Sunday, November 22, 2015

To the Architect Original Intent is Important


To the Architect Original Intent is Important


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on November 22, 2015
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html



On December 17, 2007 Becky Garrison published an interview titled, The Wittenburg Door Interview: N.T. “Tom” Wright. He taught New Testament studies for twenty years at Cambridge, McGill, and Oxford universities. He is now Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary’s College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

In the interview, Wright uses these examples to explain how Jesus and Paul relate to each other still today, 2000 years later:

Composer: writes the music
Conductor: uses the original music
Musician: plays the original music
Musicians must be united and must know the implicit structure

Medical researcher: finds
Doctor: applies to the patient what is found

Architect: designs
Builder: builds what has been designed

Hermeneutic used (to interpret, to explain, the theory and method of interpretation )

My point for quoting N.T. Wright and his original intent comments as related to Jesus, the Architect, and Paul, the Builder, is to apply the original intent of the 1787 architects of the U.S. Constitution to the 1787-2015 builders of the American union.

In the context of John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, the "original genesis" meaning of a "natural born Citizen" was and still is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents. ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was the "original intent" of John Jay, the founder "architect" of "born," so to speak, and of George Washington who passed the architectual suggestion to the framers, the original "architects" of the Constitution, and ultimately the ratifiers (including New York ratifier John Jay), the original "builders" of the "union" of America.

Here are the 7th, 8th and 9th questions and answers in which Wright articulates, in the context of Jesus and Paul, why origins and original intent are important for contemporary cultures.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Question 7
DOOR:
That means that there are the inherent dangers in viewing, say, the Letters of Paul through the lens of contemporary culture.

Answer 7
WRIGHT:
There are massive anachronisms when one makes assumptions about the things going on in this world that weren’t in his world. This requires that we read Paul faithfully and go between these two worlds. As I hinted earlier, the fifth act, in which the Church is called to live and work, is characterized by two things. First, it has firm and fixed foundations, including a definite closing scene which is already sketched in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, Colossians 1 and Revelation 21 and 22.

Second, it has the command, under the spirit, to improvise through the unscripted period between the opening scenes and the closing one. No musician would ever suppose that improvising means playing out of tune or time. On the contrary, it means knowing extremely well whether one is in the implicit structure, and listening intently to the other players so that what we all do together, however, spontaneously, makes sense as a whole. That is the kind of hermeneutic I envisage as I read, and preach from, Paul’s letters today.

Question 8
DOOR:
Is that why you once described relationship between Jesus and Paul as that of composer and conductor, medical researcher and doctor, and architect and builder?

Answer 8
WRIGHT:
The composer writers the music. If the conductor decides to write some on his own account, that would be a way of saying he didn’t want to play that composer’s music, but some of his own instead. His job is to play the music the original composer has written. The doctor takes the results of the research and applies them to the patient. Her job is not to do more research on the topic, or, if she thinks it is, it isn’t because she’s is being loyal to the original researcher but because she is being disloyal. The builder takes the plans drawn up by the architect and builds to that design. It isn’t his task to draw a new building; or, if he does, it’s not because he is filled with the admiration for the original design but because he isn’t.

Question 9
DOOR:
Got it. On the other extreme, how can stuff like The Gospel of Judas and The Da Vinci Code inform the Christian faith?

Answer 9
WRIGHT:
What we can see in this current passion for Gnosticism is a hunger for spirituality and purpose. We have to ask why our culture is so hungry for different kinds of spirituality.

Also, the appeal of second century Gnosticism is that people in our culture are eager to find anything to rebuke or replace traditional Christianity. This myth—what I call “the new myth of Christian origins,” according to which Jesus was just an ordinary person who taught a new type of spirituality, that He didn’t die for our sins or rise again—is what’s lurking behind the Jesus Seminar. Many people in our culture don’t like traditional Christianity and are eager to find anything else at all to go with instead.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The gnostic “new myth of Christian origins” relates to the gnostic "new myth" of "natural born Citizen" as understood by "nbC" new meaning "gnostic" neobirthers.

Mario, similar to the way that Wright exposes the fallacy of the "builders" changing the original plans of the "architect," to cite only one of Wright's examples of original intent, it looks like the original intent of architect John Jay has been usurped by "natural born Citizen" new meaning gnostic neobirthers, aka the gnostic "myth builders" of 2000s America, who promote the incoherent theory that birth on either U.S. --OR-- foreign soil was Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" for underling the word "born", and that birth to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents was Jay's and Washington's and the framers' 1787 original intent prior to the absurdity of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "ctizen" by fiat holding, and, anyway, the ratifiers were the real architects of the "building" known as the United States of America, so that implies that future generations could also redefine "nbC" however they wanted.

>> "The builder takes the plans drawn up by the architect and builds to that design.
>> "It isn’t his task to draw a new building;
>> "or, if he does,
>> "it’s not because he is filled with the admiration for the original design but because he isn’t."

It seems that the current "builders" of the "union" of America (Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian and Anarchist) have changed the "original genesis original intent" of the 1787 founders, framers and ratifiers, the original architects and builders of the "union" of America as President Abraham Lincoln articulated it in his 1861 first inaugural address. See Bartleby.com - paragraph #14 ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

Wright says in answer #9, "...the appeal of second century Gnosticism...people in our culture are eager to find anything to rebuke or replace traditional Christianity. This myth—what I call “the new myth of Christian origins,”...."

The "new myth of Christian origins" that ignores tradition and the "new myth" of "natural born Citizen" that ignores commonsense original intent are gnostic myths pushed by those who "know" what the framers did not know. The new myth of the "nbC" gnostic neobirthers is inspired by the desire to replace John Jay's traditional 1787 "original genesis original intent" of singular U.S. citizenship with dual U.S./foreign citizenship. This is a 2000s myth that appeals to 21st century "gnostics" who "know" what John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers did NOT know, dual U.S./foreign citizenship with, for example, ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, was John Jay's "traditional" meaning.

If the "nbC" new meaning "gnostic" neobirthers say that they do NOT "know" that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents was Jay's "traditional" meaning that was inspired by Emer de Vattel in Vattel's Law of Nations and was applied by the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court, well, how do they "know" that dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married OR not, was Jay's "traditional" meaning that the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court was defending? They don't "know" and they don't care.

That applies to my Texas Federal senator Ted Cruz who, as a constitutional scholar (and, as a young man, memorized the entire U.S. Constitution), does "know" the original intent of "natural born Citizen." That is why he parses his words by saying that he has never breathed a breath when he was not a U.S. citizen. Sen. Cruz does "know" that the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, a statute passed by Congress, the positive law that he was born under, does NOT grant because it can NOT "grant" "natural born Citizen" status to a "citizen" born on foreign soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

Sen. Cruz knows that a "citizen" can NOT be declared to be a "natural born Citizen" by an Act of Congress, and he knows that Article II Section 1 clause 5 identifies a "natural born Citizen" as "...eligible to the Office of President" ONLY by birth as a result of an act of congress by two U.S. citizen married parents.

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com


Thursday, October 29, 2015

Anecdote vs. Anecdote: Sen. Ted Cruz Said He is "Breath of Air" Citizen


Anecdote vs. Anecdote:
Sen. Ted Cruz Said He Is A "Breath of Air" Citizen


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on October 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>


Anecdote vs. Anecdote...
New Hampshire Public Radio published Sen. Cruz's response to a question about his eligibility to be president.
>> http://nhpr.org/post/cruz-opposing-planned-parenthood-where-were-other-presidential-candidates

Cruz On Opposing Planned Parenthood: 'Where Were The Other Presidential Candidates?'
By Brady Carlson • Oct 4, 2015

[...snip...]

"Cruz, like several other Republican hopefuls in this election cycle, heard from an audience member who appeared to question the origins of President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. "Is there anything in the Constitution," the questioner asked to some laughter, "that the new president can deport the last president?"

"You know, there's not," Cruz said, after a pause. "But I can tell you this. On January 20th, 2017, when I rescind every single one of Barack Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive actions, he might just well self-deport."

Cruz's own origins came under question from a member of the audience, who asked about the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Cruz explained that while he was born in Calgary, Alberta, he was a US citizen because he was born to an American mother. "I have never breathed a breath of air," he said, "when I wasn't an American citizen."

Sen. Cruz's "breath of air" comment is an interesting anecdotal reference and defense that deserves dictionary analysis. Instead of simply responding with my own anecdotal comment about original birther John Jay and his original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, for fun and for those who do not have a dictionary handy, first I will refer to two American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "anecdote" and "anecdotal."

anecdote n.
1. A short account of an interesting or humorous event.
2. Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.

anecdotal adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.

Mario wrote on his blog on October 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM about Cruz and Minor v. Happersett:

Cruz does not define a natural born citizen and state that he is one. Rather, he relies upon breathing fresh air. …,”

“… Rather, the standard may be found in [the] unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the Court defined a natural born citizen as follows:

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.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario's use of the Cruz and Minor anecdotal evidence reflects his consistent and accurate use of “rigorous or scientific analysis” when he adduces, to use only two examples, the actual holding of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court and the actual holding of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court as supported by the quote above. Both Sen. Cruz and the Minor Court use anecdotal references to make their contradictory “natural born Citizen” points. Sen. Cruz uses “breathed...air” and the Minor Court uses “resort...elsewhere...common-law...nomenclature...framers...familiar...never doubted….”

Here is my point.

Original birther John Jay is also anecdotal, and is just as valid for anecdotal support to define an “nbC,” as is Sen. Cruz's “breathed...air” and the Minor Court's “resort ... elsewhere ... nomenclature ... framers ... familiar ... never doubted ….”

In my opinion, the Minor v. Happersett Court affirms John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” that was eventually incorporated into Article II Section 1 clause 5 by the framers, but Sen. Cruz's anecdotal “breathed...air” reference does not follow Jay's “original genesis original intent” presuppositional foundation for being "born" a “citizen” with the “perquisite” of being uniquely "by birth" alone “...eligible to the Office of President.” The “perk” of being “by birth” an Article II “natural born Citizen” is presidential eligibility, a “perk” that is NOT available to an Article I Representative “citizen” or an Article I Senator “citizen.”

I'm all for the primary and foundational use of the “rigorous or scientific analysis” by adducing the actual holdings of the different Courts, and secondarily, as the Minor Court did in adducing an anecdotal “event,” of which the “framers...were familiar,” I'm also for adducing analysis of historical events that support the “rigorous or scientific analysis” holdings of the Court, as the Minor v. Happersett Court did in this citizenship and voting case.

I never get a coherent “dual U.S./foreign citizenship” rebuttal and refutation when I bring original birther John Jay into the conversation, especially when I write that, according to the “nomenclature” with which Jay was familiar, Jay's “original genesis original intent” for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for POTUS eligibility was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child.

For some reason the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Progressive, Conservative, Anarchist (still in the nascent stage of “cell” division), NEVER have a coherent rebuttal to the anecdotal assertion that John Jay's original genesis original intent was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents to be “...eligible to the Office of President.”

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is Mario's comment on October 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Ted Cruz's argument that he is a natural born citizen because he never breathed air when he was not an American is pretty lame.

Depending on when he was born during the history of our nation, there are plenty of times during which being born under the same birth circumstances as he claims for himself, he would not have been breathing any air as an American.

Depending on when he was born, rather than breathing air as an American, he would have been breathing air as a British or Canadian subject (from his birth in the territory which today is called Canada), and Spanish or Cuban citizen (from being born to his Spanish or Cuban father).

That surely does not sound like a natural born citizen to me.


It IS About Islam: The Twenty-year Plan To Establish the Muslim Caliphate


It IS About Islam:
The Twenty-year Plan To Establish the Muslim Caliphate


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on The RightScoop.com on September 4, 2015.
>> http://therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-defends-trump-says-hugh-hewitt-questions-were-gotcha-stuff/
<<>>


All Trump needs to say is that he has been busy building a business, uh, I mean, a GREAT business,, and meeting a payroll and keeping his people employed, and etc.,, and, although he has a general understanding of the idiocy happening in the Middle East, just as most of We the People do in America, and since the jihad continues to roll on, as president he will definitely become more informed about the idiocy of religious/political jihad than Obama was when he was elected.

Here's a reading suggestion for Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal: read Chapter 4, Establishing the Caliphate, in Glenn Beck's new book It IS About Islam, in the section titled The Twenty-year Plan (2000-2020), pages 68-81.

On page 71 Glenn closes the section with this:

"Does this all sound absurd?
Well, consider that, as of 2015,
a decade after the plan was published by Hussein,
the first five phases have been right on schedule."

Hussein is Fouad Hussein.

On page 69 Glenn introduces the seven phases with this paragraph:


Hussein wrote in a
"...2005 book, Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda, which was published in Arabic, Hussein revealed the terrorist group's twenty-year plan, which, in their own words, has seven different phases.

Phase 1: The Muslim Awakening (2000-2003)
Phase 2: Opening Eyes (2003-2006)
Phase 3: Arising and Standing Up (2007-2010)
Phase 4: Collapse (2010-2013)
Phase 5: Caliphate (2013-2016)
Phase 6: Total Confrontation (2016-2019)
Phase 7: Definitive Victory (2020)

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sp4x2 to Art Telles

Isn't it insane that in the current America, belief in the US Constitution means you are a right wing zealot that deserves to be under surveillance?

Art Telles to sp4x2

Dittos...

And this "surveillance" is happening while the commune organizer is the defender of HIS version of the U.S. Constitution which allows for dual U.S./foreign citizenship and which allows ONLY one U.S. citizen parent to be acceped as "...eligible to the Office of President."

I wonder what would happen during this primary season if Carly Fiorina, or Rand Paul, or Scott Walker, or Mike Huckabee, or Donald Trump said something about defending John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington?

In my opinion, the underlined word "born" requires a POTUS to be a "natural born Citizen" by being born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents who are married ONLY to each other BEFORE the child is born.

When political push comes to political shove, I wonder which of the Republican candidates will say that Obama was NOT constitutionally qualified to be president because he was NOT an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because he was born with only one U.S. citizen parent, so, for that reason, neither is Ted Cruz "...eligible to the Office of President" because he was born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, who were both born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to two legal immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens when their children were born, so their children were not born with singular U.S. citizenship and not "...eligible to the Office of President.".

The commune organizer is not a "natural born Citizen" and the Republicans should stop defending Obama's "citizen" status as sufficient and equivalent to "natural born Citizen" status in Article II, because "born" implies ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, Not dual U.S/foreign citizenship.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com/ )


The L.A. Times: How Easy To Think Like A New Meaning Neobirther


The L.A. Times:
How Easy To Think Like a New Meaning Neobirther 


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on September 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>

LA Times Op-Ed

Ignore Trump — the issue of birthright citizenship has been settled
By David Rivkin, John Yoo – September 6, 2015
>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0906-rivkin-yoo-birthright-citizenship-20150906-story.html

Did you know this? It must be true. It's in the LA Times.

>> "Reading allegiance into the 14th Amendment would largely defeat the intent of its drafters, who wanted to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they considered insufficiently American."

[...snip]

And did you know this?

"The 14th Amendment's drafting history supports our reading.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which inspired the amendment, guaranteed birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. except those "subject to any foreign power" and "Indians not taxed."

"If the 14th Amendment's drafters had wanted "jurisdiction" to exclude children of aliens, they easily could have repeated the "foreign power" line."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


So, since "...they easily could have repeated" the reference to foreign powers, but they did not, then, ipso facto, dual U.S./foreign citizenship with allegiance to a "foreign power" is not trumped by, and is equal to, allegiance to ONLY the U.S., whether the issue is birthright citizenship for a child or for POTUS eligibility.

See how easy it is to think like a new meaning neo-birther?

An Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther believes the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that birth on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a singular U.S. citizen (aka a "natural born Citizen") and "...eligible to the Office of President."

A Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" new meaning neo-birther believes the 2000s theory and myth that birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents was incorporated retroactively by the 1898 Supreme Court into the original genesis original intent meaning of the framers of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, because, since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court said that a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is, ipso facto, a U.S. citizen even though the child derived U.S. citizen by Supreme Court fiat and did not derive U.S. citizenship from the foreign citizenship parents, then THAT amendment of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment by the 1898 Supreme Court fiat is the perpetual law of the land.

Neat and simple, huh?

Now we know, because the LA Times said so, that the Supreme Court, ipso facto, trumps Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the Artilc 1 naturalization authority of the U.S. Congress.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )


I Am For and Against Automatic Birthright Citizenship


I Am For and Against Automatic Birthright Citizenship


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizn blog on September 14, 2015 at 1:23 AM, September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM, and September 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>

Mario's comment on September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM below was posted after my 1:23 am post and before my 12:08 pm post, but I am posting in first (I opened it up for quick reading) as an introduction to the subject of "automatic" birthright citizenship.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

I think
the best way to look at the question of what is birthright citizenship is to say that there are two types, one that exists by virtue of natural right and one that exists by virtue of positive law. David Ramsay explained that the former ["natural right"] belongs only to the children born in the country to citizens parents since July 4, 1776. In the Constitution, the Framers called these persons "natural born citizens." The latter ["by virtue of positive law"] exists under the naturalization powers that the Framers gave to Congress in the Constitution and under an amendment to the Constitution which is the Fourteenth Amendment.

No branch of our government has the power to alter the meaning of a natural born citizen. Only a duly ratified constitutional amendment can do that. On the other hand, government can always change the conditions precedent for gaining

(e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment give Congress the power to enforce birthright citizenship by appropriate legislation and Congress in its naturalization Acts, when it has even given such a right at all, has over the years required that one or both parents of children born to them out of the United States satisfy a U.S. residency or physical presence requirement)

and conditions subsequent for maintaining

(e.g., Congressional naturalization Acts have over the years provided various conditions for the retention of citizenship gained by one born out of the United States)

birthright citizenship that exists as a creature of positive law.

Concerning, Robert Natelson, he tries too hard and keeps failing. He has the nerve to make this statement:

"I would try to square my case with precedent
instead of arguing that precedent
should be disregarded."

Wow!

He is the one who[,] concerning the definition of a natural born citizen[,] is presenting an argument that disregards both historical and legal precedent.

I've cited and discussed that precedent over the years in my briefs to the courts and on this blog and elsewhere and the best he can do is say that in defining a natural born citizen, we adopted the allegiance of the English common law to define the clause, a position which is treason to and fraud upon the Constitution.

There is simply no evidence of such an outlandish statement and he advances it.

Now he also presents himself as a friend offering a helping hand to those who opposed birthright citizenship.

Natelson needs to be exposed for his treason and fraud on the Constitution which he sneaks into his innocent articles on defining the Fourteenth Amendment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is my comment on September 14, 2015 at 1:23 AM.

In Prof. Rob Natelson's third article at AmericanThinker.com, he says that he does not have a dog in this hunt, but he woould counsel the opponents of birthright citizenship to go with precedent and to not disregard precedent.

Arguing the Constitutional Case Against Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegals
By Rob Natelson, September 12, 2015
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/9_7_2015_14_53.html

"I do not have a dog in this hunt.

But if I were legal counsel for
opponents of birthright citizenship,
I would take their legal argument in an entirely
different direction.
And I would try to square my case with precedent
instead of arguing that precedent should be disregarded."

"In two prior postings (here and here), I listed flaws in the constitutional arguments of
opponents of birthright citizenship for children of aliens living here illegally.

"For children to be American citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, they
must be born within American territory and they (or rather their parents)
must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Those opposing birthright citizenship
hurt their own case by basing it principally on the claim that
visiting foreigners never qualify as “subject to the jurisdiction.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer legal counsel to "opponents of birthright citizenship" like Natelson is doing, but I can propose more clarity in framing the argument in a way that Natelson can not because his point is precedent. What he means is not really as clear as it could be.

Here is my second comment on September 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM.

Mario, it seems that I did not include part #2 in my comment yesterday, so here it is, after the "First, dittos" comment.

First, dittos to your first sentence today, September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM:

"I think the best way to look at the question of what is birthright citizenship is to say that there are two types,

one that exists by virtue of natural right and
one that exists by virtue of positive law."


Your "two types" is another way of saying what I write below in part #2: "by" birth ("natural right") and "at" birth ("positive law").

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

First, from part #1 yesterday:

This is what I mean.

1- Who is a proponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.
2- Who is an opponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.

It seems that "automatic birthright citizenship" ("abc") can mean two different things, "by" birth to U.S. citizen parents and also "at" birth to non-U.S. citizenship parents, and confusion arises because "abc" is usually referenced as meaning primarily "at" birth citizenship for the children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, legal and illegal.

This is part #2 -

1 - I support U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "by" birth ONLY for children born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents, either born to two U.S. citizen married parents, or born to one U.S. citizen parent, whether that U.S. citizen parent is married to the non-U.S. citizen parent or not married.

2a - I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents.

Some people say that the child born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents is an automatic citizen "at" birth because the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark court implicitly said, tacitly, of course, that both "at" birth and "by" birth was the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and what it "really" meant in 1868, even though the child of alien parents could NOT be an automatic citizen "by" birth because the legal alien parents were, well, still aliens who did not have U.S. citizenship to pass on to the child "by" birth.

2b - I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

Some people manage to "break and enter" our property (cross our borders) to "plop and drop" their "anchor baby" after they are told that the illegal alien child is an automatic citizen "at" birth, not knowing that it was Justice Brennan who said in a note that, according to the 1898 Wong court, the "by" birth children of illegal alien parents should not be treated differently than the "by" birth children of legal alien parents.

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy
by Lino A. Graglia

Texas Review of Law and Politics Vol. 14
>> http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

[...snip]

" Although there is no Supreme Court decision on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, it is referred to in the dicta in a few cases."

[...snip]

"In a footnote, Justice Brennan interpreted Wong Kim Ark(64) as holding that “no plausible distinction . . . can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”(65)

"That statement cannot settle the matter, however, because it is not only a pure dictum—a gratuitous statement unnecessary to the decision of the case—but also based on the mistaken premise that Wong Kim Ark decided the case of illegal aliens.(66)"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice Brennan and Prof. Natelson can learn about precedent by distinguishing between natural rights "by" birth (Article II Secion 1 clause5) and positive law "at" birth (Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1).

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )


A Usurper President Can Not Void The U.S. Constitution


A Usurper President Can Not Void The U.S. Constitution


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on September 12, 2015 at 8:49 PM and September 13, 2015 at 1:01 AM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>

Here is a succinct comment from Mario that was posted on his Natual Born Citizen blog on September 13, 2015 at 1:01 AM after Brianroy's and Sven's point-counterpoint, but I am putting it here as the intro to their dialogue and my comments that follow.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

If the Constitution is voided upon a usurper president assuming that Office, then the people cannot protect themselves from that usurper by resorting to that very Constitution. I do not think that the Framers would have create such a scenario.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy and Sven have an interesting discussion about the constitution, but, is there really a problem that needs to be resolved that is not protected by the line of succession?

Brianroy quoted what Sven wrote on his blog (see the last two sentences of the last paragraph):
>> http://conventionforamerica.blogspot.com/2015/08/article-ii-of-us-constitution-is-poison.html

"The U.S. Constitution is voided when an ineligible President assumes the highest office in the land to prevent the usurper from inheriting a functioning constitutional republic.

"After installing an ineligible President, the People must renew the constitutional republic with an improved national governing document ratified through a national referendum."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While Brianroy has many excellent points, it seems to me that the best rebuttal and refutation of Sven's assertion (the constitution is voided if the electorate selects an illegal POTUS) is that Sven has not adduced the line of succession to the U.S. presidency that implicitly protects the Union against an unconstitutional usurper.

Here is the line of succession from on Wikipedia:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

"This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

"The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."


1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)
4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)
6 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (D)
7 Attorney General Loretta Lynch (D)
— Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (D)[a]
8 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
9 Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker (D)
10 Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez (D)
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell (D)
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro (D)
13 Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx (D)
14 Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (D)
15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald (R)
17 Secretary of Homeland Security

So, if the Vice President and the President Pro Tempore and the others in the line of succession do not contest the illegal president, is the U.S. Constitution still in effect or is it automatically voided, regardless of the line of succession?

It seems to me that the Article V authority of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose an amendment to rectify a constitution issue would also be voided if the Constitution were automatically voided by an illegal president.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
P.S.

On BirtherReport.com Pixel Patriot has a Emer de Vattel quote by Thomas Jefferson that is entitled VATTEL IS LAW, CITATION BY THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR VATTEL AS LAW, with the header, "Historic: Founding Father President Thomas Jefferson Cited Vattel In Handwritten Manuscript."
>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/09/historic-founding-father-president_8.html

Art
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Line of Succession is "Defacto Incorrect"

ajtelles said...

Brianroy,

The point is not the political party but the line of succession, so simply remove the party designation, as I did below. Also, it is not my line of succession, I copied it from Wikipedia, which says that the line of succession was "specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

"This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

"The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."


1 Vice President of the United States
2 Speaker of the House
3 President pro tempore of the Senate
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
— Secretary of the Interior
8 Secretary of Agriculture
9 Secretary of Commerce
10 Secretary of Labor
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
13 Secretary of Transportation
14 Secretary of Energy
15 Secretary of Education
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
17 Secretary of Homeland Security

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy, on September 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM you wrote:

"...[Y]our line of succession of Democrats...legal is de facto incorrect. ... As I understand it, there would have to be a process by which the Senate would have to nominate and vote in a new temporary President and Vice-President, disqualifying Biden and every Democrat who ever served in that usurpation from being a candidate for POTUS nomination and following the much the same as the Impeachment processes...."

Brianroy, why would anyone in the line of succession be disqualified? Would Vice President Biden, a Democrat, be disqualified? Why would the third in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, a Republican, or President pro tempore of the Senate, Sen. Orin Hatch, a Republican, be disqualified?

The constitution does not contain within it the method of its demise, but it does contain Article V, an article designed to protect the integrity of the entire Constitution, including the line of succession, that remains valid even if the constitution is violated, either by accident or willfully, by a usurper president, senator, representative, or state nullification or secession. Article V would be invalidated if, for some obscure reason, the entire Constitution is voided because of the illegal activity of an officer, from the chief executive on down, the Vice President, the members of the cabinet, and on down to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

In his first inaugural address in 1861 President Abraham Lincoln said something in reference to the secession movement that started a few days after he won the general election as the first president who was a member of the new Republican Party, the second person to attempt election as a Republican, and the first Republican to succeed. Aspects of the speech can be applied (see my comments in brackets [] below) to those who assert that the entire constitution can be nullified and voided by the actions of one person in the presidential line of succession.

See part of Pres. Lincoln's first inaugural speech at ( OriginalBirtherDocument14.blogspot.com ), or read the entire address about the "perpetual Union" as clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861. See paragraphs #12-14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

"… and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."

President Abraham Lincoln: 1861 First Inaugural Speech

“It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration [April 30, 1789] of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

~ ~ ~
One party to a contract may
violate it—break it, so to speak
but does it not require
all to lawfully rescind it?
~ ~ ~

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States [or a usurper president] be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State [or a usurper president] upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken [we can add that the line of succession is also unbroken], and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws [including the constitution and the line of succession] of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself [with Article V authority that is not voided.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Article V authority is not void because the U.S. Constitution is not void if a usurper president is chosen by the Electoral College contrary to its fiduciary duty on behalf of We the People. We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution created by the sovereign, or the Electoral College authorized by the Constitution created by the sovereign. We the People are not suicidal and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution, not the Electoral College set up by the authority of the Constitution, and not the executive that is chosen by the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution can NOT be made void by a usurper president for the same reason that the constitution will NOT be made void by We the People even if a usurper succeeds in the effort to "OCCUPY" the oval office again. We the People are not suicidal (Article V is proof of that), and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

~ ~ ~
One party to a contract may
violate it—break it, so to speak
but does it not require
all to lawfully rescind it?
~ ~ ~
Thank you President Abraham Lincoln. Your 1861 words about the secession of eleven states from the Federal Union were prescient and are a guiding light in the 21st century.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Read paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com about the "perpetual Union" as clarified by President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ).