Wednesday, February 4, 2015

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



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




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



Move On to what Natural Born Citizen Should Mean 


How do we in 21st century America resolve the confusion about the original meaning and original intent of "natural born Citizen" and its application today? Let us move on with sensible questions. Let us move on beyond what "nbC" could have or should have meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers in 1787 America, and agreed with by the ratifiers of the thirteen states, and rectified by the 3rd Congress in 1795.




Meaning of Natural Born Citizen


What do we in 21st century America want "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") to mean for ourselves and for our posterity?


Some of the questions below are dumb, dumb, dumb, but are included for continuity of thought to show the absurdity of some of the "Obama-Cruz-Rubio-Jindal-Haley-are-all-a-natural-born-Citizen" reasoning proposed by some "birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers


Prof. William Jacobson, Esq. Jacobson wrote on his blog*, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth."


*( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )


Is Prof. Jacobson correct? Is his definition of "citizens by birth" the meaning that we want to be affirmatively decided by an Article V convention of the several states, or decided by Congressional statute, or decided by Supreme Court opinion? The nebulous "citizens by birth" does NOT have original birther John Jay's implicit meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, but "citizens by birth" does have the implicit neo-birther meaning of dual U.S. AND foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents.


Which of the following questions best deals with the nebulousness of "citizens by birth" of the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers?


Which of the questions best deals with the original intent of original birther John Jay?




Questions about Place and Parents and Naturalizartion
Jus Soli—Right of Soil/Place
Jus Sanguinis—Right of Blood/Parents


4 Questions about U.S. Soil


1a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions only to two U.S. citizen parents?


There have been a total of 44 U.S. Presidents so far, and for 42 of them there has been no doubt that they ALL have met the eligibility requirement to be POTUS, the first 7 and the 9th, 8 in all, by being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility since they were born before the accepted national naturalization date of July 4, 1776, and the remaining 34 have ONLY been born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents.


1b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to only one U.S. citizen parent?


The two U.S. Presidents who were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, and were born to one U.S. citizen parent are #21, Chester Alan Arthur and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.


1c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to zero U.S. citizen parents?


Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley currently, as of December 2014, are three Republican potential candidates for POTUS who were born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.


1d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?




4 Questions about Foreign Soil


2a- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?


Being born on foreign soil to citizen parents, plural, was included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a positive law, but it was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act, and has never been included in any subsequent Congresses. It has never been the opinion (positive law, so to speak) of the Supreme Court.


2b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?


Sen. Ted Cruz currently, as of December 2014, is one Republican potential candidate for POTUS who was not born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, who was born on the foreign soil of Canada to one U.S. citizen parent.


Sen. Cruz's "citizen" status is defined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)].* See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at USCIS.gov.**


*( http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html )
**( http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents )


2c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?


2d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?




1st Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents


3a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should "nbC" continue to mean ONLY born to 1st generation U.S. citizen children who are born on U.S. soil to two naturalized U.S. citizens?


The 1787 framers and ratifiers were obvious in denying natural law/positive law "nbC" status to positive law naturalized citizens. Implicit since 1787 in A2 S1 C5 is that the 2nd and following generations of the naturalized persons would also be eligible since the grandchildren would be persons born to two U.S. citizen married parents who were both already citizens by natural birth (natural law).


3b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?


3c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?


3d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of either two OR one OR zero naturalized U.S. citizens?




2nd Generation Citizen Children of Naturalized Parents


4a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" be updated to ONLY mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren who are U.S. soil born children of two U.S. soil born children of two naturalized U.S. citizens? This is more strict than eligibility for 1st generation children in 1787. Implicit is that the 1st generation children of naturalized citizens are excluded from POTUS eligibility for national security reasons*, and the 3rd and following generations are eligible since "nbC" children are only born to two U.S. citizen married parents.


*4a is more strict than than 3aand A2 S1 C5 since1787. A naturalized "citizen" was NOT allowed to be POTUS for national security reasons, as John Jay recommended in his short note to George Washington, and the national security reason was accepted by the framers and the "several states" ratifiers.


4b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?


4c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?


4d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of either two OR one OR zero naturalized U.S. citizens?




Grandfather Them All


1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should Barack Hussein Obama, the current "citizen" President who has said that he was born on U.S. soil, and who has admitted that he had only one U.S. citizen parent, and he was still elected President by misguided Electoral College electors and accepted as eligible to be POTUS by an uninformed electorate, should he be retroactively grandfathered by a Congressional statute, a positive law that would apply ONLY to him, into POTUS eligibility before he leaves office? Would that promote national tranquility?


Some may ask why Obama should be retroactively grandfathered into POTUS eligibility before he leaves office (—because it cannot be done AFTER he leaves office) since POTUS eligibility is a constitutional issue?


Others ask why not retroactively grandfather him by Congressional statute with a special Naturalization Act clause with "... or a Citizen of..." status that would apply to ONLY one person in American history, Barack Hussein Obama? This could be done by statute just as the first Congress did in Pres. Washington's first term when it added "natural born Citizen" status in the 1790 Naturalization Act (a statute, a positive law) for ALL children born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, and then done again by statute when the third Congress repealed the "nbC" status in Pres. Washington's second term and changed "nbC" status to "citizen" status in the 1795 Naturalization Act (a statute, a positive law) for ALL children born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural.


So, why—from original birther John Jay's original intent perspective?


There is no natural law prohibiting a positive law that would have a retroactive grandfathering effect for "citizen" President Obama.


Sure, he is a single U.S. citizen parent/dual citizenship child, but retroactively grandfathering him by statute into "... or a Citizen of..." status does not amend A2 S1 C5 of the constitution. Also, it does not mean that he is being given by positive law what can ONLY be acquired by natural law, which is singular U.S. citizenship by birth ONLY to two married parents who are U.S. citizens before the child is born.


Just as there was not in 1787 natural law prohibiting a positive law with proactive effect for future "...or a Citizen of..." POTUS candidates (1-Washington, 2-Adams, 3-Jefferson, 4-Madison, 5-Monroe, 6-Adams, 7-Jackson, 9-Harrison), there is ALSO no natural law prohibiting a positive law with proactive effect for future "citizen" POTUS candidates such a Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley, etcetera.


So, why not—from the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birther perspective?


'Cause the Obama birth narrative neo-birthrs would not want the asterisk* footnote stigma of their "MY GUY" being the ONLY "citizen" President in American history who was certified as eligible to be POTUS while in office, and the ONLY "citizen" President who was retroactively grandfathered into POTUS eligibility.


To Obama neo-birthers, maintaining the neo-birther original intent of the Obama birth narrative of one U.S. citizen parent/dual citizenship is more important for future expansion of the "(inter)national commune" transformation under future U.S. administrations who will strengthen the collectivist "positive liberties" agenda than is the perpetual national defense of the American people and their individual property rights and all of their individual liberties originally intended to be perpetually protected by the 1787 charter of "negative liberties," the U.S. Constitution, written by "citizens" of the "several states"—"WE the People...to form a more perfect Union," NOT to "...(trans)form the more perfect Union" by transforming the Constitution into a charter of "positive liberties" with the intention of expanding the collectivist commune.


Well, here are two more reasons why "citizen" Obama should be grandfathered, if it can be done before he leaves office.


(Reason #1) In an Article V convention of states to propose amendments (positive law), WE the People can grandfather into POTUS eligibility anybody we want grandfathered. We can do it retroactively with only one retroactive application for a "citizen" President who is still in office (a one time act of Congress would be better), or proactively for future "citizen" POTUS candidates, to terminate at a certain date. In "citizen" Obama's case, to set the record straight and clean the slate. In the case of future "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" "citizen" candidates, only Republicans at this point, it could include other Democrats in the near future, to make them adhere to the constitution in a legal way that everybody on earth would know the intent and the conclusion, and there would be no animus directed toward any person or political party.


(Reason #2) It could spur an Article V convention of states legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 with proactive clarifying language that whould produce agreement from the Obama birth narrtive neo-birther camp (but not retroactively for Obama—see above), the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birther camp and the original birther John Jay original intent birther camp.


2- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should current "citizens" such as Republicans Sen. Cruz, Sen., Rubio, Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal and future "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" "citizens" be grandfathered proactively into POTUS eligibility just as the first seven and the ninth presidents were? Again why not?


Here is the reason why.


The "... or a Citizen of..." patriots grandfathered themselves in 1787 into POTUS eligibility because they participated in and were loyal to the successful resolution of the revolution and the war for independence that was declared on July 4, 1776. As "... or a Citizen[s] of..." from the nagturalization date of 1776, the "... or a Citizen of..." patriots wrote the words that grandfathered themselves as "citizens" into the U.S. Constitution in Article II for their own POTUS eligibility in 1787 and for theperpetual POTUS eligibility of their posterity. WE the Posterity of WE the People can do it again for our own "citizens" before the next national election cycle in 20?? (2016? 2020? or whatever the date will be) to cut the "natural born Citizen" Gordian knot of confusion as if with Alexander's sword.


Personally, I like this idea of an Article V convention of the "several states" legislatures to propose an amendment (positive law) to proactively grandfather (positive law) into POTUS eligibility exceptional American patriots who may be a "citizen" (positive law) and not an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" (natural law/positive law), because I really like Sen. Cruz, my favorite federal Senator and my state of Texas junior Senator. I also like Florida Senator Rubio (amnesty aside—for now), as well as Gov. Haley and Gov. Jindal. All would be excellent patriotic Commanders in Chief if elected POTUS.


3- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the current "citizens" who announce their candidacy for POTUS be the last "citizens" to be grandfathered into POTUS elibibility?


4- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility by "citizens" be limited to those who announce their candidacy for the 20?? (whatever the first date will be) national election cycle?


5- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the 20?? (whatever the second date will be 8 years later) election cycle be the last national election cycle that current "citizens" can participate in?




Heterosexual and Homosexual Adoption and POTUS Eligibility of U.S. Born and Foreign Born Children


Some are saying that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the U.S. born or foreign born adopted children of EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents.




U.S. Born Children


1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open only to U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction born children, who are verified as having been born only to two U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


The purpose is to maintain the continuity of two, not the natural law and positive law aspects of heterosexuality or homosexuality. The point is the protection of the verified A2 S1 C5 "nbC" (natural law/positive law) status of the adopted child, (1) the natural law birth to two heterosexual persons, the two original birth parents married to each other before the child is born, and (2) the positive law singular citizenship derived from the same two singular U.S. citizen married parents.


The continuity of the natural law "natural born" status derived from two heterosexual parents married to each other before the child is born is the natural law protector of the positive law "Citizen" status that should be carried over to the not "one" but "two" adoptive parents, heterosexual (natural law) or homosexual (positive law), whether or not they are married (positive law) to each other, since the A2 S1 C5 "nbC" (natural law/positive law) status of the adopted child has already been verified for POTUS eligibility purposes as (1) being born only on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction (2) only to two U.S. citizen parents who were married to each other before the child was born.


2- [ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by one U.S. citizen adoptive parent who is heterosexual or homosexual?


3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?




Foreign Born Children


1- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of one U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?


4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?




How to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify


How should we codify our agreement about our perpetual meaning of and our perpetual intent for "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America?


1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified ONLY with an Article V amendment that can only be nullified and repealed if ratified by 75% (in 2014 it is 38) of the states, and which can not be touched or affected by the U.S. Congress and its statutes or by Supreme Court opinion?


2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified ONLY with a statute by one Congress that can be nullified and repealed with another statute by a following Congress, and by an Article V amendment?


3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified, so to speak, ONLY with a Supreme Court opinion that can be nullified and overturned by a following Supreme Court opinion, and by an Article V amendment?




Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress solution to the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" be an Article V amendment that is initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds of both House and Senate, which is sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths (in 2015 it is 38) of the states, and then implemented by Congress?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with an Article V amendment to clarify "natural birth" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in contrast to the positive law of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law birth ("natural born") and positive law citizenship ("Citizen")?




Article V Convention of the "Several States" to Propose an Amendment


[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the "several states" legislatures' solution to the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" be an Article V amendment initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds (in 2015 it is 34) of the state legislatures, ratified by three-fourths (in 2015 it is 38) of the state legislatures or ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state conventions, and then implemented by Congress?


[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the "several states" legislatures resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with a positive law constitutional amendment initiated by the "several states" to clarify "natural birth" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in contrast to the positive law of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?


[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should, can, the "several states" use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law birth ("natural born") and positive law citizenship ("Citizen")?


Yes, we can.


We "several states" can do what Article V authorizes BOTH the U.S. Congress AND the legislatures of the "several states" to do, because the "several states" included themselves into Artivle V. The inclusion of the "several states" into the U.S. Constitution can NOT be nullified by EITHER the Federation, the tripartite government who was NOT a party to the compact between the "several states" in 1787, AND the inclusion of the "several states" into the U.S. Constitution ALSO can NOT be nullified by the "several states" themselves, even if they wanted to, and they do not.What is original intent inclusion into Article V for if Article V is not used for it's intended purpose of the "several states" to maintain ultimate control of their Federation, including WE the People supreme control of the Executive of OUR government.


Yes, we can—Si, se puede. Pronounced "see se pweth eh," it is Spanish for "yes, it's possible" or, roughly, "yes, we can."




Statute by U.S. Congress


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Is the solution a "what does THAT mean" statute by Congress that can be nullified and replaced with a succeeding statute, and by an Article V amendment?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the "nbC" confusion be resolved with a positive law statute?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute clarify natural law and natural law birth?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a statute clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?




Opinion by U.S. Supteme Court


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Is the solution a nebulous "what does THAT mean" opinion by the Supreme Court that can be nullified and overturned by a succeeding Court, and by an Article V amendment?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Should the "nbC" confusion be resolved with a Supreme Court opinion?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Supreme Court opinion clarify natural law and natural law birth?


[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Supreme Court opinion clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?




My Choice: Codify with an Article V "...Convention for proposing amendments... ."


I wonder which meaning of "natural born Citizen" the People will want codified, and which method of codification they think will have the best chance of resisting subversion and usurpation, and which will be the safest long term solution to promote national tranquility and national security for their own "natural born Citizen" children?


My choice for the best way to prevent future confusion that allows usurpation of the Executive office of the federal government is an Article V convention of the "several states," the creator of their creature the Federation, the tripartite federal government and its written constitution. The language of Article V was written by the framers from the "several states," to authorize the legislatures of the "several states" to convene to propose amendments "whenever," as Article V says, the need arose for "... a Convention for proposing amendments... ."


Next is a sample title for a future Amendment XXX (or whatever the number will be when finally ratified by the states) after an Article V convention of states legislatures to propose amendments. The amendment text includes language to grandfather into POTUS eligibility current potential "citizen" candidates for POTUS such as Republicans Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley. The language will also apply to any "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" "citizen" candidates for POTUS.




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


A title and text language draft for both 1st generation and 2nd generation eligibility:


An Amendment to Permit a Natural Born Citizen,
A Person Born to Two Born U.S. Citizen Married Parents,
or
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


(1) 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.


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


Go to page 4 and scroll down for the full text in three sections for 1st generation and 2nd generation citizen children. The draft amendments permit 1st generation natural born citizen children who are born to two U.S. naturalized 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.


An Article V convention of the "several states" would encourage grassroots participation with a variety of opinions with the final proposition being an amendment with language that would most likely clarify "natural born" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in "natural born Citizen" as meaning (1) only birth on U.S. soil or jurisdiction, (2) only birth to two U.S. citizen parents (3) who are U.S. citizens only by birth and not by naturalization, (4) who are married to each other before their children are born.


This means that only the 2nd generation child, the grandchild of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" grandparents and the child of two U.S. citizen parents, would be a "natural born Citizen" child of the two 1st generation "citizen" parents, and so be eligible to be POTUS at age 35.


There is no natural law reason preventing a change of POTUS eligibility from the 1787 positive law that made POTUS eligibility open to the 1st generation of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" parents. WE the People of the "several states" legislatures can "frame" the POTUS eligibility requirement to limit it to the 2nd generations if we want to, just like the original "framers," the original birthers, did in 1787 when they limited eligibility to the 1st generation children of naturalized U.S. citizens. Just as "natural born Citizen" was restrictive in 1787 and made applicable only to the 1st generation children of two naturalized U.S "citizen" parents and not to naturalized citizens, "nbC" can be restricted today to 2nd generation children who are born to two 1st generation natural law "born" and positive law "citizen" children.


The amendment should include language only grandfathering into POTUS eligibility current "citizens" who announce their "citizen" candidacy before the 20?? (whichever national election cycle date is finally selected) national election cycle, and who will then qualify themselves to announce their "citizen" candidacy only one more time for the 20?? (the next national election cycle 8 years after the first date) national election cycle (a one time only 8 year term limit to announce).


Since pre-amendment "natural born Citizens" will not need to be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility, the amendment should include them with language that indicates that since they were ONLY born on U.S. soil or jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen parents before the amendment, they will not be limited and will be eligible in any national election cycle. They will all be eligible until the last "natural born Citizen" born before Amendment XXVIII (or whatever the number will be) dies some time in the late 21st century or the early 22nd century.




2nd Generation Child—An Idea Whose Time Has Come


With the rise of political and religious anti-American and anti-U.S. Constitution sentiment, maybe designating the 2nd generation child as our 21st century requirement for a "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility is an idea whose time has come?


John Jay was prescient about the "Command in chief" being reserved only for a "natural born Citizen." The perpetual "Union" of America is being threatened by political and religious enemies from without and within our nation and at the heart of the federal government. The time has come to clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" for the 21st century and beyond to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for ourselves and for our posterity.


Which meaning do the John Jay original intent birthers, the "ONLY-birth-on-U.S.-soil-to-ONLY-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" birthers think the American people would choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people?


Which meaning do the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers who promote the "ALSO-birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" theory/meme think the American people would choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people, ane what "natural born Citizen" should continue to mean in the 21st Century?


The question is not what do the American people think that "natural born Citizen" meant in the past to John Jay and others in 1787 A,eroca, or even today, but what do the American people in 21st century America want "natural born Citizen" to mean for their own "natural born Citizen" children?




Time to Choose


For an Article V convention of states to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen," it is a choice between (1) ONLY birth on U.S.soil, the soil of the nation and jurisdiction, soil claimed by the two singular U.S. citizen parents who are married to each other before their child is born, or (2) ALSO birth on U.S. OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero .S. citizen parents who may or may not be married to each other before their child is born.


Which meaning of "nbC" do the American people think WOULD promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of America?
Which meaning of "nbC" do the American people think WOULD NOT promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of America?


It can be done with an Article V convention of states to propose amendments just like the House and Senate convene under the authority of Article V to propose amendments. When the House and Senate convene to propose amendments, they are not convening a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the constitution, a so-called Con-Con. They are doing what Article V gives them authority to do, convene and propose amendments. Period. That is also what an Article V convention of "several states" legislatures does. The "several states" convene to propose amendments. Period.


That is the constitutional way for WE the People of the "several states," the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution and the tripartite federal government, to nullify abuses perpetrated by our Federation child, and the ultimate and best way to preserve OUR perpetual "Union" of America for our posterity.




(Updated December 30, 2014 and posted December 28, 2014 at 1:05 AM on Mario's blog*)


Time to Change the ConversationTime to Choose


I posted the John Jay "obvious" questions and answers below on my own blog today, and thought I would take the opportunity to say to Mario Apuzzo that his coherent expositions about "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") have been an inspiration to me to look deeply into the original intent meaning of "nbC" as John Jay might have originally meant it to be understood by the founders, framers, ratifiers, and of course, WE the Posterity of the 1787 WE the People who united to form a more perfect Union.


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


Mario is very knowledgeable about the history surrounding "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and I have been content to digest his clear and coherent explications of "nbC" as John Jay may have if he had been asked, meaning ONLY birth in the nation of citizen parents, and his expositions of various authors such as Coke, Calvin's Case, Blackstone, St. George Tucker, Vattel, etc., naturalization acts of congress such the 1790 and 1795 acts, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, etc., and Supreme Court cases such as Minor vs. Happersett and U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark, etc.


Eventually I found myself looking at the "common sense" and "original intent" aspect of the "nbC" eligibility phrase as John Jay may have originally intended and explained it when it became apparent to me that the neo-birthers defending the Obama birth narrative theory/meme of dual citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent never considered to adduce John Jay to support their one-U.S.-citizen-parent theory/meme. I think the "obvious" questions below about my new best friend John Jay are a convenient way to explain why I think that John Jay's common sense original intent is the Sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot of confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" that Jay underlined in his brief note about other matters to George Washington.


The story is that after Alexander the Great was told that the next ruler of Asia would be the person who untied the intricate knot tied by King Gordian of Phrygia, he simply cut it with his sword. Well, it's that simple. That is why I think that John Jay's common sense original intent is the Sword of Alexander to simply "cut" the "what-does-natural-born-Citizen-really-mean" Gordian knot.


We can't quit now, another national election cycle is coming soon. The previous essay that I posted on Mario's blog and this essay is my way of changing my conversation from the ethereal that is disputable about past history to the current reality that something has to change in America to wake up the American people from their lethargy, and when they are awake to start a conversation to reach agreement about our Federation and who in the future will be allowed to occupy the oval office of our Federation that was created by the original creator, WE the People of the original "several states."


I think that an Article V convention of state legislatures is the best constitutional way to "nullify" the actions of any branch of the Federation, legislature, executive, judiciary.


The exact phrase in Article V is "... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... ."


For people who don't know, Article V does not authorize a Constitutional Convention, a so-called Con-Con, to rewrite the constitution. It authorizes a convention of either the Congress or the "several states" to simply propose amendments. Period. Article V also authorizes the states to either reject or ratify the amendments after the amendment or amendments are proposed and the language is accepted and adopted. Period. That has been the process for the twenty-seven amendments proposed by the other Article V designated entity, both houses of the Congress, and then ratified by three fourths (75%) of the states. Only after ratification by the "several states" does the amendment become part of the U.S. Constitution. Period. An Article V convention of states does not have authority to rewrite the constitution just as an Article V convention of the entire Congress, House and Senate, does not have authority to rewrite the constitution. The Congress, the other Article V entity authorized to convene, does so every day for regular business, and to propose amendments.


On December 25, 2014 I posted the original essay here on my own blog before posting it on Apuzzo's excellent blog where he has been discussing, since December 2008, the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in the U.S. Constitution, and discussing its historical significance relating to the POTUS eligibility of BHObama initially and also to Republican potential candidates for POTUS.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has been, since December 2008, for 6 years this month of December 2014, one of the most prominent bloggers positioned at the federal courts ramparts contending against the neo-birthers who have been promoting the Obama birth narrative theory of one-U.S.-citizen-parent. The other prominent blogger who was positioned at the ramparts for a few years was Natural Born Citizen blogger* Leo Donofrio, Esq., who stopped blogging on March 13, 2012, two weeks after I became fully "awake—aware—activated" on March 1, 2012 when Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his chief investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference (see **&*** below).


This was the time when the main stream media revealed that they are at heart lap dogs for the progressive politicians, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Independent and nebulous "Anarchists." The media illustrated their progressive lap-dog shallow breathing with their coverage of the original intent of the "anarchist" OCCUPY bowel movement on Wall Street and elsewhere across America. The progressive, liberal, anarchist OCCUPY bowel movement really started when BHObama managed to OCCUPY the executive oval office of our Federation, on November 2008 by election and January 2009 by inauguration, without the media fully and with vigor vetting Obama's true authentic and irrefutable "natural" birth (lineage), his authentic and irrefutable birth place (nativity), his authentic and irrefutable source of citizenship (heritage), his authentic and irrefutable singular citizenship or his dual citizenship (nationality).


*( http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/ )
**( http://originalbirtherdocument17.blogspot.com/ )
***( http://originalbirtherdocument15.blogspot.com/ )


The shallow stream media and shallow breathing lap-dog media did NOT look into these fundamental "natural born Citizen" issues until they were forced to "nudge-nudge wini-wink" touch on them for a liberal nanosecond and then they returned to their regular programming 'cause, doncha know, the idiosyncrasies of politicians such as Palin, McCain, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, etcetera (and of course, whew, that was a close call, America was saved just in time by Bush and then Obama), and the private sector economy was said to be more important than protecting our "Union" of America from foreign or domestic dual citizenship ideological "transformers" of our constitution as a charter of "negative liberties" and who have the goal of "transforming" the U.S. Constitution into a charter of "positive liberties" from outside or within the oval office and to usurp more control from the "several states."



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: