John
Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural
born Citizen”
Why?
This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on April 8, 2014 at 1:14 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=7
<<>>
For a long time I have been trying to come up with a "higher hurdle" way of expressing the ONLY born on U.S. soil to TWO (2) U.S. Citizen parents implicit meaning, the ONLY implicit meaning, of “natural born Citizen,” that could help common sense busy citizens makes sense of the point/counter-point discussion associated with Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and the perpetual relevance of “natural born Citizen” for WE the Posterity of WE the People.
I expect that the “higher hurdle” of “higher truth” will be agreeable to ALL 21st century "birthers," the principled common sense "birthers" who adhere to the 1787 original intent of the 1787-1789 original birthers (Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, Electoral College Implementers), the principled Obama-birthers (they've gotta exist, they can't ALL be “O”bama... “O”bama... “O”bama... “O”... cadre Obots), the principled Cruz-birthers, the principled Rubio-birthers, etc., and the principled nebulous "birthers" of any persuasion who are on the “fulcrum of the see-saw” and are still not sure about the validity of the speculative proposition that the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" is an evolving ipso facto meaning of circumstance, depending on who the candidate may be (Obama, Cruz, Jindal, Haley, Rubio, etc.), or who in Congress may propose an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 ”lower hurdle” amendment to “clarify” the meaning of “natural born Citizen,” or who in Congress may propose the eligibility “lower hurdle” of being a U.S. “citizen” for 35 years or 20 years, regardless of where the POTUS aspirant was born and regardless of the citizenship status of one or both parents.
For those who are not aware of the nine resolutions proposed by Congress, which started in 2003 and stopped abruptly in 2008 after five Democrats and only one Republican passed a “simple resolution” (words found in the text) resolving that Arizona Senator John McCain was a “natural born Citizen,” below is a shorter version of a previous post here on Puzo1.blogspot.com, and all nine resolutions are available at http://originalbirtherdocument19.blogspot.com/ with URLs to the original government pages.
- - - - - - - - - -
Article II Section 1 Clause 5
No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of the President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
United States.
1 – JOINT RESOLUTION Jun 11, 2003 - 108th Congress, 2003–2004
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
2 – JOINT RESOLUTION Sep 03, 2003 – 108th Congress, 2003–2004
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.
3 – A BILL Feb 25, 2004 = 108th Congress, 2003–2004
To define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means—
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States—
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.
4 – JOINT RESOLUTION Sep 15, 2004 - 108th Congress, 2003–2004
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.
5 – JOINT RESOLUTION Apr 14, 2005 – 109th Congress, 2005–2006
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.
6 – SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' Feb 28, 2008 – 110th Congress, 2007–2009
Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: `Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces'.
- - - - - - - - - -
First, here are some “higher hurdle” questions for ALL “birthers.” 2000s “MY GUY/GAL” new meaning neo-birthers and 1787 John Jay original genesis original intent birthers.
Which do Obama-birthers and Cruz-birthers think represents the John Jay original intent and the “highest form of allegiance,” the “higher hurdle which is the highest hurdle” for a POTUS aspirant?
1a – A POTUS aspirant MUST be born to TWO (2) U.S. citizen parents.
1b – A POTUS aspirant CAN be born to ONE (1) U.S. citizen parent.
1c – A POITUS aspirant CAN be born to ZERO (0) U.S. citizen parents.
2a - A POTUS aspirant MUST be born ONLY on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction).
2b - A POTUS aspirant CAN be born ALSO on foreign soil.
3a – A POTUS aspirant MUST attain the age of 35.
3b – A POTUS aspirant CAN attain the age of 35 or less.
4a
– A POTUS aspirant MUST reside on U.S. soil for 14 years from age
21 to 35, or the last 14 years up to the year when pursuit of the
presidency is announced, and so be “...eligible to the Office of
President.”
4b
– A POTUS aspirant CAN reside on U.S. soil for 14 years from age 1
to 14 and fulfill the 14 year residency requirement to be
“...eligible to the Office of President.”
Here is Mario Apuzzo's quote from his blog that I mentioned earlier, followed with my comments:
“Second, since Jay was referring to the qualifications of the Commander in Chief of the Military, the last line of defense that a nation has to preserve and perpetuate itself, when Jay wrote natural born citizen, Jay was conveying to Washington the highest form of allegiance that a person could have to his nation.
“This
allegiance was natural allegiance.
“In
Jay’s mind, born citizen could only mean truly born a citizen by
nature and not made a born citizen by man’s positive or municipal
law.
“So,
one had to be a true born citizen and not one made a born citizen by
man’s law.
“Hence,
by underlying the word “born” which he preceded with the
qualifier “natural,” Jay emphasized that one had to be a natural
born citizen, which is what he wrote, and not just a born citizen,
which is what he did not write and which is what Alexander Hamilton
had proposed which was rejected.”
1 - >> "Second, since Jay was referring to the qualifications of the Commander in Chief of the Military,
“qualifications”
= requires a “higher hurdle”
2
- >> "the last line of defense that a nation has to
preserve and perpetuate itself,
“preserve
and perpetuate” = “higher hurdle” expectations
3 - >> "when Jay wrote natural born citizen,
“natural
born citizen” = a “higher hurdle” for 3 reasons inherent in the
three word unit itself
i - “natural” = conception, gestation, presence, the “higher hurdle” ONLY way to be born.
ii - “born” = the “higher hurdle” presence that is the result of the physical union of 2 persons.
iii - “citizen” = the “higher hurdle” result of the physical union of the “higher hurdle” TWO (2) parents who are BOTH “higher hurdle” U.S. citizens before their child is born on U.S. soil.
“highest
form” = “higher hurdle”
5
- >> "This allegiance was natural allegiance.
“natural”
= “higher hurdle”
The birth “natural allegiance” of the child is to the nation of the two parents who physically produced the child.
The citizen “natural allegiance” of the child is to the nation of the two parents who both possess the same citizen status.
If one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child, born on U.S. soil, is a “citizen” of the U.S. under the authority of the Fourteenth Amendment and by a statute of Congress according to Article V Section 5, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and the citizen “natural allegiance” of the child is to the nation of the one U.S. citizen parent and not to the nation of the foreign citizen parent.
If one parent is a foreign citizen, the child is not also a “citizen” of that parent's nation, and the child is not a U.S. “natural born Citizen” because the foreign citizen parent can not convey what the foreign parent does not possess, the “higher hurdle” of U.S. citizenship. This dual U.S./foreign citizenship means that the citizen natural allegiance of the child is not ALSO to the nation of the one foreign citizen parent.
For the same reason it takes two “persons” to tango and produce a child, it takes two U.S. “citizens” to produce a “natural born Citizen.” The same reason is simple, both take TWO (2).
It takes the minimum of TWO “persons” to produce a child and TWO U.S. citizen parents to produce a child who is also, by the “higher hurdle” of birth WITH 2 parents and citizenship FROM 2 parents, a “natural born Citizen” with “natural allegiance” to the nation of the two natural parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens.
U.S. natural born citizenship is the John Jay “higher hurdle” because it is (a) by “nature,” the physical union of 2 persons, (b) by natural law conception, gestation and “birth,” after the physical union of the 2 persons who are parents, and (c) by positive law “citizenship,” which is derived by birth to 2 U.S. citizen parents.
To accept any other definition of “natural born Citizen” is to accept the “lower hurdle” of BHObama and his Obama-birthers, ONE (1) U.S. citizen parent is sufficient and good 'nuf for government work, even though 2 persons are by nature necessary to produce a child.
To reject the “higher hurdle” of John Jay, TWO (2) U.S. citizens are minimum, and anything less, ONE (1) or ZERO (0) U.S. citizen parents is NOT good 'nuf.
6 - >> "In Jay’s mind, born citizen could only mean truly born a citizen by nature
“nature”
= “higher hurdle”
7
- >> "and not made a born citizen by man’s positive
or municipal law.
“made
… by … law” = “lower hurdle”
8
- >> "So, one had to be a true born citizen and not one
made a born citizen by man’s law.
“born
… not … made” = “higher hurdle”
“made … by ... law” = “lower hurdle”
9
- >> "Hence, by underlying the word “born” which he
preceded with the qualifier “natural,”
“made … by ... law” = “lower hurdle”
“born…natural”
= “higher hurdle
10
- >> "Jay emphasized that one had to be a natural born
citizen,
“be”
= a “higher hurdle” which is ONLY possible “by”
birth, not “by” law
11
- >> "which is what he wrote, and not just a born
citizen,
“just
a born citizen” = “lower hurdle”
12
- >> "which is what he did not write and which is what
Alexander Hamilton had proposed which was rejected.”
“what
Alexander Hamilton ... proposed [“born citizen”]
… rejected” = “lower hurdle” was rejected
- - - - - - - - -
John
Jay 2, Alexander Hamilton 0.- - - - - - - - -
John Jay 2, Obama-birthers 0.
John Jay 2, Congress 0.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of America
<<>>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Art (Ajtelles),
“Another way to look at John Jay’s underlying the word “born” when he wrote “natural born citizen” is the following: John Jay, being very familiar with the English common law knew that the English naturalized children born in the King’s dominion to aliens as “natural-born subjects.” In fact, Lord Coke and the English court in Calvin’s Case (1608), after the English Parliament refused to do it, naturalized Calvin. Calvin was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. Hence, he was born out of England to alien parents and therefore not born subject to the laws or government of England. Lord Coke, based on what he considered to be Calvin’s natural relationship to the new English King, naturalized the postnati Calvin (born after King James IV of Scotland became King James I of England, Ireland, and Scotland and therefore born within the King’s dominion) at birth to be an English “natural-born subject.”- “Emer de Vattel in Section 214 of The Law of Nations explained this English practice: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstances of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Again, while Calvin was not born in England, he was born in the King’s dominion.
- “Jay, being an avid reader and student of both the English common law and William Blackstone and the law of nations and Vattel, understood that generally under English common law a child born in England was by the mere fact of birth in the country, if occurring to alien parents, naturalized as of the time of the child’s birth to be an English subject. Hence, Jay meant to convey to then-General George Washington in the surest way that the Commander in Chief of the Military had to be a born “natural born citizen,” who, being so “born,” required no positive or municipal law or Congress or court to make him or her so, and not a “natural born citizen” made by such law, Congress, or court (if anyone believed that a natural born citizen could be so made).
- “We also know that our early Congress rejected the English common law jus soli model (which was really based on a relationship to the King and not just being born in the country) which allowed mere birth in the country to naturalize from the moment of birth an alien’s child born in England. Our early Congress (many members of the First and Third Congress were Founder and Framers), through the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, allowed children born in the United States to alien parents to be naturalized only upon the naturalization of the alien parents if occurring during the child’s minority and if dwelling in the United States, or upon the child reaching the age of majority, only upon duly presented naturalization petition of the adult. So, Congress, in the case of minors, when determining whether a child should be a “citizen of the United States” (or a “natural born citizen”) looked to the child’s relationship with his or her parents and whether those parents were citizens or aliens and not simply to the child’s place of birth which was not sufficient to produce either a citizen or a natural born citizen (Lord Coke also looked to Calvin’s relationship to the English King rather than to the fact that Calvin was born in Scotland rather than England.) So, we also have the word of our early Congress as a guide to what John Jay meant when he wrote “natural born citizen” to General Washington. And that word is that a natural born citizen could only be a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.
- “All this is incontrovertible evidence that a natural born citizen, in the eyes of John Jay and other Founders and Framers, had only one definition and that was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.”
- <<>>
Another way...
Mario, I made some comments on what you wrote on April 8, 2014 at 2:46 PM about John Jay and the "higher hurdle" implications for his underlining "born" in "natural born Citizen."
Maybe new meaning neo-birthers S...fast and Unknown can refute the "higher hurdle" aspect of ONLY birth in the nation of the TWO U.S. citizen parents to posthumously help John Jay clarify his implicit meaning. Did John Jay implicitly mean ALSO birth in the nation to ONLY ONE U.S. citizen parent; did Jay possibly mean ALSO birth in the nation to one OR two U.S. citizens parents??
- - - - - - - - - -
“Another
way to look at John Jay’s underlying the word “born” when he
wrote “natural born citizen” is the following: John Jay, being
very familiar with the English common law knew that the English
naturalized children born in the King’s dominion to aliens as
“natural-born subjects.” In fact, Lord Coke and the English court
in Calvin’s Case (1608), after the English Parliament refused to do
it, naturalized Calvin. Calvin was born in Scotland to Scottish
parents. Hence, he was born out of England to alien parents and
therefore not born subject to the laws or government of England. Lord
Coke, based on what he considered to be Calvin’s natural
relationship to the new English King, naturalized the postnati Calvin
(born after King James IV of Scotland became King James I of England,
Ireland, and Scotland and therefore born within the King’s
dominion) at birth to be an English “natural-born subject.”
“[...]
naturalized the postnati Calvin (born after King James IV of Scotland
became King James I of England, Ireland, and Scotland and therefore
born within the King’s dominion) at birth to be an English
“natural-born subject.”
“Emer
de Vattel in Section 214 of The Law of Nations explained this English
practice: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England,
where the single circumstances of being born in the country
naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Again, while Calvin was
not born in England, he was born in the King’s dominion.”
“[...] the single circumstances of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner. [...]”
“Jay,
being an avid reader and student of both the English common law and
William Blackstone and the law of nations and Vattel, understood that
generally under English common law a child born in England was by the
mere fact of birth in the country, if occurring to alien parents,
naturalized as of the time of the child’s birth to be an English
subject. Hence, Jay meant to convey to then-General George Washington
in the surest way that the Commander in Chief of the Military had to
be a born “natural born citizen,” who, being so “born,”
required no positive or municipal law or Congress or court to make
him or her so, and not a “natural born citizen” made by such law,
Congress, or court (if anyone believed that a natural born citizen
could be so made).”
Sentence 1 of paragraph 3 -
“Jay, [...] understood [...] a child born in England was by the mere fact of birth [...] naturalized [...] to be an English subject.”
Sentence 2 of paragraph 3 -
“… Jay meant to convey [...] Commander in Chief of the Military had to be a born “natural born citizen,” [...] and not a “natural born citizen” made by such law [...].”
Jay's “higher hurdle” of being, by nature, a “BORN” natural born Citizen vs. the “lower hurdle” of being, by law, “MADE” a natural born citizen distinction is exactly the “higher truth” which I have been trying to clarify and simplify for the “principled” birthers, original intent birthers, Obama-birthers and the nebulous birthers who are still not sure and so are still open to factual and implicit persuasion.
“We also know that our early Congress rejected the English common law jus soli model (which was really based on a relationship to the King and not just being born in the country) which allowed mere birth in the country to naturalize from the moment of birth an alien’s child born in England.”
The “lower hurdle” of a “relationship” was a “lower hurdle” because this “relationship to the King” could be abrogated by law in the future, while the “higher hurdle” of being “born” could NEVER be abrogated by ANY King.
"Our early Congress (many members of the First and Third Congress were Founder and Framers), through the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, allowed children born in the United States to alien parents to be naturalized only upon the naturalization of the alien parents if occurring during the child’s minority and if dwelling in the United States, or upon the child reaching the age of majority, only upon duly presented naturalization petition of the adult."
The early Congress understood the distinction between the "lower hurdle" of "allowing" naturalization, and that the "higher hurdle" of being born was beyond the control of Congress.
"So, Congress, in the case of minors, when determining whether a child should be a “citizen of the United States” (or a “natural born citizen”) looked to the child’s relationship with his or her parents and whether those parents were citizens or aliens and not simply to the child’s place of birth which was not sufficient to produce either a citizen or a natural born citizen (Lord Coke also looked to Calvin’s relationship to the English King rather than to the fact that Calvin was born in Scotland rather than England.)"
"... Congress, in the case of minors, [...] child’s relationship with his or her parents [...] not simply to the child’s place of birth [...] not sufficient [...] a citizen or a natural born citizen [...].
The "child's relationship with ... parents" was a by birth immutable "higher hurdle" whereas the "relationship" with the King was a by law mutable "lower hurdle" that could be abrogated because it was by declaration of mutable law, not by immutable nature.
"So, we also have the word of our early Congress as a guide to what John Jay meant when he wrote “natural born citizen” to General Washington. And that word is that a natural born citizen could only be a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth."
The early Congress did NOT in any way indicate, not even a "smidgen" of contrary discussion, that what Jay meant was NOT sufficient, which means that the early Congress DID agree that Jay's "higher hurdle" (my word, not Jay's) of being born in the nation of the parents who were it's citizens before the child was born WAS superior to a tacit "lower hurdle" of being "made" by declaration to be a "natural born citizen," a "made" declaration which could be abrogated by declarations of future Congresses.
"All this is incontrovertible evidence that a natural born citizen, in the eyes of John Jay and other Founders and Framers, had only one definition and that was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth."
- - - - - - - - -
My last comment to Mario: John Jay's prescient suggestion about "born" to George Washington meaning, as you wrote recently, >> "natural allegiance" as being "the highest form of allegiance that a person could have to his nation," contains the "kernel of truth" that hits the sweet spot of "higher truth."
If he were here, John Jay would probably say "dittos" to "only one definition."
Yes, ONLY ONE implicit definition, NOT TWO implicit definitions, to "natural born Citizen."
Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original Birther Document of America
No comments:
Post a Comment