republican dual citizenship candidate who may down an escalator in imitation of President Trump who is a “natural born Citizen” with ONLY singular U. S. citizenship.

Q – Where is the factual record, historical and/or anecdotal, that in 1787 America, when "natural born Citizen" was added to the Constitution, that the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a wife by marriage to a U. S. citizen husband implied dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship for the child, such as U. S./English citizenship?

A – There is no record of public debate that the “unity of citizenship and allegiance” implies dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship.


Q – Why is there no written record of Congress, or even anecdotal public discussion at the time, of George Washington asking Jay what he meant by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington, and if he meant dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship for the child, such as U. S./English citizenship?

A – Washington understood that Jay meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship.


Q – Why is there no federal, official written record or anecdotal reports of Washington NOT asking Jay if he meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship or BOTH dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship such as U. S./English citizenship?

A – Washington did NOT ask Jay what he meant because he understood what Jay meant and he agreed with Jay.


Q – Why is there no record of the convention delegates debating the purpose of uniting "natural born" and "Citizen," and if it meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship or ALSO dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship, such as U. S./English citizenship?

A – The convention delegates agreed with the implicit meaning of uniting “natural” and “born” and “Citizen”.


Q – Was it understood by EVERYONE in 1787 that "nbC" meant ONLY singular U. S. citizenship?

A – Yes.


Q – Was it understood by EVERYONE in 1787 that "nbC" meant ONLY dual U. S./foreign citizenship?

A – No.


Q – Was it understood by EVERYONE in 1787 that "nbC" meant BOTH dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship?

A – No
 

BOTH dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship would have been schizophrenic, incongruous, incoherent in 1787 America only four years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which ended 7 years of war for independence from Great Britain.

Well, since dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship was NOT the common public meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America, and by using the polynomial simple math logic of thex” without the 1 exponent implies one and ONLY one, then, NOT dual citizenship, but ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation MUST have been the common law understanding in 1787 America.

The obvious response to those who ask how do original birthers, living originalists, “know” that “...ONLY singular citizenship … ONLY one nation MUST have been the common law ...” the “common public meaning”, of “natural born Citizen” is how do neobirthers, living constitutionalists, “know” that “...ONLY singularONLY one...” was NOT the common law understanding in 1787?

For that simple math logic reason, public discussion BEFORE ratification and a public explanation of the meaning of "nbC" was not needed, obviously. Using the logic of math that the “x” in the term xy 3 means that the (1) exponent is implied, it is logical to conclude that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship by being born to two U. S. citizen parents was "implied" in the word "born".

Not only did Washington implicitly understand that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation was Jay's original meaning and original intent, and the convention delegates implicitly understood that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship was the original meaning, but the states' ratifiers, including “natural born Citizen” author and New York ratifier John Jay, ALSO implicitly understood that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship was the original intent meaning. If John Jay had the original intent meaning of dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship (U. S./English for example) he would have explicitly said so, and there definitely would have been debate and a written record would exist.

Right?

Other than the diamond glistening in the math weeds, so to speak, that I found in the algebra book, that thex” in the term xy 3 means that the (1) exponent is implied, what do I know? I'm not a mathematician, Ph.D. or otherwise. However, there are two things I DO know by applying the logic of the math that the (1) exponent is implied:

(1) ONLY one U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation was implied by John Jay when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen,” and THAT is why the meaning of “nbC” was NOT discussed before debate, during debate and after debate by the convention delegates, or by the states' ratifiers, one of whom was John Jay from New York.

(2) If, “IF”, dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship, for example U. S./English citizenship, was implied by John Jay when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen,” there most definitely would have been heated debate in 1787 just as there is today, from 2008-2015 2019, and there definitely would be a Congressional record of the debate by the convention delegates about why ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation by ONLY being born on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents would have won the day, and that ONLY one would have won the day according to the common public meaning of the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage, meaning that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of husbands determined the citizenship of the wife, AND that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined singular U. S. citizenship of the child, a “natural born Citizen” child, the ONLY one proper subset of “citizen/born citizen” eligible to be president.

The concomitant and serendipitous logical conclusion discovered in the polynomial math paragraph defining a “term” is that it could NOT have been the original intent, the living originalism, of John Jay to propose “dual” citizenship, U. S. citizenship AND foreign citizenship, because by the math logic of ONLY one, the union of two U. S. citizen parents who had ONLY singular U. S. citizenship can produce ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation. If the original genesis of the child was by the union of two persons who were NOT married to each other and the father WAS a U. S. citizen, then the child would be a “citizen” NOT eligible to be president, NOT a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president, because it takes two U. S. citizen married parents to pass on their singular U. S. citizenship to a singular U. S. citizenship child.

That's my “hey, what do I know, I'm not a mathematician, Ph.D. or otherwise” math logic conclusion derived from the “x” without an exponent in the term xy3, which means that the number (1) exponent is implied—ONLY one (1) , and why original birther John Jay would ONLY imply ONLY singular U. S. citizenship in the word “born” in “natural born Citizen.”

The math logic of ONLY (1) and ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation is applicable retroactively to the Taney Court Dred Scott v. Sanford decision in 1857 which was corrected by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “born...naturalized” language, and also applicable to the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment, the 1873 Slaughterhouse Case, the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case, the 1898 U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision.

Finally, ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth alone ONLY on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents is the ONLY “x” math logic reason why the 1898 U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision MUST be overturned. It was wrong, as wrong as the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that a negro slave from a slave state could not claim his freedom by staying in a free state.

The 1898 Supreme Court simply “declared” that the “born” and.”citizen” language of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that Wong Kim Ark, a male child born in the 1800s on U. S. soil to foreign born parents who had zero U. S. citizenship was a “citizen” at birth. Since 1898 “living constitutionalists” have said that being “declaredto be a “citizenat birth by a Supreme Court “opinioneven though BOTH parents were NOT U. S. citizens means that, since 1898, ALL “anchor babies” have eligibility to vote. Because born” in the Fourteenth Amendment eventually became construed as ALSO allowing eligibility vote FOR a president OR to BE a president, the 1898 Supreme Court “opinion” MUST be overturned by the current Supreme Court or constitutionally corrected with an Article V amendment. Either the bicameral Congress OR a convention of states.

With an Article V convention of states the legislatures and the people of the states have constitutional stand and so would get a say to clarify that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “born” and.”citizen” language did NOT have a “living constitutionalism” meaning allowing dual citizenship, but it did have ONLY a “living originalism” meaning, the original intent meaning of ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, specifically the first six words in the first sentence of Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in...,” and specifically “born a citizen and “naturalized a citizen.

If the six words of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment “implied” ANYTHING in 1868, they implied ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, NOT dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship.

The idea of “dual...and” would have been an incoherent and absurd idea.

The historical fact that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment free male and female Negro “citizens” did not have the right to vote until the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment gave the right to vote to the free Negro male “citizens” only, and the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment free Negro women “citizens” did not have the right to vote until the 1920 Nineteenth Amendment gave the right to vote to ALL U. S. “citizen” women of ALL races, means that the “living originalism” and the original intent of John Bingham, the main author of the first sentence of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, was NOT that “born” in 1868 meant for the 1868 free Negroes singular U. S. citizenship with eligibility to vote OR to be president. Also, “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment obviously and definitely did NOT imply for the Fourteenth Amendment free Negro males or females dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship with eligibility to vote OR eligibility to be president.

THAT “implication” of “dual...and” would definitely have been incoherent AND absurd.

The dual U. S./foreign citizenship proposition is as absurd and incoherent today in 2015 2019 as it would have been in 1868 if John Bingham had that as his original intent and tried to defend it to the framers debating passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. If John Bingham had intended a “dual” meaning, “dual” definitely would have been debated before the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the states July 9, 1868. The historical fact that there is absolutely NO private or public record of debate about singular U. S. citizenship v. dual U. S. citizenship by the 1868 framers of the Fourteenth Amendment is confirmation that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship was John Bingham's “living originalismoriginal intent implication for the word “born” just as ONLY singular U. S. citizenship was John Jay's “living originalism” and “original genesis original intent” implication for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington.

The obvious conclusion is that ONLY singular U. S. citizenship was the understanding of both the 1787 framers of the U. S. Constitution and the states that ratified the Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” language.

The word “naturalized” in the Fourteenth Amendment is a proper subset of “citizen of the United States,” and the words “natural” and “born” and “Citizen” in Article II section 1 clause 5 ALSO make the three-word unit “natural born Citizen” a proper subset of “citizen of the United States” as identified in the Fourteenth Amendment, not as identified in the “...or a Citizen of the United States...” clause of Article II, which means that “natural born Citizen” status can be derived ONLY by singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth alone ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents under Article II and under the Fourteenth Amendment. That is why “natural born Citizen” is the ONLY proper subset of “citizen/born citizen” that is eligible to be president. That is why all other “born...citizens of the United States...” who are born on U. S. soil to ONLY one OR zero U. S. citizen parents are NOT eligible to be president.

Both words in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “...born or naturalized...” (“born” = “citizen” by birth alone; “naturalized” = “citizen” by oath alone), in the Fourteenth Amendment mean ONLY singular U. S. citizenship. Although “naturalized” does mean NEVER having eligibility to be president, “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment can mean both eligible OR not eligible to be president. The positive law word “naturalized” in 1868 (and until today in 2015 2019) still does mean ONLY singular U. S. citizenship and NOT eligible to be president, and the positive law word “born” (about a natural law activity “birth”) in 1868 (and until today in 2015 2019) still does mean ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, but “born” can be applied two ways, eligible to be president if “born” with ONLY singular U. S. citizenship, and NOT eligible to be president if “born” with dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship.

It is obvious that, according to “living originalism”, both words, “...born or naturalized...”, were originally intended to have perpetual application.

John Bingham's original intent for the word “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the original intent of the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II section 1 clause 5 that was inspired by John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington that was incorporated into Article II. It is obvious that the word “born” in both the original 1787 Article 2 section 1 clause 5 and the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment implies that if the child is born on U. S. soil to two U. S. citizen married parents, their child is a “natural born Citizen” and IS eligible to be president.

Now. consider this concomitant implication: if a child was born on U. S. soil from 1787 to 1868 to one OR zero U. S. citizen parents, the child was NOT a “natural born Citizen” and NOT eligible to be president, and from 1787 to 1868 and until today in 2015 2019, a child born to one OR zero U. S. citizen parents is STILL NOT a “natural born Citizen” and STILL NOT eligible to be president.

ONLY a “natural born Citizen” has ONLY singular U. S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth alone to two U. S. citizen married parents.

ONLY a “natural born Citizen” is the ONLY “proper subset” of “citizen/born citizen” eligible to be president.


Grandfather Foreign Born Adopted Children
Into Presidential Eligibility

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 "natural born Citizen" phrase into Article II. However, after citing the history of the uncertainty of John Jay's original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen", Yinger promotes grandfathering foreign born adopted children into presidential eligibility with an amendment to the Constitution. See his 2000 article with 62 footnotes.*

____________________
* http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm
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?


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” and “born," and the original genesis original intent is understood by implicature. Here is an easy to understand definition of the implicature" of "can you pass the salt?" from 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.

In "can...pass...salt", there is ONLY one implicature although "pass" can be inferred two ways, a literal meaning of "can you" and the intended meaning of "will you". There is ONLY one implicature, NOT two implicatures; NOT can AND will, but ONLY will. The understood implicature has ONLY one meaning that the person who is asking for the salt to be passed expects to be understood by the salt passer—will you.

In can there are two meanings, the literal meaning and the ONLY implicature, the ONLY implied original intent meaning.

In "born" as underlined in "natural born Citizen" by John Jay, both the literal meaning and the implicature are the same, and both refer to ONLY singular U. S. citizenship. In “natural born Citizen” the one literal meaning and the one implicature can be expressed this way; the natural law literal meaning and the natural law implicature also have a positive law aspect. The natural law words naturalandborn are united with the positive law wordCitizento convey ONLY one idea, to give “legal” credence to the word “eligible” in “...eligible to the Office of President”. The common law that informed the positive law in 1787 America was that singular U.S. citizenship was ONLY possible by the marriage of one U.S. citizen heterosexaul male “legally” married to only one U.S. citizen heterosexual female. For that 1787 legal” marriage reason, dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship was NOT possible in 1787 America and is still NOT possible in 2000s America. Why doeslegal credenceby “legal” marriage apply to only two U. S. citizen parents and ONLY singular U. S. citizenship? Well, because singular U. S. citizenship by birth alone can NOT result in dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship.

To “living constitutionalism” neobirthers it looks like two contradictory meanings of "natural born Citizen" may be possible by implicature, singular U. S. citizenship and dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship. However, “living originalism”, expressed as the original genesis original intent of the original words, can have ONLY one understood implicature, NOT two, and ONLY that one implicature is to be inferred, not two. The words "natural born Citizen" can have ONLY one meaning, not two OR more. Since "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean ONLY singular U. S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born, "natural born Citizen" can NOT mean ALSO birth 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 automatically passed to their "natural born Citizen" child.

By implicature, if the parents had different citizenships, one U. S. and one foreign, and the child was born on U. S. soil BEFORE, for example, the marriage of the U. S. citizen husband conferred on the foreign born wife the U. S. citizenship of the husband, the child would also have two different citizenships. Also 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. The constitutional convention delegates probably, no, definitely!!! would NOT have adopted without public debate and then sent to the states for ratification, also without public debate, "natural born Citizen" with the implicature of dual citizenship.

Both dual and NO public debate would definitely have been incoherent AND absurd.

It is obvious that the proactive point of John Jay’s “living originalism”, his original genesis original intent, was that “natural born Citizen,” specifically the underlined wordborn”, was a 1787 common law understanding with the implicature that it was ONLY to be perpetual, from generation to generation, election to election, president to president, and the implicature was associated with natural law of birth, NOT associated with positive law of naturalization, and, for our purpose here, specifically the first two naturalization acts of Congress, the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts, and, followed 73 years later, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.

It is obvious that “natural born Citizen”, by common law extrapolation in 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 of ONLY singular citizenship and ONLY birth on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents.

It is obvious that Jay did NOT intend to imply birth ALSO on foreign soil to foreign 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 to two OR one OR zero U. S. citizen parents..

There it is, right there.

The higher hurdle essence of “living originalism” and original birther John Jay’s clear and coherent original genesis original intent is simple:—ONLY singular U. S. citizenship—ONLY by birth alone—ONLY on U. S. soil—ONLY two U. S. citizen parents—ONLY married to each other—ONLY before a child is born.

The lower hurdle essence of “living constitutionalism” neo-birthers’ confusing and incoherent new meaning is NOT simple:—EITHER singular U. S. citizenship OR dual U. S. citizenship and foreign citizenship—birth on U. S. soil OR foreign soil—two OR one OR zero U. S. citizen parents—married OR NOT married to each other BEFORE their child is born.

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-presidential-eligibility neobirthers need to do to refute the implications of thehigher hurdle essence” and “lower hurdle essence” in 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?



A Few Text Construction Terms and Phrases

_formalism
_textualism
_formalist
_new-formalist
_original meaning originalist
_strict construction
_judicial activism
_literal interpretations
_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
_original expected application
_original intentions originalism
_original meaning originalism
_framer's meaning
_ratifier's meaning
_objective original meaning
_subjective original intent
_adopter's intentions
_ratifier's intentions
_antisubordination principle
_equal citizenship principle
_constitutional principle
_original public meaning and original expected applications
_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
_constitutional construction
_living originalism
_living originalist
_living constitutionalism
_living constitutionalist
_living constitution
_living constitution by judicial opinion
_living constitution by amendment process
_original genesis
_original intent


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 and the framers who accepted the three word phrase adopted it without a public recorded dissenting voice about its common law meaning. After the Constitution was adopted the framers sent it on to the states for ratification where it was 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 singular U. S. 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, say the 21st century neobirthers, 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 neobirthers mean?

Are some of them confusing because they are simply confused, or are they, and this may apply only to the Obama birth narrative neobirthers, 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-presidential-eligibility-PERIOD".


Who are "MY GUY" / "MY GAL" neobirthers?

The "MY GUY" / "MY GAL" neobirthers 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 president.

Was John Jay confused? Did he intend for "natural born Citizen" to be understood to have ONLY one singular original intent or ALSO to 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 in 1787 and still is today, almost 227 232 years later as of December 2014 November 2019, 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 (ONLY birth 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 obviously incoherent and absurd.

Right?

There can be ONLY one original intent.

Right?

It is obvious that "natural born Citizen" can mean ONLY singular U. S. citizenship—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.

Right?

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

Right?

Jay was obviously NOT saying that THEIR dual citizenship children would be eligible to be U. S. presidnet simply because their child was born on OUR U. S. soil.

Right?

What John 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 U. S. citizens, ONLY married to each other who birthed their children on U. S. soil would produce U. S. "natural born" children, 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?

In 1787 America, as in England and other countries in Europe, the common law understanding of that era was that the citizenship of the wife was acquired by “legal” marriage, in essence, “legalnaturalization by marriage. If the husband was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the U. S. born wife “legally” lost her U. S. citizenship and “legally” 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 “legally” lost her foreign citizenship and “legally” acquired the U. S. citizenship of her U. S. citizen husband. There are nuances based on different situations, but that is the essence of the common law concerning heterosexual marriage in the 1787 era and the “legalunity of citizenship and allegiance of both parents which resulted in the “legalsingular U. S. citizenship of both parents before their child was born and which resulted in the “legalcontinuity of citizenship of their “natural born Citizen” child who is “legally” “...eligible to the Office of President”..

The common law in the 1787 era was that the U. S. citizenship of the husband “legallydetermined the “lega” U. S. citizenship of the foreign born wife, AND the “legal singular U. S. citizenship of BOTH parents “legallymarried to each other determined the ”legalsingular U. S. citizenship of their child. The child was recognized by the common law of America in that era as a “legalcitizen of the new “union and an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" “legally eligible to be president 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, “legal” marriage to a U. S. citizen father before the birth of the child on U. S. soil was a perpetual common law prerequisite. Period.

Here's why.

The U. S. citizen husband and his foreign born wife, for example, had to be “legally” married to each other BEFORE their child was born so that the child would ALSOlegally acquire the singular U. S. citizenship of the father. By “legalmarriage 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 “legalU. S. "citizen" but ALSO a “legalU. S. "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president.

A foreign wife was a person born on either foreign soil to foreign born parents, or was born on U. S. soil to foreign born parents who had not become U. S. citizens by naturalization before children were born on U. S. soil. Both foreign born 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 after the father's naturalization, at least until they reached their age of majority, and were ONLY considered to be a U. S. "citizen". There were NOT considered to be a "natural born Citizen" because the father had not naturalized, and the father and his wife were not “citizens” with singular U. S. citizenship BEFORE the children were born on U. S. soil.

The "natural born Citizen" status was permanent because it was from birth on U. S. soil by natural birth to two U. S. citizen married parents, and "natural born Citizen" status did not end when minority ended or begin when majority began. U. S. "natural born Citizen" status could not be lost but it could be renounced. Once renounced, U. S. "natural born Citizen" status (natural law and positive law, "natural born" = natural law birth, "Citizen" = positive law declaration) could not be returned by repatriation (positive law declaration) alone or at all. U. S. "natural born Citizen" status could ONLY be acquired by natural birth (natural law birth) to two U. S. citizen (positive law declaration) married parents, but U. S. "citizenship" (positive law) status could be acquired again by naturalization (positive law) oath.

Under the common law of 1700s America, if the foreign born mother gave birth while not married to the father, whether or not the father was a foreign born citizen 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".

Also under the common law of 1700s America, if the U. S. citizen mother was NOTlegallymarried 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 president since the parents were NOT “legallymarried to each other BEFORE the child was born. The child WAS recognized as a “legalU. S. "citizen" because of the U. S. citizenship of the father. If the U. S. citizen mother was not married to the foreign born father, their child born on U. S. soil was considered to be an alien, and not only NOT recognized as a "natural born Citizen" but was also NOT recognized as a "citizen" since the father was an alien and NOT a U. S. citizen.

If the U. S. citizen husband marries 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 “legallymarried to each other BEFORE their child was born for the child to acquire singular U. S. citizenship status from two U. S. citizen parents. If the U. S. citizen father “legallymarried the U. S. citizen mother AFTER their child was born, the child would be, “legally”, ONLY a "citizen" because of being born to ONLY one U. S. citizen parent, the father. For that “legal” reason of NOT being “legally” married BEFORE birth of a child, the child of the U. S. citizen single father would NOT be recognized as a "natural born Citizen" for purposes of eligibility to be president.

In 1787 America, if a child was born to a U. S. citizen “male BEFORE he was legally” married to a U. S. born citizen “femaleOR a foreign born citizen “female, the mother of the child, the child would be a “legal” U. S. “citizen” because the U. S. citizenship of the father passed to the child at birth and by birth, but the U. S. citizenship of the father would NOT pass to to the foreign born citizen “female”, the mother of the child, by the birth of the child. The U. S. citizenship of the “male becomes the female’s citizenship ONLY by “legalmarriage, NOT by the birth of a child.


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

Five months after John Jay wrote this first letter below on May 31, 1781 to Ben Franklin about Mr. John Vaughan, an Englishman who wanted to become a U. S. citizen by taking an “oath of allegeance” (original spelling), Jay wrote a second letter on November 3, 1781 to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Count de Florida Blanca at the Spanish court. Both letters are included here to learn Jay's understanding of the common law in 1780s era England and America concerning the “continuity of citizenship & allegiance” and of who is and is not a U. S. citizen and why.

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 arrived 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, have 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 Passport the govr wd not permit his remaing there— this Circumstance brought him here, I shall endeavour to obtain a Passport 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 ["one" & "all" emphasis in 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

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


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."

...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 ...”

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

Jay got his "...a Citizen of one...all” 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 1787 era, the common understanding of the wife acquiring U. S. citizenship by marriage, to be "born a Citizen" would imply being born to only a U. S. citizen father who was not married, either to a U. S. citizen mother of his child OR an foreign born mother of his 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 an unmarried U. S. citizen father or an unmarried mother, whether she has U. S. citizenship or foreign citizenship. The lower hurdle includes the unmarried father being a U. S. citizen OR a foreign citizen, and the unmarried mother being a U. S. citizen OR a foreign citizen.

With the founders’ understanding of the common law in 1787 America, if a child was born in the country to the U. S. citizen father NOT married to the U. S. citizen mother or the foreign citizen mother, the child would be a U. S. "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 and updated Acts since 1952, if a child was born in the U. S. to a foreign citizen father NOT married to a U. S. citizen mother or a foreign citizen mother, the child in 1787 America would be considered to be ONLY a foreign born “citizen”, NOT a U. S. “citizen”. THAT was the common law, the common understanding which informed John Jay and his choice of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen", and the common law understanding of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention who pass on Jay’s “born” suggestion to the delegates, and the common law understanding of the delegates who adopted "natural born Citizen" and passed it on to the states for ratification.

If there was any other common law understanding of "born" in 1787 America, maybe 2015 2019 “living constitutionalismneobirthers can articulate it.

The lower hurdle is what the one-U. S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-presidential-eligibility neobirthers are promoting in 2015 2019 America. The nascent Cruz neobirthers 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 “nomenclature language” opinion of the 1875 Happerset v Minor Court and the original intent of the framers of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment certainly did not suggest believing in the lower hurdle of the 2015 2019 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-presidential-eligibility neobirthers.


John Jay Letter to Del Campo about British Subject Mr. John 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 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 of Mr. Vaughan was an Englishman, the mother was an American, and their son 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.


As you will read in Jay’s letter below, even in 1781 John Jay was implicitly affirming “unity of citizenship & allegiance”—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.

This is John Jay's second letter, written to Del Campo in November 3, 1781, about five months after Jay wrote his first letter to Ben Franklin about John 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. The singular U. S. citizenship of BOTH parents.

The unity of citizenship and allegiance—what a 1700s concept that is still applicable to the 2000s.


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, president to president.


Who are Obama Birth Narrative Neobirthers?

The Obama birth narrative neobirthers are defenders of the Obama birth narrative theory that natural birth on U. S. soil AND birth to ONLY one U. S. citizen parent, since one U. S. citizen parent is all he had, AND one foreign citizen parent, whether they are married to each other or not, with dual citizenship, is sufficient to qualify a person for presidential eligibility.

If the Obama birth narrative neobirthers and the "MY GUY" / "MY GAL" neobirthers 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 neobirthers KNOW THAT—if Jay was NOT obvious?

Conversely, just how do the neobirthers 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 neobirthers know THAT—if Jay was NOT obvious?

If Jay was NOT obvious, just how do the neobirthers KNOW that Jay did NOT mean ONLY born on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other BEFORE their child is born?

At this point the neobirthers may have one obvious question:

Just how do John Jay “living originalismoriginal intent birthers KNOW that original birther John Jay had ONLY one meaning in mind for underlining the word “born” in "natural born Citizen" and NOT two meanings?

It is obvious that Jay WAS obvious in 1787.

Right?

If Jay was NOT obvious, how could John Jay original birthers KNOW what Jay REALLY meant, and how could John Jay neobirthers KNOW what Jay REALLY meant?

Right?

(1)Living originalism” and obvious original birther John Jay either ONLY meant birth on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen married parents, or he did NOT.

Right?

(2)Living constitutionalism” and alleged neobirther 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.

Right?

Jay either meant ONLY what John Jay original birthers mean or what John Jay neobirthers mean.

Right?

Living originalismneobirthers say many things in various ways. Here are four things they say:

(1) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth with singular citizenship is good, but dual citizenship is just as good if not better for presidential 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 for presidential eligibility.

(3) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth to two U. S. citizen parents is good, but birth to two OR one OR zero U. S. citizen parents is just as good if not better for presidential eligibility.

(4) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth to parents who are married to each other BEFORE the child is born is good, but natural birth to parents who are married AFTER the child is born is just as good, and it might ever be better for presidential eligibility (what they really mean is, sincenatural birth is the only way a presidential candidate is eligible).

The neobirthers insist that John Jay meant that "natural born" ONLY means being born naturally and NOT naturalized, and a child can be born naturally before the parents are married to each other OR after the parents are married.

An obvious question is, without “legal” marriage of two U. S. citizen parents before a child is born, what is the “legal” basis for saying that natural birth BEFORE the parents are married devolves singular U. S. citizenship on a child and qualifies a child as a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president?

An obvious question is why do neobirthers, and the Obama neobirthers specifically, assert with 21st century certainty that in 1787 John Jay ONLY meant what the Obama neobirthers mean in 2008-2015 2019? Could it be because Obama, their own “MY GUY” had ONLY one U. S. citizen parent that he, Obama, is willing to claim? At least Obama 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. For example, the writings of Emer de Vattel, Coke, Blackstone, et al., etc., and debating whether or not what British “subject” meant in 1787 is what U. S. “citizen” meant in 1787 and today in the 2000s. It is time to move on to create future history with an amendment to the Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5.

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 “living originalists” want an amendment to clarify John Jay’s original genesis original intent for his fellow citizens’ posterity in 21st century America that we agree with what John Jay REALLY meant when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”.

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

We “living originalism” John Jay original genesis original intent original birthers simply want for a child to be recognized to be a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president when born ONLY on U. S. soil ONLY to two U. S. citizen parents.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

Is it?

The Article Vliving constitution” amendment process is the BEST “legal” way to clarify what “born” in “natural born Citizen” implied in 1787 and still implies today in the 2000s. If the U. S. House and Senate will not propose an amendment to clarify the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5, well, “we the people” can propose an amendment with an Article V convention of the “several” states.

Right.


| Page 1 | | Page 2 | | Page 3 | | Page 4 |


U. S. Constitution—The Original Birther Document of the Perpetual Union
Time to Change the "natural born Citizen" Conversation—Time to Choose


OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com©