2, 1, 0: Pick Your Favorite U.S or Foreign Soil Birthright Citizenship Number

2, 1, 0

Pick Your Favorite U.S. or Foreign Soil

Birthright Citizenship Number

A similar post was posted March 29, 2014 at 9:49 PM on Mario Apuzzo's blog.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=7

<<>>

Pick your favorite Obama Obirther U.S. or foreign soil number, 2, 1, 0...

Over at ObamaConspiracy.org, Kevin Davidson, one of my favorite Obama Obirthers to read because he is voluble without being garrulous, and he's a kinda nice retired guy in a hat, made a page called “Intro to Birthers.”

>> http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/features/intro-to-birthers/

It starts with, “On March 1, 2008, a message appeared at the Free Republic forum:”

In the last paragraph he mentions without exposition that being “... born in the US to two US citizen parents” is a “theory” that was “created” by Leo Donofrio.

So, I analyzed Ken's comment and discovered, well, I really first discovered it by reading Mario who wrote about it December 20, 2008, and then later reading Leo Donofrio and others, that God, whom George Washington called “Sovereign,” blessed America in 1790, yes he DID, when wise and honorable original birthers of the first Congress made an unconstitutional error with the 1790 Naturalization Act.

I also discovered that George Washington's “Sovereign” God blessed America again in 1795, yes, he did it AGAIN, when the wise and honorable original birthers of the third Congress corrected their error with the 1795 Naturalization Act and repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act, specifically the three word unit “natural born Citizen,” and replaced the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 words with the single word “citizen,” since they were already a union of people with a constitution and NOT a monarchy with a monarch who called them “subjects” under authority to the monarchy.

Ken's entire last paragraph -

“The second prong of objection to Obama’s legitimacy is based on the fact that his father, Barack Obama Sr., was not a US Citizen. The theory, created by New Jersey attorney Leo C. Donofrio, says that the phrase “natural born citizen” in the Article II constitutional requirements for the President, means someone who was born in the US to two US citizen parents. Those who hold this legal theory largely base it on an 18th century legal treatise titled in English, The Law of Nations, by a Swiss jurist named Emerich de Vattel. While all the courts that have looked at this question deny any parental requirement for US Presidents, Donofrio’s theory is widely held by birthers to this day.”

Next is my very brief, because that is all that is needed, analysis and exposition of the last sentence, “... all the courts that have looked at this question deny any parental requirement for US Presidents, …” which reveals that the courts have obviously NOT looked at the “theory” of being “... born in the US to two US citizen parents” closely.

It is not necessary to take more than a very brief look at Kevin Davidson's implicit presupposition that being “born in the US” to ONLY one (1) U.S. citizen parent is the TRUE truth, the true “theory,” and it must be true BECAUSE only ONE U.S. citizen parent is ALL that BHObama had to offer to the American electorate in 2008 and 2012.


SIDE BAR:
The Republican equivalent of an “Obama Obirther” is a “Cruz Cbirther” because, although Sen. Cruz is my favorite common sense conservative Constitutional scholar and my favorite Senator from my state of Texas, Sen. Cruz is also not a “natural born Citizen” as revealed next in “theory” scenario 2b.


1a - Born in the US to two US citizen parents is a theory.
1b - Born in the US to one US citizen parent is a theory.
1c - Born in the US to zero US citizen parents is a theory.

2a - Born in a foreign country to two US citizen parents is a theory.
2b - Born in a foreign country to one US citizen parent is a theory.
2c - Born in a foreign country to zero US citizen parents is a theory.

To say that being born on US soil to two US citizen parents is a theory is tacit implication that all the other possible scenarios are theories also.

1b - Born on US soil to one US citizen parent is a theory.
1c - Born on US soil to zero US citizen parents is a theory.
2a, 2b, 2c - Born in a foreign country to 2, 1, 0 US citizen parents are three more theories.

Excellent.

Which “theory” is supported by the 1787 original intent of the 1787–1789 Founders, Framers, Ratifiers and Implementers, aka the original birthers who wrote Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and inserted it into the U.S. Constitution?

Which “theory” does NOT support the Obama Obirthers assertion that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient and necessary to be eligible to be President?

_The 1790 Naturalization Act originally said that “theory” 2a WAS the correct “theory.”

_The 1795 Naturalization Act corrected the 1790 Naturalization Act and said that “theory” 2a was NOT the correct “theory.”

_The 1795 Naturalization Act and ALL subsequent naturalization Acts of Congress said that 1b and 1c are also NOT the correct “theories.”

_The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act said that “theory” 2a, 2b, and 2c were NOT the correct “theories.”

_The SCOTUS has NEVER opined that “theory” 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c, are the correct “theories.”

That leaves only “theory” 1a to consider.

It looks like God blessed America in 1790 when the first Congress made a good-faith naturalization error and passed the 1790 Naturalization Act with the “natural born citizen” designation for a child born on FOREIGN soil to TWO (2) already U.S. Citizen parents who were married to each other BEFORE the child was born on foreign soil.

The error was corrected, repealed, and replaced with the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” designation for a child born on FOREIGN soil to TWO (2) already U.S. Citizen parents who were married to each other BEFORE the child was born on foreign soil.

The error of the first Congress was in not realizing that the 1790 Naturalization Act or any Act of Congress, and for the 2008-2014 Obirthers, even a SCOTUS opinion, could NOT change the 1787 original intent of a constitutional article, specifically Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and the original intent meaning of “natural born Citizen” as implicitly referring ONLY to a child born on U.S. soil to TWO (2) U.S already U.S. Citizen parents who were married to each other BEFORE the child was born ONLY on U.S. soil.

Article II was implicit about the number of U.S. citizen parents required to give the status of “natural born Citizen” to a child born on U.S. soil. The implicit number was clarified by both the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts. BOTH Naturalization Acts were explicit about the number of U.S. citizen parents that were required in 1790 to give the status of “natural born Citizen” to a child, and then corrected in 1795 to give the status ONLY of “citizen” to a child.

TWO U.S. citizen parents was the explicit and obvious original intent of both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts.

Thus, the correction by the God blessed third Congress when they replaced the 1790 Naturalization Act three word unit “natural born Citizen” with the 1795 Naturalization Act single word “citizen” clarifies that the implicit original intent of the 1787 three word unit “natural born Citizen” meant ONLY being born on U.S. soil with TWO U.S. citizen parents who were married to each other BEFORE their child was born to them ONLY on U.S. soil.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union