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




  1. Introduction
  2. The Natural Born Citizen Note by John Jay to George Washington
  3. The 1787 U.S. Constitution: Article II Section 1 Clause 5
  4. Mario Apuzzo—John Jay Note To George Washington Suggesting "Natural Born Citizen"
  5. The Math & Logic of ONLY 1
  6. Grandfather Foreign Born Adopted Children Into POTUS Eligibility
  7. Original Genesis Original Intent ("can you pass the salt")
  8. Since the 1787 "Union" of America a John Jay "Natural Born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing
  9. The Conversation
  10. U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
  11. A Few Text Construction Lawyers and Professors
  12. A Few Text Construction Terms and Phrases
  13. Who are John Jay Original Intent Birthers?
  14. Who are Obama Birth Narrative Neo-birthers?
  15. Who are "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" Neo-birthers"?
  16. Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance
  17. John Jay's Letter to Benjamin Franklin About British Subject Mr. Vaughan
  18. John Jay Got His Wish
  19. John Jay Letter to Del Campo about British Subject Mr. Vaughan

| Page 2 |


  1. Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—the Question is How to do It
  2. John Jay meant ONLY One thing:
    "Natural Born Citizen" has ONLY One Original Genesis and ONLY One Original Intent
  3. Neo-birther's Mean Many Things:
    "Natural Born Citizen" has Many Original Genesis Possibilities and Many Original Intent Meanings
  4. The Question is How to Do It
  5. A Friendly Hat Tip to Prof. William Jacobson
  6. Time to Change the Conversation and Move on to Agreement
  7. A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments
  8. Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?
  9. What President Abraham Lincoln said about the “Union”
  10. Barack Obama—the U.S. Constitution is a Charter of "Negative Liberties" not a Charter of "Positive Liberties"

| Page 3 |


  1. Move On to what "Natural Born Citizen" Should Mean
  2. Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen"
  3. Questions about Place and Parents and Naturalization
  4. Jus Soli—Right of Soil/Place
  5. Jus Sanguinis—Right of Blood/Parents
  6. 4 Questions about U.S. Soil
  7. 4 Questions about Foreign Soil
  8. 1st Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents
  9. 2nd Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents
  10. Grandfather Them All
  11. Heterosexual and Homosexual Adoption and POTUS Eligibility of U.S. Born and Foreign Born Children
  12. U.S. Born Children
  13. Foreign Born Children
  14. How to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify
  15. Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment
  16. Article V Convention of the "Several States" to Propose an Amendment
  17. Statute by U.S. Congress
  18. Opinion by U.S. Supreme Court
  19. My Choice: Codify with an Article V Convention of States
  20. Draft Amendment XXX:
    An Amendment to Permit Only a Natural Born Citizen to be Eligible to the Office of President of the United States of America
  21. 2nd Generation Child—An Idea Whose Time Has Come
  22. Time to Choose
  23. Time to Change the Conversation—Time to Choose

| Page 4 |


  1. An Idea Whose Time Has Come
  2. Draft Amendment XXX:
    A Sample Amendment to Permit a 1st Generation or a 2nd Generation Natural Born Citizen to be Eligible to the Office of President
  3. A Title and Text Draft for 1st Generation Eligibility:
    For first generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents, or born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.
  4. A Title and Text Draft for 2nd Generation Eligibility:
    For second generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents who were born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.
  5. Draft language to clarify the 1868 Original Intent of Amendment XIV—Citizenship for Persons Born or Naturalized
  6. In 1868 Freedom from Slavery = ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship—NOT Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship
  7. Article V and Nullification are WE the People "Kin Folk"
  8. The Text of Article V
  9. Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union
  10. John Jay v Neo-birthers


| Page 5 |


  1. Set—Subset—Proper Subset—Citizen—Born Citizen—Natural Born Citizen
  2. Citizen—Born Citizen—Natural Born Citizen—Compared and Contrasted
  3. Different Ways to Express Who Is a Citizen
  4. The U.S. Constitution—Two Types of "Persons"—“Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens"
  5. The Set/Proper Subset "Best Answer" Question
  6. Analysis and Application—Hey, I'm Not A Mathematician—So What Do I Know?
  7. Sen. Ted Cruz—A 46 Second Question and Answer About Constitutional Eligibility.
  8. Original Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers
  9. Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers
  10. Etiology and Teleology of Natural Born Citizen
  11. Application to Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen"
  12. United States of America v. United Soviet States of America v. United Ummah States of Islamerica
  13. 134 Glossary Words—Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (2012 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A Garner)
  14. 70 Sound Principles of Interpretation
  15. #37—Absurdity Doctrine
  16. #38—Constitutional-Doubt Canon
  17. Patrick Henry said: "Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this..."


Introduction



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


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

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



The Natural Born Citizen Note by John Jay to George 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 & reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born* Citizen


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


Dear Sir
Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay


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



The 1787 U.S. Constitution:
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.”


John Jay was the author on July 25, 1787 of the POTUS 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 debate about the original genesis meaning of the word “born” since the convention delegates understood the common law of the 1700s about the unity of citizenship and allegiance, which was that, 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 POTUS 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.


*See a picture of “born” underlined about half way down the page here - [ http://originalbirtherdocument3.blogspot.com/ ]


It is obvious by the language itself that original birther Jay had ONLY one “original genesis original intent” 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 ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born ONLY on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents married to each other before the birth of the new “citizen” child.


The neo-birthers who may read the previous sentence may ask how we the original genesis original intent birthers and the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the “MY GUY”/”MY GAL” neo-birthers or anybody in 2015 America, can possibly “know” that John Jay had “singular U.S. citizenship” in mind in 1787.


Well, how do the neo-birthers themselves “know” what Jay did OR did NOT have in mind in 1787? Just how do the neo-birthers themselves “know” that Jay had in mind ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship? Just how do the neo-birthers themselves “know” that Jay had in mind ALSO 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 it was to be perpetual, 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, and 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. The framers obviously meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship with “...or a Citizen of...” and they did NOT mean dual U.S./British citizenship from the naturalization cutoff date of July 4, 1776.


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) designation does not influence or affect the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” designation which requires ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


*( 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 basis 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 by being born 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 two positive law U.S. citizen parents precede natural law birth with singular U.S. citizenship that the “natural born” child derived from the two U.S. citizen parents.


That is obvious, right?


Is there any other singular U.S. citizenship “original genesis original intent” possible since dual U.S./foreign citizenship is not possible?



Mario Apuzzo—John Jay Note To George Washington Suggesting "Natural Born Citizen"


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


' "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original)."


( http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29 )


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


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


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



The Math & Logic of ONLY 1


"The Math Logic of ONLY 1" deals with the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther memes of both dual U.S./foreign citizenship and ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for government work, aka for a child to be eligible to be POTUS, whether born on either U.S. or foreign soil. The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers who say that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf to be eligible to be POTUS 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 here is a quote about the math logic of “1”, ONLY one. Published by Barnes & Noble and authored by Michael Willers, "Algebra: The x and y of Everyday Math" is a layman's brief look at the history of and the basics of algebra. On page 32 in the chapter titled "The Power of Polynomials" is an easy to understand definition that non-mathematicians can understand that can be applied to understanding the implied meaning of "natural born Citizen" as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation (no open and close quotes):


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 math/polynomial quote has nothing to do with "natural born Citizen" and how/why "nbC" is a proper subset of "citizen/born citizen," but it is math logic support for the Minor v. Happersett Court's "nomenclature"* statement which tacitly 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.
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 this: why does the x in the second example, 5xy3, NOT have a 1 exponent? Well, it simply 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.” It is “implied” that there is a 1 there." So, the 2 and 3 exponents are written and explicit, but the 1 exponent is implicit. More than one must be explicit and ONLY one is accepted as "implied."


ONLY one is implied by John Jay to be eligible to be President, as in ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation. If John Jay had been implying ONLY two or ALSO two, two would have to be explicitly stated, as in ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship of two OR three nations. For example, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Rubio represents 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, Cuba. Sen. Cruz represents the “three nations” by being born in Canada which, under U.S. immigration and naturalization statutes, is considered foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction, to two married parents, one who was a U.S. citizen (mother) and one who was a Cuban citizen (father).


Applied to original birther John Jay and what I like to call Jay's "original genesis original intent," there is the issue, no pun intended, of why "natural born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers insist that the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a wife by marriage in 1787 America to a U.S. citizen husband implies that to Jay a "natural born Citizen" meant 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. That is what the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court tacitly implied with the “nomenclature” language. 


The issue, no pun intended again, requires that a few obvious questions be asked of and answered by 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers who insist that "nbC" was not defined by the 1787 delegates but the neo-birthers are absolutely sure that a “natural born Citizen” can ALSO have dual U.S./foreign citizenship, a citizen of two nations by being born on either U.S. or foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, and THAT is why the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, Democratic Obot new meaning neo-birthers support Pres. Obama, and Republican new meaning neo-birthers support Sen. Cruz or Sen. Rubio.


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./foreign citizenship for the child, such as U.S./English citizenship?


A – There is no record of debate that the “unity of citizenship and allegiance” implies dual U.S./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./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 written or anecdotal record of Washington NOT asking Jay if he meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or BOTH U.S./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./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 U.S. citizenship AND foreign citizenship?
A – No.


BOTH U.S./English citizenship would have been schizophrenic, incongruous, incoherent in 1787 America only four years after the end of hostilities with England in 1783.


Well, since dual U.S./foreign citizenship was NOT the common public meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America, and by using the polynomial simple math logic of the x 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.


For that simple 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 also logical to conclude that not ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents who, by marriage in 1787 America, had singular U.S. citizenship, was "implied" in the word "born," but that the citizenship of the child would be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship because it was ONLY derived by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.


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./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 the x 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./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, 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 POTUS.


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 of John Jay to propose “dual” citizenship, BOTH U.S. citizenship AND foreign citizenship, because by the 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 POTUS, and not a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be POTUS 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 xy 3, which means that the 1 exponent is implied—ONLY 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 decision in 1857 which was corrected by the 1868 Amendment 14 “born...naturalized” language, and also applicable to the 1865 Amendment 13, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 1868 Amendment 14, the 1870 Amendment 15, the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, the 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision, the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision.


Finally, 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 is the ONLY x1 math logic reason why the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court decision, which simply “declared” that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that a male child born born in the 1800s on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents was a “citizen” (and eligible to vote—“born” in Amendment 14 eventually became construed as ALSO allowing POTUS eligibility), MUST be overturned by the Supreme Court or corrected with an Article V amendment by either the bicameral Congress OR a convention of states' legislatures to clarify that the Amendment 14 language, 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, BOTH words had the original intent meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.


The historical fact that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment free male and female Negroes “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 obvious 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 POTUS, and also most definitely “born” did NOT mean for the Fourteenth Amendment free Negro males or females dual U.S./foreign citizenship with eligibility to vote OR to be POTUS.


The dual U.S./foreign citizenship proposition is as absurd and incoherent today in 2015 as it would have been in 1868 if John Bingham had that original intent and tried to defend it to the framers debating passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, and John Bingham's dual meaning 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 record of debate about singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual U.S. citizenship by the 1868 framers of the Fourteenth Amendment is confirmation that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was John Bingham's original intent implication for the word “born” just as ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was John Jay's “original genesis original intent” implication for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, and 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 ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents under Article II and under the Fourteenth Amendment. That is why “natural born Citizen,” which means ONLY singular citizenship of ONLY one nation that can ONLY be derived by birth to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents, is the ONLY proper subset of “citizen/born citizen” that is eligible to be POTUS. 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 POTUS.


Both words in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “...born or naturalized...” (“born”—“citizen” by birth, “naturalized”—“citizen” by oath), in the Fourteenth Amendment mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. Although “naturalized” does mean never having eligibility to be POTUS, “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment can mean both eligible OR not eligible to be POTUS. The positive law word “naturalized” in 1868 (and until today in 2015) could and still does mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and not being eligible to be POTUS, and the positive law word (about a natural law activity) “born” in 1868 (and until today in 2015) could and still does mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, but which can be applied two ways, eligible to be POTUS and NOT eligible to be POTUS. It is obvious that both words were originally intended to have perpetual meaning.


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 Amendment 14 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 POTUS. Now consider this concomitant implication: if a child was born on U.S. soil after 1787 to 1868 to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, the child was NOT a “natural born Citizen” and also NOT eligible to be POTUS, and since 1787 to 1868 and until today in 2015, a child born to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is STILL NOT a “natural born Citizen” and STILL NOT eligible to be POTUS.


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


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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

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


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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Grandfather Foreign Born Adopted Children Into POTUS 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 "nbC" phrase into Article II. His 2000 article* with 62 footnotes. However, after citing the history of the uncertainty of John Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC," Yinger promotes grandfathering foreign born adopted children into POTUS eligibility with an amendment to the Constitution.



Some of my comments are found on my blog here** and here***, which do NOT endorse grandfathering into POTUS eligibility foreign born adopted children, and do endorse the legislatures of the states using the original Article V authority to propose an amendment to maintain the "original genesis original intent" of "natural born Citizen" as proposed by John Jay.


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

Simple. Right?



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


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


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


vs


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


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



The Conversation


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


Here are two simple "intent" questions for you.


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


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


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


Here are the "intent" questions again.


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


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


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


It is time to choose.


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



A Few Text Construction Lawyers and Professors

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


A Few Text Construction Terms and Phrases

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



Who are John Jay Original Intent Birthers?


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


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


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



Who are Obama Birth Narrative Neo-birthers?


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



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Jay WAS obviously saying THAT in 1787, right?


Yes, and here's why.


In 1787 America, as in England and other countries in Europe, the common law was that the citizenship of the wife was acquired by marriage. If the husband was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the U.S. born wife lost her U.S. citizenship and acquired the citizenship of the husband. If the husband was a U.S. citizen and his wife was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the wife lost her alien citizenship and acquired the U.S. citizenship of her U.S. citizen husband. There are nuances based on different situations, but that is the essence of the common law concerning marriage and the unity of citizenship and allegiance of the child.


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


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


Here's why.


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


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


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


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


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



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


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



Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance


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


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



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


Aranjues 31st May 1781


Dr Sir


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


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


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


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


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


To Dr Franklin 31 May 1781


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



John Jay Got His Wish


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



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


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


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

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


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


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


Sir:

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


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


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


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


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


Your most obedient and most humble servant,


John Jay
16th November, 1781
Madrid,
Florida Blanca


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



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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 Page 5



U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—Time to Choose
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )


The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )