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
(Posted here on December 25, 2014 and also on Mario's blog)
Time to Change the "Natural Born Citizen" Conversation—the Question is How to do It
On Mario's blog I wrote:
A few days ago you posted a response to a previous post of mine on your blog* that prompted me to consider a short answer, but it has turned into a long answer** to your statement at the end of your first paragraph:
"Because the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that no one who is not a natural born citizen shall be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and the Framers inserted this requirement into the Constitution to preserve and perpetuate the nation, the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do it."
*December 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM ( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16 )
**December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM
"The courts, washing their hands of the question"
"we cannot trust the political parties"
"Looking to Congress is also unrealistic"
"problem is compounded by a media"
"you have the makings of a dangerous situation for the nation."
"This is not just some hypothetical situation...this very scenario come to life with de facto President Barack Obama, someone who is not a natural born citizen, who told the world that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the United States..."
My response to your statement, "the question is how to do it" is, and maybe it is too simple, maybe it is just time to change the conversation? Change the conversation from what we on both sides assert to what we on both sides want for 21st century America. Maybe it is time to change the conversation from what we all on both sides believe the founders and framers wrote, and what we all on both sides believe they meant in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, to what we all on both side believe that "natural born Citizen" could and should ONLY mean today to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for our own posterity?
On Mario's blog I wrote:
Mario, although I am including a short reference to your previous comments* directed at Slartibartfast, and which I reposted here on your blog previously, this is not about him, it is about what he reveals about himself and others in his comments, what he and the Democratic Party cadre do and ultimately represent—they ignore what doesn't fit into their neo-birther single parent/dual citizenship meme while they continue with their agenda of protecting Obama's administration of OUR federal government to try to "transform the United States of America" from within the oval office, and to infect the entire federal government, legislative, executive and judicial, and ultimately the "several states," with an ideological cancer, an ideological ebola virus, the progressive idea** that the 1787 U.S. Constitution is ONLY a charter of negative liberties, explicitly enumerating what the federal government is limited to do and also what it can NOT do to the American people, so Obama is attempting to "transform" the constitution by Executive Order into, what, ONLY (?) ALSO (?), yes ONLY a charter of positive liberties, what the federal government MUST do FOR the people, such as redistribution of private wealth in the "commune" from those who work for a living (work for income) to those who vote for a living (vote for income), and to eventually require every American in the "commune" to receive government single payer health care welfare, whether they want it or not, or they will be punished and then sent to a reeducation camp to change their stinkin' thinkin'—individualism bad, ugh—collectivism good, umm.
*November 13, 2014 at 12003 pm
**The "progressive idea" is really a Saul Alinsky style anarchist reiteration of an (inter-)national "commune" idea to bring equality in the political "commune" by force, for the good health of the people in the commune, of course. There are also Islamic rumblings of the equality of forced submission into the religious/political "ummah" (the "commune") of Islam, or live as a dhimmi in your own country, a second class citizen who is required to pay the jizya (tax) of submission and humility with bowed head—or die. Ummah is an Arabic word meaning "nation" or "community"—or "commune."
This "transformation of the United States of America" by changing the U.S. Constitution from a charter of negative liberties into a charter of positive liberties by Executive fiat and a complicit Congress and Supreme Court is the child telling the parents that the parents will be punished if they do not join the national commune and pay for the eventual single payer health care welfare, which is the ultimate goal, that the "child" wants to provide for the "parents." The "child" is the Federation, the federal government, the bicameral Congress, House and Senate, the Executive President, the Supreme Court, the creature that was NOT a party to the 1787 compact of the "several states" which were the creator of the Federation. Now the Federation, the "child" has matured to the point that the "child" of WE the People of the "several states" thinks that it can threaten the creator "parent" with financial punishment if the "parent" does not join the national commune and pay for what is not wanted, for example, the eventual single payer health care welfare that the Executive of the Federation wants to provide for ALL the people of the "several states."
The "federal government" is the creature of the creator, WE the People of the "several states." We must change the conversation. WE the People of the "several states" must start to speak to our "creature," our "child," the Federation, our federal tripartite government, with Article V constitutional authority, and tell the creature originally created in 1787 by the "several states," the ONLY parties to the compact between the "several states" because the U.S. Constitution and the Federation did NOT exist at the time of the compact between the "several states," that the "child" can NOT nullify the Article V authority of WE the People of the "several states" to amend the constitution, and that WE the People of the "several states" definitely can NOT nullify OURSELVES out of Article V constitutional authority to amend the constitution. The Article V authority of the "several states" to convene to amend the constitution is perpetual and can NOT be nullified by the "several states" or by the tripartite Federation, including transformer Executives of the Federation.
Since the Federation, the tripartite federal government, was NOT a party to the compact made by the "several states" in 1787 to "form a more perfect Union" to protect the interests of the "several states" for themselves and their posterity, the federal government can NOT nullify an Article V convention of the "several states" to amend the constitution.
Here is why Article V is relevant today.
Many times the 1787 original birthers, the 1787 original "citizens" who framed and ratified the 1787 U.S. Constitution included themselves in it. A few places to note for our purpose here are: In the Preamble they identified themselves as WE the People; in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as "citizens" and "natural born Citizen"; in Article V as "several states"; in the Bill of Rights ratified four years later in 1791, in Amendments #2, #4, #9 ("the people"), and in #10 ("the States" and "the people").
The original birthers, the original "citizens" who were naturalized as "citizens" on July 4, 1776 by the war of independence, and who no longer thought of themselves as "natural born subjects" of England, they grandfathered themselves into POTUS eligibility as "citizens" on Sept. 17, 1787 with the words "...or a Citizen of..." in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the POTUS eligibility clause. It was the original birthers in 1787, WE the People of the "several states," who included themselves in the U.S. Constitution in Article V as the "several states" so that they and their posterity, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, could amend the Constitution when necessary. Under Article V, "when necessary" can be determined by the Congress OR the "several states," and it can be to either prohibit alcohol consumption in 1919 and then to repeal that prohibition amendment 14 years later in 1933 with another amendment, or to remove the confusion surrounding the meaning of "natural born Citizen" before another resident "citizen" who is NOT a "natural born Citizen" tries to OCCUPY the oval office.
Which is more important to the stability of the perpetual "Union" of America, prohibition of alcohol OR prohibition of another dual citizenship POTUS wannabe? Removal of confusion surrounding John Jay's original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility is definitely more important.
So, if we want to, WE the People of 21st century America can ALSO amend the Constitution to remove the confusion surrounding the John Jay original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" and clarify that "nbC" had in 1787 America and still has today in 21st century America ONLY one John Jay original intent meaning, NOT two or more, OR "nbC" has today in 21st century America and has always had since 1787 more than one original intent meaning as defined by Obama birth narrative neo-birthers and the nascent "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers who are promoting the POTUS candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley, all good American patriots but none is a "natural born Citizen."
So, if the "several states" legislatures never go loopy and agree to consider an asinine proposition to remove the entire phrase "natural born Citizen" from Article II, then the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "nbC" must be dealt with. If it is honestly considered, that means that the "several states" legislatures in convention must decide that "natural born Citizen" has had since 1787 America and still has in 21st century America ONLY one John Jay original intent meaning, OR "nbC" has MORE than one neo-birther meaning.
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: in order to maintain the perpetual "...more perfect Union" of America as expressed by the 1787 original birthers, and which President Lincoln clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861*, which "original intent" meaning of "natural born Citizen" will the American people agree is John Jay's "original intent" meaning and choose for their own "natural born Citizen" children?
It's time to choose.
*See Content #8: Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?
The Question is How to Do It
While Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent and everyone agrees that he has dual citizenship from birth, the meme of the Obama neo-birthers includes the incoherent proposition that "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" simply because he is a U.S. "citizen" because he was born naturally and not naturalized, in fulfillment of the first part of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, "... born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens...." So, yes, Obama, born on U.S. soil, so he says, to only one U.S. citizen parent, so he says, is a citizen and not a naturalized citizen at birth* or by oath, but for some reason the Obama neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "Obama-is-an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen" just like 42 of the 44 presidents. However, contrary to the assertions of the Obama neo-birthers, ALL 42 previous presidents were recognized as eligible to be POTUS by either being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility in A2 S1 C5, presidents #1 to #7 and #9, or by being authentic A2 S1 C5 "nbCs" because they were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The two exceptions in 44 presidencies are #21, Chester Alan Arthur, and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.
*See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at USCIS.gov. ( http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents )
This incoherence about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is important to clarify because, along with Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and nebulous Anarchists, there are Republicans who are getting into the redefinition game and are promoting the same meme, "birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility".
See the essay, natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, that was posted by William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 9:05 am at his excellent blog*. He wrote, "I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz to be “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. Here’s why," and also, "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."
*"Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law" ( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )
A Friendly Hat Tip to Prof. William Jacobson
Does "born a citizen" as Prof. Jacobson intends = "natural born Citizen" as John Jay intended?
A friendly hat tip to Prof. William Jacobson who is mildly persuasive but not convincing in his defense of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz as each being a "natural born Citizen" because each was "born a citizen" of the U.S. by being born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to EITHER one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, implying but being very, very, very unpersuasive that "born a citizen" = "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.
In other words, Prof. Jacobson is tacitly implying: (1) Original birther John Jay in 1787 REALLY intended the 2008-2015 neo-birther theory of dual U.S./foreign citizenship when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen." Since dual citizenship is only possible by being born to U.S. AND foreign citizen parents who are either married OR not married to each other, the neo-birther theory allows (2) birth on either U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero parents who may OR may NOT be married to each other BEFORE their child is born. That implicit 2008-2015 neo-birther theory allows the ideologically driven conclusion (3) that In 1787 John Jay did NOT REALLY intend for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" to ONLY imply and mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents who are married to each other BEFORE their child is born.
If neo-birthers of any political affiliation do NOT agree, and if Prof. Jacobson does NOT agree that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents was NOT John Jay's ONLY "original genesis original intent" in 1787, well, just how do Prof. Jacobson and the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay did NOT mean THAT?
Maybe "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers should consider and adduce John Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and defend THAT.
Maybe neo-birthers should consider the union but not the fusion of natural law and positive law ("natural born" = natural law—"Citizen" = positive law). There is a "union not a fusion" and a "distinction not a separation" implicature that clarifies the perpetual union of natural law and positive law, the natural law "natural born" reality of a born child that informs and protects the positive law "Citizen" status of the child. "Natural born" and "Citizen" are to be perpetually united but not to be fused, and to be perpetually distinct but not to be separated.
However, the title of his blog, Legal Insurrection, is the epitome of the explicit purpose of an Article V convention of states to propose amendments to clarify for our posterity and their own "natural born Citizen" children the confusion between "born a citizen" and "natural born Citizen."
"Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law."
Yep, Prof. Jacobson, THAT is the epitome of an Article V convention of states. Exactly what the framers and ratifiers originally intend as the constitutional way to nullify federal usurpation beyond the powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-18, and the best legal way to preserve the perpetual "Union" of OUR America for our posterity.
As with the Democrat neo-birthers, the Republican "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen-ALSO-applies-to-ALL-children-born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents". The neo-birthers NEVER assert that John Jay implied ALL of that in his note to George Washington and that Washington agreed with Jay about ALL of that. Why? A2 S1 C5 is a no-go-zone for neo-birthers to adduce the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" in A2 S1 C5 where "natural born" = natural law, and "Citizen" = positive law. That distinction between natural law and positive law reveals that natural law precedes, informs, guides and protects the application of positive law.
Here is an example of natural law preceding, informing, guiding and protecting the application of positive law.
Why is it true that an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents can not lose "nbC" status simply by adoption (positive law)? It does not matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual adoptive parents. The natural law birth and the positive law citizenship take precedence over the positive law adoption because natural birth can NOT be annuled and made void by positive law adoption. The perpetuity of the A2 S1 C5 natural law "natural born" from two persons status protects the perpetuity of the positive law "Citizen" from two U.S. citizens status, not vice versa. The U.S. citizenship of the child does NOT protect the natural birth of the child. That is incoherent. It is the "natural born" status of the child, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, that protects the U.S. "Citizen" status of the child. Unless there is a future statute (a positive law) that legally removes the natural law authority of "nbC" status from adopted children, such as statutes do that give legal credence to requiring naturalization to those who legally renounce U.S. citizenship and then want to repatriate, the child remains an "nbC" for life even if both U.S. citizen married parents die before or after the child is adopted. Of course, it is assumed that the "nbC" status is verified before adoption.
It is obvious that John Jay was NOT memeing what Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, and what William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor and others are memeing. The most prominent meme of the neo-birthers is in two parts, with a nascent third part waiting to be adduced onto the stage in the arena of ideas to make foreign born adopted children POTUS eligible: (1) Whether born on U.S. OR foreign soil, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is necessary and sufficient for POTUS eligibility. (2) Two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for POTUS eligibility. (3) The constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility foreign born children adopted by U.S. citizens, married or not married, heterosexual or homosexual.
No wonder the American people, including Phd mathematicians and Professors of law at prestigious schools of law are confused about John Jay's original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in his 1787 note to George Washington. They NEVER consider and then adduce John Jay's 1787 original intent perspective. They admit that there has been uncertainty since September 17, 1787 when A2 S1 C5 was adopted at the convention, and so they are not really sure what "nbC" REALLY meant since July 25, 1787 when John Jay suggested the words to George Washington, but, and it's amazing, they ARE 100% sure that Obama IS a "natural born Citizen" and they ALSO are sure that Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley are "nbC" and eligible to be POTUS. They seem to think that "natural born Citizen" means the same thing as "natural born" or "natural citizen" or "born a citizen" or "a born citizen" or "citizen by birth" or "born" or simply "a citizen."
On Mario's blog I wrote:
Mario, on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the blog of make believe about open borders immigration being good for the GOP and a free America and how the positive law about citizenship defines natural law and natural born citizenship—but for some reason never adduced is the natural law foundation of positive law, e.g., U.S. natural law soil and the natural law birth on that U.S. soil precedes U.S. positive law citizenship—you posted the /#comment-80239 above to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka PhD mathematician.
As a mathematician Kevin must have a logical reason* to promote the proposition that parents with two different citizenships can produce a child with dual citizenship that can somehow, ipso facto, fulfill John Jay's original intent of a child born with singular U.S. citizenship. The meme/mantra of the Obama birth narrative neo-birthers, the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen" cadre, is that natural birth and dual citizenship is of equal relevance to natural birth and singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility. Why? 'Cause he was born naturally (of course, open right palm to the forehead), and besides, Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, of course (John Jay spins in his grave every time the "one U.S. citizen" meme/theory is uttered by the neo-birthers).
*Or could it be as simple as cadre, paid or unpaid, that he would spend years to "try" to debate you to defend the Obama birth narrative of one U.S. citizen parent/dual citizenship with neo-birther original intent to ultimately promote the Obama greater agenda of "transforming the United States of America" into a community organizer's (inter)national "commune"?
Kevin, while he is probably a natural born citizen himself, probably born on U.S. soil, probably born to two U.S. citizen parents, he promotes, without historical foundation, the proposition that to be eligible to be POTUS only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because he and other proponents of "birth-on-U.S.-soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-married-OR-unmarried-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" such as William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor believe that a child who is a 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" is ipso facto sufficient to fulfill John Jay's 1787 natural law/positive law understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant to Jay in 1787. That was three years before the 1790 Naturalization Act used the words "natural born Citizen" and eight years before the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the words "natural born Citizen" and replaced the three word unit with the single word "citizen" so that the 1795 Naturalization Act (and 100% of ALL subsequent naturalization acts of Congress, all positive law) would conform to the natural law part of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, "natural born", which gives natural law credibility to the positive law part of A2 S1 C5, "Citizen."The third Congress corrected its error as understood in 1795 that a naturalization act, a positive law, can not "make" a person eligible to be POTUS. The two natural law parents produce a natural law child, and the same two natural law parents who are positive law U.S. citizens produce a positive law singular citizen, not a positive law dual citizen. The word "born" in "natural born Ctizien" can ONLY refer to singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual citizenship.
A hypothetical scenario, an alternative way of looking at what the Congress did in 1795, eight years after John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," shows the irrefutable true original intent of John Jay in 1787. If Jay had originally intended that "nbC" meant NOT ONLY being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, but ALSO being born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, as the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly said about foreign birth to U.S. citizen parents, plural, that would have meant that the third Congress changed Jay's original intent meaning about birth ALSO on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, with the 1795 Naturalization Act. The implication of the third Congress is that "nbC" status was reserved ONLY for children born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to U.S. citizen parents, plural.
Of course, that hypothetical scenario about the third Congress changing John Jay's original intent for "natural born Citizen" is not so. However, even though it is NOT so, the Obama neo-birthers could still obfuscate about it. So, what is it that has stopped the Obama neo-birthers from obfuscating about the 1787 original intent meaning of John Jay and asserting with neo-birther original intent that what Jay REALLY meant was birth on U.S. OR foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural? Well, maybe two things. (1) They would have to promote the proposition that in 1795, eight years after 1787, the third Congress in Pres. Washington's second term changed Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC" from meaning being born EITHER on U.S. soil OR being born on foreign soil, to being born ONLY on U.S. soil, and (2) they would have to admit that, yes, in 1787, Jay did originally mean ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, plural, as explicitly written in both the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts.
For some reason the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers shy away from the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" (positive law) language and hover around the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen," (a positive law*) language when they're not hovering around the 1868 14th Amendment "citizen" (positive law) language. They don't seem to understand that the words "natural born" are natural law language and not positive law language, and the word "citizen" is a positive law word and not a natural law word.
*The entire three word unit "natural born Citizen" is positive law only in this one instance since it is included in a naturalization statute, and the only time Congress used the phrase in a statute.
The entire three word unit "natural born Citizen" is positive law language because the first Congress included the entire phrase in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a statute, positive law. This is an example of how positive law can not "make" natural law, and conversely, how natural law defines, informs, clarifies, guides and protects the "making" of positive law. In A2 S1 C5, "natural born" = natural law and "Citizen" = positive law. The positive law "follows" and is guided by natural law, not vice versa.
A 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" can not be "made" by a positive law amendment or a positive law statute or a positive law, so to speak, court opinion into an A2 S1 C5 natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen." Being a "natural born" child and born naturally on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married OR unmarried parents can NOT make that "natural born" child into an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" child who is born naturally ONLY on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents.
Positive law dual citizenship can not produce positive law singular citizenship in fulfillment of John Jay's common sense original intent in underlining the natural law word "born" in the natural law/positive law phrase "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, who agreed with Jay. Neither Jay, Washington or the 1787 convention delegate framers and the subsequent states ratifiers of "natural born Citizen" could agree with the neo-birthers of 2008-2015 America, the Obama neo-birthers, the Cruz neo-birthers, the Rubio neo-birthers, the Haley neo-birthers, the Jindal neo-birthers, or any future "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers who may promote persons born (natural law) with only one OR zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents, whether born (natural law) on OR off U.S. soil (natural law) OR U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil (natural law).
The soil is "natural law" soil because by the natural law right of conquest, the soil is what it is by natural law, the law of nature, and natural law, nature, is not changed by conquest. The soil is simply, well, soil, it is not "made" soil by positive law after conquest. In other words, to get an affirmative tip of the hat from the deists and atheists who do not believe there is a God who created the soil, the soil is 100% natural "made" and is defined by natural law, not man "made" soil defined by positive law. The soil is a natural law entity independent of whether or not a natural law birth happens on the natural law soil. The soil, being a natural law entity, is not a positive law idea and creation. Natural law, nature, can not be changed by positive law, which is simply a declaration in a congressional statute or judicial opinion.
Sen. Cruz had only one U.S. citizen (positive law) parent at his birth (natural law) outside of U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil (natural law), Canada; Sen. Rubio had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law); Gov. Haley had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at her birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law); Gov. Jindal had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).
Mario, you, I and other A2 S1 C5 "born-ONLY-on-U.S.-soil-to-ONLY-two-U.S.-citizen-parents" John Jay original intent birthers who have posted here on your blog probably can NOT and NEVER will agree, for basic common sense and John Jay original intent reasons, with the neo-birther proposition that being born on U.S. OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero .S. citizen parents was included by implicature in John Jay's original intent meaning in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and conversely, the "born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers can not and NEVER will agree, for political and "transform the United States of America" agenda reasons, that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, and ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction came later), and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents was John Jay's ONLY common sense original intent. How could they? Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent at birth on U.S. soil, or so they say he was born on U.S. soil. They only say so 'cause Obama says so, without authentic and irrefutable verification. So who can believe the same guy who says, if not EVERY time then MOST of the time when something bad happens in his administration, that he didn't learn about it until he heard it on the news, uh, well, just like everybody else did.
Time to Change the Conversation and Move on to Agreement
So, how do we change the conversation and move on to agreement about a solution to clarify the perpetual "Union" meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America for ourselves and for our posterity?
It is time to change the conversation with questions. The John Jay original intent birthers, the Obama neo-birthers and the "MY GUY"/"MY GAL" neo-birthers have been making assertions since 2008 that are retrospective in nature and so are intractable. However, our questions can be prospective and open to coherent input from ALL of WE the People and not just the few who have been engaging in the POTUS eligibility debate since the 2008 election cycle when BHObama was nominated as the Democratic choice for POUTS.
It is time to move on from what we think "natural born subject" meant to Coke, the Calvin's Case in the 1600s, Blackstone, Tucker and Vattel in the 1700s, etcetera, and what "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers in the 1700s, 18th century America, etcetera, and Congressional acts and statutes, and Supreme Court opinions in the 1800s, 1900s and the 2000s. It is time to agree about what we, all of WE the People, think "natural born Citizen" should mean today in 21st century America. What should "natural born Citizen" mean to us and to our posterity? Which meaning of "natural born Citizen" listed below will best preserve for us and for our posterity the perpetual "Union" as Pres. Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861.
A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments
Maybe WE the People, through our state legislatures and an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose amendments, should take the clarification of the meaning of "natural born Citizen" out of the hands of the "See-no-evil-Hear-no-evil-Speak-no-evil-about-POTUS-eligibility" Congress and the Supreme Court, and bring to heel the progressive lap-dog media.
We can let the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers and the "transform the United States of America" cadre claim victory after victory in the court of public opinion and in the courts that did not deal with the merits of POTUS eligibility, while we John Jay original intent birthers can lose every battle in the law courts and the court of public opinion and still win the bigger war of ideas in the arena of ideas. We can evntually claim a Pyrrhic victory with an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an A2 S1 C5 amendment to clarify what we all want. The "born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers and and the John Jay "ONLY-born-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" original intent birthers want the same thing. We all want "natural born Citizen" to mean something definite to help us assess and vet future POTUS candidates who will not be able to obfuscate about their eligibility.
The "birth-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers can win every battle in the lower courts and in the uninformed court of public opinion, but they will most likely lose the ideological long war in the court of informed public opinion in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.
The John Jay "ONLY-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" original intent birthers can lose every battle in the lower courts and in the court of public opinion but will most likely win the ideological long war with an Article V convention of states.
At this point it is an open question, and the federal congress and the federal court system is of no help in clarifying the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility. See The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? by Daniel P. Tokaji, published in 2008*, "Conclusion: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates' eligibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter."
*( http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-justiciability-of-eligibility-may-courts-decide-who-can-be-president )
In an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify what WE the People of 21st century America want the meaning of "natural born Citizen" to be, which definition of "natural born Citizen" listed below will the people choose as their own preferred definition for their own posterity?
Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?
Are there any who do not want clarity about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and what "natural born Citizen" could, should or will mean in our 21st century American future? If there are any who do not want clarity, why? Do they want to "transform" and to "break" the "Union" of America? If so, they are an enemy of the state. If so, they are an enemy of the perpetual "Union" of America. If so, they are an enemy of Pres. Lincoln who fought to save the perpetual "Union" of America from the civil war transformers of 1861-1865.
If he had lived, Pres. Lincoln probably would have fought to defeat the third phase of 1800s Reconstruction transformers who wanted to remain separate and resisted being equal for decades, about 100 years, after the negro Republican politicians were removed from public office in the south; he would have fought the Woodrow Wilson era and the FDR New Deal era "living constitution" transformers whose judicial progeny still don't believe that original intent is applicable in constitutional construction and so cannot inform judicial opinion; and finally, Pres. Lincoln would have fought the "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" transformers who want to change the U.S. Constitution from a charter of "negative liberties" into a charter of "positive liberties;" to "break it, so to speak."
To read what Pres. Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who would try to "break" the perpetual "Union" of America, and what he said about the "Union" and the U.S. Constitution, see paragraphs 12 to 16, specifically #13 & #14, at Bartleby.com*or here **.
In President Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address in 1861, he traced the origin of the United States back to the 1774 Articles of Association, the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1778 Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and clarifies the original intent of a "more perfect Union" and the seminal original intent for perpetual existence under the 1787 U.S. Constitution.
said about the "Union"
“…general principles the Union is perpetual
confirmed by the history of the Union itself.
“The Union is much older than the Constitution.
“It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.
“It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
“It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted
and engaged that it should be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
“And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing
the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union.”
the Union is perpetual [original intent]
confirmed by the history of the Union itself.
The Union is much older than the Constitution.
It was formed [seminal], in fact, by
the Articles of Association in 1774.
It was matured and continued by
the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States
expressly plighted and engaged
that it should be perpetual [original intent],
by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
And finally, in 1787,
one of the declared objects [original intent]
for ordaining and establishing [seminal] the Constitution was
"to form a more perfect [stronger to be perpetual] Union."
*( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )
**( http://originalbirtherdocument14.blogspot.com/ )
In paragraph #13 Pres. Lincoln said "One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" In paragraph #14 he said "The Union is much older than the Constitution."
The implicature of the two sentences together suggests that, not only is the perpetual "Union" much older than the Constitution, it is also much older than Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and much older than the words "natural born Citizen" with the meaning as understood in 1787 America. However, the "Union" is not older than the natural law that is the original genesis foundation of positive law. Natural law protects, informs, guides and is the teacher directing the construction of a positive law constitution, and of the original intent of the natural law/positive law words "natural born Citizen" to mean ONLY birth of a child on the soil claimed by U.S. citizen parents, plural. This was applied ONLY in A2 S1 C5 to the Chief Executive of our new tripartite Federation.
While the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" apply to the executive of the federation and do not apply to the several sovereign states who are the only creator, singular, of the creature that they created, the written constitution, specifically A2 S1 C5, and the entire tripartite federal government, natural law does apply to the several states. The several states have the natural law right to determine their own sovereign future, as they did in 1787 with the construction of the federal Constitution and the Federation, the tripartite federal government. It was formed to preserve for the several states at that time their perpetual "Union" of America, and to secure for their posterity the perpetual "Union" of America from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, who would try to "violate it—break it, so to speak" and "transform" the perpetual "Union" of OUR America by transforming the constitution from a charter of "negative liberties" into a charter of "positive liberties" to equalize the people in the (inter)national "commune."
Barack Obama — the U.S. Constitution is a Charter of "Negative Liberties" not a Charter of "Positive Liberties"
Listen as Obama expresses his "negative liberties" explanation in a 2001 public radio interview.
1min. 45 sec. Youtube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs )
4min. 17 sec. Youtube video, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM )
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.
"It says what the states can’t do to you.
"It says what the federal government can’t do to you,
"but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”
— Barack Obama
Although Obama does not use the charter of "postive liberties" phrase, after listening to the audio of the above quote, people will understand the "positive liberties" reason why single U.S. citizen parent and dual citizenship child Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, as found in the National Review Online article by Ed Whelan about the longer Wall Street Journal article by Jess Bravin.
Kagan: Constitution as Charter of “Positive Liberties”, by Ed Whelan on May 17, 2010, NationalReview.com.*
"According to this Wall Street Journal article**, during her service as a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, Elena Kagan took the position that the Constitution confers so-called “positive” rights to governmental aid, not just “negative” liberties protected against governmental interference or penalty. Specifically, with respect to one certiorari petition she expressed her “worry that a majority of this court will agree with Judge Posner that ‘the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties.’” [emphasis added here]
"The project of re-interpreting the Constitution to confer a broad array of as-yet unrecognized “positive” rights (rather than leaving such matters to the processes of representative government) has long been a part of the Left’s agenda."
*( http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/55696/kagan-constitution-charter-positive-liberties/ed-whelan )
**( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248620872377444.html )
Kagan Backed Broad Interpretation of 14th Amendment, By Jess Bravin May 16, 2010, Wall Street Journal—WSJ.com.*
"As a Supreme Court law clerk in 1987, Elena Kagan read the 14th Amendment as permitting lawsuits against reckless state officials who ignore their duties—reflecting the liberal view that the constitutional guarantee of liberty should be read broadly. [...]
"Many liberals consider the ruling profoundly flawed, while conservatives praised it for denying recognition to what they call new rights. [...]
"In a September 1987 memo to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan observed that the issue was important, and that lower courts had split on whether state officials, who can be sued for wrongful acts, also could be sued for wrongfully failing to act. [...]
' "The state does not have a duty enforceable by the federal courts to maintain a police force or a fire department, or to protect children from their parents," Judge Posner wrote. [emphasis added here]
"Ms. Kagan believed the Seventh Circuit got it wrong, but advised Justice Marshall to vote against hearing the appeal unless he was certain to have four other justices—making up a majority—on his side. Without such assurance, "I only worry that a majority of this [Supreme] court will agree with Judge Posner that 'the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties' and will thereby preclude the approach" of the Third and Fourth circuits. [Supreme and emphasis added here]
"Ms. Kagan took a similar position on a related issue, advising Justice Marshall to let stand a ruling from the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta, that a local welfare department could be sued for placing a foster child in an abusive home, where beatings left the seven-year-old girl in "an apparently permanent coma." [...]
"In a November 1987 memo to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan characterized that position as "considerably more tenuous" than liability based on an explicit statute. "Some members of this [Supreme] Court will doubtless object" to the holding that the 14th Amendment "imposes such affirmative obligations on state officials." Nonetheless, she concluded, "I think the holding is correct and that this court should let it stand." [emphasis in original]
"The justices ultimately left Judge Hatchett's ruling intact. In the DeShaney case, however, the court agreed with Judge Posner.
"The 14th Amendment was intended "to protect the people from the state, not to ensure that the state protected them from each other," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the majority. It provided "no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual." [emphasis added here]
*( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248620872377444.html )
Here is another example of how natural law informs and guides the construction of positive law.
The "several states" mentioned in Article V who ratified the "negative liberties" constitution can not nullify their own natural law right as parties to the compact between the states and as creator to direct its creature, the Federation, the tripartite federal government, to correct the problem caused by confusion about the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. There are several ways to correct the problem and eliminate the confusion. Two ways, statute and opinion, are, as directed in the constitution, in the domain of the legislature (Congressional statutes) and the judiciary (Supreme Court opinions). The third way, with references in Article V to both the U.S. Congress and the "several states," is by natural law common sense, the natural law right and in the domain of the "several states" who are the singular creator of the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire Federation, U.S. Congress, Executive President and U.S. Supreme Court.
WE the People of the "several states" are the natural law supreme law of the land with natural law rights since we are the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution, the written supreme law of the land. WE the People, by natural law rights, predate the constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire tripartite Federation. If WE the People want our "several states" to conduct an Article V convention of states to propose one amendment or multiple amendments because the other Article V designated member of the Federation, the U.S. Congress, will not resolve the confusion surrounding "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility, then, so let it be written, so let it be done according to the will of WE the People of the "several states" in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.
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 )