Sunday, September 20, 2015

Ockham's Razor and how the Unknown is Explained by the Known


Ockham's Razor and how the Unknown is Explained by the Known


This post is from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on April 14, 2014 at 8:54 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=9
<<>>

Here is a simple question about the “unknown” for Jack Maskell and Democratic Party defenders of the Barack Obama birth narrative, aka Obama-birthers, aka Obirthers, who tend to avoid responding with an Ockham's razor simple answer to Article II Section 1 Clause 5 'original intent' questions for some obtuse, not sharp and to the point, reason.

It is also a simple question for Republican Party defenders of the Ted Cruz birth narrative, aka Cruz-birthers, defenders of the Marco Rubio birth narrative, aka Rubio-birthers, and etc., defenders who talk often about the U.S. Constitution, but who do NOT define and defend with a simple Ockham's razor answer THEIR understanding of the original intent of “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, again, for some obtuse reason.

Also, with the same lack of an Ockham's razor simple answer, it is also a simple question for, as Mario Apuzzo wrote on April 13, 2014 at 8:48 PM,

>> “... television, radio, internet, newspaper, university, etc. spokespersons for the quid pro quo political establishment,
>> “will never publicly address the Article II U.S. citizen-parents constitutional requirement.
>> “Rather, they will just simply ignore the issue and act as though such a constitutional requirement does not exist.
>> “It is a targeted audience’s political and/or economic self-interest (which come in many forms),
>> “lack of alternative communication resources,
>> “or ignorance which allows Obama and these presenters to suppress public discussion of the U.S. citizen parents issue. “


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is the dictionary definition of “Ockham's razor” to clarify the point for those who do not have access to a dictionary while reading this.

American Heritage Dictionary

Ock-ham's razor also Oc-cam's razor … n.

A rule stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly,
meaning that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable
and that the unknown should first be explained in terms of the known.”

The simplest answer is best, and the unknown is explained by the known.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Natural Born Citizens

What was 1787 constitutional convention delegate and 1783 Paris Peace Treaty signer John Jay's original intent for “natural born Citizen” in 1787, only four years after the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, and which was ratified by the American Confederation Congress on January 14, 1784?

To all birth narrative defenders, when John Jay underlined “born” in the three word unit “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington in 1787, which of the following 4 possibilities did John Jay intend as his ONLY intention ONLY four years after war and independence as a way to avoid foreign influence in the nascent U.S. government?

Did John Jay intend for ONLY 1 possibility—four years after war and independence?
Did John Jay intend for 2 possibilities—four years after war and independence?
Did John Jay intend for 3 possibilities—four years after war and independence?
Did John Jay intend for 4 possibilities—four years after war and independence?

1a - Birth ONLY on U.S. soil to “2” U.S. citizen married parents?
1b - Birth ONLY on U.S. soil to “1” U.S. citizen parent who was married to a foreign citizen?
1c - Birth ONLY on U.S. soil to “1” U.S. citizen parent who was not married to anybody?
1d - Birth ONLY on U.S. soil to “0” U.S. citizen parents?


2a - Birth ONLY on FOREIGN soil to “2 U.S. citizen married parents?

>> (“ONLY...FOREIGN?” Definitely NO!)
2b - Birth ONLY on FOREIGN soil to “1 U.S. citizen parent who was married to a foreign citizen?
2c - Birth ONLY on FOREIGN soil to “1 U.S. citizen parent who was not married to anybody?
2d - Birth ONLY on FOREIGN soil to “0 U.S. citizen parent who was not married to anybody?

3a - Birth ALSO on FOREIGN soil to “2 U.S. citizen married parents?

>> (“ALSO...FOREIGN...two?” Definitely NO! Not after the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” designation.)
3b - Birth ALSO on FOREIGN soil to “1 U.S. citizen parent who was married to a foreign citizen?
3c - Birth ALSO on FOREIGN soil to “1 U.S. citizen parent who was not married to anybody?


My Ockham's razor, “unknown … explained … [by the] known” common sense original intent choice is simple.

1a - Birth only on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

The “unknown” about soil and birth that is implicit in “natural born Citizen” as understood by John Jay is explained by the “known” of John Jay's wanting to prevent “foreign influence”, both foreign soil birth and foreign citizenship of the parents, in the Executive office and the concomitant control of the U.S. military as explicitly stated by John Jay in his note to George Washington.

John Jay was prescient in the 18th century.

How wise are defenders of the Obama birth narrative, the Obama-birthers, the Obirthers, and how wise are defenders of other birth narratives of possible Republican POTUS aspirants in the 21st century to ignore and ridicule defenders of the original birth narrative implicit in the three word unit “natural born Citizen?”

How wise are the American BIG Media on television and the national radio BIG Talkers and internet BIG Bloggers, who continue to ignore Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in the U.S. Constitution. It seems that they do not even know that they are ignorant of the original intent of John Jay who insisted on, and George Washington agreed to, inserting into Article II Section 1 Clause 5 the word “natural” along with “born Citizen” AND underlining the word “born” with definitive and perpetual intent to protect WE the Posterity of the original WE the People?

John Jay was prescient and wise in the 18th century.

WE the Posterity includes the BIG Talkers and the BIG Bloggers.

What's with our BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers, our wise guys in the 21st century, who don't know or seem to not care that they are ignorant about the original intent implicit in “natural born Citizen” to prevent foreign influence in the Executive office that was written and adopted by the original birthers, the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, specifically John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States?

So where are these BIG Kahunas, wise guys and gals, and why do they stay willingly ignorant of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, but they are willing to talk about Article V and the “convention of state legislatures” to amend the constitution?



Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of America


No comments: