New York 25 July 1787
Dear Sir,
I was this morning honored with your Excellency's Favor of the 22d Inst: & immediately delivered the Letter it enclosed to Commodore Jones, who being detained by Business, did not go in the french Packet, which sailed Yesterday.
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen—
Mrs. Jay is obliged by your attention, and assures You of her perfect Esteem & Regard — with similar Sentiments the most cordial and sincere.
I remain Dear Sir, Your faithful Friend & Servt
John Jay
His Excellency General Washington
[The emphases added here; “born” was underlined by John Jay in his original note to Washington]
- 14 -
Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay / LibertyFund.org / Editor: Henry P. Johnston
→ https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/henry-p-johnston
Author: John Jay
→ https://oll.libertyfund.org/people/john-jay
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 4 volumes [1893]
→ http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2327
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, volume 1 (1763-1781)
→ https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jay-the-correspondence-and-public-papers-of-john-jay-vol-1-1763-1781
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, volume 2 (1781-1782)
→ https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jay-the-correspondence-and-public-papers-of-john-jay-vol-2-1781-1782
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, volume 3 (1782-1793)
→ https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jay-the-correspondence-and-public-papers-of-john-jay-vol-3-1782-1793
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, volume 4 (1794-1826)
→ https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/jay-the-correspondence-and-public-papers-of-john-jay-vol-4-1794-1826
The Papers of John Jay
→ http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay
The original note is here – zoom in to see the word ‘born’ underlined
→ https://dlc.library.columbia.edu/jay?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_field=all_text_teim&q=july+25%2C+1787+note+to+washington
The word ‘born’ is italicized here
→ https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251
Columbia.edu has the picture of ‘born’ underlined; ‘Citizen’ with the upper case ‘C’
→ http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/jay
→ http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/search?mode=search&action=search&match=all&p=1&aut=john+jay&submit=Search&recip=george+washington&keywd=natural+born+citizen&rep=&jayid=&y1=&m1=&d1=&y2=&m2=&d2=&sort=date&resPerPage=25
→ http://wwwapp.cc.columbia.edu/ldpd/jay/image?key=columbia.jay.10627&p=1
- 15 -
“Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789”
→ https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Friday, April 2, 2010
A Few Quotes From Mario Apuzzo’s Essay
“This time-honored definition of a ‘natural born Citizen’ has been confirmed by subsequent United States Supreme Court and lower court cases such as The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) ... Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) ... Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) ... Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36 (1872) ... Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) ... Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) ... Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 ... U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ... Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: ’[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ‘ John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).” [snip]
“But as we can see from David Ramsay’s clear presentation, ‘citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….’ Id. at 6”.
[My comment: Founder David Ramsay also knew what “natural born Citizen” meant in 1787]
David Ramsay (b. April 2, 1749, d. May 8, 1815) was a physician and historian from South Carolina, a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786, and was a contemporary of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the delegates at the 1787 constitution convention. He was familiar with how the framers of the Constitution defined a “natural born Citizen” when he wrote an essay titled A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen. He did not use the phrase “natural born Citizen” in his essay to explain how to acquire U.S. citizenship by birthright. He said that, for children born after 1776, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….”
In other words, from 1776 to 1787 and beyond to today in the 2000s, a “natural born Citizen” has always been a child born to U.S. citizen parents (plural). This indicates that Ramsay and the delegates at the convention did not use the English common law, but they used the natural law, the law of nations, and followed Emer de Vattel, author of The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, and defined a “natural-born citizen” as a person born to citizens (plural) “...since the 4th of July, 1776...”. [End of comment]
How the Conversation Started
This tabletalk style conversation about “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president by birth alone is not full of source proof texts. It is full of if-then analysis, conversations, and conclusions. For example, if “born” in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president was intended by John Jay to imply only singular U.S. citizenship and only by birth alone, then “born” can not mean dual citizenship either by birth alone or by, for example, naturalization by the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so) ‘opinion’ which naturalized Wong Kim Ark and called him a “citizen” even though both of his Chinese parents did not naturalize by oath before he was born on U.S. soil. That sentence is a very short example of how we who are not scholars can analyze Article II Section 1 clause 5 and come to our own if-then conclusions about who is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and the only “citizen” who is eligible to be president in contrast to a person who is simply a ‘citizen’ and not eligible to be president.
My original comments posted on various forums, most posted on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog on different days for over seven years (2012 to 2019) repeated what had been posted before but written in response to different commentators. In this tabletalk conversation much of my original comments are here as originally written. However, I have updated and rephrased many of the original comments to correct syntax and improve coherency, and I have also added new comments within and in addition to the original comments. I also moved essays around which results in some essays originally written months or years later appearing earlier in this tabletalk conversation. You can start anywhere in this tabletalk conversation and go forward or backward without missing a thing because of the repetition of the eligibility theme.
- 16 -
The repetition is retained here even though it sometimes seems to be a distraction. I decided to let the repetition stand after I noticed that the repetition as originally written over seven years had helped me to understand who is eligible to be president, specifically the significance of “except” and “or” in relation to the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II. I also noticed over time that my use of certain words and phrases helped me to focus on the heart of the issue of the ‘issue’ which is born and which “issue” is eligible to be president. These are some of the words to which I am referring: original, genesis, implicit, only, singular, citizenship, by birth, alone, soil, married, two, before, born, natural law, law of nature, positive law, law of people. After a few years of reading and commenting on various posts, this is the essential definition which became clear to me of who is eligible to be president. The person must be born with 1) only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible 2) only by birth alone 3) only on U.S. soil 4) only to two U.S. citizens 5) only married 6) only to each other 7) only before a child is born.
In the next paragraph is a tabletalk conversation example of repetition with the words ‘nature’, ‘people’, ‘natural law’, ‘positive law’ in the phrases natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people). I started using the phrases after it dawned on me that “natural law” and “positive law” helped to clarify who is eligible to be president and who is not eligible.
For eligibility to be president, consider the implicit definition of the positive law (law of people) word ‘singular’ in the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ in “… except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of …” in Article II. Notice how the natural law word “born” is united with the positive law word ‘except’. Notice also how the law of people word ‘except’ is clarified by the law of people word “or”, a distinction which applied from September 17, 1787 only until the last “or” died (a law of nature word which canceled the law of people word “or”) sometime in the middle 1800s.
The reason for the repetition in that example sentence is simply to focus on and emphasize the implicit reason for John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to his good friend George Washington. We should focus on the ONLY thing which is implicit in the word “born”. Was it singular or dual citizenship? My presupposition is common sense obvious: ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was Jay’s ONLY intent, his ONLY original genesis reason for underlining the word “born” in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington who was presiding over the constitution convention. Washington obviously understood and agreed with Jay’s implicit original genesis intent for ONLY “singular U.S. citizenship” so he passed the suggestion on to the convention delegates who also obviously understood and agreed with Jay’s implicit “singular U.S. citizenship” reason for underlining the word “born” because they (the constitution convention delegates and the states’ ratification conventions) did not debate the original genesis word “born” and the implicit “singular” meaning before they adopted and ratified the Constitution.
In a conversation about eligibility to be president of the United States sometimes objective truth proof references will be used many times to emphasize the perpetual original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers who adopted on September 17, 1787 the perpetual words for themselves and for their own posterity from generation to generation, election to election, president to president. To reiterate, ‘original genesis’ applies to only their own citizens, their own national posterity, not to the legal or illegal aliens of the world and their alien children who happen to be born on U.S. soil.
We the Posterity must speak out to defend the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, the We the People who wrote the original words of the original birther document of America for the benefit of their own posterity. The Constitution is the seminal document which contains the original genesis language in Article II which identifies who is eligible to be president. American citizens need to learn that John Jay wrote a short thank you note to George Washington dated July 25, 1787 which had the word ‘born’ underlined in his “natural born Citizen” suggestion (upper case ‘C’). Almost two months later, on September 17, 1787, the three words were included in presidential eligibility clause 5.
- 17 -
For eligibility to be president, natural law can be mutated by natural law. For example, natural law birth is mutable (ended) by natural law death. Natural law (law of nature) is not mutable by positive law (law of people).
For eligibility to be president, natural law can’t be mutated by a law of people. For example, natural law birth can not be mutated (negated, superseded, ended) by positive law naturalization.
For eligibility to be president, natural law can’t mutate a certain law of people. For example, natural law birth citizenship can’t mutate positive law naturalization citizenship into superior relevance. This is obviously inconceivable. Natural law, simply stated, can’t transform positive law (law of people) into superior status over natural law (law of nature).
For eligibility to be president, a positive law can’t mutate any natural law. For example, positive law naturalization citizenship can’t mutate natural law birth citizenship into inferior relevance. Naturalization positive law, simply stated, can’t assume superior status over natural law birth.
The four eligibility scenarios above are examples of what you will find in this tabletalk conversation which reads like a novel although it is not a novel per se. You can start reading anywhere and go forward or backward without missing a thing, because everything written here is about eligibility to be president by birth alone. That is the only theme, and there are many ‘ah ha’ moments. That is the serendipity of repetition of a theme and writing about the same subject from different angles. Think of looking at a crystal like a diamond from a different angle, another facet, and seeing another ‘ah ha’ aspect. It’s the same diamond with a different glisten, a different gleam of light which increases the beauty and value of the stone. In this case, of the conversation.
After editing for typos and rewriting sections of this tabletalk conversation, I decided to leave the repeated material for continuity of thought. In writing to educate myself about why founder John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington I also consciously wrote to educate readers who were also as uninformed as I was on February 2, 2012, about four years after candidate Obama was nominated to be president. After a couple of years of posting online what I was learning, I realized that the repetition which I found to be personally helpful would probably be helpful for others who simply wanted to know the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II.
This conversation was originally started so that I could write down what I was learning about the original genesis implications of ‘born’, not as a diary of thoughts, and eventually I realized that I was also writing for all of us, We the Posterity who are not constitutional scholars, historians, lawyers, judges, etc. Eventually I came to realize that even constitutional scholars (well, as they were acknowledged by themselves and peers) who should know better were also confused about the original genesis implicit intent for John Jay underlining the word ‘born’. A simple to understand question for constitutional scholars (and also the rest of us) is this: does ‘born’ imply only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship? This was not originally written for professional lawyers or law school professors who may write books and write reviews about books concerning esoterica such as originalism, textualism, living constitutionism, constitutional construction, etc., and this was also not written for judges who sometimes appeal to original intent, original meaning, plain meaning, structural considerations, animating moral principles, etc., and then make decisions based on their own subjective feelings.
What we will consider here is only what John Jay really meant, implied, intended when he underlined the genesis word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington when Washington was the presiding officer of the constitution convention. We will not spend time to define any of the words that lawyers and professors use to explain how to construct (‘construe’) a law document like the U.S. Constitution (Articles, Sections, clauses), or a clause in a statute of Congress. To ‘construct’ a text is another way of saying to ‘construe’ or ‘interpret’ or ‘explain’ the meaning of the subjective ‘sense’ of a text.
John Jay’s original genesis word ‘born’ and his reason for emphasizing ‘natural born’ in relation to “Citizen” (uppercase “C”) is all we will be ‘conversing’ about here. We will discover by inference and implication and our common sense what the only one (1) original genesis and only one (1) original implicit intent was in 1787 America when John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and George Washington agreed with the 1787 common law of John Jay's ‘hint’ about the “Citizen” president being “natural born” in order to be the only category of ‘citizen’ who would be eligible to be “… Command in chief of the american army ...” in 1787 with the implication that the original genesis implicit intent would extend into perpetuity, generation to generation, election to election, president to president.
- 18 -
We have only inference, implication, and our natural law (law of nature) common sense to guide us because there is no known written record of any debate by the constitution delegates and no written record of any debate by the ratifiers of the states about the original genesis implicit meaning of the words ‘natural’ and ‘born’ and “Citizen” in 1787. However, by inference, implication, and our common sense we definitely do know one thing for sure – the original birthers knew the inherent implicit meaning of the words ‘natural born’ and ‘Citizen’ in Article II.
So, you may ask, how do we know in the 2000s what John Jay meant, implied, intended in 1787? We know by observing the historical fact that the term of art phrase “natural born Citizen” has been in Article II for 237 years and it was not challenged at the time the constitution was adopted by the delegates and sent to the states for ratification. If the ratifiers did not know what ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” meant, implied, intended (singular? dual?), they would have debated and published the debate of the issue about the ‘issue’, but they did not debate the issue about the birth ‘issue’ because the delegates did not have an issue about the birth ‘issue’. Yes, the issue about the genesis birth ‘issue’ is a deliberate pun and is intended as a memory aid.
As mentioned earlier, you will notice in reading through this tabletalk conversation that there is a ‘whole lotta repetition goin’ on ‘roun’ here’. That’s similar to what I’ve read about what preachers are taught. They will tell you what they are going to say, they will say it, then they will tell you what they said. What we do here is repeat—repeat—repeat and say it in more than one way so that different aspects of an idea are touched on and understood until the ‘ah ha’ light goes on. Before this tabletalk conversation is finished you will understand why I use the same words and phrases over and over and over. For example, original, genesis, implicit, intent, birther, neobirther, natural law (law of nature), positive law (law of people), etc. Simply put, repetition works.
The unconventional repetition may be a distraction to some, but from what I know about what good teachers do and what is good teaching method, repetition is next to genius in the same sense that cleanliness is next to godliness. Although neither phrase is attributable to any one person or document, they both work to make a point. In this tabletalk conversation the point is to read and read and read and learn. Yes, even constitutional scholars can learn from repetition and by reading what was originally written for we who are not scholars.
Concerning eligibility to be president of the United States, the original genesis common sense of original genesis birther John Jay, original genesis birther George Washington, and the delegates, the original genesis birthers at the constitutional convention in 1787, is also our own 2000s common sense understanding about the living originalism implicit intent, the originalist implicit intent, the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers for requiring the president and “Command in chief of the american army” to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone and not just an Article 1 ‘citizen’ by naturalization (see Article I Section 1 clause 2 for Representatives and Section 3 clause 3 for Senators), or an Act of Congress naturalized citizen or a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’.
The words living originalism, originalist, original, genesis, intent, birther, birthers, etc., are a play on words with mnemonic intent; repeat—repeat—repeat—until the point enters the ‘ah ha’ subconscious. Otherwise, what is a memory aid for, right? Here are a few examples of a memory aid. Repeating and emphasizing important points while I was writing on various forums helped me to understand what I was learning as I was originally writing my thoughts for the first time. It is helpful, using inference, implication and our natural law (law of nature) common sense, to read what was the original genesis understanding in 1787 of the original birthers about eligibility to be president. The eight points below are written as ‘obvious’ statements.
1) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously meant only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone on U.S. soil, not dual citizenship and not birth on foreign soil.
2) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously meant only born as the result of the union of two U.S. citizens married only to each other, not ‘partners’ for an ‘hour’ or ‘awhile’ or ‘convenience’.
3) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously did not mean born as the result of the union of two U.S. citizens who were not married to each other. The ‘legal’ marriage is a ‘must’ for the ‘legal’ ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ of the parents and the ‘legal’ ‘continuity of citizenship and allegiance’ of the child by birth alone.
- 19 -
4) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously did not mean born as the result of the union of only one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent who did not become a naturalized U.S. citizen, whether or not they were married to each other. That does not make sense, right?
5) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously did not mean the same thing as the 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” because ‘or’ means that those ‘citizens’ were born before the U.S. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787.
6) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously did not mean the same thing as the 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” because the last 1787 Article II “…or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s.
7) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously did not mean the same thing as a foreign born person naturalized by ‘oath’ as a ‘citizen’ of the United States. Some things are just too obvious, right?
8) To the original birthers in 1787 America regarding eligibility to be president, ‘born’ a “natural born Citizen” obviously did mean only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born. That obviously does not mean the same thing as a child born on U.S. soil with one foreign parent who had not naturalized by ‘oath’ before a child was born. Right?
In 1787 every Article II “natural born Citizen” born on U.S. soil had only singular U.S. citizenship. Singular U.S. citizenship is possible only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. However, not every U.S. ‘citizen’ has only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone because they may have dual citizenship. For example, they have dual citizenship if they are born with any of the following possibilities:
#1) born on U.S. soil to two parents not naturalized before a child is born (1868 14th Amendment), or
#2) born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent (1868 14th Amendment did not negate Article II), or
#3) born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents (1898 SCOTUS ‘opinion’ did not negate Article II), or
#4) born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other or not married, or
#5) born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent, or
#6) born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, married only to each other or not.
Some things are just so obvious, especially #6, right? Natural law (law of nature) common sense is, well, very helpful along with inference and implication.
When 1787 original birther, founder, and ratifier John Jay, who was not ambiguous or vague, suggested to 1787 original birther George Washington to include language about preventing foreign influence over the executive office and foreign influence and control of the “american army”, do living constitutionism scholars really think that it was Jay’s original genesis implicit intent to suggest to Washington that “natural born Citizen” was a reference to either only birth on U.S. soil or a reference to birth on foreign soil? Obviously it was a reference to only birth on 1787 U.S. soil, not French soil or Spanish soil or British soil or Mexican soil and etc. That is obvious, right?
What did John Jay really mean to express to George Washington? Which of these two possibilities were implied in his note to Washington? Did he imply that the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” was 1) a reference to only being born to two U.S. citizens married only to each other or 2) a reference to being born with only one U.S. citizen parent who was either married or not married to a foreign citizen? Which would you have implied if you had written a note to a good friend?
- 20 -
TIME TO CHANGE THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN CONVERSATION
There is something delicious about writing the first words of a story.
You can never quite tell where they’ll take you.
Mine took me here.
Those words introduce the 2006 movie Miss Potter with Renee Zellweger as Beatrix Potter (1866-1943), author of The Tale of Peter Rabbit. Biographers say that the quote is not original to Beatrix Potter.
My first comment about John Jay’s use of the word of art “natural born Citizen” as related to eligibility to be president which I wrote on a blog to someone somewhen somewhere ‘took me here’. On March 2, 2012 I started looking at the issue of the ‘issue’ which is ‘born’ and what “natural born Citizen” could have meant to John Jay. I started to research why he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington who presided over the constitution convention until September 17, 1787 when the new constitution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification. It eventually dawned on me after months of reading many blogs that Jay could have meant only one thing, not two or three things, when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” three years and eight months after the signing of the November 30, 1783 Treaty of Paris which signaled the end of the war of independence from England, a foreign power. I came to the “one thing” conclusion after not finding one authoritative article anywhere about dual citizenship (not just a comment, there are many comments), pro or con, about Jay’s note and the implicit ‘original genesis’ and ‘original intent’ of his succinct statement for eligibility to be president: “the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen…”.
After this is published I doubt there will be one rebuttal promoting the silliness that Jay meant singular or dual citizenship for eligibility to be president, but in future decades there will be thousands of affirmations, maybe, which will affirm with their analysis that Jay’s original genesis intent for “born” was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. What do you think? Did John Jay imply only singular citizenship by birth alone only to two married U.S. citizens, or only (also?) dual citizenship by birth to one U.S. citizen, married or not, or did Jay only (also?) imply ‘birthright citizenship’ by birth to zero U.S. citizens?
In this ‘kitchen tabletalk’ conversation Jay’s rejection of a foreign power “born” association implied by Jay began my dawn of understanding Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the security reason for a comma after the positive law word “Citizen” and the usage of the naturalization positive law word “or” which separated “except a “natural born Citizen” and “…or a Citizen of …” in clause 5: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President: ….”. What was separated by a comma was the two positive law words “except” and “or”. The two natural law words “natural born” and the positive law word “Citizen” refer to being “born” with eligibility to be president while “or” refers to being naturalized (grandfathered) into eligibility to be president until the last “…or a Citizen of...” died sometime in the 1800s (1774 “union” and 1787 “Union” to 1861-1865-1868-1870 = 96 years). Jay’s intent is “implied” because Jay never volunteered his natural law ‘original genesis’ meaning for “natural” and “born” and, as far as I know, was never asked by contemporaries, including Washington, because, obviously, they already knew what Jay’s original genesis and original intent was for his ‘word of art’.
Natural Born Citizen: Let the Conversation Begin
After reading this extended kitchen tabletalk conversation about John Jay's words about eligibility to be president you will probably say that this is the BEST analysis and clarification of the implicit original genesis intent and meaning of ‘born’ and “natural born Citizen” that you have ever read anywhere because you will learn the only ‘original genesis’ implication that “natural born Citizen” has had since 1787, and why “natural born Citizen” has had only one original genesis implicit intent from the moment John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington.
After looking at the issue of eligibility to be president and why John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington, this is what I have concluded, summarized in seven points. To be eligible to be president a ‘citizen’ must be born with only singular U.S. citizenship.
- 23 -
This ‘living originalism’ conversation, an original genesis and original intent conversation about the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 1 clause 5, is written in a tabletalk style as if we are sitting at the kitchen table after lunch and someone asks about ‘except’, ‘natural born’, ‘or … of’, ‘posterity’, etc., and asks what those words mean? What are the implications? Now the conversation begins.
This free flowing tabletalk conversation was not started to inform erudite historians (‘erudite’ = ‘deep, wide learning’), but written as a conversation ‘with’ fellow citizens who are also not history scholars, and without constant references to a multitude of original sources which erudite scholars like to use to support their presuppositions and conclusions. This means that we are free to go wherever our thought experiments take us. This makes a free flowing conversation possible for people who are also not erudite historians, or lawyers, or grammarians with many letters after our names and simply want to learn the original genesis and original implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” and what ‘born’ implied in 1787 to the original birthers (John Jay, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) for eligibility to be president. For those who want point / counterpoint lawyer talk with analysis of original sources, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. (1956-2021) and his Natural Born Citizen blog is a great start → https://puzo1.blogspot.com. I started reading Mario’s blog in 2012, four years after Barack Hussein Obama, Illinois state Senator and then federal Senator for about two years, gained access to the Oval Office, the most recent presidential office usurper because he is not a “natural born Citizen” and he successfully obfuscated not being eligible to be president with the help of uninformed mainstream journalists and state and federal judges who did not allow relevant testimony to be presented.
Singular U.S. Citizenship vs. Dual U.S. & Foreign Citizenship
John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, founder, and New York ratifier of the U.S. Constitution, knew what ‘devolve’, ‘given’, and ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” meant and implied, because he wrote the words, and he knew why he underlined the word ‘born’ in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington. What could he have meant if only singular U.S. citizenship was not his only original genesis implicit intent? Could Jay have meant dual citizenship? No, because ‘born’ can imply only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone (“birth” is a natural law / law of nature word). That makes original genesis (a natural law word) common sense. Right? Yes, because natural law is the foundation of and gives legal credence to positive law.
Concerning the original genesis implicit intent of our 1787 We the People ancestors, replacing confusing words and punctuation will help to clarify the 1787 implicit intent of the founders regarding eligibility to be president. What follows is a ‘kitchen tabletalk conversation’ to help us clarify the original genesis implications of the Article II words ‘born’ and ‘except’ and ‘or’ in “… except a natural born Citizen … or a Citizen of ...” since the last “… or ...” died sometime in the mid to possibly late 1800s.
6 Examples of Birth Facts for Persons Eligible and Not Eligible to Be U.S. President
Article II Section 1 Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” By Birth Alone
The six flags show the relationship between the U.S. soil of birth of the child and the singular U.S. citizenship status of both parents married only to each other before a child is born. The singular U.S. citizenship of the two married citizens determines the singular U.S. citizenship of a child. Only a person with singular U.S. citizenship is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.
- 24 -
Notice also that the U.S. citizenship status of both parents is relevant. For eligibility to be president, a child must be born with singular U.S. citizenship by birth which is only possible after birth to parents who are already married who have only singular U.S. citizenship, either both by birth or both by naturalization or mixed, one by birth and one by naturalization.
1) Only singular U.S. citizenship
2) Only by birth alone
3) Only on U.S. soil
4) Only two U.S. citizens
5) Only married
6) Only to each other
7) Only before a child is born
#1 Birth Facts of U.S. President Donald J. Trump
The #1 citizenship flags show the singular U.S. citizenship of New York businessman / President #45 Donald J. Trump who is eligible to be president because he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before he was born. His father was a U.S. citizen by birth and his mother naturalized as a U.S. citizen before he was born. The singular U.S. citizenship of both parents before a child is born is as relevant as is the soil of birth of a child.
#2 Birth Facts of South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
- 25 -
The #2 citizenship flags illustrate the citizenship status of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, both of whom were naturalized at birth (‘at’ = ‘by’ law, not ‘by’ birth) on U.S. soil to parents who were both still citizens of India because they had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their children were born. For that reason both Governor Haley and Governor Jindal are not Article II ‘natural born’ children and neither is a ‘citizen’ with singular U.S. citizenship. According to the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ they are 2000s examples of ‘citizens’ who were naturalized at birth by the 1898 Supreme Court as dual citizens, U.S. and India, and so they both are not eligible to be president. They were ‘naturalized’ (an Article I responsibility) by the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court (with only Article III responsibility) as U.S. citizens thirty years after the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (an Article V activity) was ratified. Wong Kim Ark's claim of U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil even though both of his parents were not U.S. citizens was the reason the U.S. was contesting his claim 30 years after the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.
For 30 years the Fourteenth Amendment was not construed by the U.S. government as giving U.S. citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court simply ‘opined’ and by fiat (‘because we said so’) discovered that emanating from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment were penumbras which they used to say that the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark citizenship question was implied in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. So, the Court decided in favor of children born on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens. In other words, the Article III Court ‘naturalized’ (an Article I responsibility) the children of aliens by fiat alone. However, Article I says that only the U.S. Congress can naturalize by ‘statute’ alone.
Governor Haley and Jindal neobirthers who promote their candidacy for president assert that both are a “natural born Citizen” because they were ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil. However, here is a natural question for neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be U.S. president: what about the foreign citizenship status of the parents? The neobirthers agree that birth on U.S. soil fulfills the “… born or naturalized … are citizens ...” words of the Fourteenth Amendment, and then they assert with a straight face that dual citizenship by birth to parents with foreign citizenship status is not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
Another natural question for new meaning neobirthers is this: for eligibility to be president, are neobirthers asserting that dual citizenship has been implicit in Article II and that only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents was not implicit and so is not relevant and it never has been relevant since 1787 (Article II “natural born Citizen”)? (They say yep.) Well, how about since 1868 (Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’)? (They say yep.) Well, how about since 1898 (‘citizen’)? (They say yep.)
Now, for readers of this kitchen tabletalk conversation, here are three natural questions: 1) do you see how neobirthers who give new meaning to ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” are asserting with a straight face that the 1898 ‘birthright citizenship’ fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court was just waiting to be discovered in the penumbra of the Constitution since '1787; and they assert that 2) ‘birthright citizenship’ was implicitly made constitutional by the delegates at the 1787 convention although the delegates did not know about the penumbra which would emanate from the text of the Constitution in the future; and they assert, again, implicitly, that 3) ‘birthright citizenship’ was affirmed in both the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment word ‘citizen’, and thirty years later in the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ that a ‘citizen’ would also be a person born on U.S. soil to parents who both were not naturalized citizens? Wow, the penumbras which are formed by emanations from specific guarantees written in the text of the Bill of Rights are also found everywhere neobirthers look, whether the neobirthers are off or on the Court.
In Griswold v. Connecticut (privacy, contraception), Justice William O. Douglas opined:
“… cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras which are formed by emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and substance”.
In other words, and applying the Griswold language to eligibility to be president, since September 17, 1787 when the constitution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification, the specific (written) guarantees (rights) in the Constitution for eligibility to be president (“… except … or ...”) already contained unknown penumbras which would eventually be discovered in the words ‘natural’ and ‘born’ and ‘Citizen’, but the unknown penumbras which are formed by emanations which would clarify ‘born’ would not be known until a future date when a Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ would be needed to deal with a societal issue. Oh. Ok. I got it.
- 26 -
Really? Well, using the Griswold “specific guarantees” (i.e., ‘specific rights’ as written in the text of the Bill of Rights) language about penumbras and emanations, here are natural questions for current Justices of the Supreme Court related to Article II and eligibility to be president.
1) Do any of the current Supreme Court Justices know if the original 1787 Constitution (prior to ratification of the 1791 Bill of Rights) also had specific guarantees (‘rights’) which have been said to have produced emanations which form (are the source of) penumbras which could only be discovered at the serendipitous time they are needed?
2) Do any of the Justices know if the 1787 constitutional convention delegates believed that, for Article II eligibility to be president, a person would need to have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, or did the delegates believe that a person could have either singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship.
3) Do any of the Supreme Court Justices know, for eligibility related to U.S. citizenship status, did the 1787 delegates believe that birth can be on either U.S. or foreign soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents who are either married or not married either before the birth of a child or after? Those are relevant questions, right?
[My comment about Griswold v. Connecticut · specific guarantees · emanations · penumbras]
Wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
Oyez.org → https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496
Wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
In Griswold v. Connecticut, Justice Douglass opined: “… cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras which are formed by emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and substance”.
Here are a few ways I used to help me clarify the quote of Justice Douglass:
1a) specific guarantees have (unknown) penumbras formed by emanations from specific (written) guarantees which give (unknown) penumbras life and substance
1b) written rights have (unknown) rights formed (within and) come from (written) rights which give (unknown) rights being and meaning and purpose
2a) specific guarantees emanate penumbras with life and substance
2b) written rights are the source of unknown rights with being and meaning and purpose
1 specific guarantees………………= written rights
2 in the Bill of Rights……………...= the written text
3 have penumbras…………………= have (unknown) rights
4 which are formed by emanations..= formed by implications
5 from these guarantees…………...= from these specific written rights
6 that help give them (penumbras)..= which give the (unknown) rights
7 life and substance……………….= being, meaning, purpose similar to written rights
specific guarantees…………………………..= written rights
have penumbras……………………………..= have unknown rights
formed by emanations……………………….= which come
from specific (the same written) guarantees...= from the same written rights
which give penumbras life and substance…...= which give unknown rights being, meaning, purpose
- 27 -
The American Heritage College Dictionary (Fourth Edition 2007©)
emanate intr. & tr. v. To come or send forth, as from a source.
emanation n. 1. The act or an instance of emanating. 2a. Something that issues from a source; an emission. nebula n., pl. -lae (-lē) or -las 1. Astronomy a. A diffuse mass of interstellar dust or gas or both, visible as luminous patches or areas of darkness depending on the way the mass absorbs or reflects incident radiation. 2. Pathology a. A cloudy spot on the cornea. — nebular adj. nebulous adj. 1. Cloudy, misty, or hazy. 2. Lacking definite form or limits; vague: nebulous promises. 3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a nebula. [ME < Lat., nebulōsus < nebula, cloud.] — nebulously adv. — nebulousness n.
penumbra n. -brae (-brē) or -bras 1. A partial shadow, as in an eclipse, between regions of complete shadow and complete illumination. 2. The grayish outer part of a sunspot. 3. An area in which something exists to a lesser or uncertain degree. 4. An outlying surrounding region; a periphery. [N Lat. pēnumbra : Lat. paene, almost + Lat. umbra, shadow.]
umbra n., pl. -bras or -brae (-brē) 1. A dark area, esp. the blackest part of a shadow from which all light is cut off. 2. Astronomy a. The completely dark portion of the shadow cast by the earth, moon, or other body during an eclipse. b. The darkest region of a sunspot. [Lat. Shadow] — umbral adj.
Vocabulary.com → https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/penumbra
When you measure your shadow to calculate the angle of the sun in the sky, be sure to measure to the edges of your shadow, to the penumbra, the part of a shadow that is not as dark as the center. You're likely to come across penumbra most often in astronomy, as with an eclipse, where shadow is a defining feature. In a lunar eclipse, the edge of the earth's shadow—the part that isn't fully dark—is its penumbra. Sun spots also have a penumbra, the outer edge that's not quite as dark as the center. The word comes from the Latin root umbra, which means ‘shadow’. The pen part means ‘almost’, so a penumbra is almost shadow.
Wikipedia.org → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
Umbra, penumbra, and antumbra [can be seen when they are] formed through windows and shutters. Jurists have used the term penumbra as a metaphor for rights implied in the constitution. In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.
These rights have been identified through a process of “reasoning-by-interpolation”, where specific principles are recognized from “general idea[s]” that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions. Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution. [snip]
However, former Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski and UCLA School of Law professor Eugene Volokh note that the use of penumbral reasoning by courts cuts both ways [cuts both ways] because it can be used to both expand individual liberties and to expand the powers of the government at the expense of individual liberty. [snip]
Merriam-Webster – noun → https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penumbra
1 a: a space of partial illumination (as in an eclipse) between the perfect shadow on all sides and the full light
1 b: a shaded region surrounding the dark central portion of a sunspot
2: a surrounding or adjoining region in which something exists in a lesser degree : FRINGE – the seventeenth century lay in the penumbra of the middle ages— Edward Eggleston
3: a body of rights ... guaranteed by implication in a civil constitution–the penumbra of the Bill of Rights
4: something that covers, surrounds, or obscures : SHROUD – a penumbra of secrecy – a penumbra of somber dignity has descended over his reputation— James Atlas
Synonyms for penumbra – dusk, shade, shadiness, shadow, umbra
“Every solar eclipse casts an umbra, the darker central area in which almost no light reaches the earth, and a penumbra, the area of partial shadow where part of the sun is still visible. Penumbra can thus be used to describe any ‘gray area’ where things aren't all black and white.
- 28 -
“For example, the right to privacy falls under the penumbra of the U.S. Constitution; though it isn't specifically guaranteed there, the Supreme Court has held that it is implied, and thus that the government may not intrude into certain areas of a citizen's private life. Because its existence is still shadowy, however, the Court is still determining how much of an individual's life is protected by the right to privacy.”
Wikipedia.org: Griswold v. Connecticut → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)
Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution. Although the meaning of the term has varied over time, scholars now generally agree that the term refers to a group of rights that are not explicitly stated in the constitution, but can be inferred from other enumerated rights.
The term penumbra first appeared in an opinion published by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1916, and the term appeared ten more times in published opinions between 1916 and 1941. Between 1941 and the date of publication of Griswold v. Connecticut, the term was used eight times by Justice William O. Douglas and four times by other Justices. Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Learned Hand also used the term eleven times between 1915 and 1950, usually to place emphasis on words or concepts that were ambiguous.
For example, in Commissioner v. Ickelheimer, Judge Hand wrote, “[t]he colloquial words of a statute have not the fixed and artificial content of scientific symbols; they have a penumbra, a dim fringe, a connotation, for they express an attitude of will, into which it is our duty to penetrate and which we must enforce ungrudgingly when we can ascertain it, regardless of imprecision in its expression.
Justice Douglas declared that “[t]he foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance”. Justice Douglas argued that the Court could infer a right to privacy by looking at ‘zones of privacy’ protected by First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments:
Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. [End of Wikipedia quotes]
In the Bill of Rights the specific guarantees have emanations which give life and substance to penumbras. Using the ‘specific guarantees’ language in item #1 above as a guide to understand the original intent of Article II for eligibility to be president, in Article II what is guaranteed is something implicit in the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and that something is either ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president or dual citizenship. So, in the Bill of Rights, the specific (written) guarantees refers to the explicit ‘rights’ written in the text. In item #7 listed above it is the specific (written) guarantees (‘rights’) which produce emanations which form (are the source of) the unknown rights identified as the penumbras. In other words, the unknown rights are discovered only when needed. Here are five examples:
1) Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) privacy and penumbral implications.
2) Roe v. Wade (1973) abortion and penumbral implications.
3) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) homosexual marriage and penumbral implications.
4) Bruen v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022 Roe) abortion and penumbral implications.
5) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. (NYSRPA) v. Bruen (2022) conceal and carry a firearm and penumbral implications.
-29 -
In item #6 listed above, it is the specific guarantees (‘rights’) which give them, the unknown ‘rights’, two things, 1) life (being), 2) substance (meaning and purpose). In item #7 listed above, “meaning and purpose” mean that the Court had to look at the written text and say, well, well, well, look at what we unexpectedly found nestled (hidden until needed) in the nebulous zones in the text of the Constitution, and we discovered it just when we needed to find it to solve a specific societal issue such as planned abortionism (go away — in 1973 only before birth, and, in Virginia in 2021, also after birth); bisexualism (any way to be/act); homosexualism (one way to be/act); transgenderism (another way to be/act); nonbinaryism (no way to be/act). Is LGBTQI+ism (more ways to be/act) the next ism to be serendipitously discovered in the specific guarantees (rights) of the text of the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the explicit (written) Constitution?
Notice that these ‘isms’ are representative of positive law (law of people), not natural law (law of nature). Notice also that privacy, the issue in Griswold v. Connecticut, is representative of natural law. The Court did not give the law of nature right of privacy to married couples. Why? Because privacy is inherent to being a natural law human person (animals do not have a ‘right’ of privacy). Privacy is a law of nature ‘right’ which cannot be given by a positive law statute of the U.S. Congress, or given by a law of (nine) people such as a fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court. That makes sense, right?
Notice that it is the specific guarantees (rights) which produce the emanations which form (are the source of) penumbras (unknown ‘rights’). It is the specific guarantees (specific written ‘rights’) which implicitly emanate the unknown rights: The Bill of Rights has 10 guarantees (rights) which ‘have’ (the 10 ‘rights’ are the source of) emanations which form (the 10 ‘rights’ are the source of) penumbras (unknown ‘rights’). It is the serendipitous emanations which give the previously unknown and newly discovered ‘rights’ their “life and substance” (being, meaning, and purpose).
I have two ‘natural law’ questions. Why is heterosexualism not explicitly written in the original text of the 1787 Constitution, or in the text of the original Bill of Rights with 12 amendments, or in the 10 amendments which were ratified in 1791? Well, obviously, ONLY heterosexualism was implicit in 1787 in the original text of the Constitution. Also, why is homosexualism not explicitly written in the original text of the 1787 Constitution? Well, because, obviously, ONLY heterosexualism was implicit in 1787 in the original text of the Constitution. Makes common sense, right? So, in other words, in association with singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship, and the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, the question is what is emanating from the penumbra of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II? What is emanating, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship OR dual citizenship? It’s not neither, and it’s not both. It’s one or the other. Right?
1) emanations: unknown implicit meaning, abstract but perceptible, it originates from a source, a written text. In the 10 “specific guarantees” (‘rights’) known as the Bill of Rights, the source is the explicit written text which articulates the natural law (law of nature) ‘rights’ which are inherent to being a human person. In Article II the explicit written text includes the words ‘except’, ‘born’, and ‘or’. The two positive law (law of people) words ‘except’ and ‘or’ help to clarify the natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ to eligibility to be president, a ‘right’ which is inherent to being a ‘born’ human person.
2) penumbra: n. a fringe region of partial shadow around an umbra. In the Constitution there are said to be dark areas in the written text which contain new meanings which are not known until the new meanings are needed to promote a positive law (law of people) agenda, for example, law of people issues such as abortionism, homosexualism, transgenderism, etc. The natural law (law of nature) is not inferior to the positive law (law of people) implicit guarantees. The law of nature explicit rights define and give life and substance to the law of people implicit rights. If a law of people implicit ‘right’ is contrary to the law of nature, as are, for example, abortionism, homosexualism, and transgenderism, etc., that law of people is contrary to nature and indicative of future decline of a stable society. [End of comment]
- 30 -
Yes, dual citizenship is what neobirthers assert is implicit in Article II for eligibility to be president, and that is their “natural born Citizen” new meaning. It is in the meaning of the actual words of the September 17, 1787 text where the specific guarantees (written ‘rights’) are to be found which are the source of penumbras (unknown ‘rights’). An early example of specific guarantees, implicit emanations, and unknown penumbras is the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court about the ‘citizen’ status of a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were not naturalized U.S. citizens before the birth of a child. The meaning emanating (coming) from specific guarantees (‘rights’ which are explicit in the written text) define penumbras (unknown ‘rights’) where ‘life’ and ‘substance’ are given to the newly discovered ‘unknown rights’ when they are ready to be construed as needed by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of at least five Article III judges (not Article I legislators). The 1898 ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court has been retained since then by the silent concurrence of the Article I federal representatives and senators who will not correct the ‘birthright citizenship’ silliness of the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ with an Article V constitutional amendment which can be written to say that children born on U.S. soil are not U. S citizens if both parents are not citizens by either birth or naturalization before children are born on U.S. soil, or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil.
#3 Birth Facts of Florida Federal Senator Marco Rubio
The #3 citizenship flags illustrate the citizenship status of Florida Senator Marco Rubio, born on U.S. soil to parents who were both still citizens of Cuba because they had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their child was born. For that reason Senator Rubio is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship. Senator Rubio is an 1898 Supreme Court naturalized by ‘opinion’ ‘citizen’ with dual citizenship, U.S. and Cuba; he is not eligible to be president.
Senator Rubio neobirthers who promote his candidacy for president assert that he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was ‘natural’ born on U.S. soil. However, what about the foreign citizenship status of the parents? The neobirthers agree that birth on U.S. soil fulfills “… born or naturalized … are citizens” language of the Fourteenth Amendment, but dual citizenship by birth to parents with foreign citizenship status is not relevant. Why not relevant? Because the 1898 Supreme Court said so.
The Court, by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’, arbitrarily decided that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen because he was born on U.S. soil even though both of his parents had not naturalized before his birth. In other words, the Article III Supreme Court performed the Article I Congress naturalization.
The Article III Supreme Court naturalized by ‘opinion’ and the Article I Congress did nothing, and no Article II Executive President has ever opined one way or the other about the Article II Court naturalizing a U.S. ‘citizen’ by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’.
The #4 citizenship flags illustrate the citizenship status of Texas Senator Ted Cruz, born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuba citizen father. Senator Cruz was born at the time that the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ language was the controlling legal authority for naturalized citizens. Senator Cruz was born with triple citizenship, 1) Canada birth soil, 2) U.S. mother married to 3) Cuban father. For that triple citizenship reason it is not possible for Senator Cruz to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone, and so is not eligible to be president.
- 31 -
#4 Birth Facts of Texas Federal Senator Ted Cruz
Senator Cruz neobirthers who promote his candidacy for president assert that he is a “natural born Citizen” because he was ‘natural’ born and the foreign soil is not relevant for presidential eligibility. However, what about the foreign citizenship status of one parent? Notice that the neobirthers accept that the U.S. citizen status of his mother is relevant but then they assert with a straight face, but without foundation, that the foreign citizen status of his father is not relevant for eligibility to be president.
#5 Birth Facts of U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama
The #5 citizenship flags illustrate the citizenship status of Illinois Senator / President Barack Hussein Obama, said to have been born in the United States in Hawaii to a U.S. citizen mother and a Kenya citizen father; he was born with dual citizenship, U.S. and Kenya. For that dual citizenship reason President Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen”, and so is not eligible to be president.
Obama neobirthers who promoted his candidacy and then presidency asserted that he is a “natural born Citizen” because his mother was a U.S. citizen and, they assert, he was born in Hawaii, USA. What about the citizenship status of his father? Notice that neobirthers accept that the U.S. citizen status of his mother is relevant but then they assert without foundation that the foreign citizen status of his father is not relevant for eligibility to be president.
The #6 citizenship flags illustrate the citizenship status of California Senator Kamala Harris who was born in California, USA to a Jamaican father and an Indian mother. Senator Harris was born with triple citizenship status, 1) U.S. location, 2) mother from India, 3) father from Jamaica. For that triple citizenship reason it is not possible for Senator Harris to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, and so is not eligible to be president.
- 32 -
#6 Birth Facts of California Senator Kamala Harris
Senator Kamala Harris neobirthers who promote her candidacy for vice president assert that she is a “natural born Citizen” because of her birth on U.S. soil. What about the foreign citizenship status of the parents? Notice that neobirthers accept that the U.S. citizen status by birth on U.S. soil is significant but then they assert with a straight face that the foreign citizen status of both parents is not relevant for a person to be eligible to be president. In addition to the foreign citizenship status of the parents, what about the obvious differences between the positive law words “except” and “or” in Article II. Again with a straight face, the neobirthers say that the distinction is not relevant, so let’s move on.
Citizenship and Location Analysis of “except” and “or” in Article II Section 1 Clause 5
Which is more important, the citizenship status of both parents or birth place of the child? Does the location of a child's birth trump the citizenship of the parents, or vice versa? Well, it seems that the answer depends on what the neobirthers are defending and promoting. Emmerich de Vattel in his book The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758) wrote that the birth location and the citizenship of the parents are of equal importance: “The natives, or natural-born citizens [“or” = same as], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.
July 25, 1787 John Jay Note to George Washington
“Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen”.
September 17, 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.
- 33 -
Part 1
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 2
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.
Words have meaning, and the words in Article II Section 1 clause 5 have meaning in themselves and in relation to each other.
Part 1a No Person except
Part 1b a natural born
Part 1c Citizen,
Part 1d or a Citizen of the United States,
Part 1e at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
Part 1f shall be eligible to the Office of President;
Part 2a neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office
Part 2b who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
Part 2c and been fourteen Years a Resident
Part 2d within the United States.
In Part 1a, the primacy of birth is obviously more important than the Part 2b requirement of attaining to the Age of 35 years because a person has to be born before they can attain to any age.
In Part 2, the Part 2b primacy of attaining to the Age of 35 years is more important than the Part 2c requirement of residing 14 years on U.S. soil because a person first has to attain to the Age of 35 years before the requirement of residing 14 years on U.S. soil can even apply.
In Part 1a, the primacy of the implicit birth soil is more important than the Part 2c requirement of residing on U.S. soil for 14 years. Why? Because a person has to be born on U.S. soil before they can reside on U.S. soil for 14 years. Right?
Do not apply Part 1a, 1b, 1c, Part 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d to Part 1d “… or a Citizen of …”, 1e, 1f .
Do not apply what was implicitly understood in 1787 to be immutably temporary to what was implicitly understood in 1787 to be immutably perpetual, generation to generation.
Do not apply the temporary ‘or’ to the permanent ‘except’ for perpetual eligibility to be president from generation to generation.
Natural Law and Positive Law Define Explicit / Implicit Words for Presidential Eligibility
Explicit – “No person except”:
‘except’ is arbitrary – defined as indicating positive law (law of people)
Explicit – ‘natural born’:
‘born’ is essential, not arbitrary – defined as indicating natural law (law of nature)
Explicit – ‘Citizen’:
‘Citizen’ is arbitrary – defined as indicating positive law (law of people)
Explicit – soil (place):
‘soil’’ is essential, not arbitrary – defined as indicating natural law (law of nature)
Explicit – born:
‘born’ is essential – not arbitrary – defined as natural law (law of nature)
Implicit – two parents married only to each other who both are U.S. citizens:
‘two’ and ‘parents’ are essential – defined as natural law (law of nature)
‘married’ and ‘only’ are arbitrary – defined as positive law (law of people)
Implicit – married parents make the child a ‘legal’ and ‘singular’ U.S. citizen:
‘child’ is essential, not arbitrary – defined as natural law (law of nature)
‘legal’ and ‘singular’ are arbitrary – defined as positive law (law of people)
Implicit – made possible only by birth alone:
‘birth’ is essential, preceding citizenship – defined as natural law (law of nature)
- 34 -
Explicit – attain:
‘attain’ is an essential arbitrary requirement – defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – Age 35:
‘age’ number is an essential arbitrary requirement – defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – fourteen Years:
any number is an essential arbitrary requirement – defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – Reside:
to ‘reside’ on soil is essential ‘reality’ natural law (law of nature)
to name a certain soil of residence is essential ‘arbitrary’ positive law (law of people)
to ‘reside’ is natural law (law of nature) primacy, the foundation of positive law (law of people)
Explicit – within:
essential exclusive location ‘in’ implies only – defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – the United States:
essential exclusive ‘the’ implies only – defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – “… or a Citizen of ...”:
the essential exception word ‘or’ is defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – time:
the essential word indicating when is defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – Adoption (of the text words):
essential activity is defined as positive law (law of people)
Explicit – Constitution:
an essential written document is defined as positive law (law of people)
Notice the implicit definition of the positive law (law of people) word ‘singular’ in the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and how it is united with the positive law (law of people) word ‘except’ in Part 1a, and how ‘except’ is clarified by the positive law (law of people) word “or” in Part 1d.
What Natural Law (Law of Nature) and Positive Law (Law of People) Imply / Mean / Suggest
To help clarify why original genesis birthers believe that John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, and what natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) mean / imply / intend today in 2000s America, next is a brief comment from Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (page 3) by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Professor Bryan Garner ((c) 2012 Antonin Scalia & Bryan A Garner—Published by Thomson/West) and a few glossary words from A Glossary of Legal Interpretation (pages 425-442). I also make some comments about my own glossary words as well as the glossary words from Reading Law.
Glossary Words from Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
ambiguity, vagueness, positive law, eisegesis, exegesis, spurious interpretation, remakes meaning, strict interpretation, most narrow literal meaning, desired end, living constitutionism, nonoriginalism, subjective intention, original meaning, understood at the time, plain-meaning, consistent usage, text which is superfluous, teleological interpretation, punctuation...meaning, purposes…interpreter, textualism, words...in...context
The glossary words listed above are part of the 134 glossary words from Justice Scalia’s Reading Law. Also included are two Principles of Interpretation — Absurdity Doctrine and Constitutional-Doubt Canon. I have not included Justice Scalia’s definitions of all of the glossary words listed above within the “[My comment about ...]” sections which follow to stay within copyright bounds. My comments about the glossary words are related to the original genesis and implicit intent of the original birthers at the constitution convention to help in understanding the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II as original thinker and original birther John Jay may have clarified the original intent of his words if living constitutionism and dual citizenship neobirthers had existed in 1787. Of course, the new meaning neobirthers did not exist in 1787 and John Jay was not ambiguous or vague when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington with the implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president with “Command in chief of the american army”. After the short excerpt from Reading Law, the quote is opened up for quick reading.
- 35 -
Reading Law—The Interpretation of Legal Texts: Introduction (p. 3)
“Ours is a common-law tradition in which judicial improvisation has abounded. Statutes were a comparatively infrequent source of English law through the mid-19th century. Where statutes did not exist, the law was the product of judicial invention, at least in those many areas where there was no accepted common law for courts to “discover”. It is unsurprising that the judges who used to be the lawgivers took some liberties with the statutes that began to supplant their handiwork—adopting, for example, a rule that statutes in derogation of the common law (judge made law) were to be narrowly construed and rules for filling judicially perceived “gaps” in statutes that had less to do with perceived meaning than with the judges’ notions of public policy”.
[My comment about “common law (judge made law)”]
Law is objective or subjective. Natural law (law of nature) is objective law, and positive law (law of people), is subjective law, ‘judge made law’ as referenced by Justice Scalia in Reading Law. Natural law is not dependent on what people think, hope, wish, say, do. Also, ‘nature’ law is obviously not dependent on ‘positive’ law passed by a legislature made up of people who may agree on the meaning of the words of the text while not agreeing on the intent of the words. The people as a body who agree to the inclusion of words in a contract or a statute are not always agreeing about the nuanced ‘intent’ of the words because each person has original intent related to the words of the text. The legislators who posit an idea (an ideal ‘intent’) are simply agreeing on the meaning of the words of the text while they may disagree about the intent of the meaning of the words of the text. Positive law (law of people) is subjective law because it is dependent on what people think, hope, wish, say, do. Subjective positive law is dependent on objective natural law giving objective credibility, foundation, grounding, support to subjective positive laws. [End of comment]
ambiguity: 1. An uncertainty of meaning based . . . on a semantic dichotomy . . . of two or more different but almost equally plausible interpretations. . . .
vagueness: 1. Uncertain breadth of meaning. . . .
[My comment about “ambiguity” and “vagueness”]
John Jay’s original genesis intent for ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” was not ambiguous or vague or incoherent or schizophrenic.
Under ‘ambiguity’ the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president (as John Jay intended it and George Washington understood and accepted it) was not ambiguous or vague in 1787. Jay, Washington and the constitution framers and ratifiers obviously would not support the 2000s living constitutionism of the neobirthers which proposes that in 1787 “natural born Citizen” could have had “... any of two or more quite different but almost equally plausible interpretations.” Huh? Two or more??? Huh? Equally plausible??? Huh?
Under “vagueness’ the “breadth of meaning’ of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president was not ‘uncertain’ and it was deliberately and with definite purpose limited and exclusive. It was not all inclusive with a multitude of ‘new meanings’ proposed by 2000s living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers.
Two or more equally plausible ideas for eligibility to be president such as the incoherent schizophrenic idea of being born either on U.S. soil or foreign soil? Huh?
Two or more equally plausible ideas for eligibility to be president such as the incoherent schizophrenic idea of being born to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents? Huh?
Two or more equally plausible ideas for eligibility to be president such as the incoherent schizophrenic idea of being born to two U.S. citizen parents who were either married to each other before a child is born or not ever married? Huh? [End of comment]
- 36 -
[My comment about the Constitution is “natural law” and “positive law”]
In the same sense that the entire Constitution has text which reflects both natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people), “natural born Citizen” contains within it words which reflect both natural and positive law. The two natural law words are ‘natural born’ (law of nature) and the positive law word is ‘Citizen’ (law of people). As a term of art (a word having a particular meaning in a field, such as the law) for eligibility to be president, a “natural born Citizen” was not debated and defined by Jay, Washington, the framers and the ratifiers of the states. It was understood in 1787 with it's common-law meaning that the U.S. citizenship of the male determined the married U.S. citizenship of the female, and the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents, married only to each other before the birth of a child, determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the ‘natural born’ child, a 'Citizen’ by birth alone to two U.S. citizens. [End of comment]
[My comment about “citizenship of the wife”]
Remember, it was about eleven years from July 4, 1776 to September 17, 1787. So, whether the new wife was already naturalized as a ‘citizen’ on July 4, 1776 by adhering to the purpose of the war of revolution 11 years and 2 months before 1787, or by immigrating to America after July 4, 1776, the common law of 1787 recognized that by marriage to a U.S. citizen male, the females took on the U.S. citizenship of the husband. That means that the new wives were naturalized by marriage so to speak. [End of comments]
eisegesis (/i-se-jee-ses/ – reading meaning into a text that is not inherent in the text)
[My comment about “eisegesis”]
Since John Jay had only one original genesis implicit meaning for “natural born Citizen” anything else is eisegesis, putting “... one's own desired meaning” into Article II. So, which meaning of “natural born Citizen” is ‘eisegesis’ and not Jay's implicit intent concerning eligibility to be president? Is it either 1) born with only singular U.S. citizenship possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before the birth of a child, or is it 2) dual citizenship when born anywhere on earth to two or only one U.S. citizen parent? [End of comment]
exegesis (/eks-e-jee-ses/ – reading the inherent meaning of the text)
[My comment about “exegesis”]
Since John Jay had only one original genesis implicit meaning for “natural born Citizen”, exegesis is drawing Jay's original intent from Article II. So, which meaning of “natural born Citizen” is not ‘exegesis’ and not Jay's original implicit intent concerning eligibility to be president? It is either 1) born with only singular U.S. citizenship possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before the birth of a child, or it is 2) dual citizenship when born anywhere on earth to two or only one U.S. citizen parent. Right? [End of comment]
[My comment about “spurious interpretation” “remakes meaning”]
Did the living constitution new meaning neobirthers try to remake the meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president “rather than discovering” the original genesis implicit meaning of living originalist John Jay, or did New York ratifier John Jay remake the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” to satisfy the living constitution new meaning of the neobirthers?[End of comment]
[My comment about “strict interpretation” for a “most narrow, literal meaning”]
Should original birther John Jay's original genesis meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president be interpreted with “...the most narrow, literal meaning” as having only one singular U.S. citizenship meaning, or should “natural born Citizen” be interpreted as having “...other permissible meanings” such as dual citizenship?[End of comment]
- 37 -
[My comment about “teleological interpretation” and the “desired end”]
How did John Jay expect to achieve his aim,, his ‘desired end’ for “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president and to perpetually protect the “Command in chief” from foreign influence? Did Jay expect to achieve his “desired end” by allowing only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens, or by allowing dual citizenship on foreign soil and birth to two or one or zero U.S. citizens without regard to perpetually protecting the “Command in chief” from foreign influence? [End of comment]
[My comment about “living constitutionism”]
Constructionist living constitutionism (‘living interpretation’) that does not consider original genesis birther and living originalist John Jay's only original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president as a reference to only singular U.S. citizenship, and instead seriously considers as viable the multitude of living constitutionism new meanings of the neobirthers is really deconstructionist ‘dead’ constitutionism. [End of comment]
[My comment about “nonoriginalism”]
If John Jay, who suggested the words “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president to George Washington who understood Jay's meaning in 1787, did not have “... the understanding of informed readers at the time of its adoption” in 1787, well, who did in the 1700s and who does today in the 2000s? The living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers of 2000s America? That is why Jay should be considered and adduced as the authority about his own 1787 original genesis implicit meaning for the “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility language. Some ‘new meanings’ of “natural born Citizen” such as birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil and also birth to either two or one or zero U.S. citizens may “accord with the times” of original genesis new meaning neobirthers in 2000s America, but not with 1787 original birthers and John Jay's original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens. [End of comment]
[My comment about “subjective intention”]
In the context of Article II for eligibility to be president, the “subjective intention” of 1787 original birther John Jay informs and corrects the “subjective intention” of 2000s new meaning neobirthers. [End of comment]
[My comment about “incessant debate” about originalism]
The incessant debate between living originalism and objective test exegesis vs. living constitutionism and subjective test eisegesis concerning “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president could be settled with either an Article V amendment by the bicameral Congress or an Article V amendment by the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. Either Article V designated entity can clarify that “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president has implied since 1787 only original birther John Jay’s coherent and unambiguous original genesis meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship, or the term of art has implied the neobirther incoherent and ambiguous new meaning of dual citizenship. One or the other was accepted by Washington and the delegates at the constitutional convention. It was not both which were accepted, and it was not neither which was accepted. It was one or the other, right?[End of comment]
[My comment about “original meaning” as “understood at the time”]
If the Constitution reflected the original meaning which the “informed, reasonable member of the community” in 1787 “understood at the time of adoption … linguistic meanings” of the words “natural born Citizen” in Article II for eligibility to be president, why do the living constitutionism Obama birth narrative new meaning neobirthers of 2000s America not consider and adduce original birther John Jay's original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship? Why? Could it be because Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent and not two U.S. citizens married only to each other?[End of comment]
- 38 -
[My comment about “plain-meaning”]
When the “text of a statute is unambiguous” that means that the authors and the readers know the “plain meaning” of the text. The Constitution’s language was unambiguous when it was adopted in 1787 by the framers and sent to the states for ratification. The “plain-meaning” language of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president was obvious and included in the text because it was unambiguous, not because it was ambiguous. That is obvious, right? John Jay's “plain meaning” was obviously understood, since, as Reading Law says, “... since determining what is unambiguous is eminently debatable” was not applied to determine the implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and the implicit meaning of ‘born’ was not debated before the eligibility to be president language was adopted by the delegates and ratified by the states. End of comment]
[My comment about “consistent usage”]
The “consistent usage” of ‘citizen’ in the Constitution indicates that the “presumption of consistent usage” applies also to the single use of “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution. For example, Alexander Hamilton was born in Charlestown, Nevis, British West Indies, and was recognized as an Article II “... or a Citizen … of ...” the United States by authority of the new Constitution because he participated in and adhered to the successful conclusion of the war of independence from England. Hamilton was a ‘citizen’ who was recognized as naturalized by the war of independence, but he was not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil after the Constitution was adopted and ratified by the states.
That distinction between the two types of ‘citizens’ reveals that in 1787 America “natural born Citizen” was unique to persons with only singular U.S. citizenship made possible only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. There was in 1787 America, and still is today in the 2000s, only one implication of “natural born Citizen” and it does not suggest “... a variation of meaning” regarding presidential eligibility to persons born on foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizens married or not married to each other before a child is born, and it also does not suggest a reference to persons born on U.S. soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other. [End of comment]
punctuation canon: The doctrine that punctuation is a permissible indicator of meaning. . . .
[My comment about “punctuation … meaning”]
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Part 1
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 2
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.
It is obvious that punctuation in Article II indicates different meanings for “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of...” An “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” was not a U.S. natural born Citizen “at the time of adoption” in 1787 and yet a 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” was eligible to be president. Since the last 1787 positive law (law of people) “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s, only a natural law (law of nature) “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship made possible only by birth alone is perpetually eligible to be president.
- 39 -
Natural soil precedes natural birth on that soil, obviously, and the natural birth on that natural soil can only occur with the natural law (law of nature) union of two persons, obviously, and that natural law union of two persons can only produce a “natural born Citizen” child only when the two persons are singular U.S. citizens who are married only to each other before a child is born, obviously. Natural law (law of nature) precedes, informs, guides the intent and application of positive law (law of people), not vice versa, obviously, because an Act of Congress law of people is not able to change a law of people ‘citizen’ into a law of nature “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship. Only an ‘act of congress can ‘make’ (create, reproduce) a law of nature “natural born Citizen”. That is possible only by birth alone.
Neither a ‘citizen’ nor a “natural born Citizen” were ambiguous in 1787. While every “natural born Citizen” born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born has been recognized as a U.S. citizen, some U.S. citizens were not recognized to be a “natural born Citizen” because they did not have only singular U.S. citizenship. To neobirthers who say that John Jay's original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president was not obvious in 1787, how do they know that if it was not obvious? How do neobirthers know that birth on U.S. soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizens, or birth on foreign soil to either two or one U.S. citizens, married or not married, was obvious in 2008 when Senator Obama was elected if John Jay was not obvious in 1787? [End of comment]
purposivism: The doctrine that a drafter's ‘purposes’, as perceived by the interpreter, are more important than the words that the drafter has used; specif., the idea that a judge-interpreter should seek an answer not in the words of the text but in its social, economic, and political objectives. Broadly speaking, purposivism is synonymous with mischief rule.
[My comment about “purposes … interpreter … words … drafter”]
It is the new meaning neobirthers who promote ‘purposivism’ when they promote the theory, the myth, of dual citizenship for eligibility to be president. Original genesis birther John Jay would probably say ‘dittos’ to the common sense defense of the singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president, the only implicit intent of “… words that the drafter has used” vs. the ‘purposes’ of the drafter “as perceived by the interpreter”. Otherwise what is original intent for, right? The drafter's words trump the interpreter’s perception of the purpose of the words. Democrat and Republic neobirthers have been promoting ‘purposivism’ for their “political objectives” in their assertion that “natural born Citizen” implies either birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married. In other words, “as perceived by the interpreter” means that it is the 2000s interpreters of the words of the 1787 drafters of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” who are applying the words of the 1787 drafters and their purpose for using the word ‘born’ in Article II in a way that the 1787 drafters did not intend. The 1787 drafters implied only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president, not dual citizenship. [End of comment]
surplusage canon: … every word and every provision is to be given effect … if ... two possible interpretations ... if one … make another provision in the [text] superfluous, then interpreters, ordinarily should prefer the other interpretation.
[My comment about text which is “superfluous”]
Does Article II give “every word … effect” with clarity while, at the same time, it “… lends itself to two possible interpretations” incoherently? Does Article II suggest “two possible interpretations” or only one? Which of the meanings of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president makes the other meaning superfluous and eisegesis: #1) John Jay’s 1787 original birther original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, or #2) the neobirther 2000s new meaning of dual citizenship, and birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil? The #1 and only implicit meaning of John Jay makes #2 and the many new meanings of the neobirthers superfluous eisegesis. To “... prefer the other interpretation’ means to prefer #1, original genesis birther John Jay’s only original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, and it means to ignore #2 and the multitude of neobirther new meanings. [End of comment]
- 40 -
[My comment about “textualism” and “words ... in ... context”]
John Jay would probably agree that the original intent of “... the words of a governing text” such as the Constitution, and birth only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born is the only original genesis implication that, for eligibility to be president, the words “natural born Citizen” “... convey in their context” with singular clarity. Jay would probably also agree that birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born is the only conclusion of “... what the text means” with singular clarity. [End of comment]
Two Principles of Interpretation from Reading Law
There are seventy fundamental principles of interpretation discussed in Reading Law—The Interpretation of Legal Texts. Here are portions of two principles relevant to the implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.
#37 Absurdity Doctrine: The Court may disregard or judicially correct an error if not doing so may result in a conclusion which no reasonable person could approve.
#38 Constitutional-Doubt Canon: A statute should be interpreted in a way that avoids placing it’s constitutionality in doubt. If it is thought that a statute may have two constructions, one of which gives rise to a doubtful constitutional question and the other which avoids a constitutional question, choose the construction which avoids the constitutional question.
[My comment about “Absurdity Doctrine” and “Constitutional-Doubt Canon”]
Extrapolating from John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president we see that having only singular U.S. citizenship is necessary and sufficient, and there is nothing absurd, repugnant or inconsistent with the rest of Article II or all of the references to ‘citizen’ in the entire U.S. Constitution. However, the living constitutionism new meaning of the neobirthers that “natural born Citizen” allows for the implication of birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil to either two or one U.S. citizens who are married or not married to each other before a child is born is absurd, repugnant and inconsistent with the use of ‘citizen’ in Article II and the entire Constitution. In Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” was a reference in 1787 to persons who were born in British America or elsewhere (Alexander Hamilton) before July 4, 1776 and also being naturalized as a ‘citizen’ on July 4, 1776 by adhering to the successful conclusion of the war of independence from England, while “natural born Citizen” is a reference to having only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone after July 4, 1776. [End of comment]
[My comment about the presidential eligibility of “Alexander Hamilton”]
Alexander Hamilton (January 11, 1755 (or 1757 ?) – July 12, 1804) was born to unmarried parents in Charlestown, the capitol of the island of Nevis in the Caribbean Sea, part of a British colony island chain of the West Indies. He was grandfathered into U.S. ‘citizen’ eligibility to be president as an “... or a Citizen of the United States ...” on September 17, 1787, the day the language of the Constitution was adopted. It is an absurd assertion of “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers that, for presidential eligibility in 1787, “... or a Citizen of ...” implied a naturalized ‘citizen’ born on either U.S. soil or foreign soil because some people (Jay, Washington, Jefferson, etc.) were born on British America soil before it became U.S. soil and were not born to only singular U.S. citizens. Some people were born to either two or one or zero (Hamilton) U.S. citizens. Neobirthers assert that, for eligibility to be president, “natural born Citizen” allows for the implication of being born on either U.S. soil or foreign soil to parents who were not married only to each other or born on U.S. soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizens, married or unmarried. [End of comment]
Frederic Bastiat wrote: “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place”.
- 41 -
[My comment about “life, liberty, and property” and “men have made laws”]
Here is another way of saying what Bastiat wrote: Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made positive laws (laws of people). On the contrary, it was the fact that natural law (law of nature), the foundation of life, liberty, and property already existed. That is what caused men to make positive laws (laws of people) in the first place. [End of comment]
[My comment about “natural law … foundation”]
Natural law (law of nature) is the preexisting foundation of a just society. Positive law (law of people) is the result of that aspect of being human which ‘posits’ (presents for consideration) words to convey ideas which create stability while building a just society on a ‘natural law’ foundation. The focus here is on the coherent relationship of natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people). Without preexisting ‘nature’ law people would not exist and ‘written’ law would not need to exist.
In 1787 America, stealing (a positive law (law of people word) a horse (a natural law (law of nature word) was a crime, a positive law (law of people) word identifying a violation of natural law (law of nature) reality. In 2000s America stealing is still a violation of natural law (law of nature) reality and it is still a crime because natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) about crimes have not changed and never will. What will also never change is the consequences of violating natural law (law of nature) reality to promote a positive law (law of people) theory that does not build a stable and just society but will result in destruction because it is contrary to natural law (law of nature) reality.
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
1. No Person except a natural born Citizen,
2. or a Citizen of the United States,
3. at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
4. shall be eligible to the Office of President;
5. neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
6. and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The entire U.S. Constitution is positive law (law of people) with natural law (law of nature) as the solid rock foundation. Article II, being part of the Constitution, contains natural law words which ground and support positive law words which make qualifications, conditions, or restrictions. The natural law (law of nature) is the foundation of human society and positive law (law of people) is how a society is built on the foundation. Related to Article II, ‘natural law’ birth precedes a ‘positive law’ about how the conscious and self aware human beings must build and live in a society of other sentient human beings.
Article II Natural Law (law of nature) Words and Clauses
1) Person … natural born
5) Person … Age … Years [age + years = natural law age birth day 1 day old + natural law 35 years old]
Article II Positive Law (law of people) Words and Clauses
1) except...Citizen
2) or...Citizen … United States
3) time … Adoption … Constitution
4) shall be eligible
5) neither … eligible … attained … Age … thirty five
6) been fourteen Years … Resident … within
Clause 5 has two parts in the “natural born Citizen” words, a natural law (law of nature) part and a positive law (law of people) part. The two parts are not “…susceptible of two constructions” because there is only one original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. There are not two implicit intents with the word ‘born’ (singular and dual citizenship) right? The single original genesis implicit intent of original birther John Jay was, in 1787 and still is today in 2000s America, only singular U.S. citizenship. John Jay was not schizophrenic and did not intend two implications in “natural born Citizen”.
- 42 -
By underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, John Jay was understood by Washington and the convention delegates who framed the constitution as implying, for eligibility to be president, only singular U.S. citizenship. They did not intend dual citizenship, only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens. They did not intend for either two or one or zero U.S. citizens. They intended only birth on U.S. soil, not birth on either U.S. or foreign soil.
The admonition to avoid adopting a construction of which there are doubts definitely applies to the living constitutionism new meaning neobirther theory (myth) that “natural born Citizen” can imply being born on either U.S. soil or foreign soil, and being born to either two or one or zero U.S. citizens who are either married or not married to each other before a child is born. However, there are no doubts about original birther John Jay having, for eligibility to be president, the original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other before a child is born.
The Higher Hurdle of “Living Originalism” vs. The Lower Hurdle of “Living Constitutionism”
The higher hurdle of “living originalism” for exclusive eligibility to be president as a “natural born Citizen” as implied by John Jay in his note to George Washington is simple to state:
1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (which is possible)
2) ONLY by birth alone
3) ONLY on U.S. soil
4) ONLY to two U.S. citizens
5) ONLY married
6) ONLY to each other
7) ONLY before a child is born
The lower hurdle of living constitutionism for inclusive eligibility to be president as a “natural born Citizen” as implied by new meaning neobirthers (who do not talk about John Jay and his implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington) is also simple to state:
1) EITHER singular U.S. citizenship
OR dual citizenship (Sen. Obama, Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal, Sen. Rubio, etc.)
OR triple citizenship (Sen. Cruz, Sen. Harris, etc.)
2) EITHER by birth alone
OR by naturalization (1898 Supreme Court — fiat, ‘because we said so’, “opinion”)
OR by naturalization (Act of Congress — if we can get away with it because of standing)
3) EITHER birth on U.S. soil
OR birth on foreign soil
4) EITHER two U.S. citizens
OR one U.S. citizen
OR zero U.S. citizens
5) EITHER married
OR not married
6) EITHER only to each other
OR not
7) EITHER before a child is born
OR after a child is born
OR never
Hmm… the higher hurdle and the lower hurdle are both simple to understand. However the exclusive ‘higher hurdle’ of only singular U.S. citizenship is easier to understand and explain than the inclusive ‘lower hurdle’.
- 43 -
noscitur a sociis (noh-shee-ter ah soh-shee-is) [Latin ‘it is known by its associates’]: A canon of construction holding that the meaning of an unclear word or phrase, especially one in a list, should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it (§ 31 [associated-words canon]).
[My comment about “noscitur a sociis”]
Consider the words: “noscitur a sociis” … “meaning … determined … words … surrounding”.
Consider also “associated words” and apply to Article II Section 1 clause 5 (part 1): “No Person except a natural born Citizen, … or a Citizen of the United States, ....”
Consider the clause 5 words ‘except’ and ‘or’. Since the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president. Part 1 identifies a “natural born Citizen” as different from an “… or a Citizen of ...”. What's the difference?
What was the original genesis and original implicit intent from the first day independence was declared on July 4, 1776 until September 17, 1787 when only a “natural born Citizen” was announced at the constitutional convention to be the only ‘citizen’ eligible to be president. Article II Section 1 clause 5 was adopted with no debate by the delegates as to what “natural born Citizen” meant, and ratified by the ‘several States’ with no debate about what ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” meant in 1787.
What was the original genesis and original implicit intent from 1776 when independence was declared until 1787 when independence was affirmed by the adoption of the new U.S. Constitution and there were people who had been born British ‘subjects’ who were viewed as “… or a Citizen of ...” the 13 states united in a common cause who had been ‘naturalized’ as U.S. citizens, not by raising a right hand and with an audible oath of allegiance, but by physically endorsing and supporting the war for independence from Great Britain? In fact, even the majority of the British America ‘subjects’ of Great Britain by birth alone on England soil or on British America soil who were opposed to the war of independence were also naturalized by Article II as “… or a Citizen of the United States …” and were eligible to be president. That is why George Washington, a British America ‘subject’ of Great Britain by birth alone on British America soil was eligible to be president.
What was the original genesis implicit intent and the original public meaning of “natural born Citizen” in 1787 America?
1. Was the implicit intent only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone? Yes.
2. Only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone is coherent for long term social stability. Yes, it is
3. Was the implicit intent EITHER singular OR dual citizenship by birth alone? No.
4. Is EITHER / OR citizenship incoherent for long term social stability. Yes, it is.
Only singular U.S. citizenship, the 1787 original genesis and implicit intent for eligibility to be president, is perpetual, generation to generation, election to election, president to president.
Only singular U.S. citizenship is possible only by birth alone
(→ singular citizenship is passed to a child by birth alone to two citizens married only to each other)
Only birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction is the first criterion for eligibility to be president, birth parents married only to each other before the child is born is the second criterion, and the U.S. citizenship of the two birth parents is the third criterion
(→ jurisdiction applies to U.S. locations on foreign soil for U.S. diplomats, embassies, military bases, etc.)
Only birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other
(→ from 1787 until the 1922 Cable Act the ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ by marriage made both parents U.S. citizens when the U.S. citizen male married a U.S. born or foreign born female)
(→ after 1922 both parents become U.S. citizens by birth alone or by oath alone)
(→ after 1922 it does not matter which parent is a U.S. citizen first for presidential eligibility)
(→ after 1922 female ‘naturalization by marriage’ to a U.S. citizen male is not recognized)
(→ after 1922 it does not matter if both parents naturalize before or after marriage)
Only birth after the parents are married
(→ since the 1700s to the 2000s, the word ‘parents’ has implied only heterosexual marriage)
Only married to each other
(→ implied in 1787 is one heterosexual spouse at a time)
(→ not implied in 1787 is homosexual or transgender ‘marriage’ or ‘parents’) [End of comment]
- 44 -
What “born” Meant to Original Birthers in 1787 for Eligibility to be President
This conversation about the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5, is written in a tabletalk style as if we are sitting at the kitchen table and someone asks ‘what does THAT mean’? What is ‘common law’? How did common law inform the original genesis birthers about the ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ of the parents by ‘legal’ marriage with the result that their ‘legal’ marriage produced a child with ‘continuity of citizenship and allegiance’, and the continuity is possible only by birth alone? For example, 1) why did John Jay underline the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, and then, after convention president Washington passed on John Jay’s ‘hint’ to the delegates, 2) why did the delegates at the 1787 convention not debate the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, and 3) why did the ratifiers from the Article V ‘several States’ also not debate the implications of “natural born Citizen” before they ratified the entire constitution? HINT: Did the delegates already know what “natural born Citizen” meant and what ‘born’ implied for perpetual eligibility to be president? Did the delegates believe that only ‘legal’ marriage only to each other before a child is born could produce an original genesis child by birth alone, generation to generation?
The conversation is written in a way that an answer is often found in the form of an extended soliloquy, and, as you will notice, with a lot of repetition. I mean, a whole lotta repetition. Since I am not a constitutional scholar with letters after my name which indicate erudition about a subject, this tabletalk reads like it was written by a person who is not a scholar writing for scholars. It reads like it is written for those of us who simply want to know ‘what does that mean’? That’s how repetition works.
This conversational soliloquy was started on March 2, 2012, the day after Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held his first news conference about the problems he had discovered in three of President Barack Hussein Obama’s documents, 1) birth certificate, 2) social security number, 3) selective service number.
This conversation was started with the intent to educate myself about the meaning of ‘born’ in Article II and the three word term of art “natural born Citizen”, and why President Obama was not eligible to be president. In writing to educate myself I repeated quotes and sources in different postings written on different days on different forums and on my two blogs.
These essays are written in a tabletalk conversational style, not in a text book style with tons of truth proof texts, references and footnotes, and things of that sort that must be in a book written for erudite scholars to digest. Since I am not an ‘erudite’ scholar of the U.S. Constitution who knows a ‘whole lotta’ history and can cite a ‘whole lotta’ historical or legal original sources, I am free (and so are you) to assert with common sense certainty that John Jay had only one, only a singular implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington and not a dual implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’. Also, I am free (and so are you) to ask the ‘erudite’ historical and legal scholars of 2000s America to cite only one, not two, just one 1787 (or 1789, 1791, 1790, 1795, etc.) original source for dual citizenship for eligibility to be president, and ask them also for only one, not two, just one, original source which articulated the idea that John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ was to imply dual citizenship, not only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. Ask the historical and legal scholars for only one original source for dual citizenship for eligibility. only one, and then listen and enjoy the sound of silence.
This tabletalk about eligibility to be president was also not written for erudite lawyers who want multiple case law references. This is written for we common sense Posterity of the original We the People who may or may not be lawyers who ask ‘what does that mean’ and simply want to know what the birther appellation means so we can better understand what presidential eligibility truth is and what an original genesis birther is. The conservative or progressive neobirthers say that their ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ is eligible even though not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other because they do not regard original genesis and original intent as relevant. To repeat for emphasis, neobirthers who promote the theory (the myth) of dual citizenship for eligibility to be president say that it does not matter if a person was or was not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, and it does not matter if the parents are or are not U.S. citizens before a child is born.
Why do neobirthers say that it does not matter? They say that the 1700s original genesis implicit intent of the original genesis birthers like John Jay, George Washington, all of the constitutional convention delegates who adopted “natural born Citizen” in Article II and the states that ratified “natural born Citizen” is not relevant in the 2000s. Why? Because the ‘MY GUY’ or the ‘MY GAL’ anti-original genesis neobirthers simply say that their preferred ‘MY GUY’ or ‘MY GAL’ presidential aspirant is a ‘citizen’ because of being born naturally on U.S. soil or foreign soil with at least one U.S. citizen parent and so their ‘Guy’ or ‘Gal’ is eligible to be president under Article II, and if their ‘MY GUY’ or ‘MY GAL’ presidential aspirant agrees, well, to the neobirthers, that’s good ‘nuf for government work. Makes sense, right? Really? No!
- 45 -
The challenge to taking seriously the original genesis implicit intent of Article II for eligibility to be president (only singular U.S. citizenship) also seems to be coming from Republican presidential eligibility neobirthers who defend the Constitution but for some reason do not care to become informed about the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” in Article II. Republican neobirthers include National Review, the original Human Events prior to its rebirth in 2021, and Breitbart, to name three prominent BIG Blogger news and opinion sites and ideological friends whom I have never met or talked with, and including Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, to name a few BIG Talkers.
The BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers are challenging the constitutional presidential eligibility original genesis birthers, the defenders of the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers, the original framers, the original authors of the words “natural born Citizen”. The BIGs are also challenging original genesis birthers in a way that is similar to the way Obama truthers, Obama neobirthers, Obama Obirthers, the ‘O’bama… ‘O’bama… ‘O’bama… ‘O’bots challenge John Jay original birthers with ridicule. Have you noticed that the BIGs (see the comment about National Review later in this tabletalk) use ridicule and do not adduce Article II to defend what they, the BIGs, think the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” was in 1787 for eligibility to be president? Why? They probably do not know why ‘or’ is in the same sentence with ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and therefore they do not know the implicit intent of “… or a Citizen of ...” and why ‘or’ applied only until the last ‘or’ died sometime in the mid to late 1800s.
Only Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the 1787 words “natural born Citizen” control presidential eligibility since the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s. What does not control is “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) in the 1790 Naturalization Act; not ‘citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act; not ‘citizen’ in the 1802 Naturalization Act; not ‘citizen’ in the 1855 Naturalization Act; not ‘citizen’ in the 1866 Civil Rights Act; not ‘citizen’ in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment; not ‘citizen’ in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, and all of the updates to naturalization and immigration acts since 1795.
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents seem to not be aware that the Constitution is the first original genesis presidential eligibility truth document of America written by the original birthers, and they also seem to not be aware that to be “… eligible to the Office of President” there definitely is a difference between a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...”.
ONLY vs. Either/Or
Did the 1787 original birthers imply only one original genesis definition of “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility? Yes.
Did the 1787 original birthers imply only birth on U.S. soil to two US citizen parents for presidential eligibility? Yes.
Did the 1787 original birthers imply two original genesis definitions of “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility? No.
One original genesis implicit definition for eligibility to be president expressed as ‘either/or’ in two parts does not make coherent ‘genesis’ common sense. Right?
→ either singular citizenship or dual citizenship? No to ‘either/or’
→ either U.S. soil or foreign soil? No to ‘either/or’
In 1787 America, John Jay’s original genesis implicit intent was that “natural born Citizen” was an obvious reference to only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only to two married parents who were both U.S. citizens before a child is born on U.S. soil.
The original birthers, John Jay, George Washington, and all of the delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention, were not confused about the original genesis and natural law (law of nature) meaning of Jay's words ‘natural born’ in “natural born Citizen” and Hamilton's word ‘born’ in “born a Citizen” regarding eligibility to be president.
- 46 -
The original birthers were also not confused that both Jay and Hamilton were referring to only birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, so the delegates never had the need to discuss the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” before the language in Article II was adopted by the 1787 constitutional convention delegates and then ratified by the states. That is obvious, right?
‘Originalism’, as expressed by Neil Gorsuch in his 2019 book, A Republic, If You Can Keep It, put simply, means original intent, a counter to living constitutionism as promoted by neobirthers which simply means ‘look at what we found – new intent’. However, regarding dual citizenship and eligibility to be president, living originalism means only original genesis and intent, not ‘look at what we found – new intent’.
Originalism (original genesis & original intent) is the common sense way to analyze the original words of the original birthers of the First Congress during Washington’s first administration who made a HUGE ‘intent’ mistake in the 1790 Naturalization Act that was corrected with the 1795 Naturalization Act five years later by original birthers of the Third Congress who remembered their originalism. In other words, living originalism is a great way to analyze the difference between the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” words (lower case ‘c’) that were replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word (lower case ‘c’).
Originalism (original genesis original intent), what a concept, what a way for the original birthers to start to “… form a more perfect Union ...” for themselves and for only their own original genesis ‘Posterity’ into perpetuity, from generation to generation.
U.S. Constitution: The Original Genesis Birther Document of the Perpetual Union
The “… Union is perpetual” was clarified by President Lincoln in his 1861 inaugural address. President Lincoln’s inaugural address is available to read or download at Bartleby.com. The “perpetual” quote is in paragraphs #14 and #15 → http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html.
This tabletalk conversation is about John Jay and his “natural born Citizen” phrase as he understood it in 1787 (18th century) when he wrote it. If you wrote a “natural born Citizen” suggestion in a note to your friend George Washington, what would you have meant to imply by underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”? Would you have meant to imply only singular U.S. citizenship, or maybe dual citizenship as Barack Hussein Obama had, and as many of the 2016 Republican candidates also had who lost to “natural born Citizen” Donald J. Trump?
Living Originalism:
Would YOU have meant only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born?
- 47 -
Living Constitutionism:
Would you have meant either singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship; either birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil; either one or zero U.S. citizens; either married or not married to each other; either married before or after the child is born?
If the United States were to have a national conversation in a convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ as Article V authorizes to amend the Constitution, to specifically clarify the meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, which meaning of “natural born Citizen” would you want your state legislature to propose and adopt and ratify? Would you want #1 above, the original genesis implicit meaning of John Jay in 1787 or would you want #2 above, the ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirther new meaning of the 2000s? Which implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” would you want for future U.S. presidents? Which implicit meaning would you not want for future U.S. presidents?
Living Originalism:
Concerning eligibility to be president, would you want an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an amendment to clarify that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” means something ‘exclusive’? That means excluding all other possibilities. To be ‘natural born’ exclusively means only singular U.S. citizenship, only by birth alone, only U.S. soil, only two U.S. citizens, only married only to each other, only before a child is born. It exclusively means that being ‘natural born’ to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other before their child is born is the only natural law (law of nature) way to determine that singular U.S. citizenship of both parents is passed on by birth alone.
Living Constitutionism:
Concerning eligibility to be president, would you want a convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an Article V amendment to clarify that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” means including other possibilities? For example, should ‘natural born’ imply either birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil, birth to either one or zero U.S. citizens either married or not to each other either before or after a child is born?
Concerning eligibility to be president, would you want an Article V amendment to propose that being ‘natural born’ to either one or zero U.S. citizen parents either married or not married to each other either before or after their child is born implies dual citizenship of their child and that either singular citizenship or dual citizenship qualifies a person to be eligible to be president?
It’s Time To Choose
Which meaning of “natural born Citizen” makes perpetual common sense to you? Do you want the living constitutionism of the neobirther new meaning from 2000s of either singular or dual citizenship, or do you want the living originalism of “natural born Citizen” author John Jay and the original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U. S citizenship since 1787 until today? An original genesis implicit meaning is what Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch implicitly endorsed in A Republic, If You Can Keep It.
Soil · Birth · Natural Law · Law of Nature · A Born “natural born Citizen”
Soil · Oath · Positive Law · Law of People · A Naturalized “or a Citizen of”
For eligibility to be president, the 1787 word ‘or’ is an implicit reference to persons born before naturalization from British ‘subject’ to American ‘citizen’ on July 4, 1776, and the word ‘born’ is an implicit reference to persons born after July 4, 1776 with codification in a constitution as a “natural born Citizen” on September 17, 1787. John Tyler, President #10, the first “natural born Citizen” President was born March 29, 1790 and died July 24, 1862.
To put it another way, for determining ‘legal’ Constitutional eligibility to be president the word ‘or’ is an implicit reference to persons born before and after July 4, 1776 but before September 17, 1787, and acquiring singular U.S. citizenship on July 4, 1776 by naturalization because they supported independence from Great Britain. The word ‘born’ is also an implicit reference to persons born before and after September 17, 1787 and acquiring singular U.S. citizenship, but their citizenship is possible only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other who were naturalized as U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776.
Do you see yet how the word ‘or’ in “… or a Citizen of ...” implicitly clarifies ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” regarding eligibility to be president? Do you see yet how a “natural born Citizen” can only be born after September 17, 1787 with only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only ‘legally’ married only to each other only before a child is born? Before the Constitution was adopted in 1787 there was no such thing as a ‘citizen’ to be identified as a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president. The citizens in “… or a Citizen of ...” in 1787 America were all born on soil somewhere before September 17, 1787, and some, such as George Washington, were born to two ‘legally’ married parents who were both British “natural born subjects” even though born on the soil of the new world. Huh? What? ‘Legal’ marriage was relevant in 1787? Yes, of course, obviously, heterosexual parents ‘legally’ married only to each other — in 1787 America — you betcha! The 1787 word ‘or’ implicitly defines ‘natural born’ as birth to two heterosexual citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other. The word ‘or’ implicitly defines ‘Citizen’ as U.S. citizenship ‘legally’ derived by birth alone to two U.S. citizens who are recognized as ‘legally’ married.
The ‘Elect’: The Change From British ‘subject’ to American ‘citizen’
The word “elect” refers to a change from British subject to American citizen. The ‘election’, from the American point of view, occurred on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence from Great Britain, and, from the British point of view, ‘election’ occurred 7 years 4 months 26 days later on November 30, 1783 when the Treaty of Paris (“Peace”) was signed signaling the end of hostilities. Persons born before July 4, 1776 are said to have elected to become ‘citizens’ of the American ‘union’ – i.e., grandfathered as ‘citizens’ by naturalization after independence. Inglis v. Trustees is a Supreme Court case which considers ‘election’.
- 48 -
Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830)
→ http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html
“It is universally admitted both in the English courts and in those of our own country that all persons born within the colonies of North America whilst subject to the Crown of Great Britain were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state and the acknowledgment of their independence. The rule as to the point of time at which the American ante nati ceased to be British subjects differs in this country and in England as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the declaration of independence [1776]. […]
“And if the right of election is at all admitted, it must be determined in most cases by what took place during the struggle, and between the declaration of independence and the treaty of peace. To say that the election must have been made before or immediately at the declaration of independence would render the right nugatory. The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not applied by the British courts to the American ante nati (prenatal).
“This is fully shown by the late case of Doe v. Acklam, 2 Barn. & Cresw. 779.
“Chief Justice Abbott says, James Ludlow, the father of Frances May, the lessor of the plaintiff, was undoubtedly born a subject of Great Britain. He was born in a part of America which was at the time of his birth a British colony and parcel of the dominions of the Crown of Great Britain; but upon the fact found, we are of opinion that he was not a subject of the Crown of Great Britain at the time of the birth of his daughter. She was born after the independence of the colonies was recognized by the Crown of Great Britain, after the colonies had become United States, and their inhabitants generally citizens of those states. And her father, by his continued residence in those states, manifestly became a citizen of them.”
Article II Then and Now
If it is not obvious yet, let’s analyze Article II to determine where and to whom an Article II “natural born Citizen” must be born to proactively and perpetually protect the Union for the benefit of the founders and for their own posterity, not alien posterity, as John Jay implied in his July 25, 1787 thank you note to George Washington.
There are two reasons that Article II mentions the immutable “natural born Citizen” permanent requirement before the also immutable “… or a Citizen of ...” temporary requirement. To prevent foreign influence over the executive office and “Command in chief of the american army” in 1787 while trying “… to form a more perfect Union,” [more = continue / perpetual, perfect = better] the future perpetual stability of America required two proactive clarifying phrases. The first clarifying phrase was the law of nature words “natural born Citizen,” John Jay’s common sense original genesis clarity on future presidential eligibility. The second clarifying phrase was the law of people grandfather words “… or a Citizen of ...” because there were no “natural born Citizen” citizens who had attained to 35 years of age in 1787, and, if born on July 25, 1787, would not attain to 35 years of age until 1822.
It is obvious that the proactive point of John Jay’s original genesis emphasis for clarity about eligibility to be president was that “natural born Citizen” (specifically the word ‘born’) was an implicit reference only to nature and birth before citizenship. Right? Jay was definitely not making an implicit reference to law and naturalization before citizenship. Right? It is obvious that nature and birth, by extrapolation, meant to John Jay only birth on U.S. soil. Right? It is obvious that John Jay’s common sense original genesis implicit reference to only birth on U.S. soil did not include an implicit ‘either/or’ reference, to either birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil. Right? Jay was not ambiguous or confused or incoherent or vague. Right? There it is right there. Only one implicit reference is implied in the word ‘born’.
- 49 -
The word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is founder, author, and ratifier John Jay’s coherent expression of original genesis common sense clarity to protect national security. John Jay suggested to George Washington that what was needed to prevent foreign influence over the executive office and over the officer in charge of the U.S. state department and the U.S. army was a specific word that referred to a specific type of ‘citizen’ which made it clear whom John Jay thought was eligible to be president. Only a person known by We the People in 1787 to have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. heterosexual citizens married only to each other is a clause 5 “natural born Citizen” who is eligible to be president. Only that ‘Citizen’ who is “natural born” on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens will forever be “… eligible to the Office of President” from generation to generation. Only that ‘citizen’ has exclusive singular U.S. citizenship which ‘legally’ makes that person eligible to be president.
All things considered, it is obvious that in 1787 America John Jay’s ‘natural’ and ‘born’ and ‘Citizen’ common sense original genesis and original intent words clearly meant in 1787 America (after the 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war of independence from Great Britain and men returned to their wives or to the homes of their parents and then marriage) only birth by a ‘legal’ marriage union of two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other. Also, it is just as obvious that in 1787 America Jay’s original genesis word ‘born’ did not imply, for eligibility to be president, the physical union of any two people who were not married to each other. For example of what was not implied by ‘born’ was one U.S. citizen male with many, many, many, many, many, etc., U.S. citizen females, with the absurd suggestion that all of the children born to one male with many females are automatically eligible to be president because both ‘reproducers’ are U.S. citizens. That was obviously not John Jays original genesis implicit intent. Right? Was fornication and automatic citizenship with eligibility to be president the implicit intent of the authors of Article II? No! Right?
Article II implicitly includes the soil of birth in the two words ‘natural born’ because all birth is ‘natural’ and all birth has to happen on soil somewhere. That is obvious, right? In the same way that ‘born implies the soil of birth, the word ‘or’ in “… or a Citizen of ...” implies that British ‘subjects’ who expressed by their actions their allegiance to the purpose of the war for independence from Great Britain were, since July 4, 1776, naturalized by oath, the ‘oath’ of their actions which revealed their ‘allegiance’ to the cause of independence, and they became ‘citizens’ on July 4, 1776 on the soil of colonies united in declaring their independence.
You may say, yes, I see the implicit intent now. U.S. soil is implicitly located right there in the first sentence, the sixth word, “… no person except a natural born Citizen ...”. For the original framers, the original birthers, to “… form a more perfect Union …” and perpetually protect the Union for their own posterity, it was necessary in 1787 America to permanently protect the executive office and permanently prevent foreign influence over the U.S. military, as John Jay wrote to George Washington, so birth obviously must only take place on 1787 U.S. soil (or jurisdiction), not on 1787 foreign soil, just as to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen must only take place on 1787 U.S. soil (or jurisdiction), not on 1787 foreign soil. Some things are just obvious.
The location of the soil is implicit in the word ‘born’. Right? Common sense original genesis definitely demands inclusion of the location of the soil for two obvious reasons:
1) The birth of a “natural born Citizen” must be on soil somewhere. Right?
2) The oath of a naturalized citizen must be on soil somewhere. Right?
The same U.S. soil can be the place of one person’s natural birth and another person’s naturalization oath. Right? So, what is the purpose of clause 5? Article II, specifically the word ‘born’ in clause 5, means that the soil of birth is just as important and relevant to eligibility to be president as birth on soil because the birth must only happen on the soil of the United States that was there before the birth. Right? If children are not born on U.S. soil then obviously they are born on foreign soil. Right? Similar common sense logic which applies to one ‘soil’ also applies to one ‘citizenship’. If children do not have only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other, then obviously they have dual citizenship. Right?
It is the living constitutionism neobirthers who do not adhere to the 1787 original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers who knew the meaning of 1787 words.
It is the ‘living constitutionism’ neobirthers who say that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” does not imply only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.
- 50 -
It is the ‘living constitutionism’ neobirthers who say that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” can also be a reference to being born on foreign soil.
It is the ‘living constitutionism’ neobirthers who say that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” can also be defined as being born with only one U.S. citizen parent, single or married, and if married, then either married to a U.S. citizen or married to a foreign citizen.
It is the ‘living constitutionism’ neobirthers who say that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” may or may not refer to being born with two parents, U.S. citizens or not, who are married only to each other or not, before a child is born.
Original Birther Uniqueness
The first obvious example of original genesis uniqueness is clause 5 and the implicit requirement of birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, and the consequent positive law (law of people) conclusion that by being ‘natural born’ to two U.S. citizens who have singular U.S. citizenship because of ‘legal’ marriage to each other before birth of a child, that child also has ‘legal’ singular U.S. citizenship and is the ‘citizen’ who is a ‘legal’ “natural born Citizen” who has ‘legal’ eligibility to be president.
The second obvious example of original genesis uniqueness is the 1795 Naturalization Act explicit statement of natural law (law of nature) birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, and the positive law (law of people) conclusion (after repeal of the 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” – lower case ‘c’) that the child is a U.S. ‘citizen’ (lower case ‘c’) with the common sense implication that the child is not eligible to be president because of birth on foreign soil. The 1795 Naturalization Act explicit language that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens is by positive law (law of people) only a ‘citizen’ implies that a child born on foreign soil to two or one U.S. citizen parents is not eligible to be president. Why? Because they are not a “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other.
The words “natural born Citizen” in Article II and the word ‘citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act are in contrast to each other. They are not similar to each other. A “natural born Citizen” and a ‘citizen’ do not have the same original genesis meaning for eligibility to be president. Only a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other is a “natural born Citizen” and the only U.S. ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president. Just as a 1787 “natural born Citizen” and a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” were in contrast to each other until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s, so also is a 1787 “natural born Citizen” in contrast to a 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ and an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ and a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’.
George Washington, the first U.S. President, was born a “natural born subject” of Great Britain in one of the 13 British America colonies, and was the first July 4, 1776 U.S. naturalized citizen to be elected president after being grandfathered into presidential eligibility by the Article II words “… or a Citizen of ...”. The inauguration of George Washington on April 30, 1789 made him the first July 4, 1776 naturalized U.S. ‘citizen’ to be the first 1787 “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of Adoption...Constitution …” to be elected president. He was followed by nine “… or a Citizen of …” presidents.
1) George Washington (8 years 1789-1797) Born February 22, 1732 “…or a Citizen of”
2) John Adams (4 years: 1797-1801) Born October 30, 1735 “…or a Citizen of”
3) Thomas Jefferson (8 years 1801-1809) Born April 13, 1743 “…or a Citizen of”
4) James Madison (8 years 1809-1817) Born March 16, 1751 “…or a Citizen of”
5) James Monroe (8 years 1817-1825) Born April 28, 1758 “…or a Citizen of”
6) John Quincy Adams (4 years 1825-1829) Born July 11, 1767 “…or a Citizen of”
7) Andrew Jackson (8 years 1829-1837) Born March 13, 1767 “…or a Citizen of”
8) Martin Van Buren (4 years 1837-1841) Born December 5, 1782 “…or a Citizen of”
9) William Henry Harrison (1 month 1841) Born February 9, 1773 “…or a Citizen of”
10) John Tyler (4 years 1841-1845) Born March 29, 1790 “natural born Citizen” – born after 1787
11) James Polk (4 years 1845-1849) Born November 2, 1795 “natural born Citizen” – born after 1787
12) Zachary Taylor (16 months 1849-1850) Born November 24, 1784 “…or a Citizen of”
- 51 -
Clause 5: Original Genesis (Meaning) & Original Intent (Purpose)
So, what is the obvious common sense and original genesis purpose of Article II “… or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; ...”? Clause 5 “… or a Citizen of the United States ...” was obviously immutable at the same time that it was obviously intended to be temporary and was forever fulfilled when the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s. On September 17, 1787 there was not one “natural born Citizen” old enough to be president. George Washington was the first 1787 clause 5 “… or a Citizen of ...” elected president. William Henry Harrison died in 1841,, the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” elected president. After the last clause 5 “…or a Citizen of...” died only a 1787 “natural born Citizen” is the only U.S. ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president in the 2000s as we continue “to form a more perfect Union”. The clause 5 words “except … or” definitely makes John Jay’s original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” prescient.
Natural Law / Positive Law and Eligibility to be President
Natural Law Soil is Important for Article I Positive Law U.S. naturalization oath citizen
Natural Law Soil is Important for Article II Natural Law U.S. Born
Natural Law Soil is Important for Article II Natural Law U.S. natural born Citizen
Natural Law Soil is Important for Article II Positive Law U.S. Citizen
Natural Law Soil is Important for Article II Positive Law 35 Years of Age
Natural Law Soil is Important for Article II Positive Law 14 Year Residence
Article II Implies ONLY Natural Law Singular U.S. Citizen, NOT Positive Law Dual Citizenship
The common sense original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers concerning presidential eligibility reveals why immutable natural law (law of nature) requirements take necessary original genesis precedence over arbitrary but necessary positive law (law of people) requirements.
Positive laws about citizenship, immigration, and naturalization are arbitrary and mutable because they can be changed by an Article V amendment or an Act of Congress statute at any time.
It is not possible for a physical ‘act of congress to be changed by thoughts written on paper in an Article V amendment or an Article I Act of Congress (‘act’ pun intended).
A ‘physical act of congres by two U.S. citizens married only to each other ‘create’ (produce) a “natural born Citizen” child with singular U.S. citizenship which can be changed with an Article V amendment and ratified by the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ but not with an Article I statute. However, a “natural born Citizen” adult can renounce U.S. citizenship and “natural born Citizen” status. To repatriate a person can naturalize as a ‘citizen’, not a “natural born Citizen”. Renunciation (a positive law word) of U.S. citizenship is the only way natural law “natural born Citizen” status can be ‘changed’ to ‘citizen’ status.
Immutable Natural Law (law of nature) vs. Mutable Positive law (law of people)
1) ONLY birth on U.S. soil (or foreign soil under U.S. jurisdiction)
2) ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen legally married parents
3) ONLY attaining to the Age of 35 years before 14 year residence on U.S. soil can apply
vs.
1) Either birth on U.S. or on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction
2) Either birth to one or two U.S. citizen parents married or not married
3) No age or residence new meaning language has been offered … yet
#1) John Jay “natural born Citizen” original genesis implicit intent
ONLY birth on U.S. soil (or foreign soil under U.S. jurisdiction)
The words ‘only’ and ‘U.S. ’ (place) = positive law (law of people)
The words ‘birth’ and ‘soil’ = natural law (law of nature)
U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil = positive law (law of people)
vs.
#1) Neobirther “natural born Citizen” new genesis implicit intent
either birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil = positive law (law of people)
either U.S. soil or foreign soil = positive law (law of people)
either U.S. jurisdiction or not = positive law (law of people)
- 52 -
#2) John Jay “natural born Citizen” original genesis implicit intent
ONLY birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other
ONLY and U.S. and citizen and married and only = positive law (law of people)
Birth and two and parents = natural law (law of nature)
vs.
#2) Neobirther “natural born Citizen” new genesis implication
either birth to one or two U.S. citizen parents married or not married
either one or two = positive law (law of people)
either married or not = positive law (law of people)
#3) John Jay “natural born Citizen” original genesis implicit intent
Only attaining to the Age of 35 years before 14 year residence in the U.S. can apply
The entire sentence = positive law (law of people)
vs.
#3) Neobirther “natural born Citizen” new genesis implication
Only attaining to the Age of 35 years before 14 year residence in the U.S. can apply
The entire sentence = positive law (law of people) and no changes offered… yet
Nature ‘law’ trumps people ‘law’. Right? The ‘nature’ trumps ‘people’ distinction is why the natural law (law of nature) original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” with the only obvious implication of only singular U.S. citizenship can only be changed by a positive law (law of people) amendment, not by a positive law statute passed by the U.S. Congress, and definitely not to be changed by a positive law (law of people) fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not make law, it simply gives it’s ‘opinion’ about law. However, the Court does ‘make’ law when it goes into the weeds of the emanations (implications coming) from the specific guarantees (specific written ‘rights’).
The ‘penumbras’ are the unknown rights of the written text of the Constitution, ‘rights’ which are not known until they, the unknown rights, are needed (serendipity) to meet a societal need which the Court majority agrees with, such as positive law abortionism, homosexualism, etc. When positive law contradicts natural law a stable society becomes unstable and decline is the result. The attempt to change the singular U.S. citizenship implication in Article II into an explicit statement so that dual citizenship is the new implicit intent of ‘born’ in clause 5 is not possible. The change would require an amendment to remove the original genesis implication of only singular U.S. citizenship in the words ‘natural’ and ‘born’ in clause 5. It is obvious now, right?
Well, when you put it that way, yeah right.
What and Who is a “natural born Citizen”?
What and Who is an “…or a Citizen of...”?
What and Who is eligible to be President?
What and who is a September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” and an “… or a Citizen of ...”? Who is a 2000s ‘citizen’ but not a 1787 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”? Who is a 2000s ‘citizen’ but not a 1787 Clause 5 “…or a Citizen of...”? What was the 1787 common sense understanding and definition of “natural born Citizen”? What was the 1787 original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, the framers, the delegates to the convention who accepted and adopted the “natural born Citizen” language in clause 5 without debate?
The 1787 original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” is not vague; it is there in the word ‘born’ itself., found in the sixth word of the presidential eligibility clause 5 in Article II. The natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ connects the natural law (law of nature) word ‘natural’ to the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” for purposes of eligibility to be president, not for defining citizenship. All of We the Posterity must understand what the clause 5 words “… except … natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of … time … Adoption … Constitution … eligible … Office … President…” meant to the original birthers, the delegates from the thirteen states who accepted and adopted without debate the original intent of all of the originalist words ‘natural’, ‘born’, and ‘Citizen’. All of We the Posterity must understand why a “natural born Citizen” and an “…or a Citizen of...” were both “…eligible to the Office of President” in 1787, but, since the last “…or a Citizen” died in the middle to late 1800s, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president since then.
- 53 -
Article II Section 1 Clause 5 vs. Neobirthers
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.
Part 1
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 2
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.
For eligibility to be U.S. president purposes the original birthers of our Union expected for their posterity children to be born on the US soil that already existed before their birth. Is it coherent to assume that to the original framers of the 1787 Constitution that the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ had the implicit meaning which the living constitutionism neobirthers give to it of either #1) birth on U.S. soil or #2) birth on foreign soil? #2 is absurd and incoherent. Right?
Do the Democrat and Republican neobirthers really accept ‘or’? No, of course not! Whoops. Yes, they do. What they do not consider is that John Jay was not ambiguous, confused, incoherent, or vague when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. Right? Yes. Also, John Jay would probably agree with original genesis birthers in 2000s America that it is an absurd idea that three years and eight months after the Treaty of Paris was signed indicating independence from England that their own ‘posterity’ could be expected to be born on any foreign soil, England, Canada, Mexico, France, Spain, etc., etc., etc. Right?
Contrary to living constitutionism neobirthers in the 2000s, and according to living originalism original birthers from the 1700s until today, dual citizenship is contrary to the common sense of only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born.
According to living constitutionism neobirthers, since 1787 dual citizenship has been either at ‘birth’ on U.S. soil or at ‘birth’ on foreign soil. To living constitutionism neobirthers, ‘born’ in 1787 could have been found to also imply in the unwritten Constitution to either birth on foreign soil without naturalization oath being necessary, or birth on foreign soil and then naturalization on U.S. soil. Neobirthers are very creative with ‘either/or’ possibilities for dual citizenship.
For eligibility to be president purposes, to living constitutionism neobirthers of the 1900s and 2000s who promote the ‘implicit’ and ‘unwritten’ Constitution, the word ‘born’ in 1787 can apply to birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil with the assumption that either and or would apply from generation to generation into perpetuity. An ‘implicit’ and ‘unwritten’ Constitution is very flexible for living constitutionism purposes which adapts to the needs of the time when a novel, serendipitous, existential constitutional ‘opinion’ is needed to promote a politically correct agenda.
- 54 -
Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar in his 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution, The Precedents and Principles We Live By articulates similar points to “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers about what is not written, it is not explicit, and yet it is implicit in the text of the Constitution and, serendipity, there it is in the text when it is needed, and it is found just in time. Here is a short quote from chapter 1, page 5:
“For starters, we must learn to read between the lines—to discern America's implicit constitution nestled behind the explicit clauses. In short, we must come to understand the difference between reading the Constitution literally and reading the document faithfully”.
Really? Does Professor Amar really think, to apply his comment in context of Article II Section 1 clause 5, for example, that original genesis originalists, must “...discern ... implicit ... explicit clauses ... we must come to understand ... difference ... literally ... faithfully...”, and, if originalists think that clause 5 implies only singular U.S. citizenship originalists are not “reading the document faithfully”, and neobirthers who promote the theory of dual citizenship are “reading the document faithfully”? Really?
Is Prof. Amar promoting the theory of implicit guarantees (= implicit ‘rights’) which are the source of implicit (serendipity – look at what we found) emanations which form implicit penumbras (implicit unknown ‘rights’)? Really? Regarding Article II and eligibility to be president, does Professor Amar really expect people to agree that dual citizenship was implicit in the guarantees (‘rights’) which are the source of emanations which form penumbras (unknown ‘rights’) when John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? Really?
In this tabletalk conversation, ‘original birther’ and ‘neobirther’ and related words are used constantly because they work and are not demeaning to people or their ideas. Also used are ‘originalism’ and ‘living originalism’ to represent original birther John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” as implying only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. Also used are ‘constitutionism’ and ‘living constitutionism’ to represent the neobirther theory of a new meaning of ‘born’ implying dual citizenship for eligibility to be president.
1) Neobirther is simply descriptive of ‘living constitutionism’ – ‘living constitutionist’ – ‘living constitution’, phrases which express changing (by Supreme Court fiat and silence by Congress) the original meaning of the original words of the Constitution according to the emanations from written words and implicit penumbra (undiscovered implicit meanings) that a Supreme Court Justice may need to justify a novel opinion, for example, such as a ‘right’ of a human being to terminate a nascent human being in the womb of a female of the human species while in the beginning or final stages of development, and coming into being able to breathe as an independent individual ‘citizen’ while still united with but distinct from the mother.
2) Birther, original birther, original genesis birther, are descriptive of ‘living originalism’. Also, ‘living originalist’ – ‘living original genesis’ – ‘living originalist birther’ are phrases that express keeping the original meaning of the original written words of the Constitution, similar to keeping the written words of a business contract, until the original intent of a section of the Constitution is changed by amendment, not by an unelected Supreme Court Justice who may find, by inferred serendipity, helpful implicit penumbra (unknown meanings) and emanations (implicit meaning).
The 1787 issue of eligibility to be president between the original genesis birthers and neobirthers, the issue between ‘living originalism’ birthers and ‘living constitutionism’ neobirthers, is simple to state. The word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in 1787 implied either only singular or dual. Either only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizens married only to each other, or dual citizenship at birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens or one U.S. citizen married or not married; either only U.S. soil) or foreign soil.
At least one thing is obvious. The common sense living originalism intent of the 1787 original birthers like John Jay and George Washington certainly did not include the absurd idea of being born only on foreign soil. That is still obvious, right?
See, some things are just so obvious that sometimes valid implications are missed. The fact that being born only on foreign soil is not implicit in the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is so obvious that the next obvious question is not asked regarding the ‘legal’ basis for eligibility to be the U.S. president. 1) What is the original genesis ‘legal’ basis for only singular U.S. citizenship and not dual citizenship? 2) What is the neobirther’s ‘legal’ basis for either/or in 1787, for birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil? The answer to #1 is that in 1787 America the original genesis ‘legal’ basis was and still is the ‘legal’ marriage of two heterosexuals, male and female, who are U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. The answer to #2 is that the neobirthers do not have a ‘legal’ basis for either/or other than birth as a U.S. ‘citizen’ is ‘good ‘nuf’ for government work, specifically eligibility to be president.
- 55 -
Neobirthers really believe that the implication of the word ‘born’ in 1787 was ‘either … or’. Really? The implication was either and not only? Really? In 1787 ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II implied either? Really? Is that what ‘born’ implied in 1787? Really? The original genesis intent was either? Really?
Nobody doubts or questions the common sense that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implies only birth on U.S. soil, so the living constitutionism neobirthers must answer one question concerning eligibility to be president: on what ‘legal’ basis does ‘born’ imply ‘either … or’; birth on either U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil, and birth to either one or two U.S. citizen parents? What was the ‘legal’ basis for British ‘subjects’ and American ‘citizens’ in 1787 America if it was not ‘legal’ marriage of only heterosexual males and females? The answer is that there is no ‘legal’ basis for dual citizenship for eligibility to be president. The neobirthers, Democrats and Republicans, simply assert dual citizenship because that is what they need to defend so that they can continue to protect there assertion that a U.S. ‘citizen’ who had only one U.S. citizen parent, such as Barack Obama or Ted Cruz, is also eligible to be president, and that dual citizenship has been the original genesis intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” since 1787. Really?
Is it the common sense presupposition of living constitutionism neobirthers that the original genesis intent of ‘born’ to the 1787 original birthers like John Jay and George Washington meant only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before child is born, but it was deficient because it is exclusive to only two U.S. citizen parents and to only U.S. soil, so original genesis needs ‘help’ from the inclusive implication of either birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil? Really? For eligibility to be president exclusive is bad and inclusive is good? Really? What is the ‘legal’ basis for that conclusion? There is none. It is simply asserted without ‘legal’ foundation.
Everybody’s opinion concerning living originalism and living constitutionism is ok when there is confusion. The original genesis of the opinion expressed here in this tabletalk conversation is living originalism and the original implicit intent of only the 1787 U.S. Constitution. The opinion expressed here is not the new living constitutionism opinions of the 1900s and 2000s of what the original birthers, the living originalists of the 1700s ‘implied’ or should have implied. What is expressed here is only the living originalism opinions of the original birthers and only their original genesis implicit intent for their posterity from 1787 into perpetuity. Their perpetual living originalism implicit intent, their only implicit intent was only birth on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens who were ‘legally’ married heterosexual parents, not ‘and/or’ intent as assumed by living constitutionism neobirthers.
For those who have challenged the definitiveness of only singular U.S. citizenship and that singular was the only original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, and who ask (without understanding the implication) how do birthers ‘know’ what John Jay implied in 1787 in his note to George Washington (who accepted and did not challenge Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”), the answer is in this question back at them. How do neobirthers ‘know’ what John Jay implied? What is the ‘legal’ basis for the neobirther assertion that “natural born Citizen” implies that dual citizenship is the intent for eligibility to be president? Is the ‘legal’ basis the ‘legal’ marriage of a U.S. citizen and a foreign citizen? Really? So, by ‘legal’ marriage inclusive dual citizenship trumps ‘legal’ marriage and exclusive singular citizenship? Really?
The issue is the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, the original framers who wrote the original words of the original birther document of the republic, the U.S. Constitution, and the contrast between “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” in the same clause 5, in the same sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ that was put there for a very 1787 practical reason. The reason in 1787 was that there was not a “natural born Citizen” old enough between July 4, 1776 and September 17, 1787 (only 11 years 3 months) who had been born on U.S. soil and was 35 years old with 14 years residence on the same U.S. soil, to qualify to be eligible to be president. For that natural law (law of nature) in union with positive law (law of people) reason, the original birthers in 1789 had to choose an “...or a Citizen of...” who was naturalized as a ‘citizen’ by being alive on July 4, 1776 and by agreeing with the purpose of the revolution and the war of independence from England. Revolutionary war General George Washington, a British “natural born subject” in 1787 and the first elected president of the United States in 1789, was a naturalized “… or a citizen of …”, not a naturalized “natural born Citizen”. He was followed as president by nine “… or a Citizen of ...” naturalized citizens, until president #10, John Tyler, born after 1776 (13 years 8 months) and after 1787 (March 20, 1790).
- 56 -
The point is that the best place to start to analyze and clarify the perpetual generation to generation meaning of the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” is with the living originalism, the original genesis implicit intent of the original founders, the original framers, the original birthers. A living originalism Constitution that was intended to be perpetual from generation to generation, that's what this tabletalk conversation is about; the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, not the living constitutionism of neobirthers, not living constitutionism ‘opinions’ of the Supreme Court which does not opine in favor of the living originalism which is the default setting, the implicit intent of the Constitution, and does not opine in favor of the Article V ‘living Constitution’ by the amendment process and seems to favor the ‘living constitutionism’ of Yale Professor Amar's ‘Unwritten Constitution / Implicit Constitution’ way to ‘amend’ the Constitution by looking for penumbras and emanations.
If we all start with the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers it will be easier to analyze and clarify the original intent of the original birthers themselves who, only one year after the inauguration of George Washington as the first president, wrote the confusing 1790 Naturalization Act with the “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) designation for a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens, and, even though naturalized, possibly, since it was never attempted, they were eligible to be president. That was a possibility at the time under the 1790 Naturalization Act until the third Congress corrected the language and rectified the confusion with the 1795 Naturalization Act and the ‘citizen’ (lower case ‘c’) designation for a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens. The change from “natural born citizen” to ‘citizen’ (lower case ‘c’) meant that the child born on foreign soil to even two U.S. citizens married only to each other would never be eligible to be president.
If we all start with original genesis intent it will be easier to analyze the immigration and naturalization Acts of Congress, such as the ‘citizen’ language of the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts, and the ‘citizen’ language of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the citizen language of more recent naturalization acts such as the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (which controls the ‘citizen’ status of Senator Ted Cruz, not “natural born Citizen” status), and the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment about what makes a person a ‘citizen’ of the U.S. (which, since the 1898 Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’, controls the ‘citizen’ status of Senator Marco Rubio, Gov. Nikki Haley, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, not “natural born Citizen” status). The U.S. Congress has never articulated in statutes, and the U.S. Supreme Court has never opined as to why every U.S. “natural born Citizen” child is also a U.S. ‘citizen’ child but not every U.S. ‘citizen’ child is also a U.S. “natural born Citizen” child.
The Supreme Court has never opined about how being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen ‘legally’ married heterosexual parents relates to eligibility to be president, and the connection to the original genesis implicit intent of original birther John Jay and his concern about protecting access to the executive office and control of the U.S. military. So, here are eligibility questions for the Court, the Congress, and We the People Legislatures of the ‘several States’ (see Article V).
1) Hey, U.S. Supreme Court, for eligibility to be president, when are you going to opine in favor of original genesis birth and only singular U.S. citizenship only on U.S. soil only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born? (PS. I know, I know, you need to wait until somebody with standing brings a case to you. So, look for it, ok?)
That’s a good question, right? However, a better question could be a statute question or an Article V amendment question directed to the U.S. Congress.
2a) Hey, Congress, for eligibility to be president, when are you going to enact a law in favor of original genesis birth and only singular U.S. citizenship only on U.S. soil only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born?
2b) Hey, Congress, for eligibility to be president, when are you going to propose an Article V amendment for ratification by the ‘several States’ in favor of original genesis birth and only singular U.S. citizenship only on U.S. soil only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born?
- 57 -
Those are good questions for the Congress, right? However, an even better question should be an Article V amendment question but this time directed to the We the People legislators of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ so that We the People can regain control of our government from the administrators of our government. To regain control of the government of we the people which is by the people and only for the people is a very good, in fact, an excellent reason for an Article V amendment by the legislators of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. Right?
3) Hey, We the People legislators of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’, for eligibility to be president, when are you going to propose an Article V amendment for ratification by you, the ‘several States’, in favor of original genesis birth and only singular U.S. citizenship only on U.S. soil only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born?
Those are all good questions, right? My preference to protect the Union from generation to generation, parent to child, election to election, president to president is for the Congress or the legislators of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an Article V amendment to the Constitution to protect Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligibility to be president. Which of the three questions do you prefer?
John Jay “natural born Citizen” v. Alexander Hamilton “born a Citizen”
Both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton had suggestions about birth and citizenship, but John Jay’s suggestion of a “natural born Citizen” was chosen without public debate by the constitutional convention delegates over Hamilton’s “born a citizen” suggestion.
Alexander Hamilton: “now or born”
“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States”.
“be now a Citizen” … “or hereafter be born a Citizen”
The 1787 original genesis intent of Alexander Hamilton is obvious.
Obvious – “be now”
the grandfather words to make the 1776 revolution naturalized ‘citizens’ eligible to be president
Obvious – “or” implies that a “now” “Citizen” of one State is different from an “or … born” Citizen of all States
Obvious – “born”
in 1787 America, only born on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil), not born on foreign soil
The eligibility quote is Hamilton’s June 18, 1787 suggestion which includes the grandfather words “… be now ... or hereafter ...”. Although the singular U.S. citizen intent is obvious, “… be now a Citizen of one of the States” does imply being naturalized July 4, 1776 as the British ‘subjects’ were who fought for independence from England, Hamilton’s two references to ‘Citizen’ (“… be now a Citizen … one … States” and “… be born a Citizen of the [entire] United States”) are not as clear as Jay’s “natural born Citizen” suggestion for understanding perpetual eligibility to be president from generation to generation, election to election, president to president.
John Jay’s Three Word Suggestion for Eligibility to be President
“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen—”
A “natural born Citizen” v. “born a Citizen”
Here again is part of the “natural born Citizen” note, the “hint” from John Jay to George Washington. John Jay, founder, New York ratifier of the U.S. Constitution and also the first Supreme Court Chief Justice, knew what ‘devolve’, ‘given’, and “natural born Citizen” meant (only singular U.S. citizen, not dual citizen) because he wrote the words and underlined the word ‘born’ with original genesis intent in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington.
- 58 -
The major point is the historical fact that original birther John Jay, who suggested to original birther George Washington that the natural law (law of nature) word ‘natural’ and the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ associated with the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” had a better suggestion than original birther Alexander Hamilton and his suggestion, the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ and the positive law (law of people) word ’citizen’ in “born a citizen”.
General George Washington, the presiding officer of the constitutional convention, agreed with John Jay’s three word suggestion. That is why “natural born Citizen” (which implies only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two married U.S. citizens) is in clause 5 and Alexander Hamilton’s “born a citizen” suggestion (which implies being born to either two or one U.S. citizen) is not in clause 5. However, ‘citizen’ is implied in Article I with a reference to federal representatives and senators who may have become naturalized U.S. citizens, or, in 1787 America, may have been born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen male or born on foreign soil to two married U.S. citizens, or, again in 1787 America, possibly, born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen male who may not have been ‘legally’ married to a foreign born female. In 1787 America, if the U.S. citizen male married the foreign born female she was considered to be a U.S. citizen naturalized by marriage. For that common law reason in 1787 America of automatic naturalization of females by marriage to a U.S. citizen male, the child would be a U.S. “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship because both parents have singular U.S. citizenship by marriage before a child is born.
In the 1700s, the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage was the common law. The U.S. citizenship of the male determined the U.S. citizenship of the female, and the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents by marriage determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a child. The singular U.S. citizenship of a child that is derived from both U.S. citizens only by birth alone after their marriage is the only natural law (law of nature) way to determine that a positive law (law of people) U.S. ‘citizen’ is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.
Original birther John Jay was prescient in suggesting to original birther George Washington that the natural law (law of nature) word ‘natural’ be added to the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ in association with the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. Singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only to two married U.S. citizens only on U.S. soil was prescient original genesis common sense from John Jay. Right?
Article I House and Senate “Citizen”
According to the language in Article I it is obvious that the allegiance requirement for ‘citizen’ federal representatives and senators is only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship.
Representatives: In Article I Section 2 clause 2, representatives must be ‘a Citizen’ if they are not a “natural born Citizen”:
“… Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, ...”
To be eligible to be elected a U.S. federal representative a person can be either a U.S. ‘citizen’ by birth alone from the day of birth or a naturalized U.S. ‘citizen’ for seven Years by oath alone.
Senators: In Article I Section 3 clause 3, senators must be ‘a Citizen’ if they are not a “natural born Citizen”:
“… Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, ...”.
To be eligible to be elected a U.S. federal senator a person can be either a U.S. ‘citizen’ by birth alone from the day of birth or a naturalized U.S. ‘citizen’ for nine Years by oath alone. It’s only one or the other. It is not both birth and oath.
- 59 -
PS. According to neobirthers who misconstrue the “All persons born or naturalized … are citizens ...” naturalization language of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment in Section 1 sentence 1, dual citizenship is allowed for eligibility to be federal representatives and senators, and, according to Democratic and Republican neobirthers, even eligibility to be the federal president is allowed. However, the fact that both words ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ are included in the same sentence of this naturalization amendment, ‘born’ can only imply only singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen for the same common law common sense reason that ‘naturalized’ can only imply only singular U.S. citizenship. Why? Because the 1868 authors of the language obviously would not have implied dual citizenship for a naturalized person. That makes common law common sense, right?
Article II Executive “natural born Citizen’
According to the language in Article II it is obvious that the allegiance requirement for a “natural born Citizen” federal president is only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship.
President: In Article II Section 1 clause 5, a federal president must be a “natural born Citizen”:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, ... shall be eligible to the Office of President; ...”
To be eligible to be elected a U.S. federal president, a person must be only a “natural born Citizen” only by birth alone from the day of birth, not a Fourteenth Amendment naturalized U.S. ‘citizen’ at birth or by oath alone.
To be a U.S. federal president, a person must be a citizen who is a “natural born Citizen” only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, not a citizen at birth to one U.S. citizen parent, or is a citizen naturalized by oath.
The ‘a Citizen’ language in Article I Section 2 clause 2 (Representatives) and Section 3 clause 3 (Senators) has been understood since 1787 to mean that federal representatives and senators are ‘a Citizen’ with only singular U.S. citizenship, possible either by birth ( natural law / law of nature) on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent, or naturalization by oath (positive law / law of people). It has also been understood since 1787 that the “natural born Citizen” words in Article II were intended to mean that the federal president must be only a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone.
The ‘citizen’ and “natural born Citizen” words indicate union but not fusion, and also indicate distinction but not separation. The ‘union’ language in Articles I and II indicates similar, not same. The ‘distinction’ language in Articles I and II indicates unique, one of a kind, not equality of kind, exclusive, not inclusive, exclusion, not inclusion.
For neobirthers who assert with definite certainty that the ‘exclusion’ of a U.S. ‘citizen’ with dual ‘citizenship’ from eligibility to be president means that the “natural born Citizen” language with only singular U.S. citizenship meaning is defective, the burden of proof is on the neobirthers when they assert that, serendipity, they ‘know’ that John Jay meant ‘born’ with dual citizenship, and that Article II codified their implicit dual meaning, and when John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, Jay was affirming either U.S. or foreign citizenship (implying that George Washington would agree with either singular or dual citizenship – yeah, right, only 4 years after winning the war of independence from England, a foreign power) and that only the neobirther’s dual meaning of ‘born’ and citizenship was adopted at the 1787 convention. That is how the neobirthers ‘know’ that ‘inclusion’ of dual meaning is better than the ‘exclusion’ of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president.
The major point here is the common sense original genesis implicit intent of original birther John Jay. He wanted to protect America into perpetuity from foreign influence over the executive office of the federal government, and from foreign influence over the federal military. only the ‘posterity’, only future generations, only a “natural born Citizen” ‘generated’ (‘original genesis’ = by birth alone) only by two U.S. citizens only ‘legally’ married to each other, either both ‘born’ as U.S. citizens or both ‘naturalized’ as U.S. citizens (or a mix of the two), their own ‘posterity’ were the only ‘citizens’ who would be recognized as the only “natural born Citizen” who would be eligible to be president.
Included in the major point that is expressed in this tabletalk is the acceptance by the 1787 original birthers at the 1787 convention with no comment about the 1787 original genesis and implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” because the 1787 delegates were obviously already aware that to be ‘natural born’ in 1787 America meant only birth on 1787 U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born, and ‘natural born’ in 1787 America did not mean either birth on 1787 U.S. soil or birth on 1787 foreign soil. The U.S. “natural born Citizen” status of the child derived only from the U.S. citizen status of both parents who were U.S. citizens before a child was born on U.S. soil, not born on foreign soil.
- 60 -
Article II “Eligible to the Office of President” By Soil · Birth · Age · Residence
What ‘born’ obviously meant to the original birthers was only ‘born’ on the U.S. soil of the 1787 original thirteen colonies, not the 1787 foreign soil of Canada, not the 1787 foreign soil of Spain (Florida), not the 1787 foreign soil of Spain / France (before the Louisiana purchase – the land from the gulf waters to the Canadian border), and not the 1787 foreign soil of Mexico, or Central America, or South America, or Europe, or Africa, or pick any soil around the world.
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.
Let's start at the beginning, July 25, 1787, the date on the thank you note that George Washington received from his friend John Jay. This tabletalk conversation is about removing the confusion surrounding what John Jay meant/implied by underlining the word ‘born’ in his “natural born Citizen” phrase as he understood it in 1787. This conversation considers the only common sense implicit inference of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, a phrase that is found in only one place in the seminal birth documents of the ‘Union’, the 1787 U.S. Constitution, the original birther document of the perpetual Union as President Abraham Lincoln understood it in 1861 in his first inauguration address.
On March 11, 2011, attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote an essay on his Natural Born Citizen blog, ‘The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5’ (→ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html).
In the essay he mentions the note by John Jay to George Washington with the ‘hint’ (suggestion) that the control of the military should be allowed to ‘devolve’ on only a “natural born Citizen”. Eligibility is passed on to a child only by birth alone, implying only birth in the country to two U.S. citizens (and, in 1787, only two heterosexuals only married to each other, not one male with two or more wives at the same time), not implying ‘given’ to a naturalized U.S. citizen or devolving on a ‘citizen’ born with only one U.S. citizen parent not married, or born to a parent married to a person who has not naturalized before the child is born.
Amend the U.S. Constitution: Grandfather Foreign Born Adopted Children Into Eligibility
→ http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm
John Yinger, Professor at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, has an excellent summary of the history of the inclusion of the “natural born Citizen” phrase into Article II. However, after citing the history Yinger promotes grandfathering foreign born adopted children into presidential eligibility with an amendment to the Constitution. ‘The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution: Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President To Be a “natural born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees?’ See his 2000 article with 62 footnotes:
Clause 5 Part 1: Eligibility by Birth, Time
“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; ... “.
John Jay was the author of the July 25, 1787 presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen”. Jay's three word suggestion was accepted without public debate about the original genesis implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ since the convention delegates understood the common law of the 1700s about the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage of the parents, and the continuity of citizenship and allegiance of their children. The common law of the 1700s-1900s was understood to mean that, by ‘legal’ marriage, the U.S. citizenship of the male determined the U.S. citizenship of the female, and the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents by marriage determined, by birth alone, the singular U.S. citizenship of the “natural born Citizen” child.
- 61 -
Almost two months after July 25, 1787 on September 17, the presidential eligibility phrase was included in Article II Section 1 clause 5 when the entire U.S. Constitution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification. It is obvious by the language itself that original genesis birther John Jay had only one, not two, only one original genesis thought in mind when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note. It is obvious that Jay had in mind protecting the new federal government from friend or foe foreign influence over the military, and he thought that the best way to protect against foreign influence was to make sure that “… Command in chief of the american army ...” would ‘devolve’ only on a ‘citizen’ who was a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship by being born in the U.S. or anywhere else on earth to a U.S. citizen parent and a foreign citizen parent. Jay had only one original genesis on his mind: only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only ‘legally’ married only to each other only before a child is born.
Thoughtful neobirthers who read the previous sentence may ask how we living originalists, we original genesis birthers, how can we possibly ‘know’ what John Jay had in mind, and that he had only singular U.S. citizenship in mind in 1787? Well, that’s a very good question that deserves an answer in the form of a very good question. How do neobirthers ‘know’ what Jay did or did not have in mind in 1787? How do living constitutionism neobirthers themselves ‘know’ that Jay had in mind not only singular citizenship but dual citizenship for presidential eligibility?
That is a very good question. Right? That is why after analysis of the coherent internal language of Jay’s note to Washington, it is obvious that, for eligibility to be president, Jay had only singular U.S. citizenship in mind in 1787, and only singular U.S. citizenship was to be perpetual, not dual.
Internal Analysis
So, it seems that internal analysis of the Article II language itself is the only way we can ‘know’ what original genesis birther John Jay meant when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and to ‘know’ what the delegates thought Jay meant when the constitution was sent to the states for ratification.
First, it is obvious that Jay meant only singular U.S. citizenship and he did not mean dual citizenship.
Second, it is obvious that all of the framers of the constitution agreed with Jay's singular U.S. citizenship intent when the framers included “… or a Citizen of ...” after the comma in clause 5.
Third, it is obvious that John Jay and the framers meant only singular U.S. citizenship when they included “… or a Citizen of ...” after the comma, and they did not mean dual U.S. and British citizenship or dual U.S. and French citizenship or dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship or dual U.S. and Spanish citizenship or dual U.S. and Mexican citizenship or dual U.S. and China citizenship or etc. That is obvious. Right?
It is obvious that the original birthers, the original framers of the Constitution, meant only singular U.S. citizenship which began, for all British ‘subjects’ born in the thirteen British colonies, from the start date of July 4, 1776 and the war of independence. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA: ACT SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)]) explicitly identifies persons born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen definitely as only a U.S. ‘citizen’, not a U.S. “natural born Citizen”.
→ http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act
→ http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375
The citizen status of Senator Ted Cruz is that of a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’, not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”. 1) Senator Cruz was not born with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens, and 2) he received U.S. citizenship at birth by the authority of the 1952 Act of Congress when he was born on foreign soil (Alberta, Canada) to one U.S. citizen parent. Sen. Cruz is also not a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” because the last 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s. Under SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)], an Act of Congress, a statute, a positive law (law of people), a person born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen married parent is at birth a positive law (law of people) ‘citizen” and not a natural law (law of nature) “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.
- 62 -
The 1952 INA: ACT SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)] positive law (law of people) declaration of ‘citizen’ is determined by the natural law (law of nature) birth to only one U.S. citizen on foreign soil. The 1952 INA: ACT (g) ‘citizen’ language does not influence or affect the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” language which requires, for eligibility to be president, only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.
It is obvious that under natural law (law of nature) as the foundation of positive law (law of people), the natural law (law of nature) physical ‘union’ of two persons is required for natural law (law of nature) conception, and natural law (law of nature) birth before positive law (law of people) singular U.S. citizenship can be derived only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens. That is obvious, right? It is also obvious that the first natural law (law of nature) required is the natural law (law of nature) of soil before the second natural law (law of nature) of birth can take place on that soil.
Let's repeat the obvious: natural law (law of nature) soil precedes natural law (law of nature) birth on that soil. Right? That means that positive law (law of people) U.S. ‘citizen’ parents, ‘legally’ married only to each other, precede the natural law (law of nature) U.S. birth of their child with singular U.S. citizenship. The ‘legal’ marriage of the two U.S. citizens is the ‘legal’ basis for the ‘natural born’ child acquiring the ‘legal’ status of a “natural born Citizen” and legal’ eligibility to be president. That is obvious, right?
Is there any reason other than singular U.S. citizenship for John Jay to underline the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? Can the living constitutionism neobirthers articulate a coherent ‘legal’ reason for the idea that dual citizenship was also, not only but also, Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president?
The only ‘legal’ basis that some neobirthers claim to have for promoting ‘dual’ citizenship for eligibility to be president is the ‘legal’ marriage of the U.S. citizen parent with the foreign citizen parent. Well, without ‘legal’ marriage of two U.S. citizens what is the ‘legal’ basis for saying that a child born to only one U.S. citizen parent on either U.S. soil or foreign soil (Canada — Senator Ted Cruz), or born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens (Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Nikki Haley), what is the ‘legal’ basis for saying that they have singular U.S. citizenship? There is no ‘legal’ basis for one or zero. Right?
Clause 5 Part 2: Eligibility by Soil, Residence, Age
“...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.”
As Article II Section 1 clause 5 says, in addition to being only a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president (since the last “… or a Citizen of …” died sometime in the 1800s), eligibility is also to be recognized three more ways, by soil, residence, and age. Since 1787, a U.S. “natural born Citizen” must be at least 35 years of age to be eligible on day 1 of age 35, and must reside ‘within’ the country for a minimum of 14 years. The implication is birth on U.S. soil for eligibility to be president (day 1 of age 1 to day 1 of age 35), of course, but not an implicit requirement is 14 years continuous residence on U.S. soil from day 1 of age 1 to day 1 of age 14 (a minority child). If the convention delegates who adopted the words of Article II meant continuous residence starting on day 1 of age is 1 to day 1 of age 14 they probably would have debated the point and recorded the debate.
While both day 1 of year 1 to day 1 of age 35 and 14 years residence are required to be eligible to be president, implied is that the 14 years residence begins on day 1 of age 21 and ends on day 1 of age 35. What is not implied is that the 14 years residence begins on day 1 of age 15 and ends on day 1 of age 29, and then the “natural born Citizen” resides outside of the U.S. until age 34 and then returns to the U.S. to run for president and be elected before reaching age 35. Right? By starting with day 1 of age 21, the 14 consecutive years residence can end on day 1 of age 35, or end at any age after age 35. The 14 years residence can be broken up with residence in and out of the country, for example, by going to school in a foreign country, or an employee who is employed out of the country and returns to the U.S. after a few years. However, the 14 years residence in the United States must be consecutive years of residence in the U.S. before being eligible to be elected, not inaugurated. In other words, future aspirants for the U.S. presidency will need to plan their work and work their plan by the numbers, not by ‘occupying’ the Oval Office by deceit about dual citizenship.
- 63 -
8 Thought Questions and Answers About the Word ‘been’ in Part 2
For those who may say that it is not clear what the word ‘been’ in clause 5, part 2 implies, or what the original intent of ‘been’ is, here are eight thought questions.
Q1 Can/Does ‘been’ imply residence ‘within’ the country is possible for all 35 years before being eligible to be elected president on day 1 of age 35? [x] Yes [ ] No
Q2 Can/Does ‘been’ imply only residence ‘within’ the country from day 1 of birth until day 1 of age 35 before being eligible to be elected president? [ ] Yes [x] No
Continuous residence ‘within’ the country from age 1 day old until day 1 of age 35 automatically results in the required 14 years of residence on the U.S. soil of birth. However, there’s a liberty issue to consider. Requiring continuous residence from age 1 day old until day 1 of age 35 for eligibility to be U.S. president does not allow for residence outside of the country for employment or pursuing education. That is what Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch did at age 25 when he went to study at Oxford University in England (1992-93). Later, in 2004 when he was 37, he received his PhD in legal philosophy from Oxford.
Q3 Can/Does ‘been’ imply residence for the first year, from age 1 day old until day 365 of age 1 year old (all 365 days until the day before age 2), then, as an example, living outside of the country for 20 years until day 365 of age 21, then, to continue the example, returning to the U.S. for 14 years of continuous residence from day 1 of age 22 until day 1 of age 35 before being eligible to be elected president? [x] Yes [ ] No
Q4 Can/Does ‘been’ imply possible residence for the first 14 years, from age 1 day old until day 365 of age 14 years old (all 365 days until the day before age 15) and fulfill the requirement of 14 years residence ‘within’ the country and being eligible to be elected president? [x] Yes and [x] No
Yes: Residence ‘within’ the country for the first 14 years, from age 1 day old to day 365 of age 14 does fulfill the positive law (law of people) 14 years residence on the U.S. soil of birth before day 1 of age 35.
No: However, common sense suggests that the first 14 years of development from infant to teenager (still a minor child) would not have fulfilled and satisfied the common sense in 1787 of having a mature understanding about allegiance to family and country and allegiance to the purpose of the war of independence. That is a common sense presupposition which is inherent in the arbitrary requirement of 14 consecutive years residence ‘within’ the country for eligibility to be president.
Q5 Can/Does ‘been’ imply ‘only’ 14 continuous years residence ‘within’ the country starting on day one of age 21 and ending on day one of age 35? [ ] Yes [x] No
14 continuous years can still happen voluntarily, but obviously ‘only’ was not the original genesis intent otherwise ‘only’ would have been challenged in debate and recorded. Right?
Q6 Can/Does ‘been’ imply 14 continuous years residence is possible ‘within’ the country starting on day one of age 21 and ending on day one of age 35? [x] Yes [ ] No
Q7 Can/Does ‘been’ imply 14 continuous years residence ‘within’ the country for any amount of time before or after reaching age 35? For example, 14 years from day one of age 20 to day one of age 34, or 14 years from day one of age 30 to day one of age 44. [x] Yes [ ] No
Q8 Can/Does ‘been’ imply a total of any time frame of 14 years residence from day one after reaching the age of majority before reaching age 35, or starting from any age after age 35? [x] Yes [ ] No
That is clear and easy to understand, right? For example, from birth, age 1 day old until day 365 of age 7 (all 7 years until the day before reaching age 8) then foreign residence for, let’s say, 10 years, until day 1 of age 18, and then residence again ‘within’ the country from day 1 of age 18 to day 1 of age 35. From birth a person would have continuous residence ‘within’ the country for the last 18 years until day 1 of age 35, for a total of 25 years residence ‘within’ the country.
The lack of clarity about 14 years residence ‘within’ the country can be corrected with an Article V ‘convention’ of the bicameral Congress to propose an amendment, or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ can also convene to propose an amendment. Article V authorizes the U.S. Congress or all 50 states to propose amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not authorize rewriting a new Constitution by either the bicameral U.S. Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. Right? Yes.
- 64 -
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation
Next are some links to Memory.loc.gov and The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 by historian Max Farrand, and links to the constitution which Alexander Hamilton proposed.
U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875
→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=620&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1
Farrand's Records: The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787
→ http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html
“One of the great scholarly works of the early twentieth century was Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Published in 1911, Farrand's work gathered the documentary records of the Constitutional Convention into four volumes — three of which are included in this online collection — containing the materials necessary to study the workings of the Constitutional Convention. According to Farrand's introduction, at the close of the convention, the secretary, William Jackson, delivered all the materials to the president of the convention, George Washington, who turned these papers over to the Department of State in 1796”.
Farrand's introduction
→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr0016%29%29
“In 1818, Congress ordered that the records be printed, which was done under the supervision of the Secretary of State John Q. Adams, in 1819. Farrand's Records remains the single best source for discussions of the Constitutional Convention. The notes taken at that time by James Madison, and later revised by him, form the largest single block of material other than the official proceedings. The three volumes also includes notes and letters by many other participants, as well as the various constitutional plans proposed during the convention.”
Time to Change the “natural born Citizen” Conversation
On December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM, I posted a comment on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog:
→ puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16 .
I have added content which has expanded the original post but the whole is essentially the same as the part discussing how to change the conversation from the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 into a discussion about removing the confusion associated with the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen”, and to remove the confusion with an Article V “… Convention for proposing amendments ...” to be conducted by the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ as Article V explicitly says because the U.S. Congress, the only federation entity authorized by Article V to ‘convene’ to propose amendments, is derelict in it's duty to stop the confusion surrounding the living originalism and original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president.
The U.S. Congress (legislative branch) and the U.S. Supreme Court and the entire federal court system (judicial branch) have not been asked to look at clarifying the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as it relates to the eligibility of ‘citizen’ President Obama (executive branch) and how it could relate to other potential ‘citizen’ candidates for president such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.
Absolutely nobody in the American media, print, radio, tv, BIG Talkers, BIG Bloggers, and BIG Thinkers, they never ask what a “natural born Citizen” is and never consider to adduce John Jay to understand what Jay really meant by underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.
A point in this tabletalk conversation is to consider Article V which authorizes the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to convene to propose amendments. Article V is the ‘legal’ authority for We the People to ask, demand, suggest, order the Legislatures in the ‘several States’ to propose amendments to Article II with language that removes the confusion surrounding John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” that will be agreeable to the John Jay original genesis birthers and the Democrat neobirthers, the Obama neobirthers, and what I call the ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ Republican neobirthers.
The ‘several States’ mentioned in Article V who ratified the new constitution of ‘negative liberties’ are not able to nullify by amendment their own natural law (law of nature) right as parties to the compact. As creator (singular) of the ‘compact’, the ‘several States’ have Article V ‘legal’ authority to notify their creature, the tripartite federation government, that if the U. Congress will not do so, the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ will remove the confusion about the implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II.
- 65 -
Natural Law (law of nature) Informs Article V Positive Law (law of people)
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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate”.
Article V Part 1
1. The Congress,
2. whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
3. [the Congress] shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
4. or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
5. [the Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
6. which, in either Case,
7. shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
8. when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
9. or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,
10. as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Article V Part 2
1. Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the
2. Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any
3. Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
4. and that no State, without its Consent,
5. shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article V Part 1a
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,
Article V Part 1b
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
Article V Part 1c
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
Article V Part 1d
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
Article V Part 1e
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,
Article V Part 1f
or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
- 66 -
Article V Part 2a
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;
Article V Part 2b
and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its’ equal Suffrage in the Senate.
There are three ways to eliminate confusion about John Jay’s original genesis meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president. Two ways are in the exclusive domain of the Article I Legislature (statutes) and the Article III Judiciary (opinions). The third way to eliminate the confusion is Article V which mentions both houses of Congress and the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. Article V articulates the natural law (law of nature) right of the ‘several States’, the creator (singular) of the positive law (law of people) federation, the Article I Congress, Article II Executive, and Article III Supreme Court.
We the People exist according to natural law (law of nature), not as the result of positive law (law of people). natural law is the foundation of the ‘Union’ of the ‘several States’ which is made up of natural law (law of nature) ‘created’ human beings who are the only natural law (law of nature) foundation of the written positive law (law of people) Constitution, the law of the land. It is the human beings who have natural law (law of nature) rights since We the People are the creator of our creature, the Constitution, the positive law (law of people) ‘created’ by We the People.
We the People (singular), by natural law (law of nature) right exist before a written positive law (law of people) constitution can be written and a tripartite federation can be ‘created’ by the people meeting to ‘create’ something to be passed on to their posterity. Right?
We the People have the natural law (law of nature) duty to direct the Legislatures of our ‘several States’ to conduct an Article V convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution because the Article V designated member of the federation, the bicameral U.S. Congress, will not resolve the confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president.
Since 1787 “natural born Citizen” means only what John Jay intended
The higher hurdle of living originalism and original genesis birther John Jay’s clear and coherent “natural born Citizen” reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in his note to Washington is simple to articulate:
1. only singular U.S. citizenship (which is possible)
2. only by birth alone
3. only on U.S. soil
4. only to two U.S. citizen heterosexual parents
5. only married
6. only to each other
7. only before a child is born
The lower hurdle of living constitution neobirthers and their confusing and incoherent “natural born Citizen” new meaning is also simple to articulate, but ‘either/or’ is not as simple as only.
1. either singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship
2. either by birth alone or by Act of Congress
3. either birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil
4. either two U.S. citizen parents or one U.S. citizen parent or zero U.S. citizen parents
5. either married or not married
6. either married to each other or not married to each other
7. either married before a child is born or married after a child is born or never married
- 67 -
John Jay's Letter To Benjamin Franklin About British Subject John Vaughan
→ http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp?ssn=001-66-0009
Five months after John Jay wrote this first letter below on May 31, 1781 to Ben Franklin about Mr. John Vaughan, an Englishman who wanted to take an ‘Oath of Allegeance’ (original spelling) to the U.S. Jay wrote a second letter on November 3, 1781 to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Count de Florida Blanca at the Spanish court. Both letters are included here to learn Jay's understanding of the common law in England and America in the 1780s concerning the ‘continuity of citizenship & allegiance’ and of who is and is not a U.S. citizen and why. See the letters at the url below. Click on the date Thu, May 31, 1781 to read the letter to Franklin from Jay. (The words ‘one’ and ‘all’ in the last paragraph are italicized in the original – all other emphases are added here.)
Aranjues 31st May 1781
Dr Sir
Your favor of the 20th. Inst reached me two Days ago. The Intelligence transmitted with it had reached us by the Way of Cadiz. I am nevertheless much obliged by this Mark of your friendly Attention. The Packet from america abt which you enquire came safe to Hand. It contained only some old Letters of Jany last from govr. Livingston & his family— The Vessel which lately arrived at Cadiz from Pha. brought several Letters. I have not however recd. a Line from Congress since Jany last, tho some of my Correspondents inform me that the Prest had written. I am much perplexed for Want of regular Intelligence, & expect to continue so till some other than the usual mode of conveying it is adopted. The enclosed extracts of Letters from Mr Harrison to me shew that this Remark is not without Foundation— These Extracts are from Letters of 8. 11 & 0 Days of may 1781 abt Letters brought by the Virginia & stopped. Bills upon me have lately arrived dated in March. How can this be reconciled to the obvious Dictates of Prudence & Policy?— I hear Mr. Laurens has left you to return to Am. He promised to give me previous Notice of it—but not a Line. I have lately recd. a Letter from Mr Adams requestg but not containing, Intelligence— it is the first I have had from him these six Months— I wait only for a proper Opportunity to reply particularly to your Letter by my Courier.
Mr. Vaughan who brought a recommendatory Letter from you to mr Carm. is here— He desired me on his arrival at Madrid to administer to him an Oath of Allegeance to the United States, in order to justify his calling himself an American and to facilitate his pursuing his Objects in this Country & his passing from hence to america— I have no Doubt but that his Character & Intentions are fair— he seems to be a sensible Young Gentleman & I wd. with pleasure do him Service—but as I knew he was not an american I could not represent him as such—nor could I comply with his Request as to administring the Oath, have no power for that purpose, either expressed or implied in my Commission or Instructions.
He told me you had advised him to take such an Oath at Bordeaux and had appointed a person there to administer it, but that prudential Considerations had induced him to postpone it till his arrival here— I advised him to wait on the Minister and communicate to him a true State of his Case, being of opinion that such a Step supported by your Letter to Mr Carm. wd. have silenced Doubts & Enquiries & enabled him to obtain such Passports as might be necessary for his travelling in this kingdom— He nevertheless thought it best to delay it for the present and to go & stay at Toledo till I shd. recieve your Answer to a Letter I promised to write to you on the Subject of administring the Oath. He accordingly went to Toledo, but not having a Passport the govr wd not permit his remaing there— this Circumstance brought him here, I shall endeavour to obtain a Passport for him to return there on the Ground of yr Letter in his favr.
I believe it to be the Inclination as well as the Interest of America to augment her Number of Citizens but still her Consent to admit a Foreigner must be as necessary as his consent to be admitted besides, it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all — I wish these Difficulties did not oppose my complying with the Request of Mr Vaughan whom I am the more desirous of servg as he appears to possess your Regard.
Be pleased to present my Compliments to your Grandson and be assured that I am with sincere Esteem & Attachment
Dr Sir Your obliged & obt Servt
To Dr Franklin 31 May 1781
- 68 -
In 1787 John Jay Got His Wish: “… one ... all ... I wish ...”
John Jay: “… it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress — for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all — I wish these Difficulties did not oppose my complying with the Request of Mr Vaughan.”
In 1787 John Jay got his ‘wish’ six years and four months after 1781 with the ‘union’ of the thirteen states. Under a common constitution a person could be a ‘citizen’ of one state and of all states by birth or by naturalization. Jay’s wish of “...a Citizen of one … all” was fulfilled at the September 17, 1787 convention when his “natural born Citizen” suggestion to Washington was accepted and adopted by the delegates so that the “command in chief” authority would “… not be given to, or devolve on … ” anyone other than a “natural born Citizen”. Alexander Hamilton favored a person to be merely “born a Citizen”.
In 1787 America, according to the common law of the 1700s, a female acquired U.S. citizenship when she naturalized by marriage to a male U.S. citizen. So, to be “born a Citizen” as Hamilton suggested could be construed to imply being born to a U.S. citizen male who may not have been married at all, either to a female U.S. citizen or a foreign citizen.
In 1787 which original genesis did John Jay want when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington?
In 1787 did Jay want the higher hurdle of being born a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizens, or did Jay want the lower hurdle of merely being “born a Citizen” at birth?
In 1787 did Jay want birth to only two married U.S. citizens or to two unmarried U.S. citizens?
In 1787 did Jay want birth to one unmarried U.S. citizen male or to one unmarried U.S. citizen female?
In 1787 did Jay want birth to two married foreign citizens or to one married or unmarried foreign citizen?
The lower hurdle includes the possibility of an unmarried male being a U.S. or foreign citizen, or the unmarried female being a U.S. or foreign citizen. With the founders’ understanding of the common law in 1787 America for eligibility to be president, if a child was born in the country to a U.S. citizen male not married to the U.S. citizen female or the foreign citizen female, the child would only be a U.S. ‘citizen’ because of not being born to two heterosexual U.S. citizens married only to each other, so the child would not be eligible to be president.
What? Only ‘heterosexual’ married parents in 1787 America? Really? Well, yeah. What else in 1787 America if not exclusively heterosexual marriage: also bisexual marriage with a male living with a male and a female, or a female living with a female and a male, or/and homosexual marriage or/and transgender ‘marriage’, whatever that means? Why not only heterosexual marriage since 1787 America was not a society which was ‘trans’ forming. It was not a transgender or an LGBTQ+ ‘woke’ society, right? Do 2000s ‘trans’ forming transformers really think that in 1787 America original genesis birther John Jay tacitly implied to George Washington ‘trans’ forming-ism, transgender-ism, bisexual / homosexual and heterosexual parents in the presidential eligibility word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”? Really?
Under the common law of the 1700s, before the future naturalization acts such as, for example, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1855, 1922 Cable Act and the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (and updated Acts since 1952), if a child was born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen father not married to a U.S. citizen mother or a foreign citizen mother, the child in 1787 would be considered to be only a foreign born ‘citizen’, not a U.S. ‘citizen’.
That was the common law, the common sense understanding which informed John Jay and his choice of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen“ and the common law understanding of George Washington at the constitutional convention who passed Jay’s ‘born’ suggestion to the delegates, and the common law understanding of the delegates who adopted “natural born Citizen” and passed it to the states for ratification. If there was any common law understanding of ‘born’ in Article II in 1787 other than only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president, maybe living constitutionism neobirthers in 2000s America can articulate it with emanations from specific words in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the Constitution which reveal, serendipity, unknown penumbra.
- 69 -
The lower hurdle is what the ‘one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility neobirthers’ are promoting in the 2000s. The nascent (2015-17) Cruz neobirthers are starting to promote the lower hurdle of one U.S. citizen parent that is similar to the lower hurdle of people like William Rawle in the 1820s who ‘believed’ (his ‘opinion’ was) that birth on U.S. soil with one or two alien parents made a person a “natural born Citizen”. Rawle maybe would have also ‘believed’ the zero U.S. citizen parent proposition for eligibility to be president as 2000s neobirthers do today (Florida Sen. Rubio, South Carolina Gov. Haley, Louisiana Gov. Jindal, etc.), but the unanimous “nomenclature language” majority opinion of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court and the original genesis implicit intent of the framers of the 1868 14th Amendment did not suggest believing in the lower hurdle of the 2000s neobirthers version of birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility.
John Jay’s Letter To Del Campo About John Vaughan
John Jay wrote a second brief letter on November 3, 1781 to Del Campo, confidential secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish court. Jay was writing about an Englishman named John Vaughan who wanted to become a U.S. citizen, and asked Jay to administer the oath of allegiance. Jay was in Madrid, Spain in 1781 prior to the 1783 Treaty of Paris signing ceremony by the American delegates John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams.
Jay's letter to Del Campo indicates that in 1781, six years before adoption of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787, the common law understanding of John Jay about the unity of citizenship and allegiance was that the U.S. or foreign citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife and the singular citizenship of both parents was passed on to their child. Their ‘unity of citizenship’ devolved on, given to, transferred to, continued with the singular citizenship of the child.
John Vaughan, who was born to a British ‘subject’ father and an American ‘citizen’ mother, wanted Jay to give him the oath of allegiance to America. Jay considered Vaughan to be only an Englishman who did not have dual citizenship. He was an Englishman, a British ‘subject’, the son of a British ‘subject’ father and an American ‘citizen’ mother. He had only singular ‘citizenship’ as a British ‘subject’ because his American ‘citizen’ mother was considered under the common law of the 1700s era to have acquired the British ‘subject’ status of her British ‘subject’ husband.
As you will read in John Jay’s second letter below (written to Del Campo in November 3, 1781 about five months after Jay wrote his first letter to Ben Franklin about John Vaughan on May 31, 1781) that even in 1781 John Jay was implicitly affirming ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ — the U.S. citizenship of the father determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife and the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child and the ‘continuity of citizenship’ with eligibility to be president.
In the second letter the bold emphasis is added here. See the letter at oll.libertyfund.org:
→ http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html
John Jay To Del Campo
Madrid, November 3, 1781
Sir:
I have received the letter you did me the honour to write on the 2d instant.
As Mr. Vaughan was favored last spring at Aranjuez with a passport from his Excellency the Count de Florida to go to and reside at Toledo, I omitted to enumerate in my last the circumstances requested in your letter.
The gentleman’s father is an Englishman, his mother is an American; he himself was born I think in England; he means to become a citizen of and to settle in one of the United States, and is by profession a merchant. He has been a considerable time in France learning the language and acquainting himself with the commerce of that country. From thence he came last spring to Spain, for the same purposes; he brought with him a warm recommendation from Dr. Franklin; he spent the summer at Toledo learning the Spanish language; he visited Ildefonso while the Court was last there, and he is now desirous of going to Cadiz that he may during the winter form proper commercial connections there, and in the spring embark for North America. He has offered to take an oath of allegiance to the United States before me. I advised him to postpone it until he arrived there, as well because I thought it more proper in itself as because I did not conceive myself authorized to administer it.
- 70 -
This is a short but very candid account of what I know of this gentleman. I may indeed add that in my opinion he possesses a good share of understanding and much useful knowledge. I for my part confide in the sincerity of his professions, and shall accordingly do him good office in America by recommending him to my friends there.
Be pleased to accept my thanks for your polite attention. I have the honour to be, with great consideration and respect,
Your most obedient and most humble servant,
John Jay
16th November, 1781
Madrid, Florida Blanca
[My comment about “… to become a citizen …”]
John Jay's “… to become a citizen …” words mean that Jay did not consider John Vaughan to have ‘dual’ U. S and British citizenship even though his mother was, by implication, an ‘American’ by birth. Why not dual citizenship? Probably because his mother lost her U.S. ‘citizenship’ and was considered to be a British ‘subject’ by marriage according to the common law of the 1700s which considered that a female acquired the national status of the male by marriage – naturalization by marriage.
Even in 1781, six years before September 17, 1787, John Jay was affirming that the citizenship of the father determined the citizenship of the wife, and the citizenship of both parents determined the citizenship of the child. The singular U.S. citizenship was expected of both parents for the child to be eligible to be president. Singular U.S. citizenship was the original genesis implicit intent of John Jay for eligibility to be president, and the original intent was that the unity of citizenship and allegiance was to be perpetual for the posterity to maintain progress toward a “… more perfect Union … ourselves and our Posterity …”, not the posterity of legal or illegal aliens who plop and drop a child on U.S. soil so that the child would have birthright citizenship with eligibility to vote in federal elections and even be president, thanks to the fiat (‘because we said so’) “opinion” of the 1898 Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. That 1898 ‘opinion’ of the Court should be overturned because it is not constitutional, the same reason that the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson ‘opinion’ was overturned 57 years later by Brown v. Board of Education in 1953, and also the 1973 Roe v. Wade ‘opinion’ was overturned 49 years later by Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022. [End of comment]
Immigration and Naturalization
The 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ language repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) language. So far, since the 1795 Naturalization Act, the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers has been tacitly confirmed by both the Congress and the Supreme Court. Both branches have never suggested, either with an Act of Congress or an ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court, that a “natural born Citizen” does not refer only to children born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents but refers also to children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.
The U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have been consistent since the 1790 Naturalization Act language which said that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents was a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) was repealed and then replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act language which said that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens was only a U.S. ‘citizen’. The implication is that the 1795 ‘citizen’ was not eligible to be president, and so, since 1795, all children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens are only a U.S. ‘citizen’, with the implication that the child is not eligible to be president. Why? Because of birth on foreign soil.
- 71 -
1952 Immigration and Nationality Act Text
Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] (clauses ‘a’, ‘f’, ‘g’)
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth [not ‘by’ birth or by birth alone]:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof: ...
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; ...
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; ...
(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….
Also, both the Congress and the Supreme Court have never opined that “natural born Citizen” is a reference to a child born on either U.S. soil or born on foreign soil with only one U.S. citizen parent who was either married or not married to a foreign born citizen.
The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which covers the citizenship status of Texas Senator Ted Cruz does say that a child born on foreign soil with one U.S. citizen parent married to a foreign citizen definitely is a U.S. ‘citizen’. The conclusion is obvious. A ‘citizen’ born to only one U.S. citizen parent is not eligible to be president because an Act of Congress cannot make a ‘citizen’ who is a positive law ‘citizen’ by Act alone (law of people) into a natural law “natural born Citizen” by birth alone (law of nature). That is the proper ‘union’ of positive law and natural law. That is what I mean about the difference between “except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of …” in Article II – ‘union not fusion’ and ‘distinction not separation’. The comma is there for a ‘union’ and a ‘distinction’ reason. That is obvious, right? That ‘union’ and ‘distinction’ reason is why the positive law (law of people) words “… or a Citizen of …” (which applied only until the last “… or a Citizen of …” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s) should perpetually remain in Article II to remind us what ‘natural born’ means if and when an amendment is ratified to clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for perpetual eligibility to be president.
Original Genesis Common Sense
The original genesis definition of “natural born Citizen” that original birther John Jay was promoting in 1787 when he underlined the word ‘born’ in his note to George Washington was either only birth on 1787 U.S. soil or also birth on 1787 foreign soil. In other words, either only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other or also dual citizenship which is only possible at birth to one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent, whether or not they are ‘legally’ married only to each other.
Since September 17, 1787, to be ‘natural born’ in clause 5 is a natural law (law of nature) reference to the natural law (law of nature) physical union of two heterosexual persons. After the physical ‘union’ of the parents and the child is physically born according to natural law (law of nature) on U.S. soil, the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers, their living originalism intent, was for only their own posterity to fulfill their intent to only protect and defend U.S. soil, not to protect and defend foreign soil. That is obvious, right?
In the September 17, 1787 clause 5 language and the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ language, to be ‘natural born’ was obviously not a reference to the physical union on foreign soil of U.S. citizens with their children being born on foreign soil, with the expectation that the United States had the intent of using the “american army” to protect and defend U.S. soil and foreign soil simply because a child was born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents. That is obvious, right?
In the September 17, 1787 clause 5 and the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ language, to be ‘natural born’ is obviously not a reference to being naturalized with the expectation that the United States had the intent of protecting U.S. soil and foreign soil. That is obvious, right?
The clause 5 positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ (as John Jay spelled it with upper case ‘C’) in “natural born Citizen” is a reference to acquiring U.S. citizen status according to natural law (law of nature) by birth alone to two U.S. citizens, not only one U.S. citizen parent. If it is only one U.S. citizen and not only two U.S. citizens married only to each others, what’s the point of John Jay underlining the word ‘born’?
- 72 -
The clause 5 positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” is obviously not a reference to acquiring U.S. citizen status at birth from one U.S. citizen and one foreign citizen, either married or not married only to each other. That is obvious, right?
The clause 5 positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” is obviously not a reference to acquiring U.S. citizen status at birth from two foreign citizens who have not naturalized as U.S. citizens, whether their children are born on either U.S. soil or foreign soil. That is obvious, right? Some things are so obvious, right?
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019 → https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/140
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2021 → https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/140
“This bill limits birthright citizenship by redefining what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
“Currently, a person born in the United States and subject to U.S. jurisdiction is entitled to citizenship. Under the bill, a person is subject to U.S. jurisdiction if he or she is born to a parent who is (1) a U.S. citizen or national, (2) a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or (3) an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces.
“The bill does not affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the bill's enactment date.”
[My comment about “entitled to citizenship”]
This bill limits birthright citizenship
by redefining what it means
to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
Currently,
a person born in the United States
and subject to U.S. jurisdiction
is entitled to citizenship.
Under the bill,
a person is subject to U.S. jurisdiction
if he or she is born to a parent [singular – male or female] who is
(1) a U.S. citizen or national,
(2) a lawful permanent resident residing in the United States, or
(3) an alien performing active service in the Armed Forces.
The bill does not affect the
citizenship or nationality status of any person
born before the bill's enactment date.
Notice in the paragraph, “… a parent who is (1) a...or” = singular – male or female, only one ‘parent’. If born to ‘one’ “citizen or national” parent the child is a 2019 (and 2021 – the language is the same) Act of Congress citizen, not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”. The word ‘Citizen’ necessarily implies that both parents be U.S. citizen to pass on their singular U.S. citizenship to their child. In other words, in the ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019’ the silent implication is that at least ‘one’ parent must be either a ‘citizen’ or a ‘national’. If born to two U.S. citizens, the child is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is eligible to be president. The silent implication is that a child born to only one ‘parent’ (citizen or national) is only a ‘citizen’, not a “natural born Citizen”, and, for that original genesis reason, is not eligible to be president. [End of comment]
- 73 -
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019 H. R. 140
→ 16th Congress: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/140
Short Title(s) as Introduced
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019
Official Title as Introduced
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Text: H.R.140 — 116th Congress (2019-2020)
→ https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/140/text
Text: H.R.140 — 117th Congress (2021-2022)
→ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/140/text
[The text of the 117th Act is the same as the 116th Act, the date 2021-2022 replaced 2019-2020.]
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2019)
116th CONGRESS 1st Session
H. R. 140
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth [‘at’, not by birth alone].
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2019
Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Norman, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Palazzo, Mr. Perry, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Davidson of Ohio, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mr. Babin, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Harris, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Webster of Florida, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Rouzer, and Mr. Graves of Missouri) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
A BILL
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short title.
This Act may be cited as the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019”.
SEC. 2. Citizenship at birth for certain persons born in the United States.
(a) In general.—Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended—
(1) by inserting “(a) In general.—” before “The following”;
(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(b) Definition.—Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by Section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is—
(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in Section 101 of title 10, United States Code)”.
(b) Applicability.—The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
- 74 -
[My comment about “of parents, one of whom is”]
Notice (3)(b) Definition—: “… of parents, one of whom is …”. Notice that ‘one’ U.S. citizen parent (singular) is required, and also notice that not sufficient is ‘zero’ U.S. citizens (plural) as in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’. At least ‘one’ 'parent is the silent implication of the words “… born … citizen …” in the first sentence of Section 1 of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, the amendment about becoming a ‘citizen’ ‘at’ birth ‘in’ the United States and naturalization ‘in’ the United States. Of course, naturalization is only by an Act of Congress with Article I authority; naturalization is not by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the Article III Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has only Article III authority to opine, not Article I authority to naturalize. Right? [End of comment]
Cosponsors and Date Cosponsored (all 31 cosponsors are Republicans)
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3] 02/02/2021
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA-10] 02/02/2021
Rep. Good, Bob [R-VA-5] 02/02/2021
Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17] 02/02/2021
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5] 02/02/2021
Rep. Grothman, Glenn [R-WI-6] 02/02/2021
Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1] 02/02/2021
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN-4] 02/02/2021
Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27] 02/02/2021
Rep. Budd, Ted [R-NC-13] 02/04/2021
Rep. Scott, Austin [R-GA-8] 02/04/2021
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4] 02/04/2021
Rep. Keller, Fred [R-PA-12] 02/04/2021
Rep. Weber, Randy K., Sr. [R-TX-14] 02/04/2021
Rep. Rosendale Sr., Matthew M. [R-MT-At Large] 02/05/2021
Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-3] 02/05/2021
Rep. Jackson, Ronny [R-TX-13] 02/05/2021
Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] 02/05/2021
Rep. Allen, Rick W. [R-GA-12] 02/05/2021
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH-1] 02/05/2021
Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9] 02/05/2021
Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11] 02/05/2021
Rep. Palmer, Gary J. [R-AL-6] 02/05/2021
Rep. Hern, Kevin [R-OK-1] 02/11/2021
Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2] 02/11/2021
Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15] 02/24/2021
Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5] 03/11/2021
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] 08/31/2021
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5] 03/16/2022
Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] 03/24/2022
Rep. Palazzo, Steven M. [R-MS-4] 06/22/2022
- 75 -
[My comment about the ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019’]
The ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019’ text is from the 116th Congress (2019-2020, introduced again in the 117th Congress – 2021-2022), introduced in the House of Representatives on January 3, 2019. A possible constitutional issue concerns the last few words, specifically the word one in “SEC. 2, subsection (b) Definition … born … of parents, one of whom is— a citizen or national …”. This could be a “possible constitutional issue” if the Supreme Court opines that the word ‘one’ in the 2019-2020 and the 2021-2022 text is exclusive and contradicts ‘zero’ U.S. citizens. The word ‘one’ is in opposition to the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ which said that Wong Kim Ark was an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ even though his parents were not U.S. citizens (they did not naturalize before his birth).
In other words, the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opined’ that the U.S. soil was necessary for ‘giving’ U.S. citizenship (see the word ‘given’ in Jay’s note to Washington as related to Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Bobby Jindal: “… the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen ...”) to an alien (essentially, Wong Kim Ark was naturalized by Supreme Court fiat – ‘because we said so’ – ‘opinion’) but the citizenship status of the married parents was not necessary. Why? Well, because he was born on U.S. soil.
The question living originalism original genesis birthers have is whether or not any 21st century Supreme Court will opine again that the inclusive ‘zero’ U.S. citizens was the original genesis implicit intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment for 30 years (from 1868 to 1898 until the ‘United States v. Wong Kim Ark’ citizenship case)? If the Court does opine again to affirm ‘zero’, they must state the basis on which the inclusive 1898 ‘opinion’ of ‘zero’ U.S. citizen parents will be defended as ‘better’ for national stability than the exclusive one U.S. citizen parent of the 2019-2020 / 2021-2022 Birthright Citizenship Act? Good question, right?
Regarding citizenship for children born on U.S. soil, it looks like the word ‘one’ in the Birthright Citizenship Act is saying that the implicit living originalism meaning of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and “subject to” language means that, for children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, the 2019 Act suggests that at least one U.S. citizen parent will be required for the child to be considered a U.S. ‘citizen’, not zero U.S. citizen parents as was the case in the 1898 Supreme Court opinion. In the Birthright Citizenship Act, one U.S. citizen parent is exclusive. In the 1898 Supreme Court opinion ‘zero’ U.S. citizen parents is inclusive. The Birthright Citizenship Act affirms the original genesis implicit intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “… born or naturalized … are citizens ...” language while the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ ignores the original genesis implicit intent. Wong Kim Ark was born on U.S. soil to Chinese parents who had legally lived and worked in the U.S. for many years but had not naturalized before Wong Kim Ark was born. The 1898 Supreme Court opined that, simply because the parents had already legally lived many years in the U.S. , their child (in their supreme ‘opinion’) was a ‘citizen’ of the U.S. (not a “natural born Citizen”) according to the 1898 Court’s understanding of the 30 year old 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language.
The U.S. Congress can't ‘create’ a “natural born Citizen” by ‘ACT’ alone, and the Supreme Court can't ‘create’ a “natural born Citizen” by ‘opinion’ alone. That is only possible by birth alone.
That was an arbitrary opinion of the 1898 Supreme Court and a misunderstanding of the living originalism implicit intent of the ‘citizen’ language of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. The ‘citizen’ and “… born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States ...” language is not a tacit, implicit living constitutionism reference to birth to legal or illegal aliens residing in the U.S. with or without legal residence status, but a tacit, implicit living originalism reference to birth in the U.S. to citizens of U.S. citizens; only the Posterity of We the People. The ‘alien’ parents v. ‘citizen’ parents misunderstanding of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment by the 1898 Supreme Court indicates that the 1868 language is tacit, implicit living originalism language. So, in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, what should We the Posterity think (not ‘feel’, but ‘think’) was implicit – at least one or zero U.S. citizen parents?
The 1898 Supreme Court living constitutionism opinion should be overturned by the 2000s Court on living originalism grounds. Also, the Supreme Court should opine that a Birthright Citizenship Act in the future with the ‘one’ U.S. citizen parent language is more in line with the living originalism implicit intent of the ‘citizen’ language of the authors of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. The ‘citizen’ language also implied the common law understanding since the 1700s that the child born to a U.S. citizen male was also a ‘citizen’ but not if born to a foreign citizen female who was not married to the U.S. citizen male. The 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment did not clarify this point about the U.S. citizen male and the foreign citizen female.
- 76 -
What was implicit in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision which said that he was a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?
Was the 1898 Supreme Court implying that in the future only children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, zero U.S. citizens, would be considered to be U.S. citizens? No? Yes? No, of course not. Right?
Does zero U.S. citizens in the 1898 Supreme Court decision imply that two or one U.S. citizen parent were also implied? Yes? No? No, because ‘two’ implies “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president.
Does one in the 2019 or 2021 Birthright Citizenship Act imply that zero is not intended by Congress? Yes? No? Yes. If the Congress intended for the 2019 or 2021 Acts to include zero U.S. citizens, meaning that the two parents did not need to be U.S. citizens, they would have written zero also instead of only one. Right? Right!!!
So, does the 2019 Act of Congress trump the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ‘opinion’ which used the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment as their ‘legal’ basis for the penumbra ‘opinion’ that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen even though born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?
Will the 2000s Supreme Court decide that the 2019 / 2021 Birthright Citizenship Act, if it is ever passed by the Congress under their Article I authority, is not constitutional because the Act says explicitly that only one U.S. citizen parent is necessary for a child to be a citizen or a national? Will a future 2000s Supreme Court affirm the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language? Will it affirm an ‘opinion’ which obviously says that zero U.S. citizen parents are sufficient for children born on U.S. soil to be ‘considered’ a U.S. citizen by Supreme Court ‘opinion’ alone?
If the ‘one’ of the 2019 U.S. Congress can trump the “zero’ of the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court, well, how about this change being suggested to the U.S. Congress? How about a future Congress changing the language of a future Birthright Citizenship Act (2021, 2023, 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, or whenever) to say that for a child to be a ‘natural born citizen’ that two U.S. citizen parents will be required? Would two be affirmed by the current Supreme Court? Maybe? Yes? No? Why maybe? Two possible reasons. 1) It has been understood since 1787 that some citizens would become U.S. citizens by naturalization alone (see Article I) and so would not be eligible to be president. 2) It was understood in 1787 that eventually immigration and naturalization laws would probably be passed by future legislatures (not Article III Supreme Court ‘opinions’) that would allow for children born to only one U.S. citizen parent to be ‘considered’ to be a ‘citizen’ of the U.S. (see the 1866 Civil Rights Act and eventually the Fourteenth Amendment) and also not be eligible to be president.
Should the Supreme Court be asked to determine the constitutionality of restricting and limiting the number of U.S. citizen parents to one in a future birthright citizenship act as found in the naturalization act designated H. R. 104 – Birthright Citizenship Act of 2019? If zero U.S. citizen parents is constitutional in the fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court, well then, so is one if the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court decide that it is constitutional. Right? A question remains. Since they are federal branches with ‘equal’ authority, can the Congress overturn the ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court with an Act of Congress? Can an Act of Congress in the future (as in 2019) trump the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’? An opinion is not a ‘law’ but simply an ‘opinion’ by the Supreme Court about the supreme ‘law’ of the land amended by the legislature and the ‘several States’, specifically the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.
Will a future act of Congress, (similar to the 2019 Act of Congress statute which was not enacted) trump the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ which considered that zero U.S. citizen parents was implied in the ‘citizen’ language of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment? An amendment to the Constitution is superior to an enactment of Congress and superior to an opinion of the Supreme Court. A ratified amendment is an agreement between the bicameral U.S. Congress which proposes the amendment and the ‘several States’. As written in Article V, both the bicameral Congress and the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ are authorized to propose amendments. Neither are authorized to convene to rewrite the entire Constitution. So, in the future, the question will be which branch of the federation conforms to the original genesis intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment? The ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court with zero U.S. citizen parents being required for U.S. citizenship of a child, or an act of Congress similar to the 2019 (or 2029, etc.,) Birthright Citizenship Act of Congress with at least one U.S. citizen parent being required for U.S. citizenship of a child? My choice is a future act of Congress similar to the 2019 (2029, etc.,) Birthright Citizenship Act based on the original genesis intent of the words ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ and ‘citizen’ in Section 1 of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. When the 2021 (or 2029, etc.,) Birthright Citizenship Act is enacted by Congress, the exclusive number of one U.S. citizen parent (as explicitly written in an Act of Congress, but not for eligibility to be president) or the very exclusive number of two (as implied in Article II for eligibility to be president) U.S. citizen parents will need to be recognized as constitutional, and one or two, being constitutional, will need to be recognized to be in conflict with the unconstitutional 1898 all inclusive number of zero citizen parents. To resolve the conflict in favor of the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ the current Court will need to defend the ‘legal’ basis for the 1898 Court to conclude that zero U.S. citizen parents was sufficient for ‘legal’ citizenship for Wong Kim Ark. The current Court will need to explain what the ‘legal’ basis was for the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment implied two unusual thoughts about citizenship in the words “… born or naturalized … are citizens ...”: 1) birth on U.S. soil to alien parents and 2) birth to zero U.S. citizens; birth to aliens who did not naturalize before the birth of a child. Since the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words “born or naturalized” did not imply zero U.S. citizen parents, the 1898 decision needs to be revisited and overturned to immediately stop ‘plop and drop’ ‘birthright citizenship’ for children of legal or illegal alien parents.
- 77 -
What is the ‘legal’ basis, if there is one? Well, the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ was that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was the ‘legal’ basis and so the Court simply, ipso facto (‘by that very fact’), said so, that’s why. Why did the ‘opinion’ stand? Because the Legislative branch of the federation stood down and did nothing to correct the error of the 1898 Supreme Court. Maybe the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ should do what Article V authorizes them to do, propose an amendment (“propose” does NOT suggest, either explicitly or implicitly, a “con con” – a constitutional convention to change the entire constitution...) to eliminate plop and drop birthright citizenship, since the bicameral Congress can’t send a Birthright Citizenship Act to the President for a signature. The Supreme Court, which finds penumbra by serendipity emanations, may think that ‘because we said so, that’s why’ may be sufficient for living constitutionism government work but it’s not good enough for living originalism and original genesis birthers in the 2000s just as it would not have been good enough for John Jay and George Washington in the 1700s. The 100% inclusive zero U.S. citizen parents was not the living originalism intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words “born … naturalized … are citizens” or the original genesis intent of the 1787 constitutional convention delegates who wrote and adopted the constitution only for their own Posterity, their own U.S. ‘citizen’ children, not the posterity of legal or illegal aliens, who, in the 2000s have been encouraged by politicos on both sides of the legislative aisle to come to America to ‘plop and drop’ a child on U.S. soil and expect the child to have ‘birthright citizenship’ with citizenship benefits such as to be eligible to vote, and, some neobirthers assert, even eligible to be president, as was asserted by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, South Carolina Gov. Nikky Haley, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. [End of comment]
Texas Senator Ted Cruz
An originalism issue at this time (2013) concerns the presidential eligibility of U.S. Senator Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz since his citizenship status is controlled by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ (by Act alone) language and not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.
National Review Online on May 1, 2013
→ http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347052/cruz-2016
“Cruz isn’t worried that his birth certificate will be a problem. Though he was born in Canada, he and his advisers are confident that they could win any legal battle over his eligibility. Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen when he was born, and he considers himself to be a natural-born citizen”.
Laura Ingraham has a Discussion About Citizenship: “I’m pretty sure that’s not right”
→ http://youtu.be/eC4CCraQtuw
The url is for a July 15, 2013 BirtherReport.com three minute video of the Laura Ingraham interview with the father of Senator Cruz, Rafael Cruz. Laura says “I’m pretty sure”, which reveals that she is really not sure of the originalist intent of the 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 words “natural born Citizen” and “…or a Citizen of...”, and if Senator Ted Cruz really is eligible to be president. “I’m pretty sure that’s not right” is Laura’s comment to Rafael Cruz about callers to her radio program who say that his son who was born in Canada is not a U.S. “natural born Citizen” and so is not eligible to be U.S. president.
1787 U.S. Constitution
The primary document considered in this tabletalk conversation is the 1787 U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II, with a focus on the original genesis intent of the original words “natural born Citizen” and how the words “...or...time...Adoption...” are relevant only to the original words “…or a Citizen of...” since no person who was born after July 4, 1776 on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents had reached the age of 35 by September 17, 1787.
- 78 -
1795 Naturalization Act
After the 1790 Naturalization Act of the first Congress was repealed, the 1795 Naturalization Act of the third Congress resulted in the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” language being reclaimed as informed by the common law of the 1700s as a reference only to children who are born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents and for that ‘legal’ reason are eligible to be president. The 1790 Act said that a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents is a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) of the United States. That error of the first Congress was corrected when the three “natural born citizen” words were repealed in 1795 and replaced with the single word citizen.
An observation which eventually became obvious with analysis of the repeal of the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” language can be summarized with three points which bring clarity to the difference between a 1790 “natural born citizen” and a 1795 ‘citizen’, and that difference brings clarity to the union but not a fusion and a distinction but not a separation of the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...”.
First, a 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ by statute alone who is born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents is not the same as a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” by statute alone who is born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.
Second, the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts reveal that a 1795 ‘citizen’ by statute alone is not the same as a 1787 Article II “...or a Citizen of...” by naturalization alone (The word ‘or’ = naturalization of the British ‘natural-born subjects’ into a U.S. “Citizen of” at the 1787 constitutional convention).
Third, the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts by statute alone are also not the same as a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.
A 1790 “ natural born citizen” by statute alone, a 1795 ‘citizen’ by statute alone, and a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” by naturalization alone are definitely not the same as a “natural born Citizen” who is exclusively eligible to be president by birth alone. Right? All other categories of ‘citizen’ are excluded from eligibility to be president by birth alone, the Article II natural law (law of nature) ‘legal’ reason which can not be refuted by positive law (law of people). Right? Yes, right.
John C. Eastman on the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
The Fourteenth Amendment limited the born ‘citizen’ designation to persons born on U. S soil. Below are two quotes from John C. Eastman, Ph.D., Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
Born In The USA? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship In The Wake Of 911
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19541868/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”.
Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
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
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”.
- 79 -
Another way of saying what John Eastman said is related to living originalism, the original genesis intent of the authors of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. When guaranteeing to the former negro slaves the right of being recognized as a ‘citizen’ of the United States, did the authors in Congress and the state ratifiers of the amendment intend to include as ‘citizens’ future ‘legal’ aliens only one year later in 1869 or 100 years in the future in 1969?
Did the states who ratified the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment intend for the children of ‘illegal’ aliens to become U.S. citizens at birth on U.S. soil? [ ] Yes [X] No—absolutely NO!
Did the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment give legal or illegal aliens the green light to ‘break and enter’ into America? [ ] Yes [X] No—absolutely NO!
Did the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment give the children of legal or illegal aliens the ‘legal’ status of ‘citizen’ so that they could ‘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? [ ] Yes [X] No—absolutely NO!
Since the original parents are illegal aliens are U.S. citizens expected to allow the vote to the children born on U.S. soil to legal or illegal parents, children who may ‘dream’ as ‘citizens’ of defending the laws of the United States that their parents ignored? [ ] Yes [X] No—NO!
Is it sensible for the living constitutionism neobirthers to assert, without any ‘legal’ basis, that the children born on U.S. soil to legal or illegal alien parents are eligible to be president? [ ] Yes [X] No, absolutely NO!
So, when will the 2000s U.S. Congress and Supreme Court get their 1866 Civil Rights Act and their 1868 Fourteenth Amendment facts together and correct the silly citizenship absurdity of birthright citizenship when illegal or legal aliens break and enter our country with the intent to plop and drop their anchor babies with the expectation that the children would be naturalized at birth with birthright citizenship? Would the legislators and justices be as tolerant of a legal or illegal alien who would perpetrate a ‘break and enter’ action into their personal home? [ ] Yes [X] No—NO!
Do the Congress and the Supreme Court really want to promote the absurdity that to ‘break and enter’ into their country definitely is not a legal entry into their ‘home soil’ but the baby is automatically a legal U.S. citizen with future voting rights and eligibility to be president? Really? Huh?
Is THAT dumb, or what? How dumb is THAT?
Come on Congress and Supreme Court. WAKE UP!!!
America is waiting—WAKE UP!!!
America, the ‘Union’ of the original We the People belongs to We the Posterity — not to ‘we the occupiers’ — not to ‘we the transformers’ — not to aliens who come to the United States to ‘plop and drop’ their ‘anchor babies’. Right?
Come on Congress and Supreme Court – WAKE UP, AMERICA!!!
Place & Parent: Jus soli (Law Soil) & Jus Sanguinis (Law Blood)
For common sense non-lawyers as most of us are, there are historical writings, law terms and Supreme Court decisions referenced by lawyers when discussing citizenship and naturalization which are not used often in this conversation about living originalism and original genesis and which ‘citizen’ has Article II eligibility to be president. However, it is important to know two Latin law terms for birth parents and birth place.
Two examples of common law established first by custom rather than statute are the Latin words jus soli and jus sanguinis. The terms refer to place (soil / soli) and parent (blood / sanguinis) and the right by law (jus) that belongs by natural law (law of nature) to the child by right of land of birth (soli) and belongs by natural law (law of nature) to the child by right of blood by birth (sanguinis). By natural law (law of nature) the place, the soil, must exist before the parents step on the soil and before the blood relationship of the two parents and the child can exist. The natural law (law of nature) of blood (parent) and soil (place) determines the positive law (law of people) ‘citizen’ or “natural born Citizen” status of the child. The positive law (law of people) articulates the difference between three ‘citizens’: 1) a child who is a ‘citizen’ at birth only by birth alone to two U.S. citizen parents who is eligible to be president; 2) a child who is a “citizen” at birth by statute alone with only one U.S. citizen parent without eligibility to be president; 3) a person who is a ‘citizen’ at naturalization by statute alone, without eligibility to be president.
- 80 -
Parents – jus sanguinis
Right of blood, birthright citizenship by blood = natural law (law of nature) citizenship by birth blood alone. The ‘alone’ word refers to the blood relationship with the parents because the blood relationship is only acquired from both parents by conception, which simply means the physical ‘union’ of sperm and egg and which can be revealed only by birth alone.
Place – jus soli
Right of soil, birthright citizenship by soil (‘soil’ = a reference to both natural law (law of nature) place of birth and positive law (law of people) (the written text) which requires that place of birth must obviously be related to birth and jurisdiction at birth by birth alone (the ‘soil’ relationship is only acquired from both parents at birth by birth alone). Since ‘conception’ can occur on any soil, it is the birth on the soil to either one U.S. citizen parent (married or not married to the foreign citizen) or two U.S. citizens married only to each other which reveals that the child is either a ‘citizen’ who is not eligible or a ‘citizen’ who is a “natural born Citizen” who is eligible to be president.
Perpetual & Temporary & Immutable Original Genesis – Birth
Just because both a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and an “… or a Citizen of ...” are positive law (law of people) declarations in a document called a constitution does not mean that both can be changed by an Act of Congress, a positive law (law of people). The perpetual meaning of the “natural born Citizen” language can only be changed by an amendment to change its living originalism intent, its original genesis meaning (singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. married citizens) as understood by the framers who adopted the language. And, of course, the 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” language, while it does not need to be removed from Article II if and when Article II is amended to clarify who and what a “natural born Citizen” is for eligibility to be president, the original genesis intent of ‘or’ should be retained to continue to clarify the difference between a ‘Citizen / citizen’ and a “natural born Citizen” generation to generation since the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle 1800s. Both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” are immutable by natural law (law of nature), by birth alone and by death alone. The perpetual meaning of the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” was not changed by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language, or the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’ language, and will not be changed by the 2019 (2021, etc.) Birthright Citizenship Act ‘citizen’ language. Both “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” are still immutable. Yes, both are immutable. Even “… or a Citizen of ...” is immutable, and not just because the last “… or … of ...” died already, sometime in the mid to late 1800s. The “… or a Citizen of ...” is still and will be forever immutable because “… or a Citizen of ...” was part of the 1787 living originalism Constitution itself, it was not a positive law (law of people) enacted by the bicameral Congress after the Constitution was adopted in 1787.
A 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...”
In the case of an “… or a Citizen of ...” the immutable fact is that it was temporary language as it was understood by the delegates to the constitutional convention. It was intended to be constitutional law for as long as an “… or a Citizen of … at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution ...” was alive. Since natural law (law of nature) trumps positive law (law of people), after the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died in the mid to late 1800s only a “natural born Citizen” is still eligible to be president. Since all Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” citizens who were alive “… at the time of the Adoption …” are now dead an “…or a Citizen of...” can never again occupy the office of president. That’s obvious, right?
- 81 -
A 1787 Given to, Devolved on “natural born Citizen”
In the case of a 1787 “natural born Citizen” the immutable fact is that the living originalism intent of the framers was that, for eligibility to be president, it was to be perpetual for them from “… the time of the Adoption of this Constitution …” as long as an “… or a Citizen of ...” was alive. The living originalism intent of the framers was that it was to be applied as well to their own posterity into perpetuity. According to natural law (law of nature) which informs positive law (law of people), ‘perpetuity’ means for as long into the future as children are born on U.S. soil to two heterosexual U.S. citizens ‘legally married only to each other. In 1787, YES, definitely — heterosexual parents must be ‘legally’ married for the child to be recognized as a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone with devolved ‘legal’ standing to be eligible to be president because only heterosexual marriage was ‘legal’ according to the common law and by statute since 1787.
For the ‘children’ of a homosexual marriage to be ‘legal’ to be eligible to be president, the Constitution must be amended with explicit and inclusive language. The living constitutionism way of asserting that within the Constitution (‘hidden’ “between the lines” as Yale Law Professor Amar has written) is intent which is implicit and inclusive. That is not coherent and does not pass the common sense test of the explicit and exclusive original genesis intent of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, which, according to natural law (law of nature) for eligibility to be president since 1787, can only mean that citizenship with eligibility to be president is only devolved on a child only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born. Since all persons who were a 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” and alive “… at the time of the Adoption …” are all dead, only children who are born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born is a “natural born Citizen…eligible to the Office of President”.
Who are John Jay Original Genesis Birthers?
John Jay inspired original genesis and original intent birthers promote the proposition that what Jay really meant when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to his friend George Washington, who, although there are no known documents recording it, Washington and the framers accepted the three word term of art and adopted it without a public record of a dissenting voice about its common law meaning. After the Constitution was adopted the framers sent it on to the states for ratification where it was ratified with the same understanding that Jay, Washington and the constitution delegates had, which is that ‘born’ has only one meaning for eligibility to be president. It means only singular U.S. citizenship, which is possible only by birth alone on the soil of only one nation, not dual citizenship (South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio) or triple citizenship (Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, California Sen. Kamala Harris).
Is there any other original genesis intent which could be Jay's reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in his note to Washington? Are neobirthers confusing because they are simply confused, or are they, and this may apply only to the Obama birth narrative neobirthers, are they being intentionally confusing and simply throwing Saul Alinsky style political spaghetti at the wall, so to speak, to see what sticks in the arena of ideas such as the theory that Obama is a natural-born Citizen 'cause he was born naturally on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent, and that's good 'nuf for presidential eligibility. Period.
Naturalization By Marriage
The ‘MY GUY’ / ‘MY GAL’ neobirthers are proponents of the theory that being born naturally on U.S. soil or foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction, and being born to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents, who may or may not be married to each other, is sufficient to be eligible to be president. Was John Jay confused and intend for “natural born Citizen” to be understood to have only one, only a singular original genesis intent or to be understood to have two, a dual original genesis intent?
Did Jay have only one original genesis intent with only one meaning? Yes.
Did Jay have one original genesis intent with two equally plausible meanings? No.
Did Jay have two original genesis intents with two equally plausible meanings? No.
In 1787 John Jay was obvious in his one original genesis intent and meaning. By underlining the word ‘born’ in his note to Washington, it is obvious that Jay had only one original genesis intent and meaning, only birth on U.S. soil with only singular U.S. citizenship, not two meanings, not singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. Only one original genesis intent, not two original genesis intents. More than one ‘intent’ is obviously incoherent and absurd. Right? Just as there can be only one original genesis there can be only one intent. Right? It is obvious that “natural born Citizen” can mean only singular U.S. citizenship — only by birth alone — only on U.S. soil — only to two U.S. citizens — only married — only to each other — only before a child is born.
- 82 -
It is obvious that Jay was not implying that ‘natural’ and ‘born’ and ‘Citizen’ meant that legal or illegal aliens could come to U.S. soil and have their children born on U.S. soil and so their children born with dual citizenship could be eligible to be president. That is original genesis obvious nonsense, right? Jay was obviously not saying that their dual citizenship children would be eligible to be U.S. president simply because their child was natural born on our U.S. soil. Right? What John Jay was obviously saying in 1787, four years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris, of which he was a signatory, finalized the war of independence from England, was that only U.S. citizens, only married to each other who birthed their children on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) would produce U.S. ‘natural born’ children, and their ‘natural born’ child would also be a U.S. ‘Citizen’ with singular U.S. citizenship because both of the parents were married only to each other before a child was born and both were U.S. citizens before a child was born. Jay was saying only that in 1787, right?
In 1787 America, as in England and other countries in Europe, the common law understanding of the 1700s era was that the citizenship of the female was acquired by marriage, in essence naturalization by marriage. If the male was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the U.S. born female ‘legally’ lost her U.S. citizenship by marriage and ‘legally’ acquired the citizenship of the male. If the male was a U.S. citizen and the female was British, or French, or German, or whatever, the female ‘legally’ lost her foreign citizenship by marriage and ‘legally’ acquired the U.S. citizenship of the U.S. citizen male. That is the essence of the common law concerning heterosexual marriage in the 1787 era and the unity of citizenship and allegiance of both parents which resulted in the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents before a child was born, and which resulted in the continuity of citizenship and allegiance of their “natural born Citizen” child who is ‘legally’ eligible to be president by birth alone.
The common law in the 1787 era was that the U.S. citizenship of the male determined the ‘legal’ U.S. citizenship of the foreign born female, with the result that the singular U.S. citizenship of both ‘legally’ married only to each other before the birth of a child determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a child. The child was recognized by the common law as a ‘legal’ citizen and an Article II “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.
In 1787 America, to acquire U.S. citizenship, ‘legal’ marriage to a heterosexual U.S. citizen male before the birth of a child on U.S. soil was a perpetual common law prerequisite. Here's why. The heterosexual U.S. citizen male and the heterosexual foreign born female, for example, had to be ‘legally’ married to each other before a child was born so that the child would ‘legally’ acquire the singular U.S. citizenship of the male by birth alone. By ‘legal’ marriage the singular citizenship of both parents could now be passed on by birth alone to a child who would be, by the common law of the 1700s, not only a ‘legal’ U.S. ‘citizen’ but also a ‘legal’ U.S. “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.
In the 1700s a foreign female was a person born on either foreign soil to foreign born parents or on U.S. soil to foreign born parents who had not become U.S. citizens by naturalization before children were born on U.S. soil. Both foreign born parents were considered to be aliens until the husband became a naturalized U.S. citizen and his wife, because they were already married, automatically acquired U.S. citizenship by her husband's naturalization. The children born before the father naturalized were also considered to have acquired U.S. citizenship after the father's naturalization, at least until they reached their age of majority. They were considered to be only a U.S. ‘citizen’ by the father’s naturalization. A child, obviously, was not considered to be a “natural born Citizen” because the father had not naturalized yet and both foreign born parents were not ‘citizens’ with singular U.S. citizenship before the birth of children on U.S. soil.
The “natural born Citizen” status is permanent because it is acquired by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, A citizen's “natural born Citizen” status does not end when minority status ends or begin when majority status begins. U.S. “natural born Citizen” status begins at birth by birth alone, and, although citizenship can not be taken away by law, citizenship can be voluntarily renounced by a citizen. It can be renounced by a positive law (law of people) ‘declaration’. Once renounced, U.S. “natural born Citizen” status (“natural born” = natural law birth, and “Citizen” = positive law declaration) can not be reacquired by repatriation and naturalization oath. U.S. “natural born Citizen” status can only be acquired by natural birth, by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. After being renounced only U.S. ‘citizenship’ status can be reacquired by naturalization, by oath alone.
- 83 -
Under the common law of the 1700s, if the foreign born female gave birth while not married to the foreign citizen male, the child born on U.S. soil was recognized as an alien and not a U.S. citizen, and also definitely not a “natural born Citizen”. Also, under the 1700s common law, if the U.S. citizen female was not married to the U.S. citizen male, the child born on U.S. soil was not recognized as a “natural born Citizen” and so was not eligible to be president, since the parents were not ‘legally’ married to each other. The child was recognized as a U.S. ‘citizen’ with the U.S. citizenship of the male. If the U.S. citizen female was not married to the foreign born male, a child born on U.S. soil was considered to be an alien, not a U.S. ‘citizen’ or a “natural born Citizen” because the father was an alien, not a U.S. citizen.
In the 1700s, if the U.S. citizen male married a U.S. citizen female both were recognized as U.S. citizens before marriage to each other, but they are recognized to be under the U.S. citizenship of the male when ‘legally’ married. They would still need to be ‘legally’ married to each other before a child was born for the child to acquire ‘legal’ singular U.S. citizenship status from two U.S. citizens married only to each other. The child would not be recognized as a “natural born Citizen” if born to two U.S. citizens if they were not married to each other before a child is born. If the U.S. citizen male married the U.S. citizen female after their child was born, the child would be only a ‘citizen’ because of being born to only one U.S. citizen parent, the male. For that ‘legal’ reason of not being married before the birth of a child, the child of the U.S. citizen single female would be recognized as a U.S. ‘citizen’ because of the U.S. citizenship of the male, but, for eligibility to be president, not recognized as a “natural born Citizen”. In 1787 America, if a child was born to a U.S. citizen male before he was ‘legally’ married to a U.S. born citizen female or a foreign born citizen female, the child would be only a ‘legal’ U.S. ‘citizen’ (not a “natural born Citizen”) because the U.S. citizenship of the father passed to the child at birth. The U.S. citizenship of the male would not pass to the foreign female by the birth of a child. The U.S. citizenship of the male becomes the citizenship of the female only by ‘legal’ marriage ‘union’, not by a physical ‘union’ which results in the birth of a child.
How Do neobirthers ‘Know’ What They Know?
The Obama birth narrative neobirthers are promoters of the Obama birth narrative theory (myth) that natural birth on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen parent (since one U.S. citizen parent is all Obama had) and one foreign citizen parent means that dual citizenship is sufficient for eligibility to be president. If the Obama birth narrative neobirthers insist that John Jay was not obvious and was not implying that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” meant only birth on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizen parents, only married to each other before their child is born, well, just how do the neobirthers ‘know’ that — if Jay was not obvious and the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” is not obvious? Also, how do neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay did imply, did intend birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizen parents, whether they were married to each other or not? How do the neobirthers ‘know’ that — if Jay was not obvious? If Jay was not obvious, how do the neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay did not mean only born on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizen parents, only married to each other before a child is born?
Here are two ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage ‘union’ questions to clarify the issue.
1) How could original birthers who accept original birther John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ with the only implication of singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president ‘know’ in the 2000s what Jay really meant in 1787 for eligibility to be president if ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage was not the common law presupposition in 1787?
2) How could neobirthers who tend to ignore John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” regarding eligibility to be president ‘know’ in the 2000s that in 1787 Jay really meant to include in the word ‘born’ both singular and dual citizenship for eligibility to be president if ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage was the only common law presupposition in 1787. What did John Jay mean?
John Jay meant only singular U.S. citizenship when he underlined the word ‘born’
John Jay meant only dual citizenship when he underlined the word born’
John Jay meant both singular or dual citizenship when he underlined the word ‘born’
- 84 -
1) Living originalism and obvious original genesis birther John Jay meant either only singular citizenship only by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens or he did not. Right?
2) Living constitutionism and hidden neobirther John Jay meant either dual citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil or foreign soil to either two or one U.S. citizen, or he did not. Right?
It’s only one or the other. Right?
It’s not neither and it’s not both. Right?
It’s only singular or only dual. Right?
Living constitutionism neobirthers say many things about eligibility to be president in various ways. Here are four things they say.
1) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth with singular U.S. citizenship is good, but dual citizenship is just as good if not better for presidential eligibility because dual is more inclusive.
2) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth on either U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil is good, but birth on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction is just as good if not better for presidential eligibility because birth on all soil is more inclusive.
3) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth to two U.S. citizen parents is good, but birth on U.S. soil to either two or one U.S. citizen parents is just as good if not better for presidential eligibility because all parents is more inclusive.
4) Oh yeah, sure, natural birth to parents who are married to each other before the child is born is good, but natural birth to parents who are married after the child is born is just as good, and it is more inclusive for presidential eligibility.
To say it in other words, neobirthers assert that ‘natural birth’ to two U.S. citizens may be good for eligibility to be president, but either one U.S. citizen parent (Barack Hussein Obama, Ted Cruz) or zero U.S. citizen parents (Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, Kamala Harris) is as good if not better than two U.S. citizen parents. Why? Well, both one and zero U.S. citizen parents are more inclusive. Right?
Some neobirthers agree that John Jay did mean that ‘natural born’ only means born naturally for eligibility to be president, and not naturalized. A child can be born naturally either before the parents are married to each other or after the parents are married. An obvious question is, without a ‘legal’ marriage of two heterosexual U.S. citizens before a child is born, what is the ‘legal’ basis for saying that natural birth before the parents are married devolves singular U.S. citizenship on a child and qualifies a child as a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president? Without ‘legal’ heterosexual marriage there is no ‘legal’ basis for eligibility to be president. Right?
Why do neobirthers assert with 2000s certainty that in 1787 John Jay only meant what Obama neobirthers mean today? Could it be because Obama, their ‘MY GUY’, had only one U.S. citizen parent that he, Obama, is willing to claim? Obama said that his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was his only U.S. citizen parent, so it must be true. Right?
Those and similar questions are what are being referred to in this essay as a way to change the conversation from one of assertions about past history into a conversation about who is today and will be into perpetuity a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president.
Examples of past history are the writings of Emer de Vattel, Coke, Blackstone, etc., and an example of debating is whether or not what British ‘subject’ meant in 1787 is what U.S. ‘citizen’ also meant in 1787 and so it must mean the same thing today in the 2000s. Maybe it is time to move on to create future history with an amendment to the Constitution to clarify the meaning of ‘born’ in Article II, or a congressional statute stating that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” means only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen married parents, not dual citizenship ‘at’ birth on any soil on earth.
That is why it is time to change the conversation and time to choose. That is why free America needs an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to change the conversation to clarify what John Jay really meant in 1787 since the bicameral Congress doesn't want to do their Article V duty to clarify John Jay's original genesis implicit intent about the word ‘born’ for eligibility to be president. That is why living originalists want an amendment to clarify that what John Jay really intended when he underlined the word ‘born’ was suggested with perpetual intent, generation to generation, election to election, president to president.
- 85 -
Original genesis birthers simply want for a child to be recognized to be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president when born with only singular U.S. citizenship, only by birth alone, only on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizen married parents. That's not too much to ask, is it? Is it? The living constitution, in Article V, authorizes the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments. This is the best ‘legal’ way to clarify what ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” has implied since 1787. If the U.S. House and Senate will not propose an amendment to clarify the language of Article II, We the People can propose an amendment with an Article V convention of the ‘several States’. Did you know that? Yes, we can.
Original Intent Implicature (“can you pass the salt”?)
The positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” is associated with the natural law (law of nature) words ‘natural’ and ‘born’, and the original genesis intent is understood implicitly. Here is an easy to understand definition from American Heritage Dictionary about the intent of “can you pass the salt”?.
implicature n. 1. The aspect of meaning that a speaker conveys, implies, or suggests without directly expressing. Although the utterance “can you pass the salt?” is literally a request for information about one's ability to pass salt, the understood implicature is a request for salt.
In the sentence “can … pass … salt” there is only one implicature although ‘pass’ can be inferred two ways, 1) a literal meaning of “can you (are you ‘able’ to)” and 2) the intended, the implied meaning of ‘will you (do what you are ‘able’ to do)’. There is only one implicature, not two; not can you and will you, but only will. The implicature has only one meaning that the person who is asking for the salt to be passed expects to be understood by the salt passer — will you. In ‘can’ there are two meanings, the literal meaning and the implicit meaning; the implicature which is the only intent in this example of ‘can/will’. In ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” as suggested by John Jay there is only one meaning with only one implicature. Both the literal and the implicature are the same, and both refer to only singular U.S. citizenship, not two different meanings, not singular and dual citizenship, and not singular or dual citizenship.
In “natural born Citizen” the one literal meaning and the one implicature can be expressed this way; the natural law (law of nature) literal meaning of ‘natural’ and the natural law (law of nature) implicature of ‘born’ are associated with the positive law (law of people) implicature of ‘Citizen’. The natural law (law of nature) words ‘natural’ and ‘born’ are united with the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ to convey not two ideas but only one idea, to give ‘legal’ credence by marriage alone to the word ‘eligible’ in “… eligible to the Office of President”. The common law that informed the positive law (law of people) in 1787 was that singular U.S. citizenship was only possible by the ‘legal’ marriage of one U.S. citizen heterosexual male to only one heterosexual female, not more than one, whether the multiple wives live in one residence and know each other, or they live in separate residences and do not know each other or even know about each other. For that 1787 ‘legal’ union by marriage alone reason, the only ‘legal’ way to ‘devolve’ singular U.S. citizenship to a child, dual U.S. citizenship and foreign citizenship was not implied by John Jay, and, under the common law in 1787 America, it was not possible. It is still not possible in 2000s America.
Concerning eligibility to be president, why does ‘legal’ marriage apply to only two U.S. citizen parents and only singular U.S. citizenship? Well, obviously, because singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizen married parents can not include the implicature of dual citizenship with the possibility of birth to parents who may be U.S. citizens who are not married only to each other, or to parents who may be of mixed citizenship whether or not they are married only to each other. That is obvious, right?
To living constitutionism neobirthers two contradictory meanings of “natural born Citizen” may be possible by implicature, 1) singular U.S. citizenship and 2) dual U.S. /foreign citizenship. To living originalism birthers the original genesis implicit intent of the original words can have only one understood implicature, not two, and only one implicature is to be inferred, not two. The words “natural born Citizen” can have only one meaning, only one intent, not two. Since “natural born Citizen” can mean only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born, “natural born Citizen” can not mean birth on either U.S. or foreign soil to one or two U.S. citizens married or not married to each other before or after a child is born.
Just as it is obvious that the national soil must exist before a birth can take place on that soil alone, it is obvious that the singular citizenship that is acquired by the child is acquired only by birth alone because, under the common law of 1787 America, the U.S. citizenship of the male which determined the U.S. citizenship of the female, and the singular U.S. citizenship of both which they have by ‘legal’ marriage before a child was born was passed to a child by birth alone. Since 1787, eligibility to be president is automatically passed (devolves) on to a “natural born Citizen” child.
- 86 -
In 1787, if the parents had different citizenships, one U.S. and one foreign, and the child was born on U.S. soil before the marriage of the U.S. citizen male conferred on the foreign born female the U.S. citizenship of the husband, the child would also have two citizenships. Also, dual citizenship is not the implicature of “natural born Citizen” as originally intended in 1787 by original genesis birther John Jay in his September 17, 1787 note to George Washington. If singular and dual citizenship was the tacit implicature of John Jay, George Washington and the delegates at the 1787 convention would probably have challenged Jay and the implicature of also dual citizenship. The constitutional convention delegates probably, no, definitely!!! would not have adopted Article II Section 1 clause 5 without public debate and then sent the constitution to the states for ratification, also without public debate, with the implicature of dual citizenship. That is obvious, right? Dual citizenship and no public debate would definitely have been incoherent and absurd. Right?
It is obvious that the proactive point of John Jay’s living originalism, his original genesis implicit intent, was that “natural born Citizen” had the implicature that it was to be perpetual, parent to child, generation to generation, election to election, president to president, and the implicature was associated with natural law (law of nature) birth, not associated with positive law (law of people) naturalization. For presidential eligibility, it is obvious that “natural born Citizen” (nature law = birth / positive law = citizenship) meant to John Jay and to George Washington only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens. It is obvious that Jay did not intend to also imply birth on foreign soil to foreign citizens. Right? If it is not obvious yet, it will be obvious before you finish reading this tabletalk conversation that John Jay’s original genesis implicit intent included an implicit reference to two natural law things: 1) birth only on U.S. soil, not to birth also on foreign soil, and 2) birth only to two U.S. citizen married parents, not birth to either two – or one – or zero U.S. citizen parents. There it is, right there. 2, 1, 0 – bingo
The Polynomial Math & Logic of 1 – ONLY 1
This short essay which I call ‘The Polynomial Math & Logic of 1 – Only1’ was inspired after reading the chapter ‘The Power of Polynomials’ in the small book ‘Algebra: The x and y of Everyday Math’.
This is a response to “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers who assert three things with 2000s hindsight and definite certainty even though they do not adduce a single ‘legal’ basis (not a ‘legal theory’) for any of their assertions: 1) ‘born’ includes either singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship, 2) either zero or one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be president, 3) whether born on either U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens (South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and California Senator Kamala Harris) or born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen (Illinois Sen. Barack Hussein Obama – his grandmother said so, and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz).
The living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers who assert that only one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf to be eligible to be president sometimes express thoughts like these:
1) The words ‘natural’ and ‘born’ do not have codified meaning in U.S. law.
2) No one has standing in a federal court to dispute someone's eligibility because “natural born Citizen” has not been defined and a definition has not been codified.
3) If a person is a citizen by birth alone or a citizen at birth by Act of Congress, or a citizen at birth by ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court, then they will be able to get on the ballot.
What would probably be John Jay’s original genesis response to at for eligibility to be president? It’s really very simple to articulate. Jay would say that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” means that a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone does not need to be naturalized by an ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court, and also does not need to be naturalized by an Act of Congress. That is not difficult to understand, right?
I am not a mathematician, so next is an excellent, succinct quote [emphases are supplied] about the math logic of ‘1’, only one, from ‘Algebra: The x and y of Everyday Math’, a quick read about the history and basics of algebra (Barnes & Noble, author Michael Willers – 176 pages). On page 32 in the chapter ‘The Power of Polynomials’ is an easy to understand definition which busy moms and dads and students who are not mathematicians can understand. The serendipity point is that the math logic of ‘1’ can be applied to “natural born Citizen” to help clarify why only singular U.S. citizenship is possible only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other who are citizens of only one soil. Only one soil was John Jay’s original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, and why the implication of only one citizenship, not dual citizenship, only singular U.S. citizenship was not debated by the convention delegates or by the states debating ratification of the new constitution.
- 87 -
What Is a Polynomial?
“First let's introduce some terminology: a polynomial is a collection of terms. In elementary mathematics a ‘term’ is a collection of variables raised to exponents and multiplied by a coefficient. An example of a term is 3x2 where 3 is the coefficient, x is the variable, and 2 is the exponent. Another example of a term would be 5xy3; where 5 is the coefficient, x and y are the variables, and 1 and 3 are the exponents. Note that although there is no exponent on the x it's implied that there is a 1 there”.
Notice that the singular ‘x’ is ‘implied’. The polynomial quote above has nothing to do with “natural born Citizen” and how or why “natural born Citizen” is a ‘proper subset’ of ‘citizen’, but it is math logic support for the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court Minor v. Happersett “nomenclature” statement below which implies that the unanimous Court understood, 88 years later, that in 1787 “natural born Citizen” in Article II had only one implicit meaning, which is John Jay's original genesis meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation by birth alone to only one married heterosexual couple; not a male with multiple female wives. After the full quote it is opened up for quick scanning.
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) Text
“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens”.
1) The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.
2) At common-law, with the nomenclature
of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,
it was never doubted that all children born in a country of
parents [notice plural] who were its citizens
became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.
3) These were natives or natural-born citizens,
as distinguished from aliens or foreigners
4) Some authorities go further and include as citizens
children born within the jurisdiction
without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.
5) For the purposes of this case,
it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider,
that all children,
born of citizen parents [notice plural ‘parents’]
within the jurisdiction,
are themselves citizens.
- 88 -
Analysis of Minor v. Happersett “natural born Citizen”
Consider Sentence #2
2a – children born in (‘in’ = U.S. soil)
a country of parents (‘parents’ = plural)
who were (‘were’ = plural = both parents)
its citizens (before birth of a child)
2b – upon their birth (‘birth’ = singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone),
citizens (‘citizens’ = natural born citizens because, in 2a, both parents (plural) are U.S. citizens)
also (‘also’ = singular U.S. citizenship is derived from both parents married only to each other)
Consider Sentence #3
3 – natives or (‘or’ = same as)
natural-born citizens … distinguished from aliens (‘distinguished’ = not same as aliens)
or foreigners” (‘or’ = same as aliens)
Consider Sentence #4
4a – Some authorities … include as citizens (‘some’ = not all, and not the Minor Court)
children born within (‘within’ = U.S. soil)
the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship (‘without’ = no ‘reference … citizenship’ = either U.S. citizenship or foreign citizenship) of their parents (‘parents’ = plural).
4b – As to this class (‘this class’ = parents who are not U.S. citizens) there have been doubts (‘doubts’ = some, including the Minor Court)
4c – but never (‘never’ = absolutely no doubt about it)
as to the first (the ‘first class’ = born to two U.S. citizen parents married before the children are born on U.S. soil, the opinion of the Minor Court)
Consider Sentence #5
5a – all children, born of citizen parents (‘citizen parents’ = unity of citizenship of both U.S. parents).
5b – within the jurisdiction (‘within’ = U.S. soil),
5c – are themselves citizens (‘are … citizens’ = unity of U.S. citizenship of both parents results in the continuity of U.S. citizenship of the child = only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone.
The Significance of Polynomial Math and Minor v. Happersett
This is the math significance in the question, ‘What Is A Polynomial?’: Why does the ‘x’ in the second example, 5xy3, not have a one (1) exponent? The math answer in the book is that it is not needed. Yes, not needed. As the author says, “Note that although there is no exponent on the x it's implied that there is a one (1) there”. Yes, the one (1) is ‘implied’. So the two (2) and three (3) exponents are written and explicit, but the number one (1) exponent is implicit. More than one (2 or more) must be explicit and one (1) is implied.
In underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, only one citizenship was implied by John Jay as being necessary to be eligible to be president; only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation. For that simple math reason the word ‘born’ did not need to be debated by the convention delegates. If John Jay had been proposing dual citizenship allegiances for eligibility to be president, for example, U.S. and British citizenship, dual citizenship would have been explicitly stated. For example, Article II would probably have had language explicitly identifying eligibility to be president by birth with dual citizenship. However, since there is no written record of the constitution convention delegates debating the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, that obviously means that the implicit meaning of ‘born’ is only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president, not dual citizenship such as U.S. and British citizenship.
The Math Logic of ONLY 1
That's my ‘hey, what do I know, I'm not a mathematician, Ph.D. or otherwise’ math logic conclusion derived from the ‘x’ without an exponent in the term xy3. The number one (1) exponent is implied — only one (1), not two. That ‘x’ without the one (1) exponent is an easy to understand math example which helps We the Posterity who are not math or history scholars (and also helps erudite history and constitution scholars), of why original birther John Jay would imply only singular U.S. citizenship in the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and not dual citizenship. That makes ‘math’ common sense. Right? If Jay implied ‘dual’ he would probably have been asked to explain himself. However, since Jay was not asked he probably, no, most likely he implied only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. That makes ‘math’ common sense, right?
- 89 -
Here are eight points of reference for Article I, Article III, and Article V. (1) the 1857 Taney Court Dred Scott v. Sanford decision (which was corrected by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘born … naturalized’ language), (2) the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment (freedom), (3) the 1866 Civil Rights Act, (4) the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (citizenship), (5) the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment (vote), (6) the 1873 Slaughterhouse case (citizen), (7) the 1875 Minor v. Happersett case (citizen), (8) the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision (citizen).
The math logic of one (1) and only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation is applicable to Article III Supreme Court ‘opinions’ (#1, #6, #7, #8), Article V amendments to the Constitution by the bicameral Congress (#2, #4, #5) and at least one 1800s Article I Act of Congress (#3).
For eligibility to be president, only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens who are ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born is the ‘x’ math logic reason why the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ‘opinion’ must be overturned with an Article III Supreme Court ‘opinion’, or an Article I Act of Congress, or an Article V amendment initiated by the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. It was an intellectually wrong decision based on a misunderstanding of the ‘citizen’ intent in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, as wrong as the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision which implied that a negro slave from a slave state could not claim freedom by staying in a free state because negro slaves were considered to be ‘property’ of white or black persons. Yes, there were negro and caucasian slave owners at that time.
The 1898 Supreme Court simply ‘opined’ that the words ‘born’ and ‘citizen’ in the Fourteenth Amendment meant that Wong Kim Ark, a male child born in the 1800s on U.S. soil to foreign born parents married only to each other was a ‘citizen’ at birth even though his Chinese parents had not naturalized before he was born. Since 1898, living constitutionism neobirthers have said that being declared to be a ‘citizen’ at birth by a Supreme Court ‘opinion’, even though both parents were not U.S. citizens, means that, since 1898, all ‘anchor babies’ are eligible to vote. Because ‘born’ in the Fourteenth Amendment eventually became construed as also allowing eligibility to vote for a president or to be elected president, the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ must be overturned by the Supreme Court or corrected with an Article V amendment by either the bicameral Congress or by the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. With an Article V convention in the ‘several States’ the Legislatures and the people of the ‘several States’ have constitutional standing to clarify that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words ‘born’ and ‘citizen’ did not have a living constitutionism implicit meaning allowing dual citizenship, but it did have only a living originalism implicit meaning, the original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship.
In the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment see specifically the first six words in the first sentence of Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in ...,” — ‘born’ a citizen and ‘naturalized’ a citizen. If the six words of Section 1 implied anything in 1868, they implied only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship. That is obvious, right? The idea of ‘dual … and’ would have been an incoherent and absurd idea in 1868 to present to the bicameral Congress and the ratifying states. It would have been incoherent to suggest that in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘born’ implied dual citizenship but ‘naturalized’ would have implied only singular U.S. citizenship. See the incoherency now? The naturalization language in the Constitution is explicit, only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual. Words have meaning in themselves and in connection with other words. That is why ‘born’ has the same meaning as ‘naturalized’ in the Fourteenth Amendment – only singular U.S. citizenship.
The historical fact that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment free male and female negro ‘citizens’ did not have the right to vote until the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment gave the right to vote to the free negro male ‘citizens’ only does not mean that the living originalism and the original intent of John Bingham (one of the authors of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment) was that ‘born’ in 1868 meant that those set free in 1868 (or, in the future, members of any race – Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid) would be ‘declared’ to have only singular U.S. citizenship with eligibility to vote and also to be eligible to be president. Having been naturalized as U.S. ‘citizens’ by the Fourteenth Amendment and given the ‘right’ to vote with the Fifteenth Amendment, the former slaves would be eligible to vote, yes, but not eligible to be president. Also, ‘born’ in the Fourteenth Amendment obviously did not imply that negro males and females freed by the Fourteenth Amendment had dual citizenship with eligibility to be president. That is also obvious, right? (The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment free Negro women ‘citizens’ did not have the right to vote in federal elections until the 1920 Nineteenth Amendment gave the right to vote to all U.S. ‘citizen’ women of all races.)
- 90 -
Did you catch it?
Having ‘dual’ citizenship and the right to vote and eligibility to be president was obviously not John Jay's original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and also obviously not John Bingham's original genesis implicit intent in “... born ... naturalized ... are citizens ...” in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Do you see it now?
YES to eligibility to vote because of the Fifteenth Amendment, and “...born ... naturalized ... are citizens...” in the Fourteenth Amendment, but no to ‘dual’ citizenship and no to eligibility to be president.
That is now obvious, right?
THAT ‘implication’ of ‘dual’ citizenship for the new ‘born’ and new ‘naturalized’ citizens would definitely have been considered incoherent and absurd in 1868 to the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is obvious, right? The implication of ‘dual’ for both citizenship words ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ is the source of the error which, since 1898, has resulted in the silliness of giving ‘legal’ status of ‘birthright citizenship’ to ‘anchor babies’ born on U.S. soil to alien parents. In other words, the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court in essence naturalized Wong Kim Ark (and future ‘anchor babies’) with a fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ which decreed that a child was a U.S. ‘citizen’ even if born on U.S. soil to two parents who were not naturalized at the time of the birth of a child. That is why Sen. Rubio, Gov. Haley and Gov. Jindal were not eligible to be president in 2016 or at any future date.
The dual citizenship proposition is as absurd and incoherent today in the 2000s as it would have been in 1868 if John Bingham had that as his original genesis intent and tried to defend dual citizenship to the framers who were debating passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. If John Bingham had intended a dual meaning for ‘born’ it definitely would have been debated before the Fourteenth Amendment was finally ratified by the states July 9, 1868. The historical fact that there is absolutely no private or public record of debate about singular U.S. citizenship v. dual citizenship for the new ‘citizens’ by the 1868 framers of the Fourteenth Amendment is confirmation that only singular (1) U.S. citizenship was John Bingham's original implication for the two words ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ just as only singular (1) U.S. citizenship was John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington. The obvious conclusion is that only singular (1) U.S. citizenship was the understanding of both the 1787 framers of the U.S. Constitution and the states which ratified the Article II “natural born Citizen” language, and the 1868 authors of “… born … naturalized … citizens” in the Fourteenth Amendment and the states which ratified the amendment. That is obvious, right?
Both words in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, “… born or naturalized ...”, can refer to only singular (1) U.S. citizenship. Also, in addition to singular (1), ‘born’ can refer to either a ‘citizen’ by birth alone to two U.S. citizen married parents, or to a ‘citizen’ at birth by birth on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent. What Section 1 did not refer to in 1868 and still does not refer to in the 2000s, it can not refer to is birth on U.S. soil to two people, married or not, who are not U.S. citizens by either birth or naturalization. That is obvious, right? Although ‘naturalized’ does mean never being eligible to be president, ‘born’ in the Fourteenth Amendment can mean either eligible to be president or not eligible to be president depending on how many ‘citizen’ parents the new born ‘citizen’ has at birth (Remember, in the 1700s to the 1900s, the U.S. citizenship of the male determined the citizenship of a female and of the children born to the married or unmarried U.S. citizen male). The question is simple to state: do the U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other have only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship? The answer will determine the citizenship of the child and also eligibility to be president.
The positive law (law of people) word ‘naturalized’ in 1868 (and until today in the 2000s) still means only singular U.S. citizenship and not eligible to be president, and the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ in 1868 (and until today in the 2000s) still means only singular U.S. citizenship. The word ‘born’ can be applied two ways, eligible to be president if ‘born’ with only singular U.S. citizenship to two U.S. citizen married parents, and not eligible to be president if ‘born’ with only one or zero U.S. citizen parents (‘zero’ until the 1898 fiat ‘opinion’ is overturned). It is obvious that both words, “… born or naturalized ...”, were originally intended to mean only singular U.S. citizenship with perpetual application generation to generation. Right?
- 91 -
John Bingham's original genesis implicit intent for the word ‘born’ in the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the original genesis implication of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II, an original genesis implication which was inspired by John Jay underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington. It is obvious that the word ‘born’ in both Article II in 1787 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 implies that if a child is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born to them, the child is a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone. Remember, both the ‘born’ and the ‘naturalized’ new ‘citizens’ mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment (the negro slaves who were freed by the amendment) were considered at that time in 1868 to have only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship, and they would be eligible to vote but not be eligible to be president as long as they lived — that is the consequence of becoming a ‘citizen’ by naturalization in one of three ways: Article I naturalization oath, Article V amendment ratification in 1868, and naturalization opinion of the Supreme Court in 1898 with automatic birthright citizenship.
‘Article I oath’ is a reference to federal representatives (Section 1) and federal senators (Section 2) being required to be a certain age and U.S. citizens for at least 7 years and 9 years respectively, implying that they have been naturalized by oath before being elected to federal office. They are naturalized citizens by oath even though one or both of their parents may still have foreign citizenship and may still live outside of the United States. Also implicit in the new 1868 amendment is the reality that future ‘born’ new ‘citizens’ and all ‘naturalized’ new ‘citizens’ would also have only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship. For that ‘singular’ reason, it is obvious that the 1868 House and Senate framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not consider that 30 years later in 1898 the United States Supreme Court would publish a fiat (‘because we said so’) “opinion” that being born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens would fulfill the 1868 ‘citizen’ intent of “… born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States ...” with the implication that the new Supreme Court fiat ‘citizens’ would not only be eligible to vote for president but would also be eligible to be president. That’s nuts. This is why fiat citizenship, naturalized by the fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court, is nuts and needs to be overturned by Court ‘opinion’ or an Article V amendment.
‘Birthright citizenship’ for future legal or illegal immigrants who ‘plop’ onto U.S. soil and ‘drop’ their ‘anchor babies’ was obviously not the original genesis implicit intent of the bicameral Congress which wrote the ‘citizens’ language of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. Right? That is the ‘legal’ reason that the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ by the Supreme Court must be revisited by the Court and overturned or corrected with an Article V amendment by the U.S. Congress or by Legislatures of the ‘several States’. We the People put Article V in the constitution before the U.S. Congress existed. That means that We the People will permanently control the amendment process, not the bicameral U.S. Congress, or the U.S. Executive, and definitely not the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Constitution is not a We the People suicide pact. Right?
Higher Hurdle v. Lower Hurdle
The higher hurdle essence of living originalism and original genesis birther John Jay’s clear and coherent original genesis implicit intent is simple to state: only singular U.S. citizenship, only by birth alone, only on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizens, only married, only to each other, only before a child is born.
The lower hurdle essence of living constitutionism neobirthers and their confusing and incoherent new meaning for eligibility to be president is also simple to state but it is not simple: EITHER singular U.S. citizenship OR dual citizenship, EITHER birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil, EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizens, EITHER married only to each other OR not married, EITHER before OR after a child is born.
All that the ‘birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen married parents is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility’ neobirthers need to do to refute the implications of the ‘higher hurdle’ vs. ‘lower hurdle’ discussion is to cogently articulate why the lower hurdle of birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil with dual citizenship with only one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married, is good 'nuf for eligibility to be president.
The neobirthers need to rebut and refute why the John Jay higher hurdle of only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born was not John Jay’s only original genesis implicit intent for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. The neobirthers also need to rebut and refute two points: (1) why only singular U.S. citizenship is not the only Article II requirement for eligibility to be president, and (2) why singular U.S. citizenship, which is exclusive, is inferior to dual citizenship which is inclusive of all possibilities, except, of course, obviously, dual is not inclusive of naturalization.
Do you see now that even neobirthers know the difference between natural law birth (Article II citizenship by birth alone) and positive law naturalization (Article I citizenship by oath alone and Article III citizenship by “fiat” alone) for eligibility to be president? They know the difference but continue to insist on promoting the theory, the myth of dual citizenship and violating the implicit Article II ‘positive law’ requirement of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president of the United States.
- 92 -
Five Examples of Dual and Triple U.S. Citizenship
Now, let's consider examples of dual and triple citizenship: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, California Senator Kamala Harris.
Three examples of citizenship of two nations: Governors Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, both of their parents were citizens of India when their children were born on U.S. soil, and Sen. Marco Rubio, both of his parents were citizens of Cuba when he was born on U.S. soil, represent the ‘two nations’ by being born on U.S. soil to two parents of one nation who were not U.S. citizens when their children were born.
Two examples of citizenship of three nations are Ted Cruz and Kamala Harris. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who was born on the foreign soil of Alberta, Canada (which, under U.S. immigration and naturalization rules, is considered to be foreign soil which is not under U.S. jurisdiction), was born to parents married only to each other and with different citizenship allegiances – his mother was a U.S. citizen and his father was a citizen of Cuba. California Sen. Kamala Harris, a Democratic Party candidate for president in 2020, was born in the U.S. to two married parents with different citizenship allegiances at the time of her birth on U.S. soil; her mother was a citizen of India and her father a citizen of Jamaica.
Applied to original birther John Jay and his perpetual living originalism mindset there is the issue of why “natural born Citizen” original genesis birthers insist that the common law of 1787 informed the understanding of the ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ of a female by marriage (in essence naturalization by marriage) in 1787 America to a U.S. citizen male, and why “natural born Citizen” meant to John Jay only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before the birth of a child.
What the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court tacitly implied with the ‘nomenclature’ language is that “natural born Citizen” implies only singular U.S. citizenship. What is the alternative? Either singular or dual?
Neobirthers ask how living originalism birthers who are inspired by original genesis birther John Jay ‘know’ what Jay meant when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.
Well, that’s a good question, isn’t it, but, think about it, what is the alternative? To not know because nobody ‘knew’ in 1787 and nobody ‘knows’ today in the 2000s? The burden of proof is on the living constitutionism neobirthers who insist with definite certainty that they ‘know’ that Jay implied, for eligibility to be president, not singular U.S. citizenship but dual citizenship. Yep, they ‘know’, and they also know that original genesis birthers don’t ‘know’. Yeah, right.
The issue about what neobirthers ‘know’ requires that a few obvious questions be asked of and answered by “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers who promote living constitutionism by Article III judicial fiat which is not permanent instead of promoting an Article V amendment which is permanent (at least until it is amended again, just not ‘amended’ with an Act of Congress or with an ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court).
How do original genesis neobirthers ‘know’ what they know?
How do original genesis neobirthers ‘know’ what Jay meant when he underlined the word born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and what is the ‘legal’ basis for what they ‘know’?
How do original genesis neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay did not mean only singular U.S. citizenship?
How do original genesis neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay meant dual citizenship for eligibility to be president when he underlined the word ‘born’?
How do original genesis neobirthers get ‘dual’ citizenship (without referencing a ‘legal’ basis) from the context of “natural born Citizen” which was followed in the same sentence, after the comma, with the word of unique distinction “or” which can have ONLY one original genesis implicit intent, ONLY one implicit meaning in “… or a Citizen of …”?
- 93 -
What is the neobirther’s original genesis’ ‘legal basis’ for ‘knowing’ what Jay implied when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? A ‘legal’ marriage of heterosexual U.S. citizens before a child is born was the ‘legal’ basis in 1787 America, a ‘legal’ basis which was acquired by birth in British America by the former British subjects who put the word “born” in “natural born Citizen in Article II. See Shakespeare ALIVE! for a few comments about the mindset in sophisticated society in Elizabethan England about 200 years before 1787. The first words in Article II Section 1 clause 5 (“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, … time … Adoption …”) suggest a common sense, common law question: If not only heterosexual ‘legal’ marriage in 1580s England and 1780s America, what was the ‘legal’ basis from the 1500s to the 1700s and to the 2000s? Only heterosexual ‘legal’ marriage continues to be common sense today in 2000s America for eligibility to be president.
Unity of Citizenship & Allegiance by marriage alone
Continuity of Citizenship & Allegiance by birth alone
The ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ is an obvious implication in John Jay's use of the words “given” and “devolve” and also the reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. The delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention understood the word ‘born’ to have only one meaning according to the common law of the 1700s. The common law concerning marriage and citizenship was that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, either the U.S. born wife or the foreign born wife, and the singular citizenship of both parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child, who, as a U.S. ‘citizen’ produced by birth alone (‘created’) with two U.S. citizen parents is recognized as a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.
How do neobirthers get dual citizenship from history, including the history of Emer de Vattel and John Jay who indicated that he agreed with Vattel when he, Jay, underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”?
How do neobirthers get dual citizenship from the common law of the 1787 era (until the 1922 Cable Act changed naturalization) concerning “unity of citizenship” by marriage (in essence naturalization by marriage) of a U.S. citizen male and a U.S. citizen female or marriage to a foreign citizen female?
How do neobirthers get dual citizenship from singular U.S. citizenship parents who pass on to their children the “singular continuity of citizenship”?
Well, they don’t because the can't. That is why neobirthers simply assert that they ‘know’ that Jay meant both singular and dual citizenship when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.
What neobirthers “know”
Neobirthers ‘know’ that the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents is made possible only by the natural law (law of nature) of being ‘born’, which is the foundation of positive law (law of people) ‘citizenship’, and they also allege to ‘know’ that eligibility to be president with dual citizenship is possible by ‘legal’ marriage of a parent who is a U.S. citizen to a parent who is not a U.S. citizen, and it does not matter if they are married before or after the child is born. Yes, they ‘know’ all of this even though the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” was not defined in 1787.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that both singular citizenship and dual citizenship were implied by Jay in the word ‘born’. Really?
Neobirthers ‘know’ that dual citizenship is obvious in the word ‘born’ and only singular U.S. citizenship is not implied in the word ‘born’. What is their ‘legal’ basis which guides them to ‘know’ that?
Neobirthers ‘know’ that only singular U.S. citizenship is not implied in the word ‘born’. Really?
Neobirthers ‘know’ that dual citizenship is implied in the word ‘born’? Really?
Neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay implied dual citizenship and they also ‘know’ that original genesis birthers do not ‘know’ what Jay implied? They know that? Really?
- 94 -
Neobirthers ‘know’ that a child with the “singular continuity of citizenship” derived by birth alone to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married is born with singular citizenship and so is eligible to be president even though a child is born before the parents are married. Yes, they definitely know that. Did you catch that?
Neobirthers ‘know’ that only singular U.S. citizenship was not the original genesis implicit intent of John Jay. Yes, they definitely know that too.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that dual citizenship was implied in “natural born Citizen” in 1787 even though the common law understanding in 1787 America about the ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ of the parents and the consequent ‘continuity of citizenship and allegiance’ of the child meant that a child would only derive singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone to two U.S. citizen parents ‘legally’ married only to each other before the birth of a child.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that “natural born Citizen” was not defined in Article II by the 1787 delegates to the constitutional convention.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay implied dual citizenship when he underlined the word ‘born’ even though “natural born Citizen” was not defined by the delegates.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that a “natural born Citizen” can be eligible to be president with singular U.S. citizenship and with dual or triple citizenship of two or three nations.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that a “natural born Citizen” can be eligible to be president by being born on either U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents, or by being born on foreign soil to one or two U.S. citizen parents.
Neobirthers ‘know’ that “natural born Citizen” means that Article II Section 1 clause 5 is inclusive.
Neobirthers supported President Obama (2009-2017), and 2020 candidate for president from California Senator Kamala Harris.
Neobirthers (RINOs and DINOs) supported Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley, and will probably support any Republican candidate in the future with dual citizenship.
Questions About Unity / Continuity of Citizenship and Allegiance
Q1 Where is the factual record, historical and anecdotal, that in 1787 America when “natural born Citizen” was added to Article II that the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a female naturalized by marriage to a U.S. citizen male implied dual U.S. citizenship for the child? For example, U.S. and England, U. S and Canada, U.S. and Mexico, U.S. and France, U.S. and wherever, etc.
A1 There is no record of public debate that unity of citizenship and allegiance implied dual citizenship.
Q2 Why is there no written record of the 1787 constitutional convention delegates discussing what was meant by the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, or of Washington asking Jay what he meant in his July 25, 1787 thank you note to Washington. If Jay meant dual citizenship for the child, such as U.S. and British citizenship, or U.S. and French citizenship, or U.S. and Mexican citizenship, why is there no published government or media record of a discussion?
A2 Why? Washington understood that Jay meant only singular U.S. citizenship. That is obvious. Right?
Q3 Why is there no government written record or media reports of Washington not asking Jay if he meant only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship, such as U.S. and British citizenship?
A3 Why? Washington did not need to ask Jay what he meant because he implicitly understood what Jay meant and he agreed with Jay, and so did the media of the day. That is obvious. Right?
Q4 Why is there no record of the convention delegates debating the purpose of uniting the two words ‘natural born’ with ‘Citizen’, and if it meant only singular U.S. citizenship or also dual citizenship, such as U.S. and British citizenship?
A4 Why? The convention delegates agreed with the implicit reason (intent) of uniting ‘natural’, ‘born’, and ‘Citizen’. That is obvious. Right?
Q5 Was it understood by all citizens in 1787 America that the common law understanding of “natural born Citizen” meant (implied) only singular U.S. citizenship?
A5 Yes. That is obvious, right? If not obvious to you, consider questions 6 & 7.
Q6 Was it the common law understanding of all citizens in 1787 that “natural born Citizen” meant (implied) only dual citizenship?
A6 No. That is obvious, right?
Q7 Was it the common law understanding of all citizens in 1787 that “natural born Citizen” meant (implied) both singular and dual citizenship?
A7 No. Why? Because there is no government written record of the constitutional convention delegates discussing both. That is obvious, right?
- 95 -
For eligibility to be president, dual citizenship would have been schizophrenic, incongruous, incoherent in 1787 America only four years after the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 which ended 7 years of war for independence from Great Britain. Right? Well, since dual citizenship was not the common law understanding and not the common public meaning of “natural born Citizen” in 1787 America, and by using the polynomial simple math logic of the ‘x’ without the (1) exponent which implies only one, singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation must have been the common law understanding in 1787, Right?. Not dual citizenship, only singular citizenship.
There is an obvious response to neobirthers who ask how original genesis birthers who promote living originalism ‘know’ that only singular citizenship of only one nation must have been the common law (common public meaning) of “natural born Citizen” in 1787. The pertinent response is a question using their own words back at them: how do neobirthers who promote living constitutionism ‘know’ that only singular was not the common law understanding in 1787? That’s a good question, right?
For the simple math logic reason, public discussion before ratification and a public explanation of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” was not needed. Using the logic of math that the ‘x’ in the term xy3 means that the (1) exponent is implied for ‘x’, it is logical that only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizen parents was implied in the word ‘born’.
Not only did Washington and the convention delegates implicitly understand and agree with Jay that only singular (1) U.S. citizenship of only one (1) nation was Jay's original genesis implicit meaning, his original intent, but the ratifiers from the states also implicitly understood that only singular U.S. citizenship was the original genesis meaning, including, of course, “natural born Citizen” author and New York ratifier John Jay. If John Jay had the original genesis meaning of dual citizenship (U.S. and British for example) he would have explicitly said so, and there definitely would have been debate and a written record would exist. Right?
Other than the diamond glistening in the math weeds that I found in the algebra book which says that the ‘x’ in the term xy3 means that the (1) exponent is implied, what do I know? I'm not a mathematician. While it is necessary to know everything about everything to know everything about any one thing, there are two things I do know by applying the logic of the math that the (1) exponent is implied. 1) Only one (1) U.S. citizenship of only one (1) nation was implied by John Jay when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen,” and that is why the meaning of “natural born Citizen” was not discussed before debate, during debate and after debate by the convention delegates, or by the states’ ratifiers, one of whom was John Jay from New York.
2) If, IF IF IF dual citizenship, for example, U.S. and British citizenship, was implied by John Jay when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, there definitely would have been heated debate in 1787 just as there is today, and there would be a Congressional record of the debate by the convention delegates about why only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation only by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two married U.S. citizens was NOT the Article II definition of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. Only one (1), only singular would have won the day according to the common public meaning of the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage. The word ‘unity’ means that only the singular U.S. citizenship of the male determined the citizenship of the female, and the ‘legal’ singular U.S. citizenship of both parents (‘legal’ union, the two are one (1) by marriage) determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a child and Article II eligibility to be president.
The logical conclusion discovered in the polynomial math paragraph defining a ‘term’ is that it could not have been the original genesis implicit intent, the living originalism of John Jay to propose ‘dual’ citizenship. Right? By the math logic of only one (1), only the union of two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other who had only singular (1) U.S. citizenship before the child is born can produce only singular (1) U.S. citizenship of only one (1) nation. If the original genesis of the child was by the union of two persons who were not married to each other and the father was a U.S. citizen, then the child would be a ‘citizen’ who is not eligible to be president, not a “natural born Citizen” who is eligible to be president. Why? Because it takes two U.S. citizens to pass on their ‘legal’ singular U.S. citizenship to a singular U.S. citizenship child.
- 96 -
Does Zero or One Trump Two?
Now, for eligibility to be president, consider this implication of one or zero U.S. citizen parents. If a child was born on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents, then, that means that from 1787 (Article II) until 1868 (Fourteenth Amendment), the child was not recognized since 1787 to be a “natural born Citizen” and so not eligible to be president in 1787 and 1868. Right? However, although that is obvious common law common sense, 2000s neobirthers assert that thirty years after 1868, the 1898 Supreme Court United States v Wong Kim Ark “fiat” (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ naturalized children born on U.S. soil, and that means that any U.S. citizen is, by birth alone, eligible to be president. Why? Well, because the Supreme Court opined that a ‘naturalized’ child is a citizen even if born to parents who are not citizens before the birth of a child. The obvious response to that theory (myth) is that naturalized adults or children are not recognized since 1787 to be a “natural born Citizen” and so also not eligible to be president in 1868 and 1898 and in the 2000s. Right?
The case was titled United States v Wong Kim Ark for a common sense reason. For thirty years (1868-1898) a child was not considered to be a U.S. citizen when born on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens. So, what changed after the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment? Well, thirty years later the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ happened. It nuked into irrelevance both the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” language and the original genesis implicit intent of the 1868 “… born or naturalized … are citizens” language. The Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the original genesis implicit intent of the 1868 ‘law’, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘law’, said that a child born on U.S. soil was a U.S. citizen even if born to parents who both had not naturalized before a child was born. That 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ is the origin of the nonsensical ‘birthright citizenship plop and drop anchor babies’ with the implication that the ‘citizen’ who was naturalized as a ‘citizen’ by ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court was eligible to vote and, as living constitutionism neobirthers assert with definite certainty, with the implication that the citizen naturalized by opinion alone was also eligible to be president.
Really ‘by opinion alone’? Yes, for eligibility to be president that is what neobirthers assert with definite certainty at the same time that they assert with definite certainty that only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone was not John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his September 27, 1787 thank you note to George Washington.
So, I ask again, for eligibility to be president, what is the ‘legal’ basis for a Supreme Court ‘opinion’ trumping the language of the Constitution, specifically Article II (“natural born Citizen”) and the Fourteenth Amendment (“born or naturalized … are citizens”)? That’s a very good question, right? Remember, since both words, “born” and “naturalized”, are in the same sentence in the Fourteenth Amendment, the history of naturalization by oath or by birth can ONLY imply singular U.S. citizenship. Right? That history is why “born” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and the 1787 Article II can ONLY imply singular U.S. citizenship, not dual implications and definitely not dual citizenship.
John Jay was not confused or vague when he underlined the word ‘born’. Only a “natural born Citizen” has only singular (1) U.S. citizenship of only one (1) nation only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens (the ‘two’ (2) are ‘one’ (1) by marriage) only married only to each other only before a child is born. Whether we’re talking about the 1787 Article II or the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and eligibility to be president, one thing is obvious:
Eligibility to be U.S. president is not determined by two (2) singular and dual citizenship. Right?
Eligibility to be U.S. president is not determined by two (2) singular or dual citizenship. Right?
Eligibility to be U.S. president is only determined by one (1) singular citizenship. Right?
Time to Change the “natural born Citizen” Conversation with an Article V Amendment
I put the short essay below on my Original Birther Document .blogspot .com blog on December 25, 2014, and also on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog.
→ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16
[Mario,] A few days ago you posted a response to a previous post of mine on your blog [December 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM] that prompted me to consider a short answer but it has turned into a long answer [December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM] to the words at the end of your first paragraph,“how to do it”: “...the constitutional definition of a natural born Citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do it”. You wrote,
“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 … de facto President Barack Obama … who told the world that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the United States…”.
- 97 -
My response to your statement, “the question is how to do it” is, and maybe it is too simple, but, here it is in three parts – ‘change the conversation’.
1) Maybe it is just time to change the conversation from what ‘they’ said in the history books to defining and defending what ‘we’ want the history books of the future to say about what ‘we’ are saying today about original genesis and the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in ‘natural born Citizen’ and eligibility to be president.
2) Maybe it’s time to change the conversation from what we on both sides assert about history, persons, ideas, books, to what we on both sides want for 21st century America concerning eligibility to be president.
3) Maybe it is time to change the conversation from what we in the 2000s believe the founders wrote and meant in 1787 in Article II for eligibility to be president, to what we believe needs to be emphasized today. For example, for eligibility to be president, the original genesis implicit intent of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is to preserve our perpetual ‘Union’ from generation to generation with only singular (1) U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship.
On Mario Apuzzo’s Blog I Wrote...
Mario, although I am including a short reference to your previous comments [November 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm] 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 neobirther 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 ‘commune’ 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/for 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 to and 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 sent to a reeducation camp to change their stinkin' thinkin' from ‘collectivism’ is bad (ugh) and ‘individualism’ is good (yum) to the new thinkin' of the great reset which says that ‘individualism’ is bad (ugh) and ‘collectivism’ is good (yum).
The ‘progressive idea’ is really a Saul Alinsky style anarchist reiteration of an international ‘commune’ idea to bring equality in the political ‘commune’ by force, for the good health of the people in the commune, of course. There is also an effort by Muslims who say that Islam, which means ‘submission’, is a religion of peace, and there are societal benefits of equality in their version of a ‘commune’, their religious and political ‘ummah’ (‘community’) of Islam.
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 branch fiat and a complicit Congress and Supreme Court is like a ‘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 that the ‘child’ wants to provide for and to the ‘parents’. The ‘child’ in this example is the federation, the federal government, the bicameral Congress, House and Senate, the Executive, the Supreme Court. The tripartite federation is the creature that was not a party to the 1787 compact of We the People of the ‘several States’, the creator of the federation. Now the federation, the ‘child’, has matured to the point that the ‘child’ of We the People of the Article V ‘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, 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 tripartite federation, the federal government, is the creature of the creator, We the People of the ‘several States’. We the People must change the conversation. We the People must start to speak to our creature, our child, the tripartite federation, and tell the child that the child can not nullify the Article V authority of We the People to amend the Constitution, authority which We the People gave to ourselves in 1787. Why? Because We the People definitely can not nullify ourselves out of Article V authority to amend the Constitution. That makes sense, right? Article V authority of the ‘several States’ to convene to amend the constitution is perpetual and can not be nullified by the states or by the tripartite federation and the transformers within the federation. Since the tripartite federation 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 own posterity ( not the posterity of aliens), the tripartite federation, the federal government, can not nullify an Article V amendment to clarify that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II means only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone.
- 98 -
Article V is Relevant in 2000s America
Many times the 1787 original birthers, the 1787 original ‘citizens’ who framed and adopted the 1787 U.S. Constitution included themselves in the Constitution. A few places to note are the preamble, Article II Section 1 clause 5, Article V, Bill of Rights Amendments 2, 4, 9, 10. In the preamble the original birthers identified themselves as We the People; in Article II as ‘citizens’ and “natural born Citizen”; in Article V as Legislatures of the ‘several States’; in the Bill of Rights ratified four years later in 1791, in Amendments #2, #4, #9 (people), and in #10 (States and people).
The original birthers, the original citizens who were naturalized as ‘citizens’ on July 4, 1776 by supporting the war of independence no longer thought of themselves as English ‘subjects’ after they grandfathered themselves into presidential eligibility as ‘citizens’ on September 17, 1787 with the words “… or a Citizen of ...” in clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause. It was the original birthers in 1787, the We the People of the ‘several States’ who included themselves in the constitution in Article V as the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ so that they and their posterity could amend the constitution generation to generation when necessary if the bicameral Congress neglected its duty.
Under Article V the words “... whenever ... necessary ...” can be applied by either the Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to prohibit alcohol consumption in 1919 and then repeal that prohibition amendment 14 years later (uh, they got, uh, very, very ‘thirsty’) in 1933 with another amendment, or the words “... whenever ... necessary ...” can be applied by the Congress and the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to remove the confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” before another ‘citizen’ who is not a “natural born Citizen” tries to occupy, not Wall Street, but tries to occupy the oval office as a pretender president.
Q Which is more important to the stability of the perpetual Union, prohibition of alcohol or prohibition of another dual citizenship pretender president wannabe?
A Removal of confusion surrounding John Jay's original genesis implicit intent and meaning of “natural born Citizen” and presidential eligibility is definitely more important than allowing or prohibiting alcohol consumption. Right?
So, We the People of 2000s America can amend the Constitution to remove the confusion surrounding the John Jay original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and clarify that “natural born Citizen” has only one implicit meaning: either 1) only one John Jay original genesis implicit intent, not two intents, or 2) “natural born Citizen” has always had more than one original genesis implicit intent as defined by Obama birth narrative neobirthers and the nascent Republican ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers who are promoting the presidential candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz. Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley. They are all good American patriots but none is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.
So, if the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ ever go loopy and agree to consider an asinine proposition to remove “natural born Citizen” from Article II, then the confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” must be dealt with. If the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is honestly considered by the ‘several States’, that means that the “Legislatures of the several States in convention to propose amendments” must decide that “natural born Citizen” in Article II has had since 1787 only one John Jay original genesis implicit meaning, or that “natural born Citizen” has had two John Jay original genesis implications. Two implicit ‘intents’? No way! Right?
Next are a few neobirther original genesis possibilities and new implicit meanings to choose from compared to the one implicit meaning in original birther John Jay's original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington. The first living originalism original birther John Jay, by underlining the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’, was implying that he could mean only one thing, only one birth, not two: “natural born Citizen” has only one original genesis and only one implicit intent, not two implications, for eligibility to be president:
1 Only singular U.S. citizenship
2 Only by birth alone
3 Only on U.S. soil
4 Only two heterosexual U.S. citizens
5 Only married
6 Only to each other
7 Only before the birth of a child
- 99 -
Living constitutionism neobirthers suggest that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” has more than one original genesis implicit possibility, more than one original implicit intent for presidential eligibility:
1a EITHER only singular U.S. citizenship
1b OR also dual citizenship
2a EITHER only birth on U.S. soil
2b OR also birth on foreign soil
3a EITHER only two U.S. citizens (Ronald W. Reagan, Donald J. Trump)
3b OR one U.S. citizen parent (Barack Obama, Ted Cruz)
3c OR zero U.S. citizen parents (Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris)
4a EITHER marry only each other before a child is born
4b OR marry only each other after a child is born
4c OR never marry only each other after a child is born
Putting #3 and #4 together, it is easy to see how incoherent and absurd living constitutionism is to include dual citizenship as equal to singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. The ultimate question for an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an amendment to Article II Section 1 clause 5 and clarify the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is very simple to state. Which original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” will the American people agree is John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? Will it be living originalism and only singular U.S. citizenship, or living constitutionism and dual citizenship? Which will they, we, you choose for their, our, your own “natural born Citizen” children generation to generation, election to election, president to president? It's time to choose. Right? Yes, it is.
The Question is “How to Do It?”
While Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent, his mother, and everyone agrees that he has dual citizenship from birth, the meme of the Obama neobirthers includes the incoherent proposition that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” simply because he was a U.S. ‘citizen’ at birth and not naturalized in fulfillment of the first part of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, “... born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens ....” So, yes, according to neobirthers, Obama, born on U.S. soil, so he says, to only one U.S. citizen female, so he says, is a U.S. citizen at birth and not a U.S. citizen naturalized at birth or by oath. See ‘Citizenship Through Parents’ at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
→ http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
Since the 1922 Cable Act, a U.S. citizen female can retain her U.S. citizenship on her own, and does not need to be a U.S. citizen by marriage to a U.S. citizen male. Remember, from 1787 until the 1922 Cable Act, a female who was already a U.S. citizen by birth alone to either an unmarried U.S. citizen female or by birth to two U.S. citizens by marriage acquired her married U.S. citizenship by marriage to a U.S. citizen male, and the union was recognized as providing the two U.S. citizens by marriage with singular U.S. citizenship which would be passed to their children. From 1787 until 1898, a child born to an unmarried alien female was recognized as an alien, not a U.S. citizen, at least not until the 1898 Supreme Court “fiat” (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’, and a child born to an unmarried U.S. citizen female was also recognized as a ‘citizen’ but not a “natural born Citizen”, and because of being born to an unmarried U.S. citizen female the ‘citizen’ child was not eligible to be president, at least, according to neobirthers, until the 1898 Supreme Court “fiat” opinion which neobirthers say introduced the phenomenon of ‘birthright citizenship’ and eligibility to vote as ‘citizens’ who were born to alien parents who did not have eligibility to vote..
- 100 -
