What Did John Jay Imply?
This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on July 15, 2014 at 12:52 AM, followed by a short point-counterpoint on WND.com
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=15
<<>>
I was curious about how many times John Jay, the author of "natural born Citizen" in 1787, was mentioned in various online articles related to the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and the citizenship status of Sen. Ted Cruz, and how many times the 1868 Fourteenth/14th Amendment was mentioned, so I did a word search on CNN.com (two 2013 articles), WND.com (one 2012 article), YouGov.com (one 2014 article), and HotAir.com (one 2014 article).
TOTAL
9,868 total comments
John Jay = 18 = .001824%
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 787 = 0.7975%
1-YouGov.com poll
May 22, 2014 - Kathy Frankovic
>> http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/05/22/who-natural-born-citizen/
Who is a natural born citizen?
1,336 comments
John Jay = 3
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 109
2-CNN.com #1
August 14, 2013 - By Z. Byron Wolf
>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/politics/natural-born-president/index.html
Can Ted Cruz run for president?
12,167 comments (5,000 +/- )
John Jay = 2
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 43
3-CNN.com #2
August 13, 2013 – Gabriel "Jack" Chin – Special to CNN
>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/opinion/chin-cruz-president/index.html
Ted Cruz can be president, probably
700 comments
John Jay = 0
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 5
4-HotAir.com
May 27, 2014 - Allahpundit
>> http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/27/poll-majority-says-child-born-outside-u-s-to-one-american-citizen-parent-isnt-a-natural-born-citizen/
Poll: Majority says child born outside U.S. to one American-citizen parent isn’t a “natural born” citizen
276 comments
John Jay = 0
Fourteen/14th Amendment = 11
5-WND.com – 2,556 comments
July 13, 2012 - Bob Unruh
>> http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/supremes-asked-who-is-natural-born-citizen/
Supremes asked: Who is “natural born citizen?”
2,556 comments -
John Jay = 24 (- 12 from one commenter) = 13
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 124
Comment by dj anderson - 2 years ago
>> "If someone were in your home illegally,
and had a baby in your house,
would that baby then be a member of your family?"
This is an example of the type of simple "original genesis – original intent" questions that I like to ask about original birther John Jay's original genesis intent.
Did John Jay imply birth ONLY inside the U.S. OR birth ALSO outside the U.S.?
Did John Jay imply birth to ONLY two (2) U.S. citizen parents OR birth to ALSO one (1) U.S. citizen parent?
To Obama-birthers, aka 1868 original intent birthers, 1787 and John Jay are an original genesis and original intent no-go-to date and person, while 1868 and the 14th Amendment are the go-to "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" original intent pot 'o gold at the end of the rainbow.
To John Jay birthers, aka 1787 original intent birthers, 1787 and John Jay are the "two-U.S.-citizen-parents" original genesis go-to starting date, the gold mine source of "natural born Citizen" original genesis and original intent insight, while 1868 and the 14th Amendment is simply declaratory about "citizen" without amending "natural born Citizen" in Article II.
John Jay and his 1700s common law insight about national security is the light of day about original genesis and original intent that reveals the fallacy of the Obama-birthers' 2000s theory, their 2000s mythology of "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf.
Why?
Because the fallacy of ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is contrary to the natural law that ONLY two can generate one. ONLY two singular U.S. citizen parents can produce a singular U.S. citizen child.
The one-is-good-'nuf birthers prefer the 1868 14th Amendment while the two-is-a-must birthers prefer the 1787 Article II. The Obama-birthers prefer the original genesis implication of one U.S. citizen parent of the 14th Amendment over the original genesis implications of two U.S. citizen parents of Article II.
John Jay's explicit national security stated reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is STILL relevant in 2000s America, as the July 2014 children at the border debacle reveals. Obama is either incompetent or is deliberately creating a "Rules for Radicals" issue for "transform America" political gain.
It will take time to turn the information and education ship around, but the goal is for future commenters to mention John Jay and original genesis intent 109 times and to mention the 14th amendment original genesis intent 3 times. Kevin/aka S..., aka PhD mathematician, was starting to raise 14th amendment original intent trial-baloon terminology, but it didn't go anywhere because the 14th Amendment is declaratory, it did not amend Article II.
In a sense, the YouGov.com poll tug-of-war between you, Mario, and other original intent birthers vs. Dr. Conspiracy and other Obama-birthers was really a tug-of-war between 1787 John Jay, THE ORIGINAL genesis birther, and 2014 John Jay birthers pulling for 1787 and Article II, and the 2014 Obama-birthers pulling for 1868 and the 14th Amendment.
In simple terms, the "natural born Citizen" debate is a tug-of-war between John Jay and the 1787 Article II words "natural born Citizen" with the original genesis meaning of "two-U.S.-citizen-parents" is a higher hurdle must, and the 1868 14th Amendment word "citizen" and "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is lower hurdle good 'nuf for a child to be eligible to be POTUS.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Next
is a short John Jay related point-counterpoint with a commenter on
WND.com on July 16, 2014.
>>
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/impeach-obama-presidency-likely-illegal/
<<>>
First
is my answer to Dave B. about a previous comment of mine and his
answer.
"How
... imply"?
orImplication vs. Implication.
Dave B. to Art Telles
How exactly did he "imply" such a thing?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dave B.,
My answer to your question is in your answer to my original genesis question, expanded below for clarity.
1-Did John Jay imply birth inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents?
2-Did John Jay imply birth outside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents?
3-Did John Jay imply birth inside the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent?
4-Did John Jay imply birth outside the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent?
The promoters of the 2000s theory, the 2000s mythology, the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers, imply that ONLY "birth-inside-OR-outside-the-U.S.-to-two OR-to-ONLY-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf to be eligible to be POTUS.
The Obama-birthers also imply that in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, John Jay was implying that ONLY "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf.
John Jay, one of the plenipotentiaries to the 1783 Treaty of Paris, was definitely aware of Emer de Vattell's The Law of Nations, and English common law and American common law, and the 1700s common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance which informed the 1787 Founders that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular citizenship of the child.
The union of two persons produce one child, and the union of two U.S. citizen parents produce the U.S. citizen child, the John Jay "natural born Citizen" child.
1787 John Jay birthers believe that Jay was implying ONLY birth inside the U.S. ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents.
2008-2014 Obama-birthers believe that Jay was implying birth inside OR outside the U.S. to EITHER one OR two U.S. citizen parents.
So, implication vs. implication.
John Jay wins, and John Jay birthers win.
John Jay birthers win and Obama-birthers lose.
TWO U.S. citizen parents trump ONE U.S. citizen parent.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I reckon that makes sense to you.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I reckon that makes sense to John Jay too.
How about to you?
Are you with John Jay and his 1787 implication of "two-U.S.-citizen-parents" is THE Article II requirement to be eligible to be POTUS, or are you with the 2000s implication of the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That's kind of like three-card monte, isn't it? You just kind of slide the same words around a few times, and it's supposed to...what?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"... kind of like..."
Dave B., it's a simple issue, the "issue" pun is deliberate.
IN 1787, only four years after the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris ending the war of independence with Great Britain,
Was John Jay implying birth ONLY inside the U.S.?
Yes.
Was John Jay implying birth ALSO outside the U.S.?
No.
Was John Jay implying birth ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents?
Yes.
Was John Jay implying birth ALSO to one U.S. citizen parent?
No.
There's no slip-slidin' goin' on.
It's a straight forward no tricks question, right?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"... exactly like..."
Nope, Dave B.
John Jay in 1787 was not playing three-card monte when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, because Jay was concerned about national security.
Jay implicitly meant ONLY birth inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents.
Jay did NOT implicitly mean ALSO birth inside OR outside the U.S. to EITHER two OR one U.S. citizen parent.
Deception was not John Jay's original genesis original intent, nor is it mine.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dave B. to Art Telles
Cut the games and I'll carry on a dialogue.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Art Telles to Dave B.
Yes Dave B., cut the game of no response and I'll carry on a dialogue with you too.
So, what was John Jay's original genesis intent in 1787 before the first and subsequent naturalization acts and the 1868 14th Amendment?
1-Birth inside OR outside the U.S. to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?
2-Birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?
It's a simple question.
Right?
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dave B. to Art Telles
John Jay didn't explain his intent.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Art Telles to Dave B.
OK.
Well, why don't YOU explain John Jay's intent?
1-Was Jay implying birth inside OR outside the U.S. to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?
2-Was Jay implying birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?
It's a simple original genesis intent question.
Right?
My two parent is mandatory original genesis birther understanding is that Jay was implying, according to the 1700s common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance, that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular citizenship of the child, and the singular U.S. citizenship was a John Jay "natural born Citizen" eligible to be POTUS.
What is your "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther understanding, and what original sources or John Jay implication supports your "one U.S. citizen' parent" is good 'nuf point of view?
It's a simple question.
Right?
John Jay and his 1787 original genesis intent seems to be a winner question.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Dave B. to Art Telles
I'm not John Jay. And until you start writing coherent questions, I'm not going to try to answer them.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Art Telles to Dave B.
Dittos…
I also am not John Jay, but I have an informed opinion about Jay's 1787 original genesis intent.
So, you do not have a cogent and coherent response about what YOU think Jay may have been implying in 1787.
The question is not what do YOU know, but what do YOU think John Jay may have meant?
To put the question in other words, if you were to send a note to a friend, say somebody in the position of authority that George Washington had at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, what do YOU think YOU would have meant by underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in YOUR hypothetical note to, say, George Washington?
_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?
or
_ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
_ONLY birth on U.S. soil?
or
_BOTH U.S. or foreign soil?
_ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents?
or
_ALSO birth to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?
So, the winner is…
>> ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth inside the U.S. ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents makes a person a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS.
So, Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" because he ONLY had one U.S. citizen parent.
Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"
No comments:
Post a Comment