Thursday, December 25, 2014

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



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




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



Set
Subset
Proper Subset
Citizen
Born Citizen
Natural Born Citizen


I've been looking at the previous discussion on Mario Apuzzo's blog about "natural born Citizen" and why "proper subset" is the "best answer" to his question to the two new meaning neo-birther math experts, Kevin Davidson/Dr. Conspiracy/Masters Mathematician and Kevin/Slartibartfast/Ph.D. Mathematician, and his current discussion with some new meaning neo-birthers on Cafe Con Leche Republicans.


These neo-birthers and the Cafe Con Leche Republican neo-birthers, assert that "natural born Citizen," since September 17, 1787 when Article 2 was included in the Constitution, has meant dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on either U.S. soil or foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married to each other or not.


After this short study to educate myself about set-subset-proper subset as related to "natural born Citizen," I now understand the point of calling a "natural born Citizen" a "proper subset" of the "born and oath" citizen set, and I now know WHY "natural born Citizen" has original birther John Jay's 1787-2015 "original genesis original intent" meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


To be "born," as John Jay originally intended it to mean in 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, still means in 2015 America ONLY a citizen "by birth" with singular U.S. citizenship, not a citizen "at birth" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship. The distinction is shown by the language of all of the naturalization acts since the 1790 Naturalization Act (the distinction is explained more fully later), and "oath" means citizen by naturalization with singular U.S. citizenship.


The "by" vs. "at" "Best Answer"
I give Mario Apuzzo, a John Jay original meaning original intent birther, and new meaning neo-birther Kevin Davidson/Dr. Conspiracy, the credit for my illumination as to why some Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Independent and Anarchist Constitution constructionists, aka new meaning neo-birthers, continue to dance around identifying "natural born Citizen" as a unique and distinct "born citizen" and a proper subset of the "citizen" set. 


In his "best" answer to Mario's "best answer" question found below, Kevin/Dr. C., a 2008-2015 neo-birther who REALLY thinks that the neo-birther new theory of only one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf to be eligible to be POTUS, he has REALLY affirmed, without intending to do so, and contrary to his one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf theory, that original birther John Jay REALLY had in mind ONLY singular U.S. citizenship derived ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.


A couple of days ago* Mario had a comment on his blog about the comment he put on Cafe Con Leche Republicans about citizens "by" birth vs. "at" birth vs. "after birth," which I have expanded on and included after his "best answer" question to the two math experts.


Here is part of Mario's "by" vs. "at" comment:


" “By birth,” as applied to citizenship, refers to birth alone being sufficient to cause citizenship to occur. Under American common law, as confirmed by naturalization Acts of Congress, U.S. citizenship attaches to a child “by birth” without the need of any law to allow that to occur, when the child is born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.


"A true natural born citizen becomes a natural born citizen because he or she does not need a naturalization Act of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment to make him or her so. His or her birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents makes him or her a natural born citizen. Hence, he or she becomes a citizen “by birth” alone and without the need of any law to make him or her so, and surely without the need of any naturalization in whatever form it may come.


"On the other hand, “at birth,” when applied to citizenship, refers to citizenship occurring at the moment of birth. ... To know what is necessary to occur for one to be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” we have to look to law which creates that status. That law is either the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, which are the only sources of law that exist which create that status. ... unless one satisfies another one of Congress’s naturalization Acts or treaties which then would make one a citizen after birth.


"If one needs the benefit of a law in order to be a citizen , then one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen.


If one needs the benefit of a law in order to be a citizen,

["at" birth
or
"by" oath
(naturalized)]

then one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen.


"Ted Cruz became a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” because a law provided that he could be one. That law, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), is a naturalization Act of Congress. Without that law, he would not have been a citizen at all.


"Hence, it was not his birth alone that was sufficient to give him his birth status, which is the case for natural born citizens. Rather, it was Congress through its naturalization statute that considered him to be a citizen of the United States at birth."

____________________
*February 27, 2015 at 7:45 PM
( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html )




Citizen
Born Citizen
Natural Born Citizen
Compared and Contrasted


The U.S. Constitution identifies two types of "persons," "citizens" and "natural born Citizens," and the two types of "persons" can be itemized for further clarification into four types of "citizens" according to the U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Article 2, and Amendment 14:


1) Article 1 "citizens" eligible only to be a Representative or Senator.
2) Article 2 "...or a Citizen of...," eligible to be POTUS, Representative or Senator, but only until the last "...or a Citizen of..." died sometime in the 1800s.
3) Article 2 "natural born citizen," eligible to be POTUS, Representative, or Senator.
4) Amendment 14 "citizens" born or naturalized "in"* the U.S.—eligible to be Representative or Senator, but not eligible to be POTUS.

____________________
*The language of the first sentence of Amendment XIV, ratified July 9, 1868: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


"All persons born or naturalized in [both "born" and "naturalized" are "in"] the United States ... subject ... jurisdiction ... citizens ... United States ... and ... State ... reside." As long as the Supreme Court holds, and Congress does not correct by statute, and the legislatures of the states do not amend Amendment 14 with an Article V amendment, Amendment 14 will continue to be construed to mean that even "persons" born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents are "citizens" who are under the "jurisdiction" of the U.S., and that child with zero U.S. citizen parents is a "citizen" of the U.S.


So, an alien, legal or illegal, has a child on U.S. soil and because the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1898 in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that a Chinese "person" born on U.S. soil to Chinese parents who were not U.S. naturalized "citizens," their child IS a "citizen" of the U.S. and of the state of residence.


THAT court decision is still incoherent and must be overturned by the Supreme Court, or, better still, by an amendment to correct the language of Amendment 14.


Because ALL children are "natural born" somewhere, there are two types of "natural born" persons on U.S. soil:

  1. Article 2 "natural born citizens" "by" birth.
    All "natural born citizens" are "born" citizens
    Not all "born" citizens are "natural born citizens"
  1. Amendment 14 "citizens" "at" birth, and statute naturalized "citizens" "by" oath.
    The Amendment 14 naturalized "citizens" "by" oath are "natural born" on foreign soil.

U.S. "citizens" can be born to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents:

1) some "citizens" are born to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other
2) some "citizens" are born to two U.S. citizen parents not married to each other
3) some "citizens" are born to one U.S. citizen parent
4) some "citizens" are born to zero U.S. citizen parents


1) A constitution "citizen" who is a "natural born citizen," born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other, is a constitution Article 2 citizen "by" birth, with singular U.S. citizenship derived from two U.S. citizen parents, and is the ONLY constitution "born citizen" eligible to be POTUS.


2) A constitution "citizen" who is a "citizen" "at" birth, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents not married to each other, with or without the intention of marriage to each other, is a constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth, or a statute naturalized citizen "at" birth, with singular U.S. citizenship derived from two U.S. citizen parents not married to each other, but is still NOT eligible to be POTUS since the "union" of the two U.S. citizen parents did not precede the birth. Just because two persons who are U.S. citizens and not married to each other reproduce a child who is "natural born" on U.S. soil does not mean that original birther John Jay's singular U.S. citizenship "original genesis original intent" included "living together to test compatibility" and, whoops, accidents happen, or adultery, promiscuity, philandering, and etcetera.


3) A constitution "citizen" who is a citizen "at" birth, born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married to the U.S. or the non-U.S. citizen parent, is a constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth, or a statute naturalized citizen "by" oath, with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and is NOT eligible to be POTUS.


4) A constitution "citizen" who is a citizen "at" birth, born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, is a constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth, with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and is NOT eligible to be POTUS.


Different Ways to Express Who Is a Citizen

"By" Birth and "At" Birth
There are different ways to clarify the "citizen" issue, so here are a few ways to express the uniqueness of "natural born citizen" "by" birth compared to a "citizen" "at" birth.


There is ONLY one citizen who has singular U.S. citizenship:
Constitution article 2 natural born citizen "by" birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents


There are two dual U.S./foreign citizenships "at" birth on foreign soil:
Statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents
Statute naturalized citizen "at" birth to one U.S. citizen parent


There are five dual U.S./foreign citizenships "at" birth on U.S. soil:
Constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S.soil to one U.S. citizen parent
Constitution amendment 14 citizen"at" birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents
Constitution amendment 14 naturalized citizen "by" oath not born on U.S. soil
Statute naturalized citizen "by" oath not born on U.S. soil
Statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent


WHAT does THAT mean?
Maybe this set and proper subset analysis and application will help the understanding of others who are also not mathematicians like I am not, and who may ask "WHAT does THAT mean" and "WHY does it mean THAT" when math experts say that "natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of the "citizen" set, what I call the "born and oath" citizen set.


Since I'm not a mathematician, I'm looking at this set theory discussion from a layman's perspective. What is set theory, why is it important, what does it reveal about the implicit meaning of "natural born Citizen" written in 1787 America, and how does it move the conversation forward in 2015 America?


Set theory studies sets. Sets are collections of elements, also called objects, which are contained inside a set such as this set of five elements {diamond, pyramid, heart, club, spade}. The set of four elements {diamond, heart, club, spade} are contained inside the five element set." It is correct to say that the four element "set" is a "subset" of the five element "set", and it is also correct to say the the four element "set" is a "proper subset" of the five element "set."


In the context of Mario's "natural born Citizen" and "best answer" question to two math experts, Dr. C/Kevin/Masters mathematician, who agrees with Mario, and Kevin/Ph.D. mathematician, who danced around and did not want to agree with Mario, the "best" answer is, using an eight element "set" that will be defined later, as an easy example to understand, each of the eight subsets are unique elements, and each is a "proper subset" of the eight element "citizen" "set.


THAT means that "natural born Citizen" is a "subset" element that is a unique and distinct element contained within the "citizen" {B} "set" {A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I}, itemized and defined following the "best answer" related quotes.


{B} = {citizen} set contains eight elements:
  1. {A} = {ca2nbcbuss2}
  2. {C} = {snco}
  3. {D} = {ca14cbuss1}
  4. {E} = {ca14cbuss0}
  5. {F} = {ca14co}
  6. {G} = {sncbuss1}
  7. {H} = {sncbfs2}
  8. {I} = {sncbfs1}

{A} = {ca2nbcbuss2}
"constitution article 2 natural born citizen "by" birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens"
{C} = {snco}
"statute naturalized citizen "by" oath"
{D} = {ca14cbuss1}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"
{E} = {ca14cbuss0}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents"
{F} = {ca14co}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "by" Oath"
{G} = {sncbuss1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parents"
{H} = {sncbfs2}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents"
{I} = {sncbfs1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parents"


THAT means that ALL "natural born Citizens" are U.S. born "citizens," as will be explained, but not all U.S. born "citizens" are "natural born Citizens" who alone of all U.S. born "citizens" have singular U.S. citizenship derived ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents. For THAT unique "proper subset" reason, "ONLY" a "natural born Citizen" is the "ONLY" U.S. "born citizen" eligible to be POTUS.



The U.S. Constitution
Two Types of "Persons"
"Citizens" and "Natural Born Citizens"


The U.S. Constitution knows two types of "persons"—“citizens” and “natural born citizens."


In the U.S. Constitution, WE the People gave the tripartite Federation authority to naturalize new citizens "at" birth and "by" oath. It has done so "by oath" by statute since the 1790 Naturalization Act to today in the 2000s. In addition to positive law statutes, Congress has done so "at birth" by amendment, the 14th Amendment. The constitution's original 1787 Article 2 "natural born Citizen" "by birth designation" and and "at birth status"* has been reinforced as perpetual, not abrogated and repealed, but reinforced as perpetual by the 1868 14th Amendment language: "All persons born or naturalized...citizens of...". The "born or naturalized" words together are declarative positive law language, not natural law and positive law language, and the words refer to the "citizen" who is born ** and the "citizen" who is naturalized by oath. The "citizens" of the 14th Amendment and the naturalized "citizens" by statute*** are itemized later, and it will be clear after being itemized why ALL of the 14th Amendment and statute "citizens" are dual U.S./foreign citizenship "proper subsets" of the citizen "set," and "natural born citizen" in Article 2 is the ONLY "citizen" who is a singular U.S. citizenship "proper subset" of the citizen "set."

____________________
*"Natural born Citizen" contains two elements, a natural law aspect and a positive law aspect. The natural law "natural born" entity, not a status, an entity "by birth," and the positive law "citizen" status, not an entity, a status given "at birth" and NOT at a later time by statute.


Not "by" natural law birth alone but with positive law status "at" birth. A "natural born" living entity "by" natural law birth, and a living entity "Citizen" "by" positive law with citizen status "at" birth. The positive law status of "Citizen" "at" birth is ONLY possible "by" natural law birth. The living entity is perpetually protected "by" the natural law birth, and the citizen status "at" birth is also perpetually protected for the same living entity until death, unless the status of "citizen" alone is renounced since the living entity can not renounce its own birth.


**In the 1868 Amendment 14 the 1787 original intent of the two aspects of Article 2, natural law and positive law—"by birth and at birth"—are reinforced with the Amendment 14 declarative language suggesting, not "by birth and at birth,"—not "by" natural law with "at" positive law, but "at birth and by oath" positive law alone—positive law "at" birth with positive law "by" oath.


The Amendment 14 "born" designation is declarative positive law language (as has been affirmed by the Supreme Court holding since the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decsision) about what the "status" of the "person" is "at birth," just as "naturalized" in the same sentence is declarative positive law language about what the "status" of the "person" is "by oath" (naturalization implies oath). The framers of Amendment 14 were declaring that whether a "person" is born OR naturalized, that "person" is at the very least, a born "citizen" of the U.S. and the born "citizen" has the same status as a naturalized "citizen." Both are "citizens" of the U.S. with positive law distinction and positive law similarity. The positive law distinction is that the "born citizen" has dual U.S./foreign citizenship and the "naturalized citizen" has singular U.S. citizenship. The positive law similarity is that both Amendment 14 "born citizens" and "naturalized citizens" are NOT eligible to be POTUS.


The "born citizens" and "citizens" nomenclature is itemized with eight "proper subsets" of "citizen" later in this study. I came up with the eight subsets of "citizen" to educate myself about why the "best answer" to Mario Apuzzo's question is that "natural born Citizen" is a "proper subset" of "born citizen" and "citizen."


*** (INA: ACT 301, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(clauses a and g) ) The text of this statute says that a child born on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil but foreign soil, is a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" (the actual words), not "by birth."


For context about the previous set theory discussion on Mario's blog, first I include his "best answer" question on June 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM to Slartibartfast (Kevin—Ph.D. Mathematician) and Dr. Conspiracy (Kevin Davidson—Masters of Science in Mathematics—the designation is from his About page at ObamaConspiracy.org).


Included is a short and helpful admonitory comment to Mario by Wilted Rose, an original intent birther who is a friendly commenter on Mario's blog, an admonitory comment that brings clarifying focus to the set theory "best" answer that Ph.D. Kevin danced around, and which Dr. C./Kevin answered after describing it a "formally straight forward question" and concluded by stating, "... answer “b,” [proper subset] making it the more useful response" to a straight forward question.


Not being a mathematician my self, hey, what do I know about set theory, right? Well, I only know what informed people know about set theory when they express themselves, and it seems that two of the three set theory experts, Kevin Davidson/Dr. Conspiracy and Mario Apuzzo, agree that the "best" and "more useful" answer is that "natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of the born and oath "citizen" set. So, that's what I know—now. Other than that, hey, what do I know? I'm not a mathematician, Ph.D., Masters, or otherwise. 


When two experts agree, 1787-2015 and John Jay "natural born Citizen" original genesis original intent birther, Mario, and 2008-2015 new genesis and new meaning neo-birther, Dr. C./Kevin, and one expert, 2008-2015 neo-birther Ph.D. Kevin, does not agree with the "best answer" to Mario's "best answer" question offered by his neo-birther friend Dr. C./Kevin, hmm, let's see, hmm, hey, who is correct? What do I know, since I'm not a mathematician?


Well, I do know something now after studying the set theory* relevant to this set-subset-proper subset "best answer." I now understand WHY I agree with Mario and Masters mathematician Dr. C./Kevin that "best answer" is that"natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of the "citizen" set.

____________________
*See some set theory and proper subset definitions and articles.
Subset
( http://mathinsight.org/subset_definition )
Proper Subset
( http://mathinsight.org/proper_subset_definition )
Set
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mathematics%29 )
Set Theory
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory )
Universal Set
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_set )
Power Set
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set )


With that said, after a brief look at the history of set theory discussion by the three experts, Mario Apuzzo, Dr. C./Kevin, Ph.D./Kevin, I add my own unique "hey, what do I know, I'm not a mathematician" perspective by adding seven more elements to the {A} "natural born Citizen" proper subset element, for a total of eight elements of what I call the {B} "born and oath" U.S. "citizen" set. 


Since there are many aspects of set and proper subset that need clarification, I found that, just to understand the terms myself and the applicaiton to "natural born Citizen", I needed to rephrase and repeat the different aspects in different ways for my own edification, so the repetition is retained and is intented for readers who are also not mathematicians. Maybe some original genesis original intent Ph.D. mathematicians and new meaning neo-birther Ph.D. mathematicians will learn WHY "natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of the "citizen" set, not because I say so, but because it is so according to Mathinsight.org, and Mario and Dr. C./Kevin agree. Other than that, hey, what do I know, I'm not a mathematician.


Pertinent to citizenship, this simplified discussion of set and proper subset will also help to clarify original birther John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen"—as related to singular U.S. citizenship, which is explained later.


It seems that this set theory discussion about "natural born Citizen" being a proper subset of the "oath and born" U.S. "citizen" set also adds clarity to the previous article on Mario's blog about Sen. Rick Santorum's "natural born Citizen" status "by and at" birth, and the newest article on February 20, 2015, "What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens"*.

____________________

*( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html )



The Set/Proper Subset "Best Answer" Question


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Said...
Dr. Conspiracy,


I am directing this comment to you because I know that you are a mathematician and you have supporters who are also in that field.


I asked Slartibartfast on this thread:


Let us assume that you are a math student going for your Ph.D. in Mathematics at Obama World Institute of Mathematics. You are taking a multiple choice exam on set theory. You are instructed that for each question you are to provide only one answer which must be the best answer of the choices provided.


Here is one of the questions of the exam:


-1. Natural born citizens is:


-a. A subset of citizens.
-b. A proper subset of citizens.
-c. A superset of citizens.
-d. None of the above.


Please provide your answer.


=====


[Next is Ph.D. Kevin/Slartibartfast's answer—and a personal finger-wag at Mario.]


[Mario:] Here is his answer:


[Ph.D. Kevin:] And finally, your math question:


If multiple answers are allowed (i.e. the rules are "choose all correct answers),
this is a perfectly fine question
(and something I would expect in an undergraduate set theory course)
and the only correct answer is both "a" and "b".


If not, I would go to the professor and explain that both "a" and "b" were correct.


If the professor did not immediately recognize that I was correct (and could prove it),
then I would go to the Director of Graduate Studies or the Department Chair to make sure
that they understood that the guy (or gal) they had teaching set theory was going senile.


Seriously, there has never been a graduate student in mathematics, nor will there be, that doesn't understand this perfectly. What you are suggesting is like an English literature professor not knowing their ABCs.


I know that you just assume that everything I say is wrong, but you are making yourself look like a complete fool here. Once again, I can prove that you are demonstrably wrong and everything I've said is correct. I strongly suggest you quit talking about subjects where objective truths can be established---your dishonesty sticks out like a sore thumb.


=====


[Now Mario is again speaking to Dr. C./Kevin]


Like I said, I know that you are a mathematician. I also know that you have taken many multiple choice exams in your life and that during those exams, you followed the reasonable instructions that were given to you in answering the questions rather than argue with the instructor about them.


I am also sure that you experienced many exams in which you were instructed to provide the one (1) “best” answer to the question from the choices provided. So, I will ask you the same question that I asked Slartibartfast (stated above).


Please provide your one (1) “best” answer to the question from the four possibilities provided.


June 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM


Wilted Rose said...
Mario,


In your question to Dr. Conspiracy, there is no "best answer" because both A and B are equally true.


Generally speaking, in mathematics something is true or it is not. There is no such thing as a best answer when more than one answer is true.


1+7=8
2+6=8


Which one is more correct?
They are equally correct.


Either put more conditions on the question or limit the number of answers so a person isn't forced to make a choice between two correct answers.


June 13, 2014 at 10:05 AM


Slartibartfast said...
Mario,


As Wilted Rose correctly pointed out, there are two true answers and "true" is an absolute---you cannot say that one thing is "truer" than another any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.


Your lack of understanding of this point is shown by your repeated noting that the decision of the SCOTUS in Minor was unanimous.


Here's a question for you: Does a 9-0 SCOTUS decision have more legal weight than a 5-4 decision?


June 13, 2014 at 12:02 PM


Slartibartfast said...
Mario,


Was President Bush any less the president because Bush v. Gore was decided 5-4 rather than 9-0?


Doc C already has answered your question:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/06/reply-to-mario-apuzzo-on-immoral-birthers/#comment-334111


Pro tip: If you want to ask someone a question, post it where you know they will read and respond to it.


Here's a question for you: What is the single correct answer?


(a) Mario lies
(b) Mario is dishonest
(c) Mario uses logical fallacies liberally
(d) Mario regularly makes disingenuous statements


[...]


June 13, 2014 at 2:22 PM


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Said...
Dr. Conspiracy answered my set theory question. Here is what he said:


"Mr. Apuzzo, not being a mathematician, doesn’t realize that on math tests, you aren’t asked to provide the “best” answer. Math isn’t about value judgments.


"Since Apuzzo doesn’t define “best,” the respondent has to guess the definition, which just leads to confusion and disputes.


"What I find interesting is that I think that even in this formally straightforward question, Apuzzo is trying to surreptitiously wave around his straw man named “Obots think all citizens are natural born citizens.”


"The way I reason the problem, I will answer:


"-b. A proper subset of citizens.


"I call this answer “best” because the other true statement (-a. A subset of citizens.) can be derived from answer “b,” making it the more useful response."


=====


Dr. Conspiracy is wrong in everything that he said except his answer to my question.


I have never argued that the Obots maintain that all citizens are natural born citizens. In fact, I even have been arguing that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens which proves Dr. Conspiracy wrong regarding me making any straw man argument. If all citizens were natural born citizens, we could not say that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens.


In any event, Dr. Conspiracy provided the correct answer.


Hence, we can see that Ph.D. Mathematician Slartibartfast is wrong again. He said the best answer was a. and b. when the “best” answer is only b., meaning that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens.


Here is Slartibartfast trying to save face at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog:


A proper subset (a mathematical “term of art”, so to speak) is a subset (another “term of art”) which does not include the entire set. In math, all of the words mean something specific and unique. Doc’s response is that of a mathematician replying thoroughly and thoughtfully to an extremely inane question.


=====


[Mario continues]


You have got to love Slartibartfast, telling us that Dr. Conspiracy, as a mathematician, replied “thoroughly and thoughtfully” to an “extremely inane question.” I thought Slartibartfast was also a mathematician. After all, he told us that he has a Ph.D. in Mathematics.


Also, why would someone need to be “thoroughly and thoughtfully” when answering an “extremely inane question?” And if it was such an inane question, why would Slartibartfast provide a wrong answer to the question?


Here is more from Slartibartfast:


"It’s certainly a nice change from Mario’s perfidy…


"FYI—when you’re reading in “math”, every word is important and conveys a unique meaning. There are no extraneous or ambiguous terms (or you are making the equivalent of a grammatical error).


=====


[Mario continues]


Notice how Slartibartfast is trying to save face even harder, educating others just after just being proven by Dr. Conspiracy that he gave the wrong answer to the question. He also did not follow his own lecture when he answered my question.


Rather, he chose to argue with the instructor and even go to the Department Head in protest over the question and then insisted that the question had two answers and not one “best” answer.


Dr. Conspiracy did not buy into any of that nonsense because he saw the writing on the wall. He simply provided the correct answer.


So, what can we say about Slartibartfast, who tells us that will not be around for several days? (I guess things will cool off for him during his absence.) You be the judge.


June 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Said...
The Maskell/Obot position that all born citizens are natural born citizens is absurd on its face.


How can we deny that there are born citizens (made so by some process) and there are natural born citizens (made so by some other process). If that were not the case, the Framers would have simply written born citizen rather than natural born citizen.


What this means is that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens.


What this also means is that natural born citizens is a proper subset of not only citizens, but also born citizens.


August 4, 2014 at 7:31 PM


One More Comment by Dr. Conspiracy/Kevin Davidson


It’s a technical term in set theory:
A proper subset is a
subset that is
not equal
to the
set


So for example.
Orly Taitz is a citizen = set B
who is not a natural born citizen = subset A
She is in the set (citizens) = set B
but not the subset (natural born citizens) = A


I found this comment on Dr. C./Kevin's blog—June 13, 2014 at 1:05 pm.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/06/reply-to-mario-apuzzo-on-immoral-birthers/#comment-334117


"It’s a technical term in set theory: A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set.


"So for example. Orly Taitz is a citizen who is not a natural born citizen. She is in the set (citizens) but not the subset (natural born citizens).


"Put another way, “A is a proper subset of B” means:


"1) All the elements of A are in B
"2) At least one element of B is not in A.


"Every set is trivially a subset of itself, but not necessarily a proper subset."



Analysis and Application
Hey, I'm Not A Mathematician—So What Do I Know?


Now for my "hey, I'm not a mathematician, so what do I know" analysis and application of the comments of the three set theory experts. The question is about the "best" answer, as asserted by original birther Mario, confirmed by neo-birther mathematician Dr. C./Kevin, although confirmed to the chagrin of his neo-birther mathematician friend Ph.D./Kevin.


The "best" answer is that "natural born Citizen" is a "proper subset" of the "citizen" set. The "best" answer is NOT both "subset" AND "proper subset." Yes, both are correct, but the "best" answser is that "natural born Citizen" is a "proper subset" of the citizen "set." 


Next is a very brief definition of subset and proper subset from Mathinsight.org.


Mathinsight.org


Definition of subset
http://mathinsight.org/subset_definition


A set A is a subset of another set B if all elements of the set A are elements of the set B.
In other words, the set A is contained inside the set B.


The subset relationship is denoted as A["C"]B. [On the Mathinsight.org page, a symbol that looks like a "C" is between "A" and "B"—it means "contained inside"].


For example, if A is the set {diamond, heart, club, spade} and B is the set {diamond, pyramid, heart, club, spade}, then A is contained inside B but B is not contained inside A.


Since B contains elements not in A, we can say that A is a proper subset of B.


Proper subset definition
http://mathinsight.org/proper_subset_definition


A proper subset of a set A is a subset of A that is not equal to A.


In other words, if B is a proper subset of A, then all elements of B are in A but A contains at least one element that is not in B.


For example, if A = {1, 3, 5} then B = {1, 5} is a proper subset of A.
The set C = {1, 3, 5} is a subset of A, but it is not a proper subset of A since C = A.
The set D = {1, 4} is not even a subset of A, since 4 is not an element of A.


Now that I finally understand the Mathinsight.org definitions of set/subset/proper subset, and still not being a mathematician, my analysis starts with original meaning original intent birther Mario's confirmation that new meaning neo-birther Kevin/Dr. Conspiracy gave the "best" answer when he chose "b" proper subset: "In any event, Dr. Conspiracy provided the correct answer."


Dr. C./Kevin's response to Mario's question—natural born citizen is:

"-b. A proper subset of citizens.
"It's a technical term in set theory:
"A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set."
and
"...answer "b," making it the more useful response...."


I have expanded the original question from one proper subset element to eight. Within our {B} "citizen" set are at least eight subsets that are proper subsets unique and distinct from each other by both design and intent, by both natural law original genesis and positive law original intent, {A}{C}{D}{E} – {F} – {G} – {H} – {I}.


Again, now that I, we, finally understand the set/proper subset terms as defined in simple terms by Mathinsight.org and confirmed by neo-birther Kevin/Dr. C, and how terms such as {A} and {B} are used and what they mean to mathematicians, in this analysis and application I explain in in a way that is easy to understand set and proper subset so that "what does THAT mean?" readers who also are not mathematicians can understand by following the set and proper subset symbols B-A-C-D-E-F-G-H-I.


{B} = {citizen} set contains eight elements:
  1. {A} = {ca2nbcbuss2}
  2. {C} = {snco}
  3. {D} = {ca14cbuss1}
  4. {E} = {ca14cbuss0}
  5. {F} = {ca14co}
  6. {G} = {sncbuss1}
  7. {H} = {sncbfs2}
  8. {I} = {sncbfs1}

{A} = {ca2nbcbuss2}
"constitution article 2 natural born citizen "by" birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens"
{C} = {snco}
"statute naturalized citizen "by" oath"
{D} = {ca14cbuss1}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"
{E} = {ca14cbuss0}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents"
{F} = {ca14co}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "by" Oath"
{G} = {sncbuss1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parents"
{H} = {sncbfs2}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents"
{I} = {sncbfs1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parents"


The Mathinsight.org definitions use {A} as the "set" symbol and {B} as the "proper subset" symbol, but the "best answer" {A} symbol for "proper subset" and the {B} symbol for "set" are Dr. C./Kevin's as found in his previous "technical term in set theory" comment, so I use his symbol names here for comparison and contrast continuity. For a more thorough comparison and contrast analysis of "natural born Citizen" as a proper subset of the "citizen" set, I added seven more elements to compare and contrast to {A}: {C} {D} {E} {F} {G} {H} {I}. The {B} "born and oath" citizen "set" is the set which contains within it the eight subsets, the eight proper subsets that are unique and distinct from each other.


The first element of the {B} citizen set is (1) {A} {ca2nbcbuss2} proper subset, the unique union (a union NOT a fusion) of two distinct (distinct but NOT separate) parts, natural law first and positive law secondwhich means "original genesis" birth first and "original intent" U.S. citizenship second, since birth precedes status of citizenship.


The other seven elements of the {B} citizen set, (2) {C} {snco}, (3) {D} {ca14cbuss1}, (4) {E} {ca14cbuss0}, (5) {F} {ca14co}, (6) {G} {sncbuss1}, (7) {H} {sncbfs2}, (8) {I} {sncbfs1}, have meaning by positive law first and natural law second, "original intent" first and "original genesis" second, since codification precedes "birth and oath" application. The codification of the birth and naturalization/oath amendment 14* and the birth and naturalization/oath statute** precede the actual naturalization "at" birth or "by" oath. Also, all eight proper subsets are distinct by original intent, NOT by accident.

____________________
*Compare {C} oath with {D} birth & naturalization/oath.
**Compare {C} and {D} oath and {F} oath (the amendment and statute positive laws about "at" birth citizenship and "by" oath citizenship).


The {A} proper subset is unique and distinct from the {C} {D} {E} {F} {G} {H} {I} proper subsets, all of which are elements of the {B} set. Each element is distinct as in the Mathinginsight.org five elements set {diamond, pyramid, heart, club, spade}, the set which contains within it four elements of the subset/proper subset {diamond, heart, club, spade}. In other words, our {B} (birth and oath)* "citizen" set contains within it the eight subsets/proper subsets {A} {C} {D} {E} {F} {G} {H} {I}.

____________________
*{B} Citizen ("birth or oath") set contains the subsets/proper subsets:
  1. {A} = {ca2nbcbuss2}
  2. {C} = {snco}
  3. {D} = {ca14cbuss1}
  4. {E} = {ca14cbuss0}
  5. {F} = {ca14co}
  6. {G} = {sncbuss1}
  7. {H} = {sncbfs2}
  8. {I} = {sncbfs1}

{A} set/subset/proper subset {ca2nbcbuss2}
"constitution article 2 natural born citizen "by" birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents"
{C} set/subset/proper subset {snco}
"statute naturalized citizen "by" oath"
{D} set/subset/proper subset {ca14cbuss1}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"
{E} set/subset/proper subset {ca14cb0}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents"
{F} set/subset/proper subset {ca14co}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "by" oath"
{G} set/subset/proper subset {sncbuss1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"
{H} set/subset/proper subset {sncbfs2}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parent"
{I} set/subset/proper subset {sncbfs1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent"



The {A} set/subset {ca2nbcbuss2} "constitution amendment article 2 natural born citizen "by" birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents" is also called a proper subset of the eight element {B}* "citizen" "birth or oath" set. The other seven "citizen" subsets are also proper subsets of the {B} "birth or oath" set: 


Proper Subset {A} {ca2nbcbuss2}
"constitution article 2 natural born citizen "by" birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents"


The element {A} {ca2nbcbuss2} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {A} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {A}.


Proper Subset {C} {snco}
"statute naturalized citizen "by" oath"


The element {C} {snco} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {C} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {C}.


Proper Subset {D} {ca14cbuss1}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"


The element {D} {ca14cbuss1} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {D} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {D}.


Proper Subset {E} {ca14cbuss0}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents"


The element {E} {ca14cb0} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {E} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {E}.


Proper Subset {F} {ca14co}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "by" oath"


The element {F} {ca14co} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {F} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {F}.


Proper Subset {G} {sncbuss1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"


The element {G} {sncbuss1} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {G} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {G}.


Proper Subset {H} {sncbfs2}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parent"


The element {H} {sncbfs2} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {H} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {H}.


Proper Subset {I} {sncbfs1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent"


The element {I} {sncbfs1} is one proper subset of the eight element {B} citizen set.


This means that element {I} is in {B}, but all eight elements of the {B} citizen "birth or oath" set are NOT in proper subset {I}.


Next are three practical examples to clarify this look at subset theory. The practical real life result is that "natural born Citizen" as a proper subset of the "citizen" set reinforces original birther John Jay's "natural born Citizen" singular U.S. citizenship "original genesis original intent":


(1) Attorney Orly Taitz—by statute a naturalized by oath citizen, and 14th Amendment naturalized by oath citizen ("All persons born or naturalized...a citizen of..."—naturalized implies "oath").


(2) President Barack Obama, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley—by the 14th Amendment naturalized a citizen "at birth" ("All persons born or naturalized...a citizen of...").


(3) Senator Ted Cruz—by statute naturalized a citizen "at birth."



Example # 1: Orly Taitz
Dentist
Real Estate Broker
Attorney


Attorney Orly Taitz is a prominent "naturalized citizen" by statute and oath. She is included as a representative of immigrants who become naturalized U.S. citizens by oath because new meaning neo-birther Masters mathematician Dr. C./Kevin—"natural born Citizen" means one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf and dual U.S./foreign citizenship is implied—adduced her as a real life and 100% accurate example to clarify his "best answer" to Mario:

"It’s a technical term in set theory: A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set."


"So for example. Orly Taitz is a citizen who is not a natural born citizen. She is in the set (citizens) but not the subset (natural born citizens)."


Example # 2: Barack Hussein Obama
Constitutional Law Lecturer
Community Organizer
U.S. Senator
U.S. President


President Barack Obama is a prominent "amendment citizen" "at" birth* according to the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark holding,—i.e., "All persons born or naturalized...a citizen".


*It is iffy that Obama was even born on U.S. soil to even one U.S. citizen parent since not even one hospital in Hawaii, or any of the 50 U.S. states, has claimed his birth with a ceremony, a plaque and a public announcement that Obama has acknowledged with a public statement. Also, no hospital in any of the "57" states of the Islamic ummah has claimed Obama's birth with a ceremony and a public announcement that Obama has acknowledged with a public statement.


Example # 3: Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz
Constitutional Law Professor
Texas Solicitor General
U.S. Senator


Senator Ted Cruz is a prominent statute "naturalized citizen" "at" birth. He has clairfied, by renouncing his dual U.S./Canadian citizen status to retain his statute U.S. citizen status, that he was truly born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent. The significance is simple to understand—a "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship can NOT renounce foreign citizenship because singular U.S. citizenship is, well, singular U.S. citizenship, not dual U.S./foreign citizenship.



Example #1: Orly Taitz
Proper Subset {C} {snco}
"Citizen" Orly Taitz is a "statute naturalized citizen "by" oath" {snco} who is NOT a natural born citizen "by" birth.

"It’s a technical term in set theory: A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set."


"So for example. Orly Taitz is a citizen who is not a natural born citizen. She is in the set (citizens) but not the subset (natural born citizens)."


The words "not equal" in the first quote from Dr. C./Kevin mean that the "citizen" set contains within it other "citizens" who are not "natural born citizens" as clarifed in the second quote.


For example, consider John Jay's implicature of singular U.S. citizenship when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen". Singular U.S. citizenship which is implicit in "natural born citizens" means that "natural born citizens" is "not equal" to the set "citizens" which contains BOTH singular U.S. citiznship "citizens" and ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship "citizens". For that John Jay original genesis original intent reason, "natural born citizens" is a "proper subset" that is "not equal" to the "citizen" set which contains different types of "citizens" as itemized in the six examples that follow.


The "citizen" set also contains "citizens" who are NOT "natural born citizens" with singular U.S. citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents because they have dual U.S./foreign citizenship, such as these six examples:


(1) Constitution Amendment 14 "citizens" "at" birth who have dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent.


{D} = {ca14cbuss1}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"


(2) Constitution Amendment 14 "citizens" "at" birth who have dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.


{E} = {ca14cbuss0}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S soil to zero U.S. citizen parents"


(3) Constitution Amendment 14 naturalized "citizens" "by" oath.


{F} = {ca14co}
"constitution amendment 14 citizen "by" Oath"


(4) Statute naturalized "citizens" "at" birth who have U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent (one on U.S. soil implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship).


{{G} = {sncbuss1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent"


(5) Statute naturalized "citizens" "at" birth who have U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent (one on foreign soil implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship).


{H} = {sncbfs2}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents"


(6) Statute naturalized "citizens" "at" birth who have U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents (two on foreign implies singular U.S. citizenship even if born on foreign soil).


{I} = {sncbfs1}
"statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent"


Orly Taitz is in the {C} "citizen" set as a {C} proper subset, and NOT an {A} proper subset "natural born Citizen".


Orly Taitz is a "citizen" who IS a "statute naturalized citizen "by" oath" {snco}.
Orly Taitz is in the {B} "citizen" set as a {C} proper subset.


In Mathinsight.org terminology, if {C} is a proper subset of {B}, then all elements of {C} are in {B} but {B} contains at least one element that is not in {C}.


{C} = {snco} is "statute naturalization citizen by oath", so "at least one element" not in {C} could be one of five things: (1) {A} birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, or (2) {D} birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, or (3) {E} birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, or (4) {H} birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, or (5) {I} birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent.


In other words, the John Jay natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") "by" birth subset {A} is unique and distinct from the Orly Taitz positive law "statute naturalized citizen "by" oath" {snco} subset {C}, and both {A} and {C} are proper subsets of the {B} "citizen" set.


The natural law "natural born" child and the same positive law "Citizen" child is a "natural born Citizen" from cradle to grave, and no statute can change that social/political reality, that natural law/positive law reality—the natural law reality of birth precedes and eternally protects the positive law reality of deriving singular U.S. citizenship from two U.S. citizen married parents.


The common sense order is "genesis" first and "intent" second. First is the genesis of the natural law "natural born" child, and second is the intent of the positive law, the status of the "citizen" child, and both together "natural born" and "citizen", are by "original genesis original intent" united by the positive law of the constitution "at" birth as one and unique—the "original genesis" natural law, in this case first being "born", and second being born to two U.S. citizen married parents. Birth precedes, supports, protects and perpetualy defends the "original intent" of the implicature of the positive law written constitution, in this case a "Citizen" born with singular U.S. citizenship derived from two U.S. married citizen parents.



Example #2: Barack Obama
Proper Subset {D} {ca14cbuss1}
Pres. Obama is a "constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent" {ca14cbuss1} who is NOT a natural born citizen "by" birth.


Pres. Obama is in the {D} "citizen" set as a {D} proper subset, and NOT an {A} proper subset "natural born Citizen".


Pres. Obama is a "citizen" who IS a "constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent" {ca14cbuss1}.


Pres. Obama is in the {B} "citizen" set as a {D} proper subset.


In Mathinsight.org terminology, if {D} is a proper subset of {B}, then all elements of {D} are in {B} but {B} contains at least one element that is not in {D}.


{D} = {ca14cbuss1} is "constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent", so "at least one element" not in {D} could be one of five things: (1) {A} birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, or (2) {C} and {F} birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, or (3) {E} birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, or (4) {H} birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, or (5) {I} birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent.


In other words, the John Jay natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") "by" birth subset {A} is unique and distinct from the Barack Obama positive law "constitution amendment 14 citizen "at" birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent" {ca14cbuss1} subset {D}, and both {A} and {D} are proper subsets of the {B} "citizen" set.



Example #3: Ted Cruz
Proper Subset {I} {sncbfs1}
Sen. Cruz is a "statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent" {sncbfs1} (no oath required at age of majority) who is NOT a natural born citizen "by" birth.


Sen. Cruz is in the {I} "citizen" set as an {I} proper subset, and NOT an {A} proper subset "natural born Citizen".


Sen. Cruz is a "citizen" who IS a "statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent" {sncbfs1}.


Sen. Cruz is in the {B} "citizen" set as an {I} proper subset.


In Mathinsight.org terminology, if {I} is a proper subset of {B}, then all elements of {I} are in {B} but {B} contains at least one element that is not in {I}.


{I} {sncbfs1} is "statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent", so "at least one element" not in {I} could be one of five things: (1) {A} birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, or (2) {D} birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, or (3) {E} birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, or (4) {H} birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, or (5) {C} and {F} birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.


In other words, the John Jay natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") "by" birth subset {A} is unique and distinct from the Ted Cruz positive law "statute naturalized citizen "at" birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent" {sncbfs1} subset {I}, and both {A} and {I} are proper subsets of the {B} "citizen" set.


  1. {A} = {ca2nbcbuss2}
  2. {C} = {snco}
  3. {D} = {ca14cbuss1}
  4. {E} = {ca14cbuss0}
  5. {F} = {ca14co}
  6. {G} = {sncbuss1}
  7. {H} = {sncbfs2}
  8. {I} = {sncbfs1}

Set Theory Conclusions—"What does THAT mean?"
Using set theory, there are at least four irrefutable conclusions.


Point #1
All "natural born Citizens" are citizens "by" birth, but none, zip, zero, zilch, absolutely NONE of the amendment 14 citizens "at" birth are "natural born Citizens" "by" birth.


Point #2
All statute naturalized citizens "at" birth (Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, etc.) or "by" oath are citizens, and NOT "natural born Citizens" "by" birth.


Point #3
All citizens "by" birth (Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Rick Santorum, Sen. Mike Lee, etc.) can NOT be Amendment 14 citizens "at" birth ALSO because "natural born Citizens" "by" birth do NOT need to be recognized as Amendment 14 "citizens" "at" birth.


Point #4
Finally, and of course, NONE of the statute naturalized citizens "by" oath can be "natural born Citizens" "by" or "at" or "after" birth, since they were born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.


My conclusion, my "hey, I'm not a mathematician, what do I know" conclusion about sets, subsets and proper subsets is that original birther John Jay was "original genesis original intent" prescient in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" with the obvious implicature of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that can ONLY be derived ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


For those who ask "what does THAT mean?" when discussing John Jay's 1787 possible reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington, "THAT" means that "natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of the born and oath "citizen" set because the "born and oath" "citizen" set contains within it all the elements of the subsets that are also proper subsets while the proper subsets do not contain all of the elements contained in the "born and oath" "citizen" set.


"THAT" means that the "natural born Citizen" proper subset does not contain all of the elements found within the born and oath "citizen" set, and "THAT" means that a "natural born Citizen" is unique and distinct from (1) a statute naturalized citizen "by" oath, and distinct from (2) a statute naturalized citizen "at" birth, and distinct from (3) an amendment citizen "at" birth, and all eight of our proper subsets addressed here are unique and distinct from each other. All eight are proper subsets contained within the "born and oath" set called "citizens" of the United States.


"THAT" is WHY "natural born Citizen" means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship derived ONLY "by" birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.



Sen. Ted Cruz at CPAC 2015
An Exhausting 46 Second Question/Answer About the Constitution and POTUS Eligibility


I posted a similar comment to this on Mario Apuzzo's blog on March 2, 2015 at 6:02 PM
( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html )


Sen. Ted Cruz speech at CPAC 2015.
( http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529323/senator-ted-cruz-cpac )

At about 20 min. 12 sec. to 20 min. 58 sec. = 46 seconds.


Hannity:
Alright, I want to warn everybody, I am asking this next question, because I know the liberal media will.
Ok, so we might as well get it out of the way for them.


Your mother was an American citizen.
You talked about your dad coming from Cuba.
You were born in Canada.
You had dual citizenship.
There are a bunch of liberal birthers out there that would try to make the case that you're not eligible.
Just a quick, short answer.


Sen. Cruz:
Look, I was born in Calgary.
My mother was an American citizen by birth.
Under Federal law that made me an American citizen by birth.
The Constitution requires that you be a natural born citizen.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


There was no reference to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, Amendment 14, Section 1 (1st sentence), or the relevant statute—INA: ACT 301 - Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth. Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401], specifically clauses (a) and (g).


Notice the explicit language about "at Birth" the child is a "citizen." The language is not suggesting that "at birth" the child is a "natural born Citizen." The "Citizens...at Birth" are INA:ACT 301 "citizens" "at birth" but not Article 2 "natural born Citizens" "by birth" since the "natural born Citizen" does not need Amendment 14 "at birth" postive law or INA: ACT 301 "at birth" positive law to be "by birth" a natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen."


To put it another way, the Amendment 14 and INA: ACT 301 language is not suggesting that a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone, also expressed as "by birth." Also, the INA: ACT 301 language is not suggesting that a child born on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone, also expressed as "by birth."


[ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375 ]


"(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
[...snip...]
(g) a person
born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was ... ."


A 46 second question and answer about constitutional eligibility.
After an exhausting 46 second question and answer, in which there was not time to discuss the original genesis original intent of original birther John Jay, and why he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" which was included in Article 2, there was an Immediate transition from eligibility to Sen. Cruz's top five agenda items—and after a possible tacit reference to the 2nd Amendment, he didn't say what he was referring to, there is item #4 about constitutional rights.


Hannity:
Alright, 
Now we're going to do our quick lightning round,
'cause we're running out of time.
What would the top five agenda items of a President Te
d Cruz, what would they be?


Sen. Cruz:
#1 - repeal every blasted word of ObamaCare.
#2 - abolish the IRS. Take all 125,000 IRS agents and put them on the southern border.
#3 - stop the out of control regulators; the EPA and the alphabet soup of Washington.
#4 - defend our constitutional rights; all of them.
#5 - restore America's leadership in the world as a shining city on a hill.


Senator Ted Cruz, in his CPAC speech said that the Constitution requires being a "natural born citizen" to be eligible to be POTUS, and because his mother was "a citizen by birth" that made Sen. Cruz "an American citizen by birth," implying, by conflating Article 2 with Amendment 14, that he is a "natural born Citizen" "by birth" instead of being an INA:ACT 301 clause "g" "born citizen" "at birth."


The Obama birth narrative neo-birthers must be ecstatic that Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the most prominent Republicans and a constitutional scholar, in his answer to Sean Hannity, tacitly implies that Article 2 implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship with one U.S. citizen parent, and also the dual citizenship of putative single U.S. citizen parent Pres. Obama, and the neo-birthers must also be ecstatic that Sen. Cruz's answer tacitly denigrates Article 2 and ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents.


In his answer Sen. Cruz confounds the understanding about the Amendment 14 "at birth" implication and Article 2 "by birth" implication. Sen. Cruz also conflates the two by confounding the distinction between an Amendment 14 "at birth" "citizen" and an INA: ACT 301 statute"at birth" "citizen" with an Article 2 "by birth" "natural born citizen."


The confusion in Sen. Cruz's answer confounds the constitutional distinction between Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, Amendment 14 Section 1 (first sentence) and the INA: ACT 301 statute, clauses "a" and "g."


The 1787-2015 Article 2, inspired by original birther John Jay, intends ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents, while the 1868-2015 Amendment 14, according to the Supreme Court since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark holding, intends ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents. Amendment 14 does NOT affirm BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Amendment 14 affirms ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.


Sen. Cruz's answer also confounds the Article 2 ONLY intention of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents with the INA: ACT 301 (clauses "a and "g") statute which intends ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth" on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents. The INA: ACT 301 statute also intends ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents. The statute does NOT affirm BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship. The INA:ACT 301 statute affirms ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.


It would be nice if constitutional scholar Sen. Cruz, and by extension Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others would affirm the "constitutional right" of WE the People to have clearly articulated that original birther John Jay had ONLY one "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizens" in his note to George Washington, which was included in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 suggesting ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents.


Maybe Sen. Cruz and Sean Hannity should read this study about why Article 2 "natural born Citizen" "by birth" is a proper subset of the "citizen/born citizen" set, and compare and contrast with a "natural born Citizen" "by birth" why an Amendment 14 " "born citizen" is a "citizen" "at birth" and also a proper subset of the "citizen/born citizen" set, and why an INA: ACT 301 statute "born citizen" is a "citizen" "at birth" and also a proper subset of the "citizen/born citizen" set.



Original Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers


I have added to the comment that I posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog (January 6, 2015 at 2:30 PM*). Mario has the etiological** (origin, reason) and teleological*** (aim, purpose) history of "natural born Citizen" under control, and going on seven years since December 2008 when he started his blog, absolutely nobody has refuted his definition of an "nbC" as "a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth," which is simply an accurate restatement of the unanimous decision in 1875 of the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, "...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."**** The children born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, plural, were identifed as "natural born Citizens."


*( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=16 )

**etiology: Origin, reason—to protect occupation of the "Command in chief" control of the army.

***teleology: Aim, purpose—to perpetually prevent foreign influence over the military.

****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.”



American Heritage Dictionary


etiology, also aetiology n.
1a. The study of causes or origins.
1b. The branch of medicine that deals with the causes or origins of disease.
2a. Assignment of a cause, origin or reason for something.
2b. The cause or origin of a disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis.


teleology n.
1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history. [Gk. telios, telos, perfect, complete (< telos, end, result) + —LOGY (study)]


In the context of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the etiological history, the "origin or reason" of "natural born Citizen" is the precaution to protect the "Command in chief" of the army from foreign influence mentioned by John Jay in his July 25, 1878 note to George Washington, which was adopted in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 on September 17, 1787.


On Mario's blog I wrote:


Maybe it's time to change the conversation by adducing the original intent of original birther John Jay. Of course, you should continue to respond to their denigrating comments against your legal erudition and your personal integrity, but after doing that, maybe you can also ask the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers a very simple question related to original birther John Jay's "natural born Citizen" original intent: which of the definitions of "natural born Citizen" listed below would the neo-birthers want articulated by the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John (call it a tax) Roberts?


Maybe the various camps of neo-birthers would prefer to have the U.S. Congress to define "nbC" instead. However, maybe the neo-birthers might even have a preference for an Article V convention of the "several states" so that the people through their state legislatures can get involved to express their opinions about which meaning of "nbC" they want proposed as an amendment to clarify the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "nbC" once and forever.


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



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


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


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


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


So, it looks like the Pima County Arizona Superior Court chose neo-birther numbers #10, #3 and #6, dual citizenship—born on U.S. soil—born to one U.S. citizen parent AND one foreign citizen parent. Why? Probably because Obama WAS born naturally to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent (or so he says). Right? So, according to the neo-birther definition, he was born a natural born citizen, and the number of U.S. citizen parents is irrelevant. That must be the erudite and fully informed opinion of the Pima County Arizona Superior Court, and it does not matter what John Jay's original intent might have been in 1787.


That means that neo-birther Bryan's neo-birther definition of "nbC" that does not consider and then adduce John Jay for guidance about Jay's 1787 original intent will always define "nbC" in a neo-birther way that is contrary to the 1875 Minor v. Happersett court that agrees with original birther John Jay's original intent definition, #2, #3 and #6: a child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and is a "natural born Citizen."


Also, maybe somebody can ask the SCOTUS to which of the meanings of "nbC" listed do they adhere; the single "original meaning" and original intent of 1787 (18th century America) original birther John Jay, or the multitude of "new meanings" of 2008-2015 (21st century America) neo-birthers?



Etiology and Teleology of Natural Born Citizen


Here are two words from the American Heritage Dictionary, followed by a few glossary words from Reading Law—The Interpretation of Legal Texts.


American Heritage Dictionary


etiology, also aetiology n.
1a. The study of causes or origins.
1b. The branch of medicine that deals with the causes or origins of disease.
2a. Assignment of a cause, origin or reason for something.
2b. The cause or origin of a disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis.


In the context of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the etiological history of the "origin or reason" of "natural born Citizen" is the precaution to protect the "Command in chief" of the army from foreign influence mentioned by John Jay in his July 25, 1878 note to George Washington, which was adopted in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 on September 17, 1787.


teleology n.
1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.
2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.
3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history. [Gk. telios, telos, perfect, complete (< telos, end, result) + —LOGY (study)]


Application to Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen"

etiology: Origin, reason—to protect occupation of the "Command in chief" control of the army.
teleology: Aim, purpose—to perpetually prevent foreign influence over the military.


In the context of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the teleological history of the "purposeful development toward an end" is the perpetual protection of the Executive branch of the Federation from foreign influence, including the "foreign influence" of an alien ideology intent on transforming the United States of America contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution itself as expressed in the preamble "WE the People," to be a perpetual "... more perfect Union," and a charter of "negative liberties," some enumerated in Article I Section 8 Clauses 1-18, but never to be a charter of "positive liberties" contrary to enumeration, to fulfill a progressive, liberal agenda.


ALL members of WE the People of the "several states" who originally created the Federation and the federal constitution, will be equal in the (inter)national commune that is being created by the Federation, the "child" that did not exist until it was created by the compact, the "Union" of the "several states" as mentioned in Article V. The tripartite Federation, and specifically the Executive of the Federation, are "... transforming the United States of America" into an ideologically more fair and equal new social order, a new humanity so to speak—or else. For those who do not comply, who do not submit (pick your word) to living in a transformed America, well, there will be consequences for the recalcitrant who do not want to be members of the (inter)national commune that is being so unselfishly provided by the "child' of the "parent," aka the "several states," aka WE the People of the perpetual "... more perfect Union" of America.


WE the People are the "natural law" supreme law of the land that preceded and created the "positive law" written law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. It is WE the People of the "several states" who will have the final say on who controls the Federation, and it is NOT the Executive of the Federation, neither of which existed until the U.S. Constitution was written, which defined the Federation and the Executive, and then was adopted and ratified. That means that neither the Federation or the Executive of the Federation were a party to the compact between the "several states."


It was WE the People of the "several states" who created the U.S. Constitution to be a charter of "negative liberties" and NOT to be "transformed" by executive orders into a charter of "positive liberties" with the progressive intent, to use only one example of health care, of establishing a national commune for the American people where everybody will eventually be provided with a single payer health care system. In the collective everybody will be equal—and not allowed to be exceptional—or else, off to the reeducation camp to get rid of the stinkin' thinkin' of individualism.


United States of America
or
United Soviet States of America
or
United Ummah States of Islamerica


In essence, the attempt is being made of "transforming" the United States of America from "Yes, I can" be exceptional into "Yes, we can" be equal in the political collective of the national "commune" of the United Soviet States of America, with some even calling for being equal in the religious collective of the United Ummah States of Islamerica.




134 Glossary Words—Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts


The 37 glossary words below are part of the 134 glossary words from Reading Law—The Interpretation of Legal Texts*, by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his coauthor Professor Bryan Garner. Here is a pdf of the 2013 book review** in the Columbia Law Review by William N. Eskridge, Jr., John A. Garver Professor of Jurisprudence, Yale Law School.


These 37 words are original intent related and helpful in understanding the meaning of "natural born Citizen" as original birther John Jay may have clarified the words if neo-birthers had existed in 1787. Of course, they did not exist then, and John Jay was not ambiguous or vague when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.


Relative to "original intent" is the first paragraph on page xxi of the Foreword by Frank H. Easterbrook, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.


" '[S]trict construction...is not a doctrine to be taken seriously' (p. 356).


Many people will be surprised to rad this line, which is elaborated in an entire chapter (62} of a book by two textualists who think that statutory language is both the start and the finish of the interpretive process. But no one who has paid close attention to how textualists decide cases (on the bench) or explain their methods (on or off the bench) should be surprised.


Some texts proclaim that they should be read 'strictly' (i.e., narrowly); others demand a broad or general application. The text's author, not the interpreter, gets to choose how the language will be understood and applied. The court's job is to carry out the legislative project, not to change it in conformity with the judge's view of sound policy."


*Appendix B, A Glossary of Legal Interpretation, pages 425-442. The usual open and close quote marks (" ") are not added for the glossary words, and commentary about the definitions follows some of the glossary words. ((c) 2012 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A Garner—Published by Thomson/West)
**( http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Eskridge.pdf )



Appendix B
A Glossary of Legal Interpretation


ambiguity: 1. An uncertainty of meaning based not on the scope of a word or phrase but on a semantic dichotomy that gives rise to any of two or more quite different but almost equally plausible interpretations. 2. Loosely, VAGUENESS. We adhere to sense 1 in this text.


vagueness: 1. Uncertain breadth of meaning. 2. Loosely, ambiguity.


Under ambiguity, the original intent of "natural born Citizen," as John Jay intended it and George Washington understood and accepted it, was not ambiguous or vague in 1787. Jay, Washington and the framers and ratifiers obviously would not defend today in 21st century America the neo-birther proposition that "nbC" could have "... any of two or more quite different but almost equally plausible interpretations."


Under vagueness, the "breadth of meaning" of "natural born Citizen" was not "uncertain," and it was deliberately and with definite purpose limited, it was not all inclusive to include a multitude of "new meanings" proposed by 21st century neo-birthers.


Two or more?
Equally plausible?


Two or more—equally plausible, such as the schizophrenia of being born EITHER on U.S. soil OR foreign soil?


Two or more—equally plausible, such as the schizophrenia of being born to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?


Two or more—equally plausible, such as the schizophrenia of being born to U.S. citizen parents who were EITHER married to each other BEFORE their child was born OR NOT married to each other BEFORE their child was born?


John Jay was not ambiguous and vague.
Jay's original intent for "natural born Citizen" was not schizophrenic.



canon of imputed common-law meaning: The doctrine that a statute that uses a common-law term, without defining it, adopts its common-law meaning.


In the same sense that the entire U.S. Constitution is a "statute" (positive law), "natural born Citizen" contained within it is also a "statute," and the union of natural law/positive law in "natural born Citizen," ("natural born" = natural law, "Citizen" = positive law), without being defined by Jay, Washington, the framers and the ratifiers, was understood by them in 1787 America with it's "common-law meaning," which is that the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the married U.S. citizenship of the wife*, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents, married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child, determined the singular U.S. citizenship of their child.


*Remember, we're talking about only eleven years, from July 4, 1776 to September 17, 1787. So, whether the wife was already naturalized 11 years and 2 months earlier as a July 4, 1776 "citizen", or by immigrating to America after July 4, 1776 identified as an alien, by marriage either wife took on the U.S. citizenship of the husband.



clean-statement rule: A doctrine holding that a legal instrument, esp. a statute, will not have some specified effect unless that result is unquestionably produced by the text.


As a "statute," the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, has the "specified effect" of definitely limiting POTUS eligibility ONLY to persons born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child.



constitutional-doubt canon: The doctrine that a statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing its constitutionality in doubt.


Which definition of "natural born Citizen" avoids "placing its constitutionality in doubt"? Born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child, OR ALSO born on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil, born ALSO to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents married OR NOT married to each other?



construction: 1. The act or process of interpreting or explaining the meaning of a legal text; the ascertainment of a document's sense in accordance with established judicial standards. 2. According to some theorists, the judicial imputation of meaning where the text is silent. In this treatise and in accordance with prevailing usage, we use construction in sense 1—essentially as a synonym of interpretation. See INTERPRETATION.


- purposive construction: An interpretation that looks to the "evil" that the statute is trying to correct (i.e., the statute's purpose, usually conceived broadly and apart from the limitations of the text).


- strict construction: 1. A narrow, crabbed* interpretation. 2. An interpretation according to the literal meaning of the words, as contrasted with what the words denote in context according to a fair reading.


*Complicated, difficult to understand, difficult to read.



eisegesis (/i-se-jee-ses/): the act of reading into a text one's own desired meaning.


Since John Jay had only one original intent meaning for "natural born Citizen," anything else is eisegesis, putting "... one's own desired meaning" into Article II Section 1 Clause 5.


So, which meaning of "nbC" is "eisegesis" of Jay's original intent—ONLY U.S. soil, ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, OR ALSO U.S. soil OR foreign soil, ALSO born to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?



exegesis (/eks-e-jee-ses/): The explanation of the meaning of a text through close reading.


Since John Jay had only one original intent meaning for "natural born Citizen," exegesis is putting Jay's original intent meaning into Article II Section 1 Clause 5.


So, which meaning of "nbC" is "exegesis" of Jay's original intent—ONLY U.S. soil, ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, OR ALSO U.S. soil OR foreign soil, ALSO born to two OR one OR zero .S. citizen parents?



fair reading: The interpretation that would be given to a text by a reasonable reader, fully competent in the language, who seeks to understand what the text meant at its adoption, and who considers the purpose of the text but derives purpose from the words actually used.


In considering "... what the text meant at its adoption," the choice is between what the text meant to John Jay in 1787 and what the text means to 21st century neo-birthers.



fixed-meaning canon: The doctrine that words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted; ORIGINALISM. "The 'will of Congress' we look to is not a will evolving from Session to Session, but a will expressed and fixed in a particular enactment."


The "... will expressed and fixed in a particular enactment" is inherent in the 1787 U.S. Constitution and the POTUS eligibility words "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, not 1790, 1795, 1802, 1868, 1875, 1898, 1922, 1952, etcetera.



grammar canon: The doctrine that words are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them.


The positive law word "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" is associated with the natural law words "natural born," and "... the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them" is understood by implicature.



harmonious-reading canon: The doctrine that the provisions of a text should be interpreted in a way that renders them compatible, not contradictory.


The original intent of "natural born Citizen" by original birther John Jay is not "compatible" with the "contradictory" new meanings of "nbC" posited by the neo-birthers.



interpretation: 1. Properly, the ascertainment of a text's meaning; specif., the determination of how a text most fittingly applies to particular facts. Cf. APPLICATION. 2. Loosely, the imputation or creation of meaning that is absent from a text. "Currently legislative terminology, by implying a single concept of 'statutory interpretation,' tends to obscure the important difference between the finding of meaning, on the one hand, and the imputation of meaning or the judicial creation of law, on the other." In this treatise, we use interpretation in sense 1. See CONSTRUCTION.


- liberal interpretation: Broad interpretation of a text's language beyond its permissible meanings, usually with the object of producing the result that the interpreter thinks desirable.


The multiple neo-birther interpretations of "nbC" is "... beyond its permissible meanings...," because Jay had only one original intent meaning.


- literal interpretation: An interpretation based strictly on the exact grammatical sense of unambiguous words.


When Jay wrote the words "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, Jay and Washington understood the "unambiguous words."


- purposive interpretation: 1. An interpretation that looks to the "evil" that the statute is trying to correct (i.e., the statute's purpose). 2. See teleological interpretations.


The evil that John Jay was "trying to correct" with "nbC" was foreign influence over the military of the "... more perfect Union."


- spurious interpretation: An interpretation that makes, unmakes, or remakes meaning rather than discovering it. According to Roscoe Pound, spurious interpretation "puts a meaning into the text as a juggler puts coins, or what not, into a dummy's hair, to be pulled forth presently with an air of discovery."


Did the neo-birthers remake the meaning of "nbC" "rather than discovering" the original intent meaning of John Jay, or did Jay remake the meaning of "nbC" rather than discovering meaning of the neo-birthers?


- strict interpretation: An interpretation according to the most narrow, literal meaning of the words without regard for context and other permissible meanings.


Should original birther John Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC" be interpreted with "...the most narrow, literal meaning..." as having ONLY ONE meaning, or should "nbC" be interpreted as having "...other permissible meanings?"


- teleological interpretation: An interpretation arrived at through imaginative reconstruction (q.v.), whereby the judge attempts to read the text as he believes the drafter would have wished to phrase it in order to achieve the drafter's desired end.


How did John Jay expect to achieve his aim, his purpose, his "desired end" for "nbC, which was to perpetually protect the "Command in chief" from foreign influence? Allowing ONLY birth on U.S. soil and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, OR allowing birth ALSO on foreign soil and ALSO birth to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents, without regard to perpetually protecting the "Command in chief" from foreign influence?


- textual interpretation: An interpretation based purely on the words of a governing text, in their context, as the sole legitimate guides to meaning.


What do original birther John Jay's words mean without implicature about his original intent? Do his words mean anything other than what they mean by implicature? No.


- viperine interpretation: An interpretation that essentially destroys the text. Here is what Thomas Hobbs said in 1651 about the phenomenon (without actually using the phrase): "[B]y the craft of an Interpreter, the Law may be made to beare a sense, contrary to that of the Soveraign; by which means the Interpreter becomes the Legislator."


Which interpretation of "nbC" "destroys the text" of Article II Section 1 Clause 5? Original birther John Jay's only original intent of birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, OR the neo-birther new meaning of birth ALSO on foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents?



Living Constitutionalism: The doctrine that a constitutional provision should be interpreted in light of the knowledge, needs, and mores existing at the time when the interpretive decision is rendered.—Living Constitutionalist, n.


Constructionist "living constitutionalism" that does not consider and adduce original birther John Jay's single original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" and instead seriously considers as viable the multitude of "new meanings" of the neo-birthers is really "dead constitutionalism."



nonoriginalism: The view that a text need not be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning (that is, the understanding of informed readers at the time of its adoption), but rather may be given new meanings to accord with the times.


If John Jay, who suggested the words "natural born Citizen" to George Washington who understood Jay's meaning, did not have in 18th century America "... the understanding of informed readers at the time of its adoption," who did and who does? The 2008-2015 neo-birthers of 21st century America? That is why Jay should be considered and adduced as the authority about his 1787 original intent meaning for the "nbC" POTUS eligibility language. Some "new meanings" of "nbC" such as being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil AND being born to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents may "... accord with the times" of neo-birthers in 2015 America, but NOT with 1787 America John Jay's original intent meaning of ONLY being born on U.S. soil and ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.



ordinary-meaning canon: The doctrine that words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates that they bear a technical sense.


In Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the words "natural born Citizen" have only one obvious context. The "nbC" words do not have both "... ordinary, everyday meanings" and a "technical sense" that alter the original intent meaning of John Jay.



original intent: The subjective intention of the framers or ratifiers of a legal instrument, esp. a government text. When it goes beyond what is apparent from the words of the text, original intent as applied to the product of a collective body almost always denotes a legal fiction, and when not that, an unascertainable reality.


In the context of A2 S1 C5, the "subjective intention" of 1787 original birther John Jay informs and corrects the "subjective intention" of 2015 neo-birthers. The "subjective intention" of neo-birthers "denotes a legal fiction," and the multitude of new meanings proposed by neo-birthers reveals an "unascertainable reality" that "goes beyond what is apparent from the words of the text" and is contrary to John Jay's original intent reality of original genesis birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents original intent reality.



originalism: 1. The doctrine that words are to be given the meaning they had when they were adopted; specif., the canon that a legal text should be interpreted through the historical ascertainment of the meaning that it would have conveyed to a fully informed observer at the time when the text first took effect. (See section 7 [fixed-meaning canon]. 2. The doctrine that a legal text should be interpreted to effect the intent of those who prepared it or gave it legal effect. Sense 1 is our preferred use of the term: It is an objective test. Sense 2 embodies a subjective test.


The "objective test" exegesis of meaning by 2015 America original intent birthers informs their "subjective test" of the original intent meaning of 1787 America original intent birther John Jay to "effect the intent" of "natural born Citizen." The "subjective test" eisegesis of neo-birthers does not inform but it does determine their "objective test" confusion revealed by their multitude of new meanings for "nbC."



original meaning: The understanding of a text, esp. an important text such as the Constitution, reflecting what an informed, reasonable member of the community would have understood at the time of adoption according to then-prevailing linguistic meanings and interpretive principles. (See section 7 [fixed-meaning canon].)


If the Constitution reflected the "original meaning" that the "informed, reasonable member of the community" in 1787 America "understood at the time of adoption...linguistic meanings" of the words "natural born Citizen" in A2 S1 C5, why do the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers of 2008-2015 America not consider and adduce original birther John Jay's original intent? Could it be because Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent and not two U.S. citizen parents?



plain-meaning rule: 1. The doctrine that if the text of a statute is unambiguous, it should be applied by its terms without recourse to policy arguments, legislative history, or any other matter extraneous to the text—unless this application leads to an absurdity. Here is a classic 1929 statement of the rule by the Supreme Court of the United States: "[W]here the language of an enactment is clear, and construction according to its terms does not lead to absurd or impracticable consequences, the words employed are to be taken as the final expression of the meaning intended." The doctrine is essentially sound but largely unhelpful, since determining what is unambiguous is eminently debatable. 2. Loosely, the ordinary-meaning canon. See ORDINARY-MEANING CANON.


When the "text of a statute is unambiguous" (a statute is positive law and the entire Constitution is positive law), such as the Constitution was unambiguous when adopted in 1787 by the framers and sent to the states for ratification, the "plain-meaning" of "natural born Citizen" was obvious and included because it also was unambiguous. John Jay's original intent "plain meaning" reveals that "... since determining what is unambiguous is eminently debatable" does not apply to "nbC" in A2 S1 C5 and to John Jay.



presumption of consistent usage: The doctrine that a word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.


The "consistent usage" of "citizen" in the Constitution indicates that the "presumption of consistent usage" applies also to the single use of "natural born Citizen" in A2 S1 C5.


For example, Alexander Hamilton was born in Charlestown, Nevis, British West Indies, and was recognized as an A2 S1 C5 "... or a Citizen" of the United States of America by authority of the new U.S. Constitution because he participated in and adhered to the the successful conclusion of the war of independence from England. Hamilton was a "citizen" but he was not a "natural born Citizen." That distinction reveals by implicature that in 1787 America "nbC" is unique to persons born on U.S. soil to two two U.S. citizen married parents. There was in 1787 America and still is today only one meaning of "nbC" and it does not suggest "... a variation of meaning" regarding POTUS eligibility to persons born on foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents married or not married to each other before their child is born.



punctuation canon: The doctrine that punctuation is a permissible indicator of meaning.


Article II Section 1 Clause 5

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


It is obvious that punctuation in A2 S1 C5 indicates different meanings for "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen." A U.S. "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" was NOT a U.S. natural born citizen "at the time of adoption" in 1787 and yet an "... or a a Citizen" WAS eligible to be POTUS. Since the last 1787 positive law "... or a Citizen" died sometime in the 1800s, only a natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen," born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, is perpetually eligible to be POTUS by right of natural birth (natural law)—unless A2 S1 C5 is amended with language explicitly stating that an "nbC" is "natural born" if born on EITHER 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, AND if the language explicitly states (a declaration) that what is necessary and sufficient to be eligible to be POTUS is ONLY being born naturally, whether on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction) OR foreign soil NOT under U.S jurisdiction.


That explicit declaration, that positive law language would make a child a positive law U.S. "citizen" and thus a "natural born citizen" by positive law ONLY—a declaration ONLY, and NOT a "natural born Citizen" ONLY by the union of BOTH natural law/positive law—natural law birth AND positive law declaration as a U.S. citizen.


Natural law soil precedes natural birth on that soil, obviously, and that natural law birth on that soil can ONLY occur with the natural law union of two persons, obviously, and that natural law union of two persons can ONLY produce a "natural born Citizen" child ONLY when the two persons are singular U.S. citizens who are married to each other BEFORE their child is born, obviously. Natural law precedes, informs and guides the intent and application of positive law, NOT vice versa, obviously.


Neither "citizen" or "natural born Citizen" were ambiguous in 1787. While all natural born citizens born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents were recognized as U.S. citizens, it is obvious that some U.S. citizens were NOT recognized to be a "natural born Citizen" because they were NOT born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


To those who say that John Jay's original intent with "nbC," birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, was NOT obvious in 1787 America, how do they know THAT—if it was NOT obvious? How do they KNOW that the neo-birther assertion of birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or unmarried, WAS obvious in 2008-2015 America if John Jay was NOT obvious in 1787 America?



purposivism: The doctrine that a drafter's "purposes," as perceived by the interpreter, are more important than the words that the drafter has used; specif., the idea that a judge-interpreter should seek an answer not in the words of the text but in its social, economic, and political objectives. Broadly speaking purposivism is synonymous with mischief rule. Cf. EQUITY-OF-THE-STATUTE.


Original birther John Jay would probably say "dittos" to that common sense defense of the original intent of "...a drafter's 'purposes'." Otherwise what is "original intent" for, right?


The Obama birth narrative neo-birthers have been promoting "purposivism" for their "political objectives" in their defense of the neo-birther new meaning of "natural born Citizen" as meaning ALSO birth on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married or NOT married to the non-U.S. citizen parent.



supremacy-of-text principle: The doctrine that the words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means.


The multitude of new meanings about "natural born Citizen" expressed by neo-birthers are not "what the text means" because "in their context" the new meanings of the neo-birthers are NOT "what the text means" in A2 S1 C5. What the text of A2 S1 C5 means is ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents. The text of A2 S1 C5 does NOT mean born on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married or not married parents.



surplusage canon: The doctrine that, if possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect (verba cum effectu sunt acciptenda). According to this canon, "if a [textual] provision lends itself to two possible interpretations, and if one of those interpretations would make another provision in the [text] superfluous, then interpreters, ordinarily should prefer the other interpretation."


Does Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 give "every word...effect?" Does A2 S1 C5 suggest "two possible interpretations" or only one? Which of the meanings below of "natural born Citizen" makes the other meaning "superfluous?"


(1) John Jay original birther original intent—born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents?


(2) Neo-birther new meaning intent—born on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents?


The #1 and ONLY meaning of John Jay makes #2 and the many new meanings of the neo-birthers superfluous. To "... prefer the other interpretation" means to prefer #1 and John Jay and a single meaning of "nbC" and to ignore #2 and the multitude of new meanings of the neo-birthers.


American Heritage Dictionary


"superfluity n.
1. The quality or condition of being superfluous.
2. Something superfluous.
3. Overabundance; excess."


"superfluous adj.
Being beyond what is required or sufficient."


"SYNONYMSSuperfluous, excess, extra, spare, supernumerary, surplus. These adjectives mean being more than is needed, desired, required, or appropriate: delete superfluous words; trying to lose extra weight; found some extra change on the dresser; sleeping in the spare room; supernumerary ornamentation; distributed surplus food."



textualism: The doctrine that the words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey in their context is what the text means.—textualist, adj. & n.


John Jay would agree that the original intent of "... the words of a governing text" such as the Constitution, and birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents is the ONLY original genesis meaning that the words "natural born Citizen" "... convey in their context." Jay would also agree that "natural birth" on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married parents is the ONLY conclusion of "... what the text means."



whole-text canon: The doctrine that the text must be construed as a whole.


The natural law/positive law meaning of "natural born Citizen" in A2 S1 C5 "... must be construed as a whole." The two words "natural born" = natural law, and the single word "Citizen" = positive law.


Natural law precedes, informs and guides positive law, not vice versa. Positive law "citizenship" can not produce a natural law "natural born" child.


When the text of A2 S1 C5 is "... construed as a whole" a natural law "natural born" child born from the natural law union of two persons does produce a positive law U.S. "Citizen" ONLY when the two parents are married to each other BEFORE their child is born.



70 Sound Principles of Interpretation


There are seventy fundamental principles discussed in Reading LawThe Interpretation of Legal Texts. Here are portions of two principles, #37 Absurdity Doctrine (p. 234), and #38 Constitutional-Doubt Canon (p. 247).



#37—Absurdity Doctrine
"A provision may be either disregarded or judicially corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve."


" '(I)n construing...all written instruments, the grammatical
and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless
that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified,
so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further.'
Grey v. Pearson,


[1857] 6 H.L. Cas. 61, (per Lord Wensleydale)."


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Comment:


In "... the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words," original birther John Jay's original intent of "natural born Citizen" with the meaning of ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents as being necessary and sufficient for eligibility to be POTUS, there is nothing absurd, repugnant or inconsistent with the rest of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, or all of the references to "citizen" in the entire U.S. Constitution. However, the neo-birther new meanings of "nbC" as birth on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who are married or NOT married to each other BEFORE their child is born ARE absurd, repugnant and inconsistent with the use of "citizen" in the rest A2 S1 C5 and the entire Constitution.


In A2 S1 C5, "...or a Citizen" is a reference to persons being born in British America or elsewhere* BEFORE July 4, 1776 and also being naturalized as a "citizen" on July 4, 1776 and adhering to the successful conclusion of the war of independence from England, while "natural born Citizen" is a reference ONLY to being born AFTER July 4, 1776 and being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


It is absurd for the neo-birthers to assert that in 1787 "... or a citizen" originally meant a naturalized citizen because of NOT being born on U.S. soil, with the reasonable implicature of NOT being born to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen OR foreign citizens, AND at the same time assert that "natural born Citizen" DOES mean being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married OR unmarried parents.


*Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies and was grandfathered as an "... or a Citizen" of the United States of America on September 17, 1787.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


"Some absurd outcomes can be avoided without doing real violence to the text. But sometimes there is no sense of a provision—no permissible meaning—that can eliminate an absurdity unless the court fixes a textual error. As Blackstone explained: '[W]here words bear...a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of then.'[1] A little: If an easy correction is not possible, the absurdity stands."


[...]


"Is the situation different when the error (more likely a drafter's error than a scrivener's) makes entire sense grammatically but produces a disposition that makes no substantive sense (a so-called evaluative absurdity[4])? Consider, for example, a provision in a statute creating a new claim by saying that 'the winning party must pay the other side's reasonable attorney's fees.' That is entirely absurd, and it is virtually certain that winning party was meant to be losing party. May the court read it that way, in defiance of the plain text?


"We agree with those authorities who say that it may. The line between reading partly to 'party,' and reading winning to mean 'losing,' is generally not a principled one. In both cases we are not revising the apparent meaning of the text but are giving it the meaning that it would convey to a reasonable person, who would understand the misprints had occurred.[5] What the rule of absurdity seeks to do is what all rules of interpretation seek to do: make sense of the text. And just as a text does not make sense if nails (in a context dealing with fasteners) is taken to mean 'fingernails,' or if third partly is not recognized as a scrivener's error, so also a text that assesses attorneys' fees against the winning party does not make sense unless winning is understood to be a drafter's error for losing. The difference between these three examples goes to the basis for the judgment (context versus grammar versus sanity of outcome), not to the purpose of the judgment. In all three, what is sought is the fair meaning of the text—the meaning that causes it to make sense."


[...]


"Yet error-correction for absurdity can be a slippery slope. It can lead to judicial revision of public and private texts to make them (in the judges' view) more reasonable. To avoid this, the doctrine must be subject to two limiting conditions:


"(1) The absurdity must consist of a disposition that no reasonable person could intend. Something that 'may seem odd...is not absurd.'[13] The oddity or anomaly of certain consequences may be a perfectly valid reason for choosing one textually permissible interpretation over another, but it is no less for disregarding or changing the text. Justice Joseph Story made the hurdle a very high one:


'[I]f, in any case, the plain meaning of a provision, not contradicted by any other provision of the same instrument, is to be disregarded, because we believe the framers of that instrument could not intend what they say, it must be one, where the absurdity and injustice of applying the provision to the case would be so monstrous, that all mankind would, without hesitation, unite in rejecting the application.'[14]


"(2) The absurdity must be reparable by changing or supplying a particular word or phrase whose inclusion or omission was obviously a technical or ministerial error (e.g., losing party instead of winning party).(15) The doctrine does not include substantive errors arising from a drafter's failure to appreciate the effect of certain provisions.


"Both conditions are necessary for correct application of the absurdity doctrine. Together they absolve the doctrine of the charge that it is an application not of textualism but of purposivism—seeking to give the text not the meaning that it objectively conveys but the meaning that was in the mind of the drafter.


"A good example of failure of the second condition is the United States Supreme Court's decision in Chung Fook v. White.[16] A provision of the Immigration Act of 1917 stated that 'if the person sending for wife or minor child is naturalized, a wife to whom married [sic] or a minor child born subsequent to such husband or father's naturalization shall be admitted without detention for treatment in hospital.' The appellant was not a naturalized citizen but a native-born one who wanted to bring his alien wife into the United States for treatment of a dangerous contagious disease. She was denied entry.


"It was admittedly absurd to exempt from detention the wife and children of each naturalized citizen, while denying it to spouses and children of native citizens. The Supreme Court nonetheless upheld the denial of entry, stating: 'The words of the statute being clear, if it unjustly discriminates against the native-born children...the remedy lies with Congress and not with the courts. Their duty is simply to enforce the law as it is written, unless clearly unconstitutional.'[17] As far as the doctrine of absurdity is concerned,[17] that result was correct. Favoring naturalized citizens over native citizens was, to be sure, absurd; but it was not an absurdity arising from the oversight of not providing similar treatment for native-born citizens in the Immigration Act; such a provision would have been entirely out of place there. There was, in other words, no way to regard the limitation to naturalized citizens as a mistake in the text of the Immigration Act. The doctrine of absurdity is meant to correct obviously unintended dispositions, not to revise purposeful dispositions that, in light of other provisions of the applicable code, make little if any sense."



#38—Constitutional-Doubt Canon
"A statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing it constitutionality in doubt.


" '[W]here a statute is susceptible of two constructions,
by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional
questions arise and by the other of which such questions
are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter.'
United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co.,


213 U.S. 366, 408 (1909) (per White, J.).


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Comment:


Article II Section 1 Clause 5

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


The entire U.S. Constitution is positive law, a statute, and being part of the Constitution, Article II Section1 Clause 5 is also a statute, containing five provisos as listed, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. As a "statute," A2 S1 C5 has in the "natural born Citizen proviso two parts, a natural law part and a positive law part ("natural born" = natural law, "Citizen" = positive law). The two parts are not "susceptible of two constructions" because there is only one original intent of "natural born Citizen," not two. The single original intent of original birther John Jay was in 1787 and still is today in 2015 ONLY birth on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents. John Jay was not schizophrenic and imply in "nbC" two equally valid meanings such as the neo-birther theory of birth on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents. By underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, John Jay was understood by Washington and the convention delegates who framed the constitution as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual citizenship, ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents, NOT two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents, ONLY birth on U.S. soil, NOT birth on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil.


The admonition to avoid adopting a construction of which there are doubts definitely applies to the neo-birther theory that "natural born Citizen" can ALSO mean being born on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil, and being born to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who are EITHER married OR NOT married to each other BEFORE their child is born. There are no doubts about original birther John Jay having the original intent of "nbC" meaning being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child.


So, "our duty is to adopt" and promote the construction that does not raise doubts about the 1787 perpetual meaning of "nbC" and eligibility to be POTUS—birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


"In 1909, the Supreme Court of the United States was presented with a case[1] requiring the interpretation of the Hepburn Act of 1906. The statute's 'commodities clause,' if given broad effect, presented grave constitutional questions under the Commerce Clause.[2] Hence the Court read the commodities clause narrowly and sustained a statute that the lower court had held wholly void. [3] The doctrine by which the Court achieved this result—the so-called constitutional-doubt canon—would by the late 20th century be described by the Court as 'beyond debate.'[4]


"One might think that this is simply an application of the general presumption against unconstitutionality, which is a species of the presumption of validity.[5] But this view would be mistaken because the rule goes much further than that. It militates against not only those interpretations that would render the statute unconstitutional but also those that would even raise serious questions of constitutionality. [6]"


[...]


"The constitutional-doubt canon has been amply criticized[12] and amply defended.[13] We side with its defenders. And even its critics acknowledge that the rule is well established. Yet it presents the difficult question: How doubtful is doubtful? This cannot be precisely answered in the abstract. At most, the mere assertion of unconstitutionality by one of the litigants is not enough. The doubt must be 'substantial.'[14] Unsurprisingly, the cases are many in which the majority and the dissent disagree on application of the standard.[15]"


[...]


"The constitutional-doubt canon is sometimes lumped together with the rule that 'if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction on general law, the Court will decide only the latter.'[20] The two rules together are sometimes called the 'rules of constitutional avoidance.'[21] But it promotes clarity to keep the two separate. The constitutional-doubt canon is a rule of interpretation; the rule that statutory grounds will be considered first is a rule of judicial procedure. Often, but not always, both rules will be invoked in the same case: In the process of considering the statute first, the court may find that one of its interpretations must be rejected as constitutionally doubtful."



Patrick Henry said: "Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this..."


Patrick Henry wrote after independence was won from England on the back of his copy of the Stamp Act Resolves that was passed May 1765 by the Virginia House of Burgesses, an office to which George Washington was also elected for a few years. The quote of Patrick Henry below is from George Washington's Sacred Fire, page 292.


"Patrick Henry is most known for his fiery, patriotic oratory. But his patriotic fire was strengthened with biblical reflection. In May 1765, the Burgesses passed the Stamp Act Resolves. Years later, on the back of the paper, Henry wrote a note for posterity that highlighted several of the key events that led to the Revolution. His climactic statement declared in bold letters that he was not a Deist.


'This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us.


'If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.


'Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. Henry' "


Dittos – ajtelles




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 birth on U.S. soil
  3. ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
  4. ONLY married to each other
  5. ONLY before their child is born
  6. ONLY 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. 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 U.S. citizen OR Dual U.S./foreign citizenship


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/ )

No comments: