Saturday, June 24, 2017

Exclusive Original Intent vs. Prof. Akhil Reed Amar's "Implicit" Constitution

EXclusive INTENT dittos
Exclusive Original Intent vs. Prof. Akhil Reed Amar’s “Implicit” Constitution

Today I also put this on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog

Mario, that is a good point by Carlyle. Did the "legislative or legal system" clarify...ever?

On pages 240-245 of his book The Constitution Today Yale Prof. of Law Amar seems to think that with the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment the "system" clarified the issue of who is a citizen and their birthrights.

He says on pages 240-41:

"We begin with the Constitution itself. The Fourteenth Amendment opens with a promise of birth equality: 'All persons born . . . in the United States . . . are citizens; and thus equal [his emphasis] citizens."

In the last sentence at the bottom of page 240 Amar implies that even "plop-and-drop" anchor babies are citizens, with the tacit implication that they are eligible to be president.

He says:

"A child born in America to a family of noncitizen parents is a full birthright citizen with all the same entitlements and privileges as any other American child."

Amar concludes the "birthright citizen" point with a comment about homosexuality and heterosexuality, and then concludes on page 245 with comments about transgenders, implying that the Fourteenth Amendment from 1868 on also applies to future changes in America.

He says on page 241:

"And today we make clear that those born gay or lesbian are no less in civil rights than those born straight."

Amar extrapolates further about being “born’” on pages 241-245 and mentions racial equality, civil rights, sex discrimination, women's civil rights, being born blind, diseases, marriage laws, religious equality, racial separation, etc., and concludes with this comment about “equality and freedom”:

He says:

To put this point about the deep connection between equality and freedom a different way – and to explain from yet another angle why we now must vindicate the enacted letter and spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment without being hamstrung by every specific nontextual and unratified factual or normative assumption that its framers may have held – we today take judicial notice of the following basic and widespread facts of our modern world. Sexual intimacy and human procreation have been profoundly decoupled in the last half-century. Persons can have babies without having sex (in vitro fertilization) and ….”

After a few more comments about marriage laws, genders, transgenders staying married to their spouses and creating a same-sex marriage, transgender birth certificates and transgender driver’s licenses and transgender passports, Amar concludes his comments with a sentence which implies that what law professors say the law means today is what the law meant to the law writers of the past – last week or last century or 1868:

He says:

Our fundamental nature is not male or female, black or white, but human, pure and simple. Our most basic law must recognize these basic facts of modern life, modern law, and modern science.”

Mario, I would like to add to a previous comment that I put here on June 20, 2017 at 10:45 PM in which I finished with "This is not a previous essay, but it is definitely an excellent point about the Fourteenth Amendment and 'citizenship rights'”.

Yes, it’s an excellent point – except for Prof. Amar's implication that the Fourteenth Amendment is the constitutional authority that allows plop-and-drop anchor babies, who are born on U.S. soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens, to be eligible to be president. The implication is shallow, thoughtless, irrational, and contrary to self-preservation.

Mario, as a lawyer, and since this Article II Section clause 5 “natural born Citizen” debate will never die as long as “natural born Citizen” remains in the constitution, you should challenge Prof. Amar here on your Natural Born Citizen blog about his “equality and freedom” proposition, something that he has been writing about for years. You should publicly challenge the “equality and freedom” of Prof. Amar in the context of a person being eligible to be president as being “contrary to self-preservation” relative to his explicit statement on page 241:

>> "A child born in America to a family of noncitizen parents is a full birthright citizen with all the same entitlements and privileges as any other American child."

It is shallow, thoughtless and irrational for a tenured law professor to propose that a child born on U.S. soil to "noncitizen parents is a full birthright citizen" because his statement is another way of saying to the whole world these two things:

(1) All you parents, citizens of the world, you all come here, you hear, and have your babies in America and your baby can be president of America someday just like wanna be presidents Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov./Amb. Nikki Haley – cuz that's what Prof. Amar teaches his students – the Fourteenth Amendment includes all peoples of the world who manage to have their anchor baby born, uh, I mean, who manage to have their child touch down on U.S. soil.

(2) Sure, visit Saudi Arabia or ANY Muslim country, and if you are a woman and have a child to a Muslim man in a Muslim country, well, for sure, your baby can also be president of of America with only one U.S. citizen parent just like wanna be president Sen. Ted Cruz – cuz, well, we're inclusive in America, shucks, we're so inclusive that we're for "liberty and equality" for all – so, you all come here, now. Hear?

Can you all hear me now?

The “equality and freedom” of Prof. Amar being “contrary to self-preservation” is a point that is NEVER discussed by Amar because nobody ever challenges him, and of course it is also never mentioned because it is never considered relevant by Levin, Solum, Natelson and others when they defend using the Fourteenth Amendment to justify eligibility to be president to plop-and-drop anchor babies simply because they were born on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time they (the father who brought the mother) plopped themselves onto a hospital bed and dropped their anchor baby.

Mario, if anybody wants to read more, here is the url and three dates from two years ago when I commented about Prof. Amar and his "equality and freedom" emphasis, although previously he phrased it "liberty and equality" consistently in his 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By.

June 24, 2015 at 3:52 PM – Prof. Amar's Three Rules for amendments "...that fits our tradition":

Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality
_Flag Burning
_Campaign Finance Reform
_Marriage and Tradition

Rule #2: Both Political Parties Must Agree

Rule #3: States Test Ideas First
_Direct Election of the President
_POTUS Eligibility of Foreign Born
_Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution

1- Flag Burning
2- Campaign Finance Reform
3- Marriage and Tradition
4- Direct Election of the President
5- POTUS Eligibility for Foreign Born
6- Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution

Prof. Amar's comments, as a recognized constitutional law scholar and political scientist, are intended to be socially transformative and, as he self-identified in the panel discussion, a registered Democrat, so, as the current Democratic Party is constituted since the new Democrat activists, aka Liberals, aka Progressives, aka Socialists, aka Marxists, aka whatever new “ist” fits, took it over, Prof. Amar's comments reveal, politically, progressive new thought socialism with a new meaning to “liberty and equality” and “implicit.”

Although Professor Amar does not reference Article II and “natural born Citizen” in this panel discussion, his “liberty and equality” focus, along with his “...three rules, prescriptive and descriptive...for constitutional amendments”, indicates that the Constitution's heterosexual preamble word “posterity,” as related to the three heterosexual related POTUS eligibility requirement words “natural born Citizen,” will require the exclusivity of “natural born Citizen” as a reference to ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents to be excised from Article II by removing the written words “natural born Citizen” from the Constitution. The excision of “natural born Citizen” from Article II will be the necessary consequence if Prof. Amar's “liberty and equality” proposal to amend the written Constitution to include homosexuality is endorsed by all political parties and then ratified by the states because the “implicit constitution” of Prof. Amar condones the implication of including natural law homosexuality to be on par with natural law heterosexuality.

Professor Amar's 2012 book, titled America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By*, and the first chapter, titled Reading Between the Lines: America's Implicit Constitution, indicate that as a socialist progressive, Yale Law Prof. Amar can allow anything to be “implicit” in the written Constitution if it promotes the agenda to “transform the United States of America” by transforming the U.S. Constitution into a “liberty and equality” “implicit constitution” in which can be found anything, including promoting the homosexual agenda of less than 2% of the American population. See below an implicitly” constitutional new meaning: “ discrimination on the grounds of [homosexual] sex. I think it would be nice to have that in our federal constitution. It's [homosexual “sex” is] already there implicitly,followed in the next sentence with “States are giving us gay marriage”.

*America's Unwritten Constitution ( )

Prof. Amar's intent is to amend the U.S. Constitution with three amendments so that each “...fits our tradition” as he defines “tradition,” specifically the tradition of marriage and posterity since the 1787 “We the People” wrote the words “ form a more perfect Union” for themselves and their “Posterity” as the Union populated. If Prof. Amar's three amendments listed below are ratified, at least one amendment will be required for the excision of the natural law related words “natural born Citizen” from Article II to accommodate the inclusion by amendment of positive law homosexual marriage and the elevation by amendment of natural law homosexuality, a consistent 1% to 2% of the population by recruiting through media ridicule and propaganda, to an equal status with natural law heterosexuality.

Since Prof. Amar spent so much space (pp. 241-245) on sexuality and ramifications in society of the transgender phenomenon (e.g., staying married to a spouse), I will conclude with a brief non-lawyers response (hey, I’m just one guy in El Paso, Texas – if not me, who?) to his erudite comments, he being a Yale tenured law professor and a constitutional scholar and all that implies about his erudite astuteness (whew, can I handle the stress? Yes – I write, you decide).

Neither “natural law homosexuality” (the activity) nor “natural law heterosexuality” (the activity) require a “positive law” to be actively practiced – activity is by choice alone, activity is not mandated by positive law or natural law ( the “activity” of celibacy is ONLY by choice, “mindset” – not by birth, “bodyset”). Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are activities determined by birth alone or by birth at all. Being male or female is by birth alone – engaging in sexual activity is by choice alone as bisexuality and the transgender phenomenon prove daily. Bisexuality and transgenderism are mindsets, not bodysets. A transgender person is exhibiting a “mindset” about the body, not a “bodyset” about the mind. Transgenderism is public proof that homosexuality is a “mindset” activity and not a “bodyset” activity. Being male or female is a “bodyset” that is not determined by a “mindset” of choice. Being male or female is, well, “being” – not choosing. Activity is “choosing” – not being.

Mario, in conclusion, if Prof. Amar is not challenged in writing and or debate his “liberty and equality” amendments to the constitution, if accepted in the classrooms of America and adopted and ratified by the people of the states, they will “transform” the original meaning of the Constitution's 1787 preamble words “posterity” and “Union.”