Time
to Change the Conversation
The
Question is How to do It
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted
on Mario Apuzzo's blog on December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16
<<>>
On
December 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM Mario posted a response to a previous
post of mine on his puzo1.blogspot.com blog*
that prompted me to consider a short answer, but it turned into a
long answer to his statement at the end of his first paragraph,
"...the constitutional definition of a natural born
citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do
it."
*
(
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16
)
He 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...this very scenario come to
life with de facto President Barack Obama, someone who is not a
natural born citizen, who told the world that he was going to
“fundamentally transform” the United States..."
My
expanded response to his statement, "the question is how
to do it" is, and maybe it is too simple, maybe it is
time to use the Sword of Alexander, the original genesis
original intent of original birther John Jay,
author of “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington
on July 25, 1787 in which he underlined the word “born,”
and simply cut the Gordian knot. So, maybe it is just
time to change the conversation? Change the conversation from
what we on both sides assert that “natural born Citizen”
means to what we on both sides want “natural born Citizen”
to mean for 21st century America. Maybe it is time to change the
conversation from what we believe the founders and framers wrote and
what they meant in 1787 with “natural born Citizen,” and what we
believe they meant in 1787 in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, to what
we believe that "natural born Citizen" should mean today
and tomorrow to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America
for our own posterity?
I found myself looking at the
common sense original genesis original intent
aspect of the “natural born Citizen” eligibility phrase as John
Jay may have explained it to George Washington, who accepted Jay's
definition by passing on the suggestion to the convention delegates
and framers of the language. I think that my new best friend John Jay
is a convenient way to explain why I think that John Jay's common
sense “original genesis original intent” is
the Sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot of
confusion surrounding the original genesis original intent meaning of
"born" in "natural born Citizen" that Jay
underlined in his brief note to George Washington.
The
story is that after Alexander the Great was told that the next
ruler of Asia would be the person who untied the intricate knot tied
by King Gordian of Phrygia, Alexander, instead of trying to
untie the intricate know, he simply cut it with his sword.
Well,
it's that simple.
That
is why I think that the “original genesis original intent of John
Jay” is the Sword of Alexander
to simply "cut" the
"what-does-natural-born-Citizen-really-mean"
Gordian knot.
To put it simply, here are three
possibilities.
1-
Does “nbC” mean only
singular U.S. citizenship or singular
AND
dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
2-
Does “nbC” mean only
birth on U.S. soil or U.S. soil OR
foreign soil?
3- Does “nbC” mean only
birth to two U.S. citizen married parents or ALSO
birth to one or zero U.S. citizen parents?
We can't quit
now, another national election cycle is coming soon. The previous
essay about changing the conversation and this essay is my way of
changing my conversation from the ethereal that is disputable about
past history to the current reality that something proactive has to
be done in America to wake up the American people from their
lethargy, and when they are awake to start a conversation to reach
agreement about our Federation and who in the future will be allowed
to occupy the executive office of our Federation that was created by
the original creator, WE the People of the original several states.
I think that an
Article V amendment by a convention of state
legislatures is the best constitutional way to "nullify"
the "phone" and "pen" unconstitutional Executive
Orders by the current person who managed to “OCCUPY America”
and the oval office. The exact phrase in Article V is "...
or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the
several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ...
." For people who don't know, Article V does not
authorize a Constitutional Convention, a Con-Con, to rewrite the
entire constitution. It authorizes a convention of "several
states" to simply propose amendments.
Period.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
November
13, 2014 at 12:03 pm
(
http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-80239
)
Although I am including a short reference to Mario's previous comments directed at Slartibartfast, found at the above url, this is not about him as a
person, 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 citizenship meme
while they continue with their agenda of protecting the Obama's
administration of our WE the People government to try to "transform
the United States of America" from within the federal oval
office, and to infect the entire federal government, legislative,
executive and judicial, with an ideological ebola virus, the
progressive idea (but really a Saul Alinsky style anarchist
reiteration of an (inter-)national "commune" idea to bring
equality by force) that the constitution is a charter of negative
liberties, explicitly enumerating what the federal government is
limited to do and also what it can NOT do to the American people, so
Obama is attempting to "transform" the constitution by
Executive Order into a charter of positive liberties, what the
federal government MUST do FOR the people, without limits, such as
redistribution of wealth in the "commune" from those who
work for a living to those who vote for a living, and to eventually
require every American in the "commune" to receive
government welfare single payer health care, whether they want it or
not, or they will be punished.
This
is the child telling the parent that the parent will be punished if
they do not pay for the eventual single payer welfare provided by the
child. The "child" is the federal government telling the
"parent" several states and WE the People that we will be
punished if we do not pay for the eventual single payer welfare
provided by the federal government. The "federal government"
is the creature of the creator, WE the People of the several states.
We must change the conversation so that WE the People
of the several states start to speak to our "creature," our
"child," our federal government, with Article V
constitutional authority.
The question is how to do
it?
While Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent and
everyone agrees that he has dual citizenship from birth, the meme of
the Obama neo-birthers includes the incoherent proposition that
"Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" simply because he
is a U.S. "citizen" because he was born naturally and not
naturalized, in fulfillment of the first part of the first sentence
of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment ("... born or
naturalized in the United States...subject to the [U.S.]
jurisdiction are citizens..."). So,
yes, Obama, born on U.S. soil, so he says, to only one U.S. citizen
parent, is a citizen and not a naturalized citizen at birth or by
oath, but for some reason the Obama “nbC” new meaning
neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that
"Obama-is-an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen"
just like 42 of the 44 presidents. However, contrary to the
assertions of the Obama neo-birthers, ALL 42 previous presidents were
recognized as eligible to be POTUS by either being grandfathered into
POTUS eligibility in A2 S1 C5, #1 to #7 and #9, or by being authentic
A2 S1 C5 "nbCs" because they were born on U.S. soil to two
U.S. citizen parents. The two exceptions in 44 presidencies are #21,
Chester Alan Arthur, and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.
This
incoherence about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is
important to clarify because, along with Democrats, Independents,
Libertarians, and nebulous Anarchists, there are Republicans who are
getting into the redefinition game and are promoting the same meme,
"birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility.”
See “natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio,
Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz”*
by William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell
Law School, Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 9:05 am at his excellent
blog "Legal Insurrection" where he wrote, "I
believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz to be “natural born
Citizens” and eligible to be President. Here’s why," and
also, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal
and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen”
as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text
because they became
citizens by
birth."
*
Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority;
rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law
>>
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
As with Democratic neo-birthers, Republican "MY
GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers also NEVER try to defend the
proposition that
"an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen-ALSO-applies-to-ALL-children-born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents."
The political party neo-birthers NEVER assert that John Jay implied
ALL of that in his note to George Washington and that
Washington agreed with Jay about ALL of that. Why? A2 S1 C5 is
a no-go-zone for political neo-birthers to adduce the natural
law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" (A2
S1 C5 "natural born" = natural law,
and "Citizen" = positive law—and
natural law precedes, guides and protects the application of positive
law).
Here is an example of natural preceding,
guiding and protecting the application of positive law.
Why
is it true that an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen" child,
born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, can not lose "nbC"
status simply by adoption (positive law)? It does not matter
if it is heterosexual or homosexual adoptive parents because the
natural law birth and the positive law citizenship take
precedence over the positive law adoption. The perpetuity of
the A2S1C5 natural law "natural born" from two
persons status protects the perpetuity of the positive law
"Citizen" from two U.S. citizens status, not vice versa.
Unless there is a future statute (positive law) that legally
removes the natural law authority of "nbC" status from
adopted children (such as statutes do that give legal
credence to requiring naturalization to those who legally renounce
U.S. citizenship and then want to repatriate), the child
remains an "nbC" for life even if adopted—but "nbC"
status MUST be verified BEFORE adoption for “nbC” status to
“remain” for life.
It is obvious that John Jay was not
memeing what Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, and what
William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor and others are
memeing. In 1787, John Jay, only four years after he, as one of the
three signatories (Franklin, Madison, Jay), signed the 1787
Treaty of Paris formally ending the war with England, Jay certainly
was NOT memeing that, (1) whether born on U.S. OR
foreign soil, only “one” U.S. citizen parent is sufficient
for POTUS eligibility, and (2) being born on U.S. soil to
“zero” U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for POTUS
eligibility. Accepting the “nbC” new meaning neo-birther meme,
others are saying that (3) the constitution should be amended
to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted
children of two or one U.S. citizen adoptive parents, whether the
adoptive parents are single OR married heterosexual OR
homosexual.
No wonder the American people, including Phd
and Master mathematicians and Professors of law at prestigious
schools of law are confused about John Jay's original genesis
original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in his
1787 note to George Washington. They NEVER consider and adduce John
Jay's 1787 original genesis original intent perspective. They are
confused about why all three words were included in the 1787
constitution in A2S1C5 and not merely "natural born" or
"natural citizen" or "born a citizen" or "a
born citizen" or "citizens by birth" or "born"
or simply "a citizen."
Mario Apuzzo posted to
Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka Phd mathematician, the /#comment-80239
mentioned above, on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the blog of
make believe about open borders immigration being good for the GOP
and a free America, and how the positive law about citizenship
defines natural born citizenship and natural law, for
some reason never adduces is the natural law foundation of
positive law, e.g., natural law birth precedes positive law
citizenship.
As a mathematician Kevin must have a
logical reason (Or could it be as simple as cadre, paid or unpaid,
that he would spend years to "try" to debate you [Mario]
with the intent ultimately of helping Obama fulfill the greater
agenda of "transforming the United States of America" into
a community organizer's (inter)national "commune"?) to
promote the proposition that parents with two different citizenships
can produce a child with dual citizenship that can somehow, ipso
facto, fulfill John Jay's original intent of a child born with
singular U.S. citizenship (the meme of the
"Obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen"
cadre is that dual citizenship is of equal relevance to singular U.S.
citizenship for POTUS eligibility. Why? 'Cause he was born naturally,
and besides, Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, of course).
Kevin, while he is probably a natural born citizen
himself, probably born on U.S. soil, probably born to two U.S.
citizen parents, he promotes, without historical foundation, the
proposition that to be eligible to be POTUS only one U.S. citizen
parent is sufficient to make a child an Article II Section 1 Clause 5
"natural born Citizen" because he and other proponents of
"one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility"
such as William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor believe that
a child who is a 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" is
ipso facto sufficient to fulfill John Jay's 1787 natural law
understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant to Jay
in 1787. This was three years before the 1790 Naturalization Act used
the words "natural born Citizen" and eight years before the
1795 Naturalization Act repealed the words "natural born
Citizen" and replaced the three word unit with the single word
"citizen" so that the 1795 Naturalization Act (and 100%
of ALL subsequent naturalization acts of Congress, all positive
law) would conform to the natural law part of A2S1C5
("natural born") which gives
natural law credibility to the positive law part of A2S1C5
(“citizen") because the third Congress
corrected its error as understood in 1795 that a naturalization act,
a positive law, can NOT "make" a person
eligible to be POTUS. The two natural parents (natural
law) produce a natural law child, and the same two
U.S. citizen (positive law) parents produce a singular
positive law citizen, NOT a positive law dual
citizen.
A hypothetical scenario, an alternative way of
looking at what the Congress did in 1795, eight years after John Jay
underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen,"
shows the irrefutable true original genesis original intent of John
Jay in 1787. If Jay had originally intended that "nbC"
meant NOT ONLY being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen
parents, but ALSO being born on foreign soil to two U.S.
citizen parents, as the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly said about
foreign birth to U.S. citizen parents, plural, that would have meant
that the third Congress changed Jay's original genesis original
intent meaning about birth ALSO on foreign soil to U.S.
citizen parents, plural, with the 1795 Naturalization Act implication
that "nbC" status was reserved ONLY for children
born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married
parents (plural).
Of course, that hypothetical scenario is
not so. However, even though it is NOT so, the Obama neo-birthers
could still obfuscate about it. So, what is it that has stopped the
Obama neo-birthers from obfuscating about the 1787 original intent
meaning of John Jay and asserting with neo-birther new meaning
original intent that what Jay REALLY meant was birth on U.S.
OR foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural? Well, maybe
two things. (1) They would have to promote the proposition
that in 1795, eight years after 1787, the third Congress in Pres.
Washington's second term changed Jay's original intent meaning of
"nbC" from meaning being born on U.S. soil OR being
born on foreign soil, to being born ONLY on U.S. soil, and (2)
they would have to admit that, yes, in 1787, Jay did originally mean
ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents, "parents"
plural as explicitly written in BOTH the 1790 and the 1795
Naturalization Acts.
For some reason the
"Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" new meaning
neo-birthers shy away from the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen"
(positive law) language and hover around the repealed 1790
Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen," (positive
law*)
language when they're not hovering around the 1868 14th Amendment
"citizen" (positive law) language. They don't seem to
understand that the words "natural born" are natural law
language and not positive law language, and the word "citizen"
is a positive law word and not a natural law word.
*
Positive law only in this one
instance. The entire three word unit "natural born
Citizen" is positive law language because the first Congress
included the entire phrase in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a positive
law statute, and linked it to the word
“considered.” This 1790
Naturalization Act language and the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen”
language is an example of how positive law
can NOT "make" natural law,
and, in the 1795 “citizen” language conversely, how
natural law defines, clarifies and guides the
"making" of positive law. In A2S1C5
"natural born" = natural law, and
"Citizen" = positive law. The positive
law "follows" and is guided by natural
law, NOT vice versa)
A 14th
Amendment positive law "citizen" can not be "made"
by a positive law amendment or a positive law statute or a positive
law, so to speak, court opinion into an A2S1C5 natural law/positive
law "natural born Citizen". Being a "natural born"
child and born naturally on U.S. soil or foreign soil to one or zero
U.S. citizen parents can not make that "natural born" child
into an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen" child who is born
naturally ONLY on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents.
Positive law dual citizenship can not produce positive
law singular citizenship in fulfillment of John Jay's common sense
original genesis original intent in underlining the natural law word
"born" in the natural law/positive law phrase "natural
born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, who agreed with
Jay. Neither Jay, Washington or the 1787 convention delegate framers
and the subsequent states ratifiers of "natural born Citizen"
would agree with the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, the Obama
neo-birthers, the Cruz neo-birthers, the Rubio neo-birthers, the
Haley neo-birthers, the Jindal neo-birthers, or any future "MY
GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers who may promote persons born
(natural law) with only one or zero U.S. citizen (positive
law) parents, whether born (natural law) on or off U.S.
soil (natural law) or jurisdiction (positive law).
The
soil is "natural law" soil because by the natural law right
of conquest, the soil is what it is by natural law, by the law of
nature, and natural law, nature, is not changed by conquest. The soil
is simply, well, soil, it is not "made" soil by positive
law after conquest. In other words, to get an affirmative tip of the
hat from the deists and atheists who do not believe there is a God
who created the soil, the soil is 100% "natural" made soil
and defined by natural law, not man "made" soil and defined
by positive law. The soil is a natural law entity independent of
whether or not a natural law birth happens on the natural law soil.
The soil, being a natural law entity, is not a positive law idea and
creation. Natural law, nature, can not be changed by positive law,
declaration by congressional statute or judicial opinion.
Sen.
Cruz had only one U.S. citizen (positive law) parent at his
birth (natural law) outside of U.S. jurisdiction (positive
law) on foreign soil, Canada.
Sen.
Rubio had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his
birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).
Gov.
Haley had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at her
birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).
Gov.
Jindal had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his
birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).
A2S1C5
“ONLY-singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents”
John Jay birthers probably can not and NEVER will agree, for basic
common sense and John Jay original genesis original intent reasons,
with the proposition of the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers that
being born on U.S. OR foreign soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen
parents was included by implication in John Jay's original intent
meaning in underlining the word "born" in "natural
born Citizen," and conversely, the
“dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-by-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility”
neo-birthers can not and NEVER will agree, for political and
"transform the United States of America" agenda
reasons, that ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction came later)
and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents was John Jay's ONLY common
sense original intent. How could they? Obama had ONLY one U.S.
citizen parent at birth on U.S. soil, or so they say he was born on
U.S. soil. They only say so 'cause Obama says so, without authentic
and irrefutable verification, so who can believe the same guy who
says, if not EVERY time then MOST of the time when something bad
happens in his administration, that he didn't learn about it until he
heard it on the news just like, uh, well, just like everybody else
did.
Time to Change the Conversation and
Move on to Agreement
So, how do we change the
conversation and move on to agreement about a solution to clarify the
perpetual "Union" meaning of "natural born Citizen"
in 21st century America for ourselves and for our posterity?
It
is time to change the conversation with questions. The John Jay
birthers, the Obama neo-birthers and the “MY GUY” or “MY
GAL” neo-birthers have been making assertions since 2008 that
are retrospective and reactive in nature and so are
intractable. However, our questions can be prospective and
proactive and open to coherent input from ALL of WE the People
and not just the few who have been engaging in the POTUS eligibility
debate since the 2008 election cycle when BHObama was nominated as
the Democratic choice for POTUS.
It
is time to move on from what we think "natural born subject"
meant to Coke, the Calvin's Case in the 1600s, Blackstone, Tucker and
Vattel in the 1700s, etcetera, and what "natural born Citizen"
meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers in
the 1700s, 18th century America, etcetera, and Congressional acts and
statutes, and Supreme Court opinions in the 1800s, 1900s and the
2000s. It is time to agree about what we, WE the People, think
"natural born Citizen" meant in 1787 America and what it
should mean today in 21st century America. What should "natural
born Citizen" mean to us and to our posterity? Which implicit,
tacit meaning of "natural born Citizen" (ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship vs. ALSO dual
U.S./foreign citizenship) will best preserve for us and for our
posterity the perpetual "Union" as Pres. Lincoln explained
in his first inaugural address in 1861.
A
Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to
Propose Amendments
Maybe WE the People, through our
state legislatures and an Article V convention of state legislatures
to propose amendments, should take the clarification of the meaning
of "natural born Citizen" out of the hands of the
“See-no-evil-Hear-no-evil-Speak-no-evil-about-Obama”
Congress and Supreme Court, and also bring to heel the progressive
lap-dog media.
We can let the
"Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers and
the "transform the United States of America" cadre
claim victory after victory in the court of public opinion and in the
courts that did not deal with the merits of POTUS eligibility, while
we John Jay original intent birthers can lose in the courts and the
court of public opinion and still claim a Pyrrhic victory with an
Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an A2S1C5
amendment to clarify what we all want, the
“dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-born-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility”
neo-birthers and and the John Jay “ONLY
singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility”
original intent birthers, we, singular U.S. citizenship and dual
U.S./foreign citizenship proponents, want "natural born Citizen"
to mean something definite to help us all to assess future POTUS
candidates who will not be able to obfuscate about their
eligibility.
The
“dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility”
neo-birthers can win every battle in the lower courts and in the
uninformed court of public opinion but they will most likely lose the
ideological long war in the court of informed public opinion, and
they will probably lose the ideological debate in an Article V
convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify John Jay's
perpetual (from 1787 to today) “original genesis original
intent” meaning of “natural born Citizen” to determine
POTUS eligibility.
The John Jay inspired
“ONLY-singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents-is-good-'nuf”
birthers can lose every battle in the lower courts and in the court
of public opinion but will most likely win the ideological long war
with an Article V convention of states.
At this point it
is an open question, and the federal congress and the federal court
system is of no help in clarifying the meaning of "natural born
Citizen" and POTUS eligibility. See The Justiciability of
Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? by Daniel P.
Tokaji, published in 2008*,
"Conclusion: The current federal lawsuits challenging the
presidential candidates' eligibility to serve as president are not
justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case
could be brought in federal court as an initial matter."
*
Justiciability of Eligibility – (
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-justiciability-of-eligibility-may-courts-decide-who-can-be-president
)
In an Article V convention of states to propose an
amendment to clarify what WE the People of 21st century America want
the meaning of "natural born Citizen" to be, which
definition of "natural born Citizen" listed below will the
people choose as their own preferred definition for their own
posterity?
Do we ALL want Clarity about the
Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual
"Union" of America?
Are there any who do not
want clarity about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and what "natural
born Citizen" could, should or will mean in our 21st century
American future? If there are any who do not want clarity, why? Do
they want to "transform" and to "break" the
"Union" of America? If so, they are an enemy of the state.
If so, they are an enemy of the perpetual "Union" of
America. If so, they are an enemy of Pres. Lincoln who fought to save
the perpetual "Union" of America from the civil war
transformers of 1861-1865.
If he had lived, Pres. Lincoln
probably would have fought to defeat the third phase of
Reconstruction transformers who wanted to remain separate and
resisted being equal for decades after the negro Republican
politicians were removed from public office in the south; he would
have fought the "living constitution" transformers who
don't believe that original intent is applicable in constitutional
construction and so cannot inform judicial opinion; and finally,
Pres. Lincoln would have fought the “we are five days away
from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”
transformers; he would have fought the "break it, so to
speak" transformers.
To read what Pres.
Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who
would try to "break" the perpetual "Union"
of America, and what he said about the "Union" and the U.S.
Constitution, see paragraphs 12 to 16, specifically #13 & #14, at
Bartleby.com.*
*
President Lincoln – (
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ).
In
paragraph #13 Pres. Lincoln said "One party to a contract
may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all
to lawfully rescind it?" In paragraph #14 he said "The
Union is much older than the Constitution." The two
sentences together mean that the perpetual "Union" is also
older than Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and older than the words
"natural born Citizen" with the meaning as understood in
1787 America. However, the "Union" is not older than the
natural law that is the original genesis foundation, the guide and
the teacher directing the construction of a positive law
constitution, and of the original genesis original intent of the
natural law/positive law words "natural born Citizen" to
mean birth of a child on the soil claimed by U.S. citizen parents,
plural. The “nbC” requirement was applied exclusively in A2S1C5
to the Chief Executive of our new tripartite Federation, our federal
government.
While
the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born
Citizen" apply to the executive of the federation and do not
apply to the several sovereign states who are the only creator,
singular, of the creature that they created, the constitution,
specifically A2S1C5, and the entire tripartite federal government,
natural law does apply to the several states. The several
states have the natural law right*
to determine their own sovereign future, as they did in 1787 with the
construction of the federal Constitution and the Federation, the
tripartite federal government. It was formed to preserve for the
several states at that time their perpetual "Union" of
America, and to secure for their posterity the perpetual "Union"
of America from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, who would try to
"violate it—break it, so to speak" and "transform"
the perpetual "Union" of now OUR America by transforming
the constitution from a charter of negative liberties into a charter
of positive liberties to equalize the people in the (inter)national
commune.
* A
positive law does NOT determine natural
law or grant primacy to
natural law, so a positive law
could NOT “give”
the several states of the Union the natural
law “right” to determine the positive
law “rights” of the “several states” as
members of the Union.
Listen as Obama expresses
his "negative liberties" explanation in a 2001
public radio interview. His rejection of the “negative
liberties” of the U.S. Constitution is another way of saying
that the “positive law” of the Constitution which limits
the responsibilities of the new tripartite Federation did NOT include
positive law to direct the Federation to do “for” the
people what the people could NOT, or would NOT, be allowed to do for
themselves.
1min. 45 sec. Youtube video (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs )
4min. 17 sec.
Youtube video, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM )
“The
Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of
wealth, and of more basic issues of political and economic justice in
this society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to
characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t
break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the
Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been
interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that
generally the Constitution is a charter of negative
liberties. It says what the states can’t do to
you. It says what the federal government can’t
do to you, but it doesn’t say what
the federal government or state government must do on your
behalf.” - Barack Obama
After
listening to the audio of the above quote, people will understand the
"positive liberties" reason why dual citizen Obama
nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, as found in this National
Review Online article, Kagan:
Constitution as Charter of “Positive Liberties”,
by Ed Whelan on May 17, 2010*
*
Positive Liberties – (
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/55696/kagan-constitution-charter-positive-liberties/ed-whelan
).
Here is another example of how natural law informs and
guides the construction of positive law.
The several
states of America who ratified the "negative liberties"
constitution can not nullify their own natural law right as creator
to direct its creature, the Federation, the tripartite federal
government, to correct the problem caused by confusion about the
original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in
Article II Section 1 Clause 5. There are several ways to correct the
problem and eliminate the confusion. Two ways, statute and opinion,
are, as directed in the constitution, in the domain of the
legislature (Congressional statutes) and the judiciary (Supreme Court
opinions). The third way, with references in Article V to both the
U.S. Congress and the several states, is, by natural law common
sense, the natural law right and in the domain of the several states
who are the singular creator of the U.S. Constitution, Article II
Section 1 Clause 5, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire
Federation, the federal government, U.S. Congress, Executive
President and U.S. Supreme Court.
WE the People of the
several states are the natural law supreme law of the land
with natural law rights since we are the creator of our
creature, the U.S. Constitution, the written supreme law of the land.
WE the People, by natural law rights, predate the
constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and
the entire Federation, the federal government consisting of the
congress, the executive, the court. If WE the People want our several
states to conduct an Article V convention of states to propose one
amendment or multiple amendments because the other Article V
designated member of the Federation, the U.S. Congress, will not
resolve the confusion surrounding "natural born Citizen"
and POTUS eligibility, then, so let it be written, so let it be done
according to the will of WE the People of the several states in an
Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.
Move
On
How do we in 21st century America resolve the
confusion about the original meaning and original intent of "natural
born Citizen" and its application today? Let us move on with
sensible questions. Let us move on beyond what "nbC" could
have or should have meant to John Jay, George Washington and the
framers in 1787 America, and agreed with by the ratifiers of the
thirteen states, and rectified by the 3rd Congress in
1795.
Meaning
What do we in
21st century America want “natural born Citizen” to mean for
ourselves and for our posterity?
Some of the questions
below are dumb, dumb, dumb, but are included for continuity of
thought to show the absurdity of some of the
“Obama-Cruz-Rubio-Jindal-Haley-are-all-a-natural-born-Citizen”
reasoning proposed by some
“dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-by-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility"
neo-birthers, such as Prof. William Jacobson, Esq. Jacobson wrote on
his blog*, "There
are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each
being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most
reasonably can be understood through its plain text because
they became citizens by birth."
*
“...each being a 'natural born Citizen'...plain
text...became citizens by birth….”
(
http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/
)
Is Prof. Jacobson correct? Is the nebulous "citizens
by birth" the meaning of "nbC" that we want in 21st
century America?
Born of U.S. Soil
1a-
[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" mean only singular U.S. citizenship only
by being born on U.S. soil or jurisdictions only to two
U.S. citizen married parents?
There have been a total of
44 U.S. Presidents so far, and for 42 of them there has been no doubt
that they ALL have met the eligibility requirement to be POTUS, the
first 7 and the 9th, 8 in all, by being grandfathered into POTUS
eligibility since they were “...or a Citizen of...” by being born
before the accepted national naturalization date of July 4, 1776, and
the remaining 34 have had only singular U.S. citizenship by being
born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.
1b-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions
to one U.S. citizen parent?
The two U.S.
Presidents who were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents
and were born to one U.S. citizen parent are #21, Chester Alan Arthur
and #44, Barack Hussein Obama (although NO, zip, zero, U.S. hospital
has issued a public notice with a private or public ceremony that
BHObama was born in their hospital).
1c-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions
to zero U.S. citizen parents?
Sen. Marco Rubio,
Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley currently, as of December
2014 September 30, 2015, are three Republican potential
candidates for POTUS who were born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen
parents.
1d-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean either/or? Born on U.S. soil
and jurisdictions to either two or one or zero
U.S. citizen parents?
Born on Foreign
Soil
2a- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to two
U.S. citizen parents?
Being born on foreign soil to two
U.S. citizen parents, plural, was included in the 1790 Naturalization
Act (positive law), but it was repealed by the
1795 Naturalization Act (positive law), and the “nbC”
designation has never been included in any subsequent nationality,
immigration and naturalization statutes (positive law).
2b-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to one
U.S. citizen parent?
Sen. Ted Cruz currently, as of
December 2014 September 30,2015, is one Republican
potential candidate for POTUS who was not born on U.S. soil or U.S.
jurisdiction on foreign soil, but who was born on the foreign soil of
Canada to one U.S. citizen parent.
Sen. Cruz's "citizen"
status is defined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act,
1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)].*
See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at
USCIS.gov.**
*
(
http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html
)
** (
http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents
)
2c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to zero
U.S. citizen parents?
2d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ]
Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean either/or? Born on foreign soil to
either two or one or zero U.S. citizen
parents?
First Generation Citizen
3a-
[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" only mean born to 1st generation citizens,
U.S. soil born children of two naturalized U.S. citizens?
Implicit is that the following generations are included.
3b-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens,
children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?
3c- [ ]
Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens,
children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?
3d- [ ]
Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean either/or? Born to 1st generation
citizens, children of either two or one or zero
naturalized U.S. citizens?
Second
Generation Citizen
4a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ]
Maybe
Should
"nbC" only mean born to 2nd genera
4b- [
] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation
grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of one naturalized U.S.
citizen?
4c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S.
soil born children of of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?
4d-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
"nbC" also mean either/or? Birth to 2nd generation
grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of either two or one
or zero naturalized U.S. citizens?
Grandfather
Them All
1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ]
Maybe
Should Obama, the current "citizen" who has said
without verification that he was born on U.S. soil and who has
admitted that he had only one U.S. citizen parent, and he was still
elected President, should he be retroactively grandfathered into
POTUS eligibility to promote national tranquility?
Some
may ask, why grandfather Obama into constitutional (positive law)
POTUS eligibility before he leaves office?
Others ask,
why not?
Well, here are two reasons why, if it can be done
before he leaves office. (1) In an Article V convention of
states to propose amendments (positive law), WE the People can
grandfather into POTUS eligibility anybody we want grandfathered, and
we can do it retroactively or prospectively. (2) It might be a
way to spur the Article V convention of states movement forward with
agreement from the Obama neo-birther camp and the "MY GUY"
or "MY GAL" neo-birther camp and the John Jay
original genesis original intent birther camp.
2- [ x ]
Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should current "citizens"
such as Republicans Sen. Cruz, Sen., Rubio, Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal
and future "MY GUY" or "MY GAL"
"citizens" be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility just as
the first seven and the ninth presidents were, who were grandfathered
into POTUS eligibility because they participated in and were loyal to
the successful resolution of the revolution, the war for independence
that was declared on July 4, 1776? They grandfathered them into
citizenship eligibility in 1787, and we can do it again before the
2016 national election cycle to cut the "natural born Citizen"
Gordian knot of confusion as if with Alexander's sword.
Personally,
I like this idea of grandfathering into POTUS eligibility exceptional
American patriots because I really like Sen. Cruz, my favorite
federal Senator and my state of Texas junior Senator, and I also like
Florida Senator Rubio, as well as Gov. Haley and Gov. Jindal. All
would be excellent patriotic Commanders in Chief if elected
POTUS.
3- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
the current "citizens" who announce their candidacy for
POTUS be the last "citizens" to be grandfathered into POTUS
elibibility?
4- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
POTUS eligibility by "citizens" be limited to those who
announce their candidacy for the 2016 (or whatever
the first date will be—2020, 2024, 2028, etc.)
national election cycle?
5- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ]
Maybe
Should the 2028, for example, election cycle be the last
national election cycle that current "citizens" can
participate in (2028 or whatever the second
date will be 8 years after the first cut-off
date is used to start the “citizen” grandfather
cycle)?
Adoption and POTUS
Eligibility of U.S. Born or Foreign Born Children
Some
are saying that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to
grandfather into POTUS eligibility the U.S. born or foreign born
adopted children of two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents,
single or married, heterosexual or homosexual.
U.S.
Born Children
1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ]
Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open only to U.S. soil
or U.S. jurisdiction born children, born only to two U.S.
citizen parents, who are then adopted by two U.S. citizen
adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?
The
purpose is not to promote heterosexuality as superior to
homosexuality, or to promote homosexuality as equal with
heterosexuality, but to maintain the continuity of two,
verifiable natural law birth to two persons and
positive law citizenship derived from two U.S. citizens
married parents, and carried over to the not "one" but
"two" adoptive parents, since the adopted child is
already verified as having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being
born only on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction)
only to two U.S. citizen married parents.
2- [ ] Yes [
x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also
to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen married parents, who
are then adopted by one U.S. citizenship adoptive parent who
is single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?
3- [ ]
Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open
also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen married
parents, who are then adopted by zero U.S. citizenship
adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or
homosexual?
4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
POTUS eligibility be either/or? Open also to U.S. soil born
children born to U.S. citizen married parents, who are then adopted
by either two or one or zero U.S. citizen
adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or
homosexual?
Foreign Born Children
1-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be
open also to foreign born adopted children of two U.S.
citizen adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or
homosexual?
2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted
children of one U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are single
or married, heterosexual or homosexual?
3- [ ] Yes [ x
] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also
to foreign born adopted children of zero U.S. citizen adoptive
parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?
4-
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be
either/or? Open also to foreign born adopted children of
either two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive
parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?
How
to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify
How
should we codify our agreement about our perpetual meaning of and our
perpetual intent for "natural born Citizen" in 21st century
America?
1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified with an
Article V amendment that can only be nullified and repealed if
ratified by 75% (38) of the states, and which can not be touched or
affected by the U.S. Congress and its statutes or by Supreme Court
opinion?
2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified with a
statute by one Congress that can be nullified and repealed with
another statute by a following Congress, and also by an Article V
amendment?
3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified, so to
speak, with a Supreme Court opinion that can be nullified and
overturned by a following Supreme Court opinion, and also by an
Article V amendment?
Article V Convention
of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment
[ x ]
Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution an Article V
amendment that is initiated by, debated among and agreed to by
two-thirds of both House and Senate, which is sent to the states to
be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states, and then implemented
by Congress?
[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
the U.S. Congress resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural
born Citizen" with an Article V amendment initiated by
the bicameral U.S. Congress to clarify "natural
born [birth]" (natural law) and
"Citizen" (positive law)
and the
original genesis original
intent of “born”
in A2S1C5 in contrast to the
positive law
of “born...subject
to [U.S.] jurisdiction”
in the 14th Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court since United
States
v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?
[ x ] Yes [ ] No [
] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress use an Article V amendment
to clarify the distinction between natural law and natural law
birth, and also positive law and positive law
citizenship?
Article V Convention of the
Several States to Propose an Amendment
[ x ] Yes
[ ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution an Article V amendment
initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds (34) of the
state legislatures, ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state
legislatures or ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state
conventions, and then implemented by Congress?
[ x ]
Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the several states resolve the
confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with
an Article V amendment initiated by the “several states”
to clarify "natural born" (natural law) and
"Citizen" (positive law) and the original genesis
original intent of “born” in A2S1C5 in contrast to the
positive law of “born...subject to [U.S.]
jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the
Supreme Court since United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?
[
x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the several states use an
Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural
law and natural law birth, and also positive law and
positive law citizenship?
Yes, we can, with an Article V
amendment.
Si, se puede. Pronounced "see se pweth eh,"
Spanish for "yes, it's possible" or, roughly, "yes, we
can."
Statute by Congress
[
] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution a "what
does THAT mean" statute by Congress that can be nullified and
replaced with a succeeding statute, and also by an Article V
amendment?
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should
we resolve the confusion with a positive law statute?
[ ]
Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute
clarify natural law and natural law birth?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute clarify
positive law and positive law citizenship?
Court
Opinion
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the
solution a nebulous "what does THAT mean" opinion by the
Supreme Court that can be nullified and overturned by a succeeding
Court, and also by an Article V amendment?
[ ] Yes [ x
] No [ ] Maybe
Should we resolve the confusion with a court
opinion?
[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a
court opinion clarify natural law and natural law birth?
[
] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a court opinion clarify positive
law and positive law citizenship?
My
Choice: Codify with an Article V Convention of States
I
wonder which meaning of "natural born Citizen" the People
will want codified, and which method of codification they think will
have the best chance of resisting subversion and usurpation, and
which will be the safest long term solution to promote national
tranquility and national security?
My choice for the best
way to prevent future confusion that allows usurpation of the
Executive office of the federal government is an Article V
amendment by a convention of the states, the creator of
their creature the Federation, the tripartite federal government and
its written constitution. It would encourage grassroots participation
with a variety of opinions with the final proposition being an
amendment with language that would clarify "natural born"
(natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in
"natural born Citizen" as meaning (1) ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship, (2) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil or
jurisdiction, (3) ONLY by birth to two
U.S. citizen married parents, (4) ONLY
U.S. citizens by birth and not by naturalization. This means that
only the 2nd generation child, the grandchild of two
naturalized U.S. "citizen" grandparents and the child of
two U.S. citizen parents, would be a "natural born Citizen"
child of the two 1st generation "citizen" parents, and so
be “...eligible to the Office of President” at age 35.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“...an
amendment with language that would
clarify
"natural born" (natural law)
and
"Citizen" (positive law)
in
"natural born Citizen" as meaning
(1)
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship,
(2)
ONLY by birth on U.S. soil or jurisdiction,
(3)
ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents,
(4)
ONLY U.S. citizens by birth and not by naturalization.
This
means that only the 2nd generation child, the grandchild of
two
naturalized U.S. "citizen" grandparents
and
the child of two U.S. citizen parents,
would
be a "natural born Citizen" child
of
the two 1st generation "citizen" parents, and so be
“...eligible
to the Office of President” at age 35.”
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Opponents
may present a “positive law” rational (e.g., “MY
GUY-MY GAL” is an “original genesis original
intent” patriot) against limiting POTUS eligibility
to the 2nd generation child, but there is no “natural law”
reason preventing a change of POTUS eligibility from the 1787
positive law that made POTUS eligibility open to the 1st
generation of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" parents.
WE the People can "frame" and change POTUS eligibility and
limit it to the 2nd generation (and following
generations) if we want to just like the original birthers
(the original"framers") did in 1787
and limited it to the children of naturalized U.S. citizens. Just as
“natural born Citizen” was restrictive in 1787 America and made
applicable ONLY to the 1st generation child born to
two naturalized U.S “citizen” parents and not available to
the two naturalized citizen married parents, “natural born Citizen”
can be restricted today in 2000s America to ONLY to 2nd generation
children born to two 1st generation U.S. “citizen” children born
to two U.S. naturalized “citizen” married parents.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“Just
as “natural born Citizen” was restrictive in 1787 America and
made applicable
ONLY
to the 1st generation child born to two naturalized
U.S “citizen” parents
and
not available to the two naturalized citizen married parents,
“natural
born Citizen” can be restricted today in 2000s America to
ONLY
to 2nd generation children
born
to two 1st generation U.S. “citizen” children
born
to two U.S. naturalized “citizen” married parents.”
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The
amendment should include language only grandfathering into POTUS
eligibility current "citizens" who announce their "citizen"
candidacy before the 20?? national election cycle (whichever
national election cycle date is finally selected), and who will
then qualify themselves to announce their "citizen"
candidacy only one more time for the 20?? (the next national
election cycle 8 years after the first national election cycle date)
national election cycle (a one time only 8 year term limit to
announce). Since pre-amendment "natural born Citizens"
will not need to be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility, the
amendment should include them with language that indicates that since
they were born on U.S. soil or jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen
parents before the amendment, they will not be limited and will be
eligible in any national election cycle, until the last "natural
born Citizen" born before Amendment XXVIII (or whatever the
number will be) dies some time in the late 21st century or the
early 22nd century.
An Idea Whose Time Has
Come? Yes.
With the rise of political
and religious anti-American and anti-U.S. Constitution sentiment,
maybe designating the 2nd generation child as our 21st century
requirement for a "natural born Citizen" and POTUS
eligibility is an idea whose time has come?
John Jay was
prescient about the "Command in chief" being reserved only
for a "natural born Citizen." The perpetual "Union"
of America is being threatened by political and religious enemies
from without and within the tripartite Federation, the heart federal
government of WE the People. The time has come to clarify the meaning
of "natural born Citizen" for the 21st century and beyond
to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for ourselves
and for our posterity.
Which meaning do the John Jay
inspired original genesis original intent birthers, aka the
“ONLY-singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents”
birthers, think the American people would choose if given a chance to
give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and
positive law, the law of people?
Which meaning do
the new meaning neo-birthers, aka the “MY GUY-MY GAL”
“dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-by-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf"
neo-birthers, think the American people would choose if given a
chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of
nature, and positive law, the law of people?
The
question is not what do the American people think that "natural
born Citizen" meant to John Jay and others in Jay's era, or even
today, but what do the American people today in 21st century America
want "natural born Citizen" to mean for their own
"natural born Citizen" posterity?
Which
meaning of "nbC" do the American people think WOULD
promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of
America?
Which meaning of "nbC" do the American
people think would NOT promote national security and the
perpetual "Union" of America?
It can be done
with an Article V amendment, a convention of states to propose
amendments just like the House and Senate convene under the authority
of Article V to propose amendments. When the House and Senate convene
to propose amendments, they are not convening a Constitutional
Convention to rewrite the entire constitution, a deliberately
mislabled so-called Con-Con. They are doing what Article V gives them
authority to do, convene and propose amendments, and that is
also what an Article V convention of states does. The several states
convene to propose amendments. Period. That is the constitutional way
for WE the People of the several states, the creator of our creature,
the U.S. Constitution and the tripartite federal government, to
nullify abuses perpetrated by our Federation child, and the ultimate
and best way to preserve OUR perpetual "Union" of America
for our posterity.
Patrick Henry wrote after independence
was won from England on the back of his copy of the Stamp Act
Resolves that was passed May 1765 by the Virginia House of Burgesses,
an office to which George Washington was also elected for a few
years. The quote of Patrick Henry below is from George Washington's
Sacred Fire, page 292, by Peter Lillback, published 2010.
"Patrick
Henry is most known for his fiery, patriotic oratory. But his
patriotic fire was strengthened with biblical reflection. In May
1765, the Burgesses passed the Stamp Act Resolves. Years later, on
the back of the paper, Henry wrote a note for posterity that
highlighted several of the key events that led to the Revolution. His
climactic statement declared in bold letters that he was not a
Deist.
'This brought on the war which finally separated
the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will
prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make
of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us.
'If
they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a
contrary character, they will be miserable.
'Righteousness
alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art,
remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself,
and encourage it in others. P. Henry' "
Dittos.
ajtelles
PS:
A friendly hat tip to Prof.
William Jacobson who is mildly persuasive but certainly not
convincing in his defense of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz
as each being a "natural born Citizen" because each was
"born a citizen" of the U.S. because, as he put it,
“...because they became citizens by birth,”
implying but being very, very, very unpersuasive that "born
a citizen" = "natural born Citizen" in Article II
Section 1 Clause 5. However, the title of his blog, “Legal
Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion;
revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law,” is the
epitome of the explicit purpose of an Article V amendment by a
convention of states to propose amendments to clarify for our
posterity the confusion between "born a citizen" and
"natural born Citizen."
“Legal
Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion;
revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law.”
Yep,
THAT is the epitome of an Article V convention of states. Exactly
what the framers and ratifiers originally intend as the
constitutional way to nullify federal usurpation beyond the
powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-18,
and the best legal way to preserve the perpetual "Union" of
OUR America for our posterity.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of
the perpetual "Union"
The
"perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his
first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at
Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )
