Dred Scott v. Sanford Affirms POTUS Singular U.S. Citizenship

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Affirms Article II Natural Born Citizens

Do Not Have Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on November 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16

<<>>

It is absolutely 100% impossible for a 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" to renounce "dual" citizenship because an “nbC” does not have "dual" citizenship. A "singular" citizenship is not a subset, proper or otherwise, of a "dual" citizenship, and of course a "dual" citizenship is not a subset, proper or otherwise, of a "singular" citizenship.

A big 21st century thank you to Dred Scott*.

God bless Dred Scott's memory and the influence today of his court challenge to set the record straight about his inclusion in the nation of "WE the People" as a fellow and free citizen. His court challenge was a failure at the time but it became a historical success when it was actualized by Pres. Lincoln and the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery of men and women of all races; followed by the 14th Amendment allowing citizenship for husbands and their wives of all races; followed by the 15th Amendment allowing the national vote for males of every race; followed by the 19th Amendment allowing the national vote for females of every race.

* Read a brief Dred Scott history at http://www.historynet.com/dred-scott

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages.

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856)**

That Scott v. Sanford quote, specifically “...of parents who are citizens,” means that one year after the February 10, 1855 act of Congress, when the wife could naturalize to become a U.S. citizen and acquire the U.S. citizenship status of her husband, it still took two singular U.S. citizen married parents to produce one singular U.S. citizen child.

The explicit statement of the court (“... of parents who are citizens”), tangentially and tacitly affirming the "singular" U.S. citizenship of both parents passing on to their child "singular" U.S. citizen status, and tacitly excluding "dual" citizenship, is why ALL of the U.S. Presidents are eligible to be POTUS except for #21 Arthur and #44 Obama—dual citizenship.

Even though the Scott v. Sanford decision affirmed slavery and Dred Scott was denied venue because he was not recognized as a citizen because he was a slave, and even though the “...of parents who are citizens” quote from Vattel was quoted to support the citizenship of white citizens, the value of the Emer de Vattel quote is that Vattel's Law of Nations was adduced as a source to support the question of citizenship because "[t]he natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens," and the majority decision has NEVER been abrogated by succeeding Supreme Court decisions. In other words, as I like to phrase the issue, Associate Justice Daniel adduced Vattel and affirmed that a 1787 “natural born Citizen” from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS has (1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (2) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil (3) ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents (4) ONLY married to each other (5) BEFORE the birth of their child.

** Here are three sources for Scott v. Sandford.
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=60&invol=393
>> https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/60/393/case.html
>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Associate Justice Daniel adduced Vattel and tacitly affirmed that

a 1787 “natural born Citizen”

from generation to generation

election to election

POTUS to POTUS

has

(1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

(2) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil

(3) ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

(4) ONLY married to each other

(5) BEFORE the birth of their child

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From Prologue Magazine, Summer 1998, Vol. 30, No. 2 – Archives.gov., paragraph #5 -
>> http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html

"The act of February 10, 1855, was designed to benefit immigrant women. Under that act, '[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, ' Thus alien women generally became U.S. citizens by marriage to a U.S. citizen or through an alien husband's naturalization."

It is absolutely 100% impossible for two "singular" U.S. citizen parents to produce a "dual" citizen child, and it does not matter where or when the child is born, according to the naturalization statues of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804,1855, 1907, 1922 (Married Women's Act, aka the Cable Act of 1922, named after it's author), 1924, 1940, 1952, 2011.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (2011) – LawandSoftware.com

>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/
>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/ina/
>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/ina/INA-toc.html
>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/blog/

It is absolutely 100% impossible for one U.S. citizen parent married to one non-U.S. citizen parent to produce a "singular" U.S. citizen child, and it at does not matter where or when the child is born.

That is why my favorite U.S. Senator and my Texas senator, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, born to a U.S. citizen and a Cuban citizen in Canada is not a "natural born Citizen" of the USA and is not eligible to be POTUS.

It is absolutely 100% impossible for two non-U.S. citizen parents to produce a "singular" U.S. citizen child, and it does not matter where or when the child is born.

That is why Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley are not natural born citizens of the USA and are not eligible to be POTUS.

_Republican Texas Senator Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz

- born on foreign soil to one US citizen parent

_Republican Florida Senator Marco Antonio Rubio

- born on US soil to two non-US citizen parents

_Republican Louisana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal

- born on US soil to two non-US citizen parents

_Republican South Carolina Governor Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley

- born on US soil to two non-US citizen parents

A "singular" U.S. citizen child who is a "natural born Citizen" definitely does not need to renounce "dual" citizenship and thus become an “nbC” by oath, as Sen. Cruz did this year of 2014 when he renounced his Canadian citizenship to retain only his U.S. citizenship.

Conclusion:

Was John Jay implying that a "natural born Citizen" could renounce "dual" citizenship when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his courtesy note to George Washington in 1787?

In that courtesy note, only four years after Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay signed the Treaty of Paris in 1873 formally ending the war of independence from England, Jay "hinted", aka "suggested", in his explicit words that the "Command in chief" of the military was to be reserved only, and "only" means ONLY, for US born children who would be born with "singular" U.S. citizenship, not "dual" citizenship.

What do the Obama “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers and Cruz “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers and Rubio “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers and Jindal “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers and Haley “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers and any future Republican neo-birthers or Democratic neo-birthers or Libertarian neo-birthers or Independent neo-birthers or Anarcharist neo-birthers [still in the nascent cell division stage], who may try to promote their "MY GUY" neo-birther candidate or "MY GAL" neo-birther candidate, think that John Jay, future first Supreme Court Chief Justice, was implying in 1787 by underlining the word “born” in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington when “nbC” was obviously originally intended to perpetually apply to ALL of "our posterity" from 1787 into perpetuity, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS?

1- Did Jay only imply that “nbC” meant birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
All Presidents were “nbC” except for #21 Chester Alan Arthur and #44 Barack Hussein Obama

These 8 U.S. Presidents were grandfathered into POTUS eligibility as "citizens" and not as "natural born Citizens":

_#1 George Washington
_#2 John Adams
_#3 Thomas Jefferson
_#4 James Madison
_#5 James Monroe
_#6 John Quincy Adams
_#7 Andrew Jackson
_#9 William Henry Harrison

_#8 Martin Van Buren, born 1782, six years after the "naturalization" date of July 4, 1776, was the first "natural born Citizen" elected POTUS, and did not need to be "grandfathered" into "citizen" or “nbC” status.

_#10 John Tyler, born 1790, three years after the "adoption" of the 1787 Constitution, was the second “nbC” and did not need to be "grandfathered" into "citizen" or “nbC” status.

_#21 Arthur and #44 Obama could not be "grandfathered" into POTUS eligibility as "citizens" since they came into existence after September 17, 1787 with "dual" citizenship status, and the last "citizen" who could have been grandfathered into POTUS eligibility died sometime in the 1800s.

2- Did Jay also imply that “nbC” meant birth on U.S. soil to also one U.S. citizen parent?
Vice Pres./Pres. CAArthur, and Sen./Pres. BHObama

Even if BHOs putative U.S. citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had produced a child with a U.S. citizen father to whom she was not married, for example, either U.S. citizen Frank Marshall Davis or U.S. citizen Malcom X or U.S. citizen whomever, that child still could not be an “nbC” since passage of the 1922 Married Women's Act (the Cable Act), the intent of which was affirmed by succeeding immigration and naturalization statutes since 1922, because, while two unmarried U.S. citizens can produce a "citizen" child, the "illegitimate" child could not be a "natural born Citizen" child in fulfillment of the original genesis original intent of the common law of the 1780s and the implications of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 when marriage was expected for "legitimacy" of birth in the 1700s and for their posterity, "WE the Posterity" in the 1800s, 1900s, 2000s.

3- Did Jay also imply that “nbC” meant birth on U.S. soil to also zero U.S. citizen parents?
Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley.

4- Did Jay also imply that “nbC” meant birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
1790 Naturalization Act, a statute that was repealed and corrected by another statute, the 1795 Naturalization Act which was affirmed by succeeding acts of Congress.

5- Did Jay also imply that “nbC” meant birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?
Sen. Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, the only one at this point in time.

6- Did Jay also imply that “nbC” meant birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?
Some advocates of naturalizing adopted children into POTUS eligibility are calling for the U.S. born and foreign born adopted children to be "grandfathered" into "citizen" status and eligible to be POTUS similar to the way that the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution were grandfathered into POTUS eligibility. Also, the adoptive parent or parents are to be U.S. citizens before the children are adopted.

This must NOT be allowed, considering the intent of some religious-political ideologues who want to impose an ancient religious law code that is intended to bring the U.S. Constitution into submission to the ancient religious law code, and the intent of political ideologues who want to "transform" the United States of America from a free thinker individualist republic into a central thought control collectivist commune.

The adoption option would allow religious supremacists who are U.S. citizens or political supremacists who are U.S. citizens to "adopt" supremacists in their late teens, nineteen, for example, and in sixteen years, with residence in the U.S. for the last fourteen years up to and including age thirty-five, the adopted "child" would be thirty-five and eligible to be POTUS.

The "citizen" by adoption option must NOT be allowed as a serious option in the think tanks, because the "citizen by adoption option" will "transform" a free individualist America into a theistic, religious, collectivist ummah, or an atheist, political, collectivist commune.

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