by
Professor Robert
Natelson
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=7
<<>>
<<>>
Thanks...
Unknown, today, March 14, 2014 at 3:23 AM, you said...
Ajtelles wrote:
>> Maybe Unknown a/k/a NotLinda should also read Rob Natelsons book
>> The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant,
>> in which Natelson takes the historical perspective." '
>> Yes, maybe I should.
>> Mr. Apuzzo, our host, has cited it in articles on this blog.
>> I currently don't have time to read it all,
>> so I just looked for any clear statement on the meaning of
>> natural born citizen" in Professor Natelson's book.
>> Found one.
>> “Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification.
>> “We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase 'natural born citizen' because they adapted it from the English legal term, 'natural born subject,' which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council.
>> “Essentially, a natural born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements.
>> “First, a person qualified if born in within the United States or within American territory, even if the person's parents were aliens.
>> “Alternately, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual's father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities."
>> “-- Robert G. Natelson, /The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant/, Second Edition, May 17, 2010, page 127.”
Unknown, thanks for quoting Prof. Natelson's ONLY reference in ONLY one paragraph on page 127 of a 281 page book. I was going to post it myself, but you did it first.
I was going to post it because the ONLY reference offers an excellent opportunity to comment that the one paragraph and ONLY reference to “natural born Citizen” is obviously deficient analysis of the historical presuppositions about “natural born subject” in contrast to “natural born Citizen” as understood by the 1787 original birthers who, before July 4, 1776, were “natural born subjects” of Britain, so they obviously knew the difference between the two phrases and deliberately chose “natural born Citizen” with original birther intent.
Unknown, as you know, Mario has written about why “natural born subject” was replaced with “natural born Citizen” by the original birthers, so if Rob Natelson ever reads this and is inclined to expand or append his book, or write an Article II book to bookend with Mark Levin's excellent Article V book, Liberty Amendments, he can easily communicate with Mario.
“Original Constitution” is an excellent book about the “original constitution” and what it said and meant in 1787 America and still means in 2014 America, in which Natelson presents the original intent of the original birthers and analyzes the original meanings of the original words in their original context as understood by the 1787 U.S. citizens, the original birthers who were the “normal” people who were just living their lives trying to “form a more perfect Union”, and the original birthers who were the original authors of the original words in the preamble and in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of...,” and who knew that “natural born Citizen” was a permanent eligibility requirement and “...or a Citizen of...” was a temporary eligibility requirement because it applied ONLY until the last “... or a Citizen of...” died sometime in the 1800s.
Hopefully, in future editions of his book or in a separate book on Article II, Natelson will thoroughly explain why “natural born Citizen” is contrasted with “... or a Citizen...” in the SAME sentence, in the SAME clause 5, and why the first three word unit was, is, and forever will be permanent and the second three word unit was, is, and forever will be temporary because it does not apply since the last “...or a Citizen...” died sometime in the 1800s..
For an example of Natelson's ability to clarify an issue, check out “Qualifications On State Sovereignty: The Ban on Bills of Attainder” on page 56, where in four short paragraphs Natelson does an excellent analysis from the historical perspective of the original meaning of “attainder”:
>> “At common law, attainder was the passing of sentence on a person convicted or outlawed for treason or felony. Such a person was 'attained' (i.e., 'tainted' or out of grace), in the eyes of the law. Originally, an attained person was punished by the punishment forfeiture of all his lands, by a sentence of death, and by 'corruption of blood,' Corruption of blood meant that the person could not inherit land from another, nor transmit it to his heirs or his spouse.
>> “However, these were not necessary punishments for attainder, for by the time of the Founding, Parliament had abolished corruption of blood for many attainted persons. An attainted person lost only a life estate in his land rather than a fee simple—meaning that when he died, his family would inherent his property.
>> “In the Anglo-American tradition, the legislature had a recognized prerogative to enact a law declaring a specific person to be guilty of a crime and imposing punishment. This was not thought to be an invasion of the judicial power. Thus, a legislature could adopt a bill of attainder to outlaw and attaint a person for treason or felony, or adopt a bill of pains and penalties for other purposes. However, the Constitution barred both Congress and the states from passing bills of attainder. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause subsequently prohibited Congress, although not the states, from passing bills of pains and penalties.
>> “Neither Congress nor the states were prevented from imposing attainder as part of a general criminal code applicable to everyone. Indeed, the Constitution explicitly recognized attainder as a permissible punishment for treason, so long as it did not include corruption of blood or forfeiture for longer than the 'Life of the Person attainted.' The clear inference was that Congress and the states could adopt general statutes mandating attainder, even with corruption of blood, as the punishment for other felonies.”
Unknown, before I had read Natelson's book, I had read through his entire blog ( http://constitution.i2i.org ) and then I did a 'natural born Citizen' word search and found ONLY two references, so I sent an email to his address which is on his i2i.org contact page, asking him if he could briefly clarify “natural born Citizen” as he understood it from the historical and original intent perspective.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Sent: Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 11:49 pm
To: Rob@i2i.org
Hi Mr. Natelson,
I tried posting on you i2i site but the Captcha would not allow it. I tried five time, but it would not accept, with this error message:
ERROR: Could not read CAPTCHA token file.
There is a problem with the directory /si-captcha-for-wordpress/captcha/temp/.
Directory Unwritable (fix permissions). Permissions are: 0755 Fixing this may require assigning 0755 permissions or higher (e.g. 0777 on some hosts. Try 0755 first, because 0777 is sometimes too much and will not work.) Fixing the actual problem is recommended, but you can uncheck this setting on the si captcha options page: "Use CAPTCHA without PHP session" and the captcha will work this way just fine (as long as PHP sessions are working).
- - - - - - - - - -
Here is my original post that I tried to post on your "Our American Constitution" blog.
It is long, but it does not ramble.
- - - - - - - - - -
An Historical Understanding Request - Natural Born Citizen
Mr. Natelson, this is the first time I have written a comment on your blog, so I will first say that after spending the past week reading for the first time all of your posts since October 2010, your historical perspective about the 'original intent' of the 'original authors, aka framers, as being subordinate to the original intent understanding of the ratifiers is persuasive and convincing.
Hey, was that Justice Clarence Thomas saying dittos to that sentiment?
When I bought Mark Levin's book “Liberty Amendments” the week it came out August 2013, I was not aware of your previous writing about Article V and the original intent distinction that you describe between the original writers (aka original framers) who wrote the original words of the September 17, 1787 constitution and the 1788 original ratifiers and the ratifier's understanding of the meaning of the original words presented to them in the text adopted at the constitution.
Yes, I'm SURE that WAS Justice Thomas saying dittos.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In reading the original birther document of the We the People republic, the U.S. Constitution of course, I have always read it to understand the original intent of the original birthers who were the original writers of the original words that were adopted September 17, 1787 and ratified in 1788.
I did a search for “natural born” on your site and found 2 dates that reference “natural born”.
One was related to the language of the Constitution, April 28, 2011 - What A Little-Known Colonial Pamphlet Tells Us About the Constitution.
The other was related to BHObama's reluctance to reveal his birth certificate, the article on July 11, 2012 - The importance of being “natural born”.
Since the time that you wrote your 2012 article, the long form computer generated birth certificate has been exposed as a fraud, an impeachable 'high crime and misdemeanor' offense since it was condoned by the POTUS who verified it's veracity since he alone could authorize that it be posted on the Federal Government web site.
I also listened to your May 5, 2011 podcast about “natural born” that repeats your comments in your article.
Your July 11, 2012 article comments about “natural born” were my sentiments before reading your post and they are still my sentiments today.
The Request
I am looking forward to your future articles, plural 'cause one definitely will NOT be enough, about the original intent meaning in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 of the words “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen” to the original authors AND the original ratifiers, since some ratifiers who were also delegates agreed to the final draft of the original words that were adopted September 17, 1787.
I'm not a constitutional scholar, a historian, a legal researcher, and, although I do not know everything about everything to know everything about any one thing, one thing I do know Mr. Natelson is that the original intent of the original birthers who wrote the original words of the original birther document of America, the U.S. Constitution and specifically the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 words “natural born Citizen” is a perpetual “original intent” to “form a more perfect Union” for the 1787 We the People and the We the Posterity of We the People.
The original intent did NOT including a community organizer transforming himself into a “commune organizer” and then “... transforming the United States of America” from an individualist republic to a collectivist commune.
Mr. Natelson, I've listened to Mark Levin for a few years and I am aware that he does not think seriously about looking into BHObams birth certification and nativity.
Fair enough, at least Mark has made a stand about the nativity of BHO, although he is still does not sound clear about the historicity of the distinction between a 1787 “natural born Citizen” and a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen” designation that was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” designation.
Since the national naturalization date of July 4, 1776, only 11 years had passed and no child who had been born on the free soil of America to two 1776 naturalized citizens had been born who was at least 35 years old with 14 years residence on U.S. soil, so the original birthers chose a 1787 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 “... or a Citizen of...” to be the first U.S. president.
What I am asking you for, Mr. Natelson, is the historical perspective, not of a specious and fraudulent birth certificate, but about the original intent of the original words “natural” and “born” and “citizen” as understood by the original birthers, writers AND ratifiers.
My layman's original intent perspective is that the definition of “natural born Citizen” is found in the sixth word “born” itself.
It's right there in plain sight.
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of…"
Since the child has to be born on the soil that is already there, to the 1787 original birthers, the natural law word “born” in “natural born Citizen” either meant ONLY born on 1787 U.S. soil, OR “born” ALSO meant born on 1787 foreign soil.
Also, “citizen” in “natural born Citizen” either meant ONLY that BOTH parents must have been U. S. citizens AND married to each other BEFORE their child was ONLY born on U.S. soil, OR “citizen” ALSO mean that one parent can be a U.S. citizen and one parent can be a foreign citizen who is NOT naturalized BEFORE the child is born.
In the 2nd Washington term, the 1790 Naturalization Act designation of “natural born citizen” for a child born on foreign soil with two U.S. citizen parents was corrected, repealed and replaced in the 1795 Naturalization Act designation of “citizen” for a child born on foreign soil with two U.S. citizen parents.
Since the 1795 Naturalization Act there have been other Naturalization Acts but none have said that birth on foreign soil makes a child a “natural born citizen” because a naturalization act can NOT make a positive law naturalized child into a natural law “natural born” child who is a positive law “citizen” child of two married U.S. citizen parents.
The historical perspective is super important because my favorite U.S. Senator from my home state Texas is Sen. Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz who was born on foreign soil with one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen parent who was NOT naturalized before their baby was born.
If both of Sen. Cruz's parents were U.S. citizens by a combination of natural birth for his mother and naturalization by his father, Sen. Cruz would still be ONLY a positive law naturalized “citizen” but NOT a natural law “natural born Citizen” [and a positive law citizen].
However, Sen. Cruz would definitely be a U.S. “citizen” according to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)], which says that a child born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen is a U.S. 'citizen' only.
As you have mentioned in various posts Mr. Natelson, your conclusions are what they are based on the original historical intent, not on current day wishes.
And because the truth has no agenda, I also have to acknowledge that if “their guy” is not eligible, well, “my guy” is also not "... eligible [to] the Office of the President.'
The puppet masters of the commune organizer managed to get one of their own to “OCCUPY” the Oval Office, but originalist constitutionalists must NOT try to “OCCUPY” the Oval Office with transformative language.
Mr. Natelson, there's so much to say to bring clarity to the “natural born Citizen” vs. “Citizen” eligibility to the Oval Office, hopefully your historical clarity will help to strengthen the political spines of We the Posterity of We the People to reform America from Commun(ity)-Organizer-in-Chief Obamas distorted historical vision of a collectivist commune BACK to a constiutional individualist republic.
PS. I'm hearing dittos from Justice Thomas, well, at least about the “original intent” of the “original birthers” aka the framers, AND President Abe Lincoln wants to add a short reminder of his words in his 1861 first Inaugural Address.
President
Abraham Lincoln: What he said about the ‘Union’
…general principles the Union is perpetual [...original intent]
confirmed by the history of the Union itself.
The Union is much older than the Constitution.
It was formed [seminal], in fact, by
the Articles of Association in 1774.
It was matured and continued by
the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States
expressly plighted and engaged
that it should be perpetual [...original intent],
by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
And finally, in 1787,
one of the declared objects [...original intent]
for ordaining and establishing [...seminal] the Constitution was
"to form a more perfect [...perpetual] Union.
…general principles the Union is perpetual [...original intent]
confirmed by the history of the Union itself.
The Union is much older than the Constitution.
It was formed [seminal], in fact, by
the Articles of Association in 1774.
It was matured and continued by
the Declaration of Independence in 1776.
It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States
expressly plighted and engaged
that it should be perpetual [...original intent],
by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.
And finally, in 1787,
one of the declared objects [...original intent]
for ordaining and establishing [...seminal] the Constitution was
"to form a more perfect [...perpetual] Union.
PPS. Mr. Natelson, a website that I call a lawyer's happy hunting ground is by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.,
( Puzo1.blogspot.com/ ) "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers"—A blog to discuss the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1, "natural born Citizen" presidential eligibility clause.
Since Natelson is a busy lecturer and traveler and I am not, I accepted his response directing me to his book as appropriate.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From: "Rob Natelson"
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2014 9:10am
To:
Subject: Re: An Historical Understanding Request - Natural Born Citizen
>> “I discuss the original understanding of "natural born citizen" in my book, The Original Constitution.
>> “Thanks for writing.
>> “Rob
>> Rob Natelson
>> * Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence,
>> Independence Institute & Montana Policy Institute
>> * Professor of Law (ret.), The University of Montana
>> * biography & bibliography: http://constitution.i2i.org/about/
>> * Tel: 303-279-6536 ext. 114; cell: 303-549-6339
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From:
To: Rob Natelson [mailto:rob@i2i.org]
Sent: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 11:29:57 -0700
Subject: 3 Necessities of Natural Born Citizen
Thanks for responding.
As you said in the response email below, you discuss the original understanding of "natural born citizen" in your book.
I recently found out about your book, 2nd edition, so I will purchase it. I really liked reading your i2i articles and I like the way you write in simple terms.
So, can you respond to this email and put your “natural born Citizen” explanation in your own “kitchen table talk” and “public meaning” voice as if you are giving a short version explanation to a neighbor or friend who is visiting you who may not have much time for a long explanation and simply asks “what does THAT mean” and puts the water glass down to listen?
Since all I have to go on is the observation that you have not written about “natural born Citizen” on your i2i site other than the two references I mentioned in the previous email, I will laser focus this point.
How do you as a person, not an historical scholar, understand the public meaning of “natural born Citizen” in the constitution, and the 1787 original intent of the original birthers, aka writers, and the 1788 original public meaning of the original ratifiers and not as a reference to any contemporary POTUS or wannabe POTUS?
Do you mention in your book that “natural born Citizen” is a term of art that needs to be explained like Lawrence Solum does in his long and excellent 2008 Originalism research paper and his short 2008 Michigan Law Review article (see the urls below)?
Or, perhaps Mr. Natelson, do you explain in your book in simple terms such as I put it below that “natural born Citizen” means at least these three short and simple to understand necessities:
(1) “Natural Born” means that the birth of the child on U.S. soil is the natural law necessity (i.e. natural law birth, the touchdown, MUST be on the natural law soil that is already there) before the positive law requirement of residence of 14 years on the same natural law U.S. soil by age 35 can apply.
(2) “Citizen” means that the child must be born with two U.S Citizen parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens, either by birth or naturalization, BEFORE the child is born on U.S. soil.
(3) The two citizen parents must be married to each other BEFORE the child is born so that their citizenship status is passed on to the child.
Marriage?
In 1787 and 1788 America? Yes, of course.
2 points:
1-Positive law:
In 1787 America, by marriage, the citizenship status of the husband determined the citizenship status of the wife, and the citizenship status of both parents married to each other BEFORE the child was born determined the citizenship status of the child.
2-Natural law:
In 1787 America, only 4 years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris when single young men returned to the homes of their parents BEFORE they got married, DEFINITELY marriage BEFORE they gave birth to a “natural born Citizen” who would be "...eligible to the Office of the President."
An excellent '”term of art” example of an explanation by a scholar is Lawrence Solum in his short 2008 article on the Michigan Law Review site
>> http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/originalism-and-the-natural-born-citizen-clause
and also in his 2008 Georgetown Univ. Law Center research paper of 176 pages:
>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1120244
Semantic Originalism
Lawrence B. Solum
Georgetown University Law Center
November 22, 2008
Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 07-24
"Abstract:
Semantic originalism is a theory of ...."
This theory affirms four theses:
(1) the fixation thesis
(2) the clause meaning thesis
(3) the contribution thesis
(4) the fidelity thesis
See the difference between how some excellent scholars write [originalism and public meaning], such as Lawrence Solum and Mario Apuzzo, Esq. (see url below), and my layman's “public meaning” definition about “natural born Citizen” and the obvious, well, at least to me, common sense “public meaning” understanding by the original birthers who wrote the original words in 1787 and ratified the original words in 1788?
So, Mr. Natelson, I am simply asking for your short version response to this email about what is YOUR informed WE the People public meaning understanding of the three word unit “natural born Citizen?”
And can you put it as if you are talking with someone on an elevator, or explaining it over the backyard fence, or sitting at your kitchen table talking with a visitor who does not have much time to talk and who knows absolutely nothing about “natural born Citizen” and “... or a Citizen of...” who asks with original intent innocence “what does THAT mean” in simple terms.
PS. Mr. Natelson, I suppose that if you had already written abundantly on your i2i site about the original intent of “natural born Citizen” I wouldn't need to write these two email to you for clarification.
Hopefully you will be giving more detail about “natural born Citizen” on your i2i site in the future, so you do not need to respond to this email if you do not want to, although I would appreciate a short, even a very short response if it briefly explains what “natural born Citizen” meant in 1787 and 1788 of 18th century America and what “natural born Citizen” should still mean today in 2014 of 21st century America.
Here in El Paso, Texas it is a nice day to have a nice day, so, have a nice day where you are Mr. Natelson.
Thanks for reading and responding... if not, I will still buy your book,
Art
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From: "Rob Natelson"
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:50pm
To:
Subject: Re: 3 Necessities of Natural Born Citizen
>> The reason I responded as I did is that the explanations are all laid out there. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write a new essay on the subject: It's not something that can be explained in just a few words.
>> Thanks for writing.
>> Rob Natelson
>> * Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence,
>> [etc. for the personal info]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
From:
Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 4:24 pm
To: Rob Natelson
Good enough.
Instead of an essay or even a “table talk” style monologue, do you have a quick 'elevator talk' definition of meaning that can be shared with others?
Something like the 3 necessities that I listed below, 'natural born' means this, 'citizen' means that and the 2 marriage related points about natural law and positive law.
Or, maybe, can you list the pages in your book where these kinds of 'what does THAT mean' questions are answered?
Thanks again,
Art
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>> Re: 3 Necessities of Natural Born Citizen
From: Rob Natelson
Sent: Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:48 pm
To:
>> I forget the pages (and I don't have the book where I am now), but check the index or look under the chapter on the President. R.
>> Rob Natelson
>> * Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence,
>> [etc.]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1- Prof. Natelson's i2i.org blog does not accept comments which can be read by others, so I had to use his public http://constitution.i2i.org/ contact email.
2 - By making public our friendly email exchange, the intent is to encourage Prof. Natelson, and others, such as Mark Levin, to protect and defend ALL of the Constitution, including Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as well as the “WE the People … to form a more perfect Union” Article V.
Unknown, when I suggested that you and other Obirthers, for instance, those at “Cafe con Leche Republicans” and “Obama Conspiracy Theories” and “Fogbow,” should read Natelson's book, I was speaking about the original intent of his entire book, not just the one inadequate paragraph reference to a “natural born subject” of a monarch, and his skim the surface conclusion that the jus soli implication had the same “original intent” meaning of a jus soli AND a sus sanguinis implication of a “natural born Citizen” who MUST come, and can ONLY come from ONLY the SAME soil AND from ONLY the SAME national lineage of “WE the People” and NOT from “WE the People” AND living under a monarch or a president or a dictator of another nation.
Well, Unknown, that's my 2 cents worth.
Unknown, can you or the other “O”bama... “O”bama... “O”bama... Obirthers honorably explicate BHO's more that $3.5 million dollar obfuscation about his lineage, heritage and nativity as thoroughly as Mario explicates “natural born Citizen” when he responds to the shallow and nonsensical ridicule from some Obirthers?
Just wonderin', Unknown, 'cause your integrity and the integrity of the other Obirthers is on the line if you try to defend the I-I-I-OCCUPY-America duplicity of Barack “you-can-keep-your-health-care” Obama.
Art
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Mario
Apuzzo made a comment about Prof. Natelson to me and Unknown on his
blog
at the same url on March
14, 2014 at 5:08 PM.
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Professor Robert G. Natelson does a good job explaining how to interpret the Constitution. That is for what I cited him. Regarding his position on the meaning of a “natural born citizen,” that is a much different story.
Natelson states:
“Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification. We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase 'natural born citizen' because they adapted it from the English legal term, 'natural born subject,' which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council. Essentially, a natural born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born in within the United States or within American territory, even if the person's parents were aliens. Alternately, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual's father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.
These birth and residency requirements were designed better to assure that these officers were truly 'sympathetic' to those they were to govern, and to guard against the risk that they might be 'sympathetic' to a foreign power." (footnote omitted).
Robert G. Natelson, The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant 127 (2nd ed. 2010).
This is all he wrote in his entire book on the meaning of a natural born citizen. He said that we know exactly what the Founders meant by the natural born citizen clause. Yet, Unknown tells us that she does not know how the Framers defined a “natural born citizen.” But yet Professor Natelson tells us that we know “exactly” how they defined one. Maybe Unknown can explain this difference of opinions for us.
Natelson states without any analysis, explanation, or sources that we know exactly how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and that they “adapted it from the English legal term, ‘natural born subject.’” In coming to this conclusion, he surely does not go through the analysis that he recommends in the beginning of his book for determining the “Intent of the Makers” on clauses not defined in the Constitution.
Natelson wrote a useful book on interpreting the Constitution. But it is not credible on the definition of a natural born citizen. He could never make such a bare statement in a court of law, for it would be stricken and ruled inadmissible as a net opinion.
I am also suspicious about why Natelson would have stuck his neck out like he did without any explanation. If you will note, he wrote the book in 2010, which is after Obama was elected and when the debate on whether he is a “natural born citizen” was already raging.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here
is my comment in response to Mario's comment.
Mario, if he had been more responsive, I would have liked to have asked Rob Natelson about why he did not make his book historically topical with current events.
As you wrote today March 14, 2014 at 5:08 PM in the last paragraph -
>> "I am also suspicious about why Natelson would have stuck his neck out like he did without any explanation.
>> "If you will note, he wrote the book in 2010, which is after Obama was elected and when the debate on whether he is a “natural born citizen” was already raging."
I guess it might be for the same reason that BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers like
_Mark Levin
_Rush Limbaugh
_Sean Hannity
_Glenn Beck
_Sarah Palin
_Rich Lowry and his coterie of Editors at NationalReview.com
_HumanEvents.com
_Breitbart.com
_David Horowitz at FrontpageMag.com
_PJMedia.com
_DrudgeReport.com
and so many etc. do not touch Article II with a hot mike or a hot keyboard to simply define and defend what they believe is the original intent of the original birthers when they wrote the words “natural born Citizen”.
They have obviously stopped thinking for themselves about a part of the Constitution that that they do not understand, so anybody who does talk about the eternal relevance of “natural born Citizen” is ridiculed as a "birther" because they for some reason have been humbled by their peers to consider “birther” to be a pejorative with which they do not want to be associated.
That's why I decided to take control of the language and the conversation and use “birther” in a sensible way to defend the original intent of the original birthers, and describe the "O"bama... "O"bama... "O"bama... acolytes as Obirthers as well as Obots.
The Obirthers are not defenders of the “original birthers” because "THEIR GUY" is an obvious usurper and they know it.
It is amazing to me, in a social sense, how so many informed people, for example Glenn Beck, choose to believe the silly meme that because Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign initiated the eligibility question about BHObama, then BHO must be a “natural born Citizen” and so the BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers refuse to do any research to become fully informed about the truth that does not have an agenda.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted
on Mario Apuzzo's blog on July 20, 2014 at 2:02 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=15
<<>>
I Believe vs. I Believe
Mario, you are wrong.
Why?
'Cause Bryan said so.
Why?
'Cause Prof. Natelson expressed a personal opinion without sources, an opinion that Bryan believes is true truth.
From Mario's post on July 20, 2014 at 11:57 AM.
>>
How Professor Natelson defined a natural born citizen, wrong as to
persons born in and out of the United States, is not consistent with
these historical sources, the legislative expressions of our early
Congress, and U.S. Supreme Court cases.
>> There is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking about both children born in the United States and out of it, trumps Professor Natelson.
>> As I have already said, Natelson just gives his personal belief without any sources to back him up.
>> Are we to accept what he wrote simply because he is a law professor?
>> Not having historical and legal sources to support him, what Natelson says within the Obama eligibility debate is to be seen as nothing more than politically motivated rhetoric and therefore rejected as valid constitutional law.
>> Maybe Professor Natelson can do a third edition to his book in which he can correct what he so erroneously wrote.
>> There is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking about both children born in the United States and out of it, trumps Professor Natelson.
>> As I have already said, Natelson just gives his personal belief without any sources to back him up.
>> Are we to accept what he wrote simply because he is a law professor?
>> Not having historical and legal sources to support him, what Natelson says within the Obama eligibility debate is to be seen as nothing more than politically motivated rhetoric and therefore rejected as valid constitutional law.
>> Maybe Professor Natelson can do a third edition to his book in which he can correct what he so erroneously wrote.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Also, if Prof. Natelson publishes a third edition of The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant (my edition is 2nd, 2010 – 2011), maybe he can discuss Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in connection with Article V, since both were intended to be perpetual, for Article II national security and Article V individual control of "OUR" tripartite federal government. With Article V "WE the Posterity" of the 1787 "WE the People" control Article II and John Jay's "natural born Citizen" original genesis intent.
On March 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM, I posted on Mario's blog the short email exchange I had with Prof. Natelson. I made public the emails because I tried posting on his blog, but the Captcha form would not accept my posts. So, the emails were published because originally I wanted Prof. Natelson's comments to be public on his own blog also. I did not publish private correspondence, but correspondence that was intended to be as public as this is that I am writing here, now.
So, here is a suggestion. Maybe Bryan or others can email to Prof. Natelson that some guy on the internet named Mario says in a 4 part tutorial that Prof. Natelson is wrong, and include your blog URL?
To help Bryan get motivated to send an email to Prof. Natelson, I've done the heavy lifting for him.
First is your Mario's comment followed by his blog URL.
"Professor Natelson is wrong.
How do I know it?
The historical sources, our early Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court tells us that he is wrong.
Minor defined a natural born citizen as follows: ... ."
Bryan can tell Prof. Natelson that part one of a four part tutorial was posted on July 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM on this blog page -
>> https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=15
Here is Professor Natelson's public contact information.
Constitution.i2i from the Independence Institute.
>> http://constitution.i2i.org/
Contact Rob Natelson
>> http://constitution.i2i.org/contact-rob-natelson/
>> "You can contact Rob Natelson at his email address: Rob@i2i.org.
>> If time allows, Rob sometimes answers general questions about the Constitution, but does not comment on individual legal problems."
My suggestion is, just do it.
But whoever does communicate with Prof. Natelson may need to be persistent, because it was not until my third email that I got anything of substance from Prof. Natelson. Oh, he was very considerate in his brush off, he just did not write very much, other than to say that he was traveling and did not have his book at hand so he could not reference his single paragraph on a single page, so he directed me to his book which I had not read yet at the time of the emails.
If others email Prof. Natelson, maybe he will write more substantively to them than he did to me if they ask Prof. Natelson for his comment about Mario's four part tutorial on July 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"
No comments:
Post a Comment