Sunday, January 11, 2015

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



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




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



An Idea Whose Time Has Come


Since the other Article V entity designated and authorized to propose amendments, the U.S. Congress, is part of the problem in the dissolution of the Federation and doesn't seem to realize or care to consider that their constitutional authority is being stolen from them by the executive branch of the Federation, maybe it's an idea whose time has come to have an Article V convention of "several states" and for the natural right supreme law of the land, WE the People of the several states, the original and only creator of the creature, the U.S. Constitution, the written supreme law of the land, and the tripartite Federation, House and Senate, Executive President, Supreme Court, maybe it is time to change the conversation about who is in charge, the creature or the creator, the Federation or the "several states," "we are from the government" or "WE the People?"



Amendment XXX
(or whatever the number will be at the time of ratification)


A Sample Amendment to Permit a 1st Generation or a 2nd Generation Natural Born Citizen to be Eligible to the Office of President


Andrew McCarthy writes on page 24 of his new book Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment,


"it is not the purpose of the federal courts to resolve national controversies.


They were created to resolve individual injuries but given no power to enforce their judgments. ...
In fact, the law of 'standing,' which addresses what grievances litigants may bring before courts,
teaches that the more a controversy affects the body politic rather than the individual citizen,
the less appropriate it is for judicial resolution.


It is for just such controversies that we have political rights."


To apply to the Supreme Court what McCarthy says about the federal courts, if the Supreme Court opined in favor of John Jay's "original genesis original intent" of birth ONLY inside the U.S. ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, this does not mean that Congress will act to impeach "I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America-as-citizen-president" Obama. Right?


Also, who knows how the Supreme Court would decide?


THAT is why we need an Article V "...Legislatures...Convention for proposing Amendments...."


An Article V amendment defining what John Jay meant in 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington will not affect Obama before or after January 2017 when a different president is inaugurated, but when it is accomplished it will eventually have the retroactive effect of fumigating the oval office and accomplishing Jay's explicit intent "...to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."


If John Jay "original genesis original intent" birthers can not trust the progressive and New Deal influenced "living constitution" Supreme Courts and progressive Congresses to do the right thing, would "MY GAL"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers of the future trust a Senate with Majority Leader Ted Cruz to do the right thing, or Supreme Court Chief Justice Ted Cruz, or trust the Supreme Court if five or six Justices were appointed by President Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz?


No—and definitely no!


THAT is why we need a grassroots Article V "...Legislatures...Convention for proposing Amendments...."


Here is my grass roots draft amendment, for either 1st or 2nd generation citizen children, with language to remove the ambiguity about the eternal relevance of John Jay's perpetual "original genesis original intent" of a "natural born Citizen" as the ONLY U.S. "citizen" who, because of being "natural born" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, is eligible to be POTUS since the last Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "...or a Citizen of the United States" died sometime in the 1800s.


Next are two draft amendments to permit 1st generation natural born citizen children who are born to two U.S. born citizen parents, or born to two U.S. naturalized citizen parents, and 2nd generation natural born citizen children who are born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents who were born to two naturalized U.S. citizen parents, to be eligible to the office of President of the United States.


(1) For first generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents, or born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.


(2) For second generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents who were born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.



Amendment XXX—Draft #1
A title and text language draft for 1st generation eligibility:



An Amendment to Permit a Natural Born Citizen,
A Person Born to Two Born U.S. Citizen Married Parents,
and
A Person Born to Two Naturalized U.S. Citizen Married Parents
to be Eligible to the Office of President of the United States of America


SECTION 1: To be eligible to the Office of President a person must be a natural born Citizen, born in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction to two U.S. Citizen married parents, both parents U.S. Citizens by birth on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction, or both parents naturalized U.S. Citizens, or a combination of birth for one parent and naturalization for the other parent.


A person who is not a U.S. natural born Citizen shall be eligible only for the two national elections following ratification of this amendment if already a U.S. citizen by naturalization at the time of the adoption of this amendment, or a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents, or a U.S. citizen by birth on foreign soil to two or one U.S. citizen parents.


SECTION 2: To be eligible a person must attain to the age of thirty-five and reside in the United States for fourteen continuous years ending at age thirty-five, or the fourteen years preceding announcing candidacy at any age after thirty-five; the fourteen year residence must be only within the United States, not in U.S. jurisdictions.


SECTION 3: Verification for eligibility must include natural birth date on one paper birth certificate, natural birth parents (lineage), birth place (nativity), birth source of citizenship (heritage), singular U.S. Citizenship (nationality), number of years residence on U.S. soil since birth.


Verification must be made available to all of the American people, all Federal Representatives, all Federal Senators, all Electoral College Electors, and published by the candidate in the national media, internet, print, radio, television, to include any future method of communication.



Amendment XXX—Draft #2
A title and text language draft for only 2nd generation eligibility:


For second generation U.S. natural born citizen children born to two U.S. born U.S. citizen parents born to two U.S. naturalized U.S. citizen parents.


An Amendment to Permit a Natural Born Citizen,
A Person Born to Two Born U.S. Citizen Married Parents,
to be Eligible to the Office of President of the United States of America



SECTION 1: To be eligible to the Office of President a person must be a natural born Citizen, born in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction to two U.S. Citizen married parents, both parents U.S. Citizens by birth on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction.


A person who is not a U.S. natural born Citizen shall be eligible only for the two national elections following ratification of this amendment if already a U.S. citizen by naturalization at the time of the adoption of this amendment, or a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents, or a U.S. citizen by birth on foreign soil to two or one U.S. citizen parents.


SECTION 2: To be eligible a person must attain to the age of thirty-five and reside in the United States for fourteen continuous years ending at age thirty-five, or the fourteen years preceding announcing candidacy at any age after thirty-five; the fourteen year residence must be only within the United States, not in U.S. jurisdictions.


SECTION 3: Verification for eligibility must include natural birth date on one paper birth certificate, natural birth parents (lineage), birth place (nativity), birth source of citizenship (heritage), singular U.S. Citizenship (nationality), number of years residence on U.S. soil since birth.


Verification must be made available to all of the American people, all Federal Representatives, all Federal Senators, all Electoral College Electors, and published by the candidate in the national media, internet, print, radio, television, to include any future method of communication.



Draft language to clarify the Original Intent of Amendment XIV


Civil Rights for Former Race Slaves
The 1865 13th Amendment—Abolition of Race Slavery
The 1868 14th Amendment—Citizenship for All Races


Right to Vote for Males of All Races, Women and Eighteen-Year-Olds
The 1870 15th Amendment—Suffrage for U.S. Citizen Males of All Races
The 1920 19th Amendment—Suffrage for U.S. Citizen Women
The 1971 26th Amendment—Suffrage for U.S. Citizen Eighteen-Year-Olds


The order of the amendments presented here:


(1) The text of the 13th Amendment to abolish race slavery, proposed January 31, 1865, ratified December 6, 1865.


(2) The text of the 14th Amendment to give citizenship to persons ONLY born in the U.S., proposed June 13, 1866, ratified July 9, 1868 as requirement for re-entry to the "Union" by the southern states.


(3) The text of the 15th Amendment to allow racial suffrage, the right to vote for males of all races, proposed February 26, 1869, ratified February 3, 1870.


(4) The text of the 19th Amendment to allow suffrage for women, the right to vote for all women regardless of race, proposed June 4, 1919, ratified August 18, 1920.


(5) The text of the 26th Amendment to allow suffrage for eighteen-year-olds, proposed March 23, 1971, ratified July 1, 1791.


Next is the text of the five amendments, with partial text for the 14th, followed with a draft amendment to clarify the common sense original intent of the 1868 14th Amendment to limit “citizen” of the United States to persons born ONLY IN the United States ONLY to at lease one OR two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents, and persons who are naturalized as U.S. citizens ONLY IN the United States.



Amendment XIII—Race Slavery Abolished


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Amendment XIV—Citizenship for Persons Born or Naturalized


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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State


[Section 2 was modified by Amendment XIX, woman's suffrage/right to vote, proposed June 4, 1919, ratified August 18, 1920, and by Amendment XXVI, Section 1, suffrage/right to vote for eighteen-year-olds, proposed March 23, 1971, ratified July 1, 1971].


Section 3. [Loyalty to the U.S. after end of the civil war]
Section 4. [U.S. debt after emancipation of slaves]


Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.



Amendment XV—Suffrage for all Races


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Amendment XIX—Suffrage for Women


The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Amendment XXVI—Suffrage for Eighteen-Year-Olds


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or oldr, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



Born In The USA? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship In The Wake Of 911*
By John C. Eastman


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


*By John C. Eastman, Ph.D., Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
( http://www.scribd.com/doc/19541868/Born-in-the-USA-Rethinking-Birthright-Citizenship-in-the-Wake-of-911 )


Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship*
By John C. Eastman


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


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


*By John C. Eastman March 30, 2006 – download the free PDF at Heritage.org.
( http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/from-feudalism-to-consent-rethinking-birthright-citizenship )


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


When they were guaranteeing to the former slaves the right of being recognized as a "citizen" of the United States, did the original authors and framers in Congress and the state ratifiers of the 14th amendment have the original intent of including as “citizens” in 2015, 147 years after 1868, the children of aliens, foreign invaders who would be encouraged by a corrupt immigration policy to "break-and-enter" America to “plop-and-drop” their anchor babies?


[ ] Yes [X] No—absolutely NO!


Did the 14th Amendment give aliens in 1868 the green light to "break and enter" into America?


The obvious original intent answer is NO—of course NOT—absolutely NO!


Did the 14th Amendment give the children of aliens authority, when they reached age twenty-one, to be called a "citizen" of the United States and "dream" of voting for lawmakers in the House and Senate, and of course for the President who is required to execute the laws of the lawmakers, even if the parents were illegal aliens who would break the law of the United States so that their children could "dream" as "citizens" of defending the laws of the United States that their parents ignored and broke, and maybe even being elected President even though, as children of illegal aliens, they are NOT Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizens," the ONLY "citizens" of the United States who are eligible to the Office of President?


The obvious original intent answer is NO—of course NOT—absolutely NO!


So, when will the 21st century U.S. Congress and SCOTUS get their 1866 Civil Rights Act and their 1868 14th amendment original intent facts together and correct their silly citizenship absurdity of automatic citizenship to “plop-and-drop” anchor babies of illegal aliens who “break-and-enter” our country? Would they be as tolerant of an illegal alien who would perpetrate a "break and enter" action into the house or apartment?


The obvious original intent answer is NO—of course NOT—absolutely NO!


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


Huh? Is THAT dumb, or what—how dumb is THAT?


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


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


Article II Section 1 Clause 5
[Part A:] No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
[Part B:] neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


Amendment XIV Section 1
[Part A:] 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.
[Part B:] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
[Part C:] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


INA: ACT 301 Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth*
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(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 ... ."


____________________
*USCIS.gov: see specifically clauses (a) and (g).
( 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 )


There are three possible citizenships meant by "all persons born...are citizens..." in Amendment 14: (1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for "born...citizens;" (2) ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for "born...citizens;" (3) BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship for "born...citizens."


Some 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers are accurate in asserting that the 1868 original intent for the word "born" in "all persons born...are citizens..." in Amendment 14 was not clear until the holding of the Supreme Court in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. They assert that the Court's holding that Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was a "citizen" means that the 1868 Amendment 14 language of the framers can be construed as implying that "born" means two things: (1) Dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other at the time of their child's birth; (2) Dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth on U.S. soil to either two OR one OR zero non-U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other.


Although the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther dilemma is that ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship is possible with one OR zero U.S. citizen parents and with two OR one OR zero non-U.S. citizen parents, the neo-birthers simply assert with no historical foundation, either by amendment, statute or judicial decision, that dual U.S./foreign citizenship fulfills the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article 2. They assert it simply because the child is "natural born" on U.S. soil and Amendment 14 explicitly states that they are "citizens" of the United States.


That is how easy it is to be a "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther—'cause dual U.S./foreign citizenship is as good as singular U.S. citizenship to be eligible to be POTUS 'cause the neo-birthers say so. Period.


However, the neo-birther dilemma REALLY means that since the Supreme Court held in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that a Chinese child born on U.S. soil to two married Chinese parents who were both not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their child was born, the common sense conclusion is that ALL children born on U.S. soil to two OR one OR zero married or not married parents who are NOT U.S. citizens, and ALL children born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents, either by birth or by naturalization, ALL of their child are "citizens" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and NONE are an Article 2 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship. The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther dilemma means that it was NOT the original intent of the framers of the 1868 Amendment 14 for BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.


Since the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "citizen" decision, the constitutional distinction is between a 1787 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship AND an 1868 Amendment 14 Section 1 "citizen" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, NOT the singular U.S. citizenship original intent of the 1868 framers of Amendment 14. The neo-birther dilemma is that being born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship means that Wong Kim Ark, who had zero U.S. citizen parents, was not eligible to be POTUS in 1898 America, and that Wong Kim Ark common sense conclusion about eligibility means that "All persons born ..." on U.S. soil with zero U.S. citizen parents have dual U.S. citizenship and are still NOT eligible to be POTUS in 2015 America. That common sense conclusion ALSO applies to persons born on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent. Persons born on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS.


Dual U.S./foreign citizenship does NOT fulfill the 1787 "natural born Citizen" requirement of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.


The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers also assert that the INA: ACT 301 language means that birth on foreign soil to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other at the time of their child's birth, fulfills the 1787 "natural born Citizen" requirement simply because the child was "natural born" to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents.


The language of INA: ACT 301 is not suggesting that "at birth" 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 "at birth" 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."


Maybe the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can cite the source that says that a 1787-2015 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen," aka a "citizen" "by birth," is the same thing as an 1868-2015 Amendment 14, Section 1 "citizen" "at birth."


Also, maybe the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can cite the source that says that a 1952-2015 INA: ACT 301 - Nationals and Citizens of the United states at Birth, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401], specifically clauses (a) and (g), is the same thing as an Article 2 "citizen" "by birth," aka a "natural born Citizen."


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" positive 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 in two parts:


(1) the Amendment 14 language, as interpreted by the Supreme Court since 1898 until today in 2015, is NOT suggesting that "at birth" a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" "by birth."


(2a) the INA: ACT 301 language is NOT suggesting that a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, OR (2b) born on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents is "at birth" a "natural born Citizen" "by birth."


The first sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1 has the explicit language, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens... ." The question is, what did "born" mean in 1868? Did "born" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the Amendment 14 free negroes; or did "born" mean ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Amendment 14 free negroes; or did "born" mean BOTH 1868 singular AND 1898 dual? THAT is the essence of the "born" debate about the original intent of "born" in Amendment 14.


Before the 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, "born" did NOT mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the negroes while they were still slaves, and it definitely did NOT mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the free negroes AFTER slavery was abolished since they were now free citizens of ONLY one nation. So, the word "born" in 1868 meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the negroes freed from slavery by Amendment 13, the 1865 abolition of slavery amendment; which was followed by Amendment 14, the 1868 "born...citizens" amendment; followed by Amendment 15, the 1870 racial suffrage amendment, which meant that the national right to vote was for male negroes. The national right for all females of all races to vote came in 1920 with Amendment 19, the women's suffrage amendment.


However, since the Supreme Court decision of 1898, "born" in Amendment 14 can ONLY mean born a citizen with ONLY dual U.S. foreign citizenship "at birth" AND not eligible to be POTUS, and "born" in Amendment 14 does NOT mean ALSO Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" AND eligible to be POTUS. This "at birth" dual U.S./foreign citizenship status in the Amendment 14 language has been confirmed by the Supreme Court since 1898 when the Court held in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that the Chinese child Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to a Chinese married couple who were both not U.S. citizens by birth or by naturalization, their child Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen "at birth," meaning born with dual U.S./Chinese citizenship; U.S. citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil AND Chinese citizenship "by birth" to alien parents. The child Wong Kim Ark was NOT a "natural born Citizen" "by birth" to alien parents AND born with singular U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark was a "born citizen" "at birth" according to the 1898 Supreme Court decision, but he was born with dual U.S./Chinese citizenship and NOT eligible to be POTUS because he was born to two alien parents who did not naturalize before he was born.


So, according to Amendment 14 and how the 1898 Supreme Court interpreted Amendment 14 and "born" in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, it looks like the essence of the "natural born Citizen" proper subset issue is the distinction between two articles of the Constitution: the Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" and the Amendment 14 dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth". Extraneous but relevant, is the naturalized "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship "by" oath "after" birth. Not an issue today is the original intent in 1868 of "All persons born ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the free negroes.


However, the 1868 original intent could be a BIG issue today in 2015 America if, and this a BIG "IF," the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court holding that "All persons born ... are citizens ..." means dual U.S./foreign citizenship and that implicit meaning of dual U.S./foreign citizenship was overturned by a future Court, or if the 1898 Supreme Court decision with the implicature of dual U.S./foreign citizenship were repealed with an Article V amendment at a convention of states' legislatures, that would mean Amendment 14 would ONLY mean singular U.S. citizenship again as was intended in 1868, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship as implied since 1898, and definitely NOT BOTH 1868 Amendment 14 singular U.S. citizenship AND 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court implication of dual U.S./foreign citizenship. If Amendment 14 Section 1 and "All persons born ... are citizens ..." were defined and codified as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship again as in 1868, that would mean BOTH words, "born" AND "naturalized" in "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ...," would BOTH be expressing singular U.S. citizenship as was originally intended in 1868, instead of "born" having the 1898 Supreme Court meaning of dual U.S./foreign citizenship and "naturalized" having the 1868 Amendment 14 meaning singular U.S. citizenship.


To be naturalized means to make the oath to renounce foreign citizenship and titles, so the new citizen "by oath" has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. That means that with BOTH the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "born" AND the 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship meaning of "born," and the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "naturalized," the word "born" in "All persons born ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 means NOT eligible to be POTUS, and the word "naturalized" in "All persons ... naturalized ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 ALSO means NOT eligible to be POTUS.


Anchor baby citizenship was definitely NOT the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 13 and the word "born" in Amendment 14 Section 1. If "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers insist that anchor baby citizenship with dual U.S./foreign citizenship WAS the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 14, they need to cite the sources for the assertion that the framer's original intent was to include dual U.S./foreign citizenship for alien parents who "break and enter" to "plop and drop" their dual U.S. citizenship "anchor babies."


An Article V amendment should be written to codify the word "born" in "All persons born..." with language to immediately stop "anchor baby citizenship" for children born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.



Draft language to clarify the Original Intent of Amendment XIV


Amendment XIV
Citizenship for Persons Born or Naturalized



Section 1. A person born in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other, is a natural born citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State wherein they reside, and is subject to the jurisdicion of the United States.


A person naturalized in the United States or jurisdiction is a citizen of the United States, and not eligible to the Office of President.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Section 2. Representatives ... .
Section 3. [Loyalty to the U.S. after end of the civil war]
Section 4. [U.S. debt after emancipation of slaves]
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


I posted an analysis similar to this next one about Amendment 14 Section 1 on Mario Apuzzo's blog*, Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers.

____________________
*( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=3729766310199011544&page=1&token=1425842657870 )


Singular U.S. Citizenship vs. Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship
or
In 1868 Freedom from Slavery = ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship—NOT Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship


After reviewing my previous post on Mario's blog about the 1868 original intent of the Amendment 14 words "All persons born or naturalized...," I noticed that I had not connected the word "born" with the word "naturalized" as clearly as I should have (I wrote it quickly) to show that both words had ONLY one original intent in 1868, which was and still is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship in ONLY one nation, and it does not matter to the original intent of the 1868 framers what the 1898 Supreme Court construed and held.


As I mentioned on a previous post on his blog, I read Kevin Davidson's/Dr. Conspiracy's deep, deep, oh so intellectually deep, racism comment on his blog* after reading Mario's post about Dr. Conspiracy's connection of racism with common sense birthers who question Obama's deep, deep, oh so intellectually deep defense of his eligibility to be POTUS, which is something similar to this accurate characterization:


I-I-I was born on U.S. soil—oh yes, I was—and I had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent—oh yes, I did—and that's good 'nuf to be POTUS—I won—you lost.


I-I-I was born on U.S. soil
oh yes, I was
and I had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent
oh yes, I did
and that's good 'nuf to be POTUS
I won—you lost

____________________
*( http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/03/slander/ )


So, I have some simple questions (tacitly related to "proper subset") for both of the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers and racism experts (and proper subset experts) Kevin/Masters Mathematician and Kevin/Ph.D. Mathematician:


The first sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1 has the explicit language, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of... ."


What did "born or naturalized" in Amendment 14 mean to the original framers of the words "born or naturalized ... are citizens ...."


What did "born or naturalized" mean to the original Negroes living in 1868, many of whom could not read or write, only three years after Republican President Abraham Lincoln set them free from "slavery" and "involuntary servitude" in 1865 with Amendment 13?


Did "born or naturalized" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the Amendment 14 Negroes set free in 1865 with Amendment 13?


Did "born or naturalized" mean ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Amendment 14 Negroes set free in 1865 with Amendment 13?


Did "born or naturalized" mean BOTH 1868 singular U.S. citizenship AND 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship? The BOTH/AND is an easy one for the "proper subset" math experts—of course NOT both/and, 'cause that would be incoherent. Right?


Question
Did the free Negroes have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as free "citizens" of ONLY one nation, OR did the free Negroes have ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship as new "citizens" of ONLY one nation?


Answer
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as "citizens" of ONLY one nation, of course.


Question
Did the free Negroes have BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship as new "citizens" of ONLY one nation?


Answer
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as new "citizens" of ONLY one nation, of course. The framers of the language of Amendment 14 were common sense thinkers, not schizophrenic and incoherent to suggest ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship.


Question
Do free thinkers in 2015 America, aka 1787-2015 "natural born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers and 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, think that the free Negroes would consider themselves to be "citizens" of ONLY one nation OR "citizens" of two nations?


Answer
"Citizens" of ONLY one nation, of course.


The Negroes born in America AND the Negroes brought to America BEFORE 1868 could ONLY have been thought of by the Amendment 14 framers in 1868 as "citizens" of ONLY one nation with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. Right?


It is incoherent to assert that the 1868 framers were incoherent and thinking of dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the free Negroes or for anybody. Also, the 1868 framers of Amendment 14 were definitely NOT thinking of ALSO "citizens" of two nations with dual U.S./foreign citizenship in anticipation of future anchor babies being applauded by a later Supreme Court, such as the 1898 Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which construed the 1868 Amendment 14 language as meaning that anchor baby Wong Kim Ark was a "citizen" even though born to two non-U.S. citizen Chinese parents simply because he was "natural born" on U.S. soil.


The questions again in other words:


What did "born or naturalized" mean in 1868 to the original framers and the original Negroes who were set free three years earlier in 1865 with Amendment 13?


What did "born or naturalized" mean in 1868, singular U.S. citizenship as "citizens" of ONLY one nation, OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship of ALSO two nations?


What did "born or naturalized" mean, singular citizenship and one nation OR dual citizenship and one nation?


What did "born or naturalized" mean, singular and one OR dual and one?


THAT is the essence of the "born or naturalized ... citizens" debate about the 1868 original intent of "born or naturalized" in Amendment 14.


Seven years later in 1875 the Supreme Court in the Minor v. Happersett decision stayed close to the 1868 original intent of singular U.S. citizenship for "born" in Amendment 14 ("naturalized" has always meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, including the Negroes grandfathered into citizenship in 1868), and how a different Supreme Court, twenty-three year after 1875 and thirty years after 1868, in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision became incoherent when it strayed from the original intent common sense understanding of "born" in 1868. So, of course, ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship without eligibility to be POTUS was the conclusion for persons born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents after the Court defined Wong Kim Ark as one of the "born ... citizens" of Amendment 14, making Wong Kim Ark an "anchor baby" with the right to vote even though he was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents instead of defining him as an alien because he was born to two alien parents. That incoherent "anchor baby" decision of the 1898 Supreme Court which gave the right to vote to all "anchor babies" can be overturned by a new Court, or for perpetual stability, by an Article V amendment to clarify the Amendment 14 framer's singular U.S. citizenship original intent, but NOT the intent of eligibility to be POTUS, for BOTH words "born" and "naturalized."


Question
Did "born or naturalized" in 1868 mean singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Negroes while they were still slaves BEFORE Amendments 13 and 14, AND BEFORE 1898 and the Wong Kim Ark decision?


Answer
Before? Definitely no no—no to "OR dual" and no to "BEFORE 1898."


Question
Did "born or naturalized" mean ONLY singular U.S citizenship in 1868 OR ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship in 1868 for the free Negroes AFTER slavery was abolished in 1865 and they were free and new citizens of ONLY one nation?


Answer
After 1865 and 1868? Definitely ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, of course, since the free Negroes of 1865 were new "citizens" in 1868 of ONLY one nation.


Dual U.S./foreign citizenship would have been incoherent in 1868, and it was incoherent thirty years later when the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court lost coherent connection with the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 14 Section 1 and the word "born" in the first three words of the first sentence, "All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens of ...."


So, the word "born" in 1868 meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for 30 years for the Negroes freed from slavery by Amendment 13, the 1865 abolition of slavery amendment; which was followed by Amendment 14, the 1868 "born...citizens" amendment; followed by Amendment 15, the 1870 racial suffrage amendment.


Hmmm, I wonder.


Do ANY "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers have deep, deep, oh so deep thoughts about Republican President Abraham Lincoln and his 1865 Amendment 13 success in freeing the Negro slaves as free "citizens" of ONLY one nation with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship three years later in 1868 with Amendment 14?


"Natural born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers are waiting for a common sense reply—well, somewhere, anywhere will do—from "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther Kevin Davidson/Dr. Conspiracy/Masters Mathematician and "proper subset" expert, and/or from "natural born Citizen new meaning neo-birther Kevin/Ph.D Mathematician and recalcitrant "proper subset" expert.



(Posted here on December 30, 2014 and on Mario's blog* on December 30, 2014 at 11:00 PM)


Article V and Nullification are WE the People "Kin Folk"



Robert, on December 30, 2014 at 12:08 AM* you certainly made some cogent points, but something is missing in the solution. That something has to do with the time frame for doing all the good things that you wrote should be done, and the hit-or-miss element of getting the "we need" items done in an organized and timely manner. Here is a brief sample:


"A more effective remedy is to push for nullification..."
"All we need is for one state - or even ..."
"So, while we flood the offices of ..."
"... we need to flood the precinct meetings of ..."
"... push the Constitution as the primary agenda ..."
"... elect people who are dedicated ..."
"... elect Sheriffs with backbones ..."
"... we need to demand that they completely rebuild their staffs ..."
"... a great idea if we could limit the time that anyone can spend in paid public service ..."
"We the People have the right to remove those who have violated their oaths of office by several means, often referred to as the "four boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. ... ."


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


What is missing from the "four boxes" that you itemized? Box 5—Article V is what is missing. The constitutional "nullification" authority of an Article V convention of the "several states" legislatures to propose amendments whenever they want to do so. The framers included themselves and their posterity in Article V for a good natural law right of self defense "nullification" reason, and the states ratifiers obviously agreed with the framers.


An Article V convention of "several states" legislatures to propose one or multiple amendments, such as was done in 1791 with ratification of the 12 amendments, which was whittled down to 10 amendments, including the 2nd, is the constitutional way to "nullify" the errors of any Federal administrator of OUR Federal Government. The time frame could be shorter in fulfillment than the "we need" items listed above, or it could take longer than it should if the the pro-nullification proponents that I have heard on Youtube such as Publius Hulda, James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers,* whose passion I really appreciate and whom I respect as a true American patriot, continue to mislabel Article V proponents such as Mike Farris and Mark Levin as something like the Devil's disciples, and mislabel an Article V convention of states legislatures as a constitutional convention, a con-con.


*(1hr24min speech, March 17, 2014 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ay8Niu7ndM )


Article V gives authority to convene to propose amendments to two entities, the U.S. Congress and the "several states" legislatures, who wrote themselves into the Constitution in Article V because the "several states" predate and are the creator of it's creature, the U.S. Constitution, and they chose to "nullify" the errors of it's creature, the Federation, with an Article V convention of states legislatures. If the Congress can convene to propose amendments to be ratified by the several states, well, then, so can the "several states" convene to propose amendments. Right?


Of course Madison's and Jefferson's articulation of state "nullification" to counter Federal errors do not deny that nullification is the natural law right of the "several states." Since the natural law right of "nullification" predates the written U.S. Constitution, it is not a constitutional right. That simply means that it is a natural right of a free state to defend itself from tyranny, to practice self defense. In other words, self-defense by "nullification" is a natural law right that predates the 2nd Amendment, which was ratified because it was a natural law right that did not need a positive law for it to be a natural law right.


Also, because the natural law right of "nullification" predates the positive law of a written constitution, the framers inserted into Article V and the ratifiers ratified, their natural law right of Article V "nullification" to protect the natural law right of the "several states" who were the creator, singular, of their creature, the written Constitution, and the Federation that the written constitution defined, Congress, Executive President, Supreme Court.


The Text of Article V


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


The point is that "whenever" means whenever, of course, and the implicature is for whatever reason the Congress or the "several states" may want to convene. It could be to restrict distribution of alcohol, or to repeal the restriction 14 years, 10 months and 20 days later. The 16th Amendment, fullfiling the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto, a heavy progressive tax*, is still the cash cow of the progressives after ratification in the Woodrow Wilson administration of OUR federal government on February 3, 1913. It will be 102 years next February 2015.


*( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto )


A "progressive tax" is also known as a graduated income tax—the more money you make the more percentage of your money the Federation will take—unless and until we repeal the 16th Amendment that taxes income (and which allows witholding by the employer before employees receive the gross).


Apparently, Congress controlling the alcohol consumption of WE the People of the "several states" with the 18th Amendment of 1919 was just as imortant to the 1919 amendment proposers and the states ratifiers as was controlling the income of WE the People of the "several states" with the 16th Amendment of 1913 was to those in Congress who proposed the amendment and which was ratified by the states. However, it took less than 15 years for another Congress to get thirsty and the states ratifiers to get thirsty and so they decided, 'cause they listened to the will of WE the People, doncha know, so they decided to propose another amendment to repeal their control of alcohol consumption. ONLY 15 years for the Federation to get thirsty for alcohol, 'cause they listened to the people, of course, and after 102 years the Federation is STILL thirsty for other peoples' tax money and the Federation doesn't care if the people do NOT want a graduated "income" tax. The 16th Amendment of 1913, however, the biggest Ponzi scheme in history, is STILL a cash cow for the intoxicated Federation that is STILL thirsty for other people's tax money, and it will continue to be thirsty as long as the Ponzi perpetual motion cash cow scheme continues to produce, and they STILL like controlling the "several states" and WE the People with the graduated "income" tax.


The 17th Amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913, ALSO in Woodrow Wilson's administration of OUR federal government, repealed the original Article I Section 1 Clause 1 which said that the two Senators for each state were to be "chosen" by the state legislatures. It will be 102 years next April 2015.


The original intent of the original 1787 constitution for the Federation was very simple: Article I Section 2—Representatives, Article 1 Section 3—Senators, Article II Section 1—Executive.


(1) The grassroots, the people closest to the candidate, were to "elect" their Federal Representatives. (2) The states were to "choose" their own Federal Senators who were to represent their individual state to the Federal Government, meaning as equals among the other states regardless of population. (3) The electors were to "vote by ballot" for the Executive of the Federal Government who would be the gate keeper, the referee, to make sure that the people's interests in the House and the states interests in the Senate did not conflict and were to be protected by the Executive, not controlled by the Executive.


That was brilliant!!!


Under the 1787 U.S. Constitution and as modified by the 12th Amendment June 15, 1804:


(1) The people "elect" their Representatives* "to" the Federation to protect the interests of the people of their individual districts.
(2) The states "choose" their Senators** "to" the Federation to protect the interests of their individual states.
(3) The electors "vote by ballot"***&**** in their own states for the Executive President "of" the Federation.


*A1 S1 C2
**A1 S3 C1
***A2 S1 C3—and the 12th Amendment
****A2 S1 C2—after "each State shall appoint...Electors..."




Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union


Under the Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, the states did not send senators to the Continental Congress, the states only sent representatives. The citizens of the states were not represented at the Continental Congress, so the people of the several states were not taxed to support the Continental Congress. Since the representatives were sent by the states, the states were taxed, although some of them did not pay their taxes, which was one of the reasons for the 1787 Constitutional Convention that produced a new constitution. Under the 1787 U,.S. Constitution, the people were represented in the tripartite Federation by ther local district Representatives, so the people were taxed with duties, imposts and excises.


This was NOT brilliant!!!


Under the Articles of Confederation:


(1) The people of the states did not send representatives "to" the Cotinental Congress
(2) The states chose their representative "to" the Continental Congress.
(3) The President of the Continental Congress was chosen by the representatives and did not have executive authority over the states. The Continental Congress was not given authority by the states to enforce taxation of the states.


After the 17th Amendment took control away from the states of "choosing" their two Senators who were to represent the interests of their individual states "TO" the Federal Government, the direct "election" of the two Senators has gradually degenerated into a political pig sty situation with the two Senators turning on their individual states and representing the interests of the Federal Government, mainly the Executive, "TO" their states. Obamacare is the most recent and obvious case in which many Federal Senators voted for Obamacare and went against the wishes of their Governors and their Attorney's Generals who were fighting in the courts against Obamacare.


THAT political war between the Federal Senators and their states is one example of why the 17th Amendment MUST be repealed. After the states take back control of their own two Federal Senators, then WE the People, in an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose amendments, WE the People can use the return of the Senators to the control of the states to repeal the progressive (marxist) 16th Amendment. Now, definitely, THAT is an idea whose time has come.


Also, an Article V convention of states legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" for us and for our own posterity MUST be addressed by the "several states," either before or after, but preferably before the 17th Amendment is repealed by an Article V convention of the states legislatures because the entrenched U.S. Congress, House and Senate, but especially the Senate definitely will not convene to repeal the 17th Amendment and return control of the Federal Senators back to the "several states."




I also posted this on Mario Apuzzo's blog on January 3, 2015 at 10:53, and have added to it here since then ( https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=16 ).




John Jay v Neo-birthers


Mario,

You have the etiological history of "natural born Citizen" under control, and absolutely nobody has refuted your definition of an "nbC" as a child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to U.S. citizen parents, plural.


Those neo-birthers who do try to refute you try to do so by starting with what they assert is the lack of clarity in the "natural born Citizen" phrase since 1787. However, after asserting lack of clarity in original birther John Jay's "nbC" suggestion to George Washington, and stating with certainty that there is confusion surrounding the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, neo-birthers express three more certainties that are very confusing to the uninformed about "natural born Citizen" and John Jay's original intent in underlining the word "born."


(1) Some Obama birth narrative neo-birthers assert that they are definitely sure that Obama is an A2 S1 C5 "natrual born Citizen" because he was simply born naturally to at least ONE U.S. citizen parent ONLY on U.S. soil.


How do the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers know that John Jay meant ONLY one ONLY on U.S. soil if he was not clear in 1787?


(2) Some "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers assert that they are absolutely sure that any child born naturally is an A2 S1 Ct "nbC" if born to ZERO U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil; Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley.


How do these neo-birthers know that John Jay meant ALSO zero?


(3) Some "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers assert that they are absolutely sure that any child born naturally is an A2 S1 C5 "nbC" if born on foreign soil to at least ONE U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Ted Cruz).


How do these neo-birthers know that John Jay meant ONLY one ALSO on foreign soil?


So, not being a lawyer like Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, or a law school or legal foundation affiliated constitutional scholar like "birth-on-U.S. soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is -good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers, below is my normal person's articulation of the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" as John Jay may have clarified it if he had been asked by 1787 "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers, but he never was asked because neo-birthers did not exist in 1787 America. It is the POTUS eligibility debate in a nutshell for the benefit of Larry Solum, William Jacobson, Jack Maskel, Rob Natelson, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, etcetra, etcetra, etcetra, as I have come to see it in my short two year 10 month study, as of January 3, 2015, of the "nbC" issue since March 1, 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference about Obama's fraudulent birth certificate that Obama must have authorized (since he is the final authority who claimed that it was authentic) to be posted on OUR federal government website.


Randy Barnett* has a brief look at John McGinnis and Mike Rappaport’s book Originalism and the Good Constitution.


"A very problematic paragraph appears on page 8. Here it is in its entirety:


'More recently, a new form of originalism, which we call constructionist originalism, has arisen in response to this critique of original public meaning. Constructionist originalists argue that interpreters are bound by the Constitution’s original meaning only when it is clear. ...


'When a provision is ambiguous or vague, interpreters may resort to nonoriginalist materials to determining the Constitution’s meaning. But constructionist originalism raises its own difficulties because it significantly reduces the scope of originalism.


'Indeed, some theorists have questioned whether constructionist originalism’s embrace of nonoriginalist methods to resolve ambiguity and vagueness does not largely collapse originalism into living constitutionalism.


'Constructivist originalism also leaves unanswered the question of what replaces originalism when originalism does not apply.' "


*( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/23/off-to-a-bad-start-originalism-and-the-good-constitution/ )


The relevance of Barnett's quote from McGinnis's and Rappaport's book is contained in the second sentence, "When a provision is ambiguous or vague, ..."


Here are a two glossary words from Reading Law—The Interpretation of Legal Texts*, by Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner. Appendix B, A Glossary of Legal Interpretation, pages 425-442, relative to 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, neo-birthers did not exist in 1787 America because John Jay was not ambiguous or vague when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.


*((c) 2012 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A Garner—Published by Thomson/West)


"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 in Reading Law, the original intent of "natural born Citizen," as John Jay and George Washington understood it, was not ambiguous or vague in 1787 America. Jay, Washington and the framers and ratifiers obviously would not defend the 2015 implication of the "new meaning" of the neo-birthers 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?


Well, neo-birthers, was original birther John Jay ambiguous or vague?


No. John Jay was not ambiguous and vague.


Jay's original genesis original intent for "natural born Citizen" was not schizophrenic.


When the"WE the People...more perfect Union" U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and sent to the states for ratification, founders John Jay, George Washington and ALL of the framers and ratifiers of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 did NOT think that "natural born Citizen" was ambiguous OR vague. Although in the first Congress of Washington's first administration some in Congress misapplied Jay's original intent for ONLY birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents in the 1790 Naturalization Act when they passed the Act that identified a child as a "natural born Citizen" if born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, this was corrected with James Madison's participation in the third Congress of Washington's second administration. The misapplication was corrected with the 1795 Naturalization Act when the Act was passed with the clarification that a child was ONLY a "citizen" if born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural.


Mario, if there's anything that is not correct in the items listed below, maybe you or another John Jay original intent birther can correct the error, or simply amplify the accuracy of the clarification. The neo-birthers may not care to engage, but, who knows, they may, since Obama ONLY has one U.S. citizen parent and so "one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" MUST be accurate and true. Right?


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


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


In an Article V convention of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose and amend, WE the People can choose either the single "original meaning" of "nbC" of original birther John Jay, or the multitude of "new meanings" of "nbC" of the neo-birthers.


It's time to choose.


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



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




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


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



No comments: