Time to Change the Conversation: The Question is How to Do It

Time to Change the Conversation

The Question is How to do It

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on December 25, 2014 at 10:25 PM.

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

<<>>

On December 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM Mario posted a response to a previous post of mine on his puzo1.blogspot.com blog* that prompted me to consider a short answer, but it turned into a long answer to his statement at the end of his first paragraph, "...the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do it."

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

He wrote,

"The courts, washing their hands of the question"—"we cannot trust the political parties"—"Looking to Congress is also unrealistic"—"problem is compounded by a media"—"you have the makings of a dangerous situation for the nation."—"This is not just some hypothetical situation...this very scenario come to life with de facto President Barack Obama, someone who is not a natural born citizen, who told the world that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the United States..."

My expanded response to his statement, "the question is how to do it" is, and maybe it is too simple, maybe it is time to use the Sword of Alexander, the original genesis original intent of original birther John Jay, author of “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington on July 25, 1787 in which he underlined the word “born,” and simply cut the Gordian knot. So, maybe it is just time to change the conversation? Change the conversation from what we on both sides assert that “natural born Citizen” means to what we on both sides want “natural born Citizen” to mean for 21st century America. Maybe it is time to change the conversation from what we believe the founders and framers wrote and what they meant in 1787 with “natural born Citizen,” and what we believe they meant in 1787 in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, to what we believe that "natural born Citizen" should mean today and tomorrow to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for our own posterity?

I found myself looking at the common sense original genesis original intent aspect of the “natural born Citizen” eligibility phrase as John Jay may have explained it to George Washington, who accepted Jay's definition by passing on the suggestion to the convention delegates and framers of the language. I think that my new best friend John Jay is a convenient way to explain why I think that John Jay's common sense “original genesis original intent” is the Sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot of confusion surrounding the original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" that Jay underlined in his brief note to George Washington.

The story is that after Alexander the Great was told that the next ruler of Asia would be the person who untied the intricate knot tied by King Gordian of Phrygia, Alexander, instead of trying to untie the intricate know, he simply cut it with his sword.

Well, it's that simple.

That is why I think that the “original genesis original intent of John Jay” is the Sword of Alexander to simply "cut" the "what-does-natural-born-Citizen-really-mean" Gordian knot.

To put it simply, here are three possibilities.

1- Does “nbC” mean only singular U.S. citizenship or singular AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

2- Does “nbC” mean only birth on U.S. soil or U.S. soil OR foreign soil?
3- Does “nbC” mean only birth to two U.S. citizen married parents or ALSO birth to one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

We can't quit now, another national election cycle is coming soon. The previous essay about changing the conversation and this essay is my way of changing my conversation from the ethereal that is disputable about past history to the current reality that something proactive has to be done in America to wake up the American people from their lethargy, and when they are awake to start a conversation to reach agreement about our Federation and who in the future will be allowed to occupy the executive office of our Federation that was created by the original creator, WE the People of the original several states.

I think that an Article V amendment by a convention of state legislatures is the best constitutional way to "nullify" the "phone" and "pen" unconstitutional Executive Orders by the current person who managed to “OCCUPY America” and the oval office. The exact phrase in Article V is "... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... ." For people who don't know, Article V does not authorize a Constitutional Convention, a Con-Con, to rewrite the entire constitution. It authorizes a convention of "several states" to simply propose amendments.

Period.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

November 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm
( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-80239 )

Although I am including a short reference to Mario's previous comments directed at Slartibartfast, found at the above url, this is not about him as a person, it is about what he reveals about himself and others in his comments, what he and the Democratic Party cadre do and ultimately represent— they ignore what doesn't fit into their citizenship meme while they continue with their agenda of protecting the Obama's administration of our WE the People government to try to "transform the United States of America" from within the federal oval office, and to infect the entire federal government, legislative, executive and judicial, with an ideological ebola virus, the progressive idea (but really a Saul Alinsky style anarchist reiteration of an (inter-)national "commune" idea to bring equality by force) that the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, explicitly enumerating what the federal government is limited to do and also what it can NOT do to the American people, so Obama is attempting to "transform" the constitution by Executive Order into a charter of positive liberties, what the federal government MUST do FOR the people, without limits, such as redistribution of wealth in the "commune" from those who work for a living to those who vote for a living, and to eventually require every American in the "commune" to receive government welfare single payer health care, whether they want it or not, or they will be punished.

This is the child telling the parent that the parent will be punished if they do not pay for the eventual single payer welfare provided by the child. The "child" is the federal government telling the "parent" several states and WE the People that we will be punished if we do not pay for the eventual single payer welfare provided by the federal government. The "federal government" is the creature of the creator, WE the People of the several states. We must change the conversation so that WE the People of the several states start to speak to our "creature," our "child," our federal government, with Article V constitutional authority.

The question is how to do it?

While Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent and everyone agrees that he has dual citizenship from birth, the meme of the Obama neo-birthers includes the incoherent proposition that "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" simply because he is a U.S. "citizen" because he was born naturally and not naturalized, in fulfillment of the first part of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment ("... born or naturalized in the United States...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction are citizens..."). So, yes, Obama, born on U.S. soil, so he says, to only one U.S. citizen parent, is a citizen and not a naturalized citizen at birth or by oath, but for some reason the Obama “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "Obama-is-an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen" just like 42 of the 44 presidents. However, contrary to the assertions of the Obama neo-birthers, ALL 42 previous presidents were recognized as eligible to be POTUS by either being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility in A2 S1 C5, #1 to #7 and #9, or by being authentic A2 S1 C5 "nbCs" because they were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The two exceptions in 44 presidencies are #21, Chester Alan Arthur, and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.

This incoherence about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is important to clarify because, along with Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and nebulous Anarchists, there are Republicans who are getting into the redefinition game and are promoting the same meme, "birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility.”

See “natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz”* by William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 9:05 am at his excellent blog "Legal Insurrection" where he wrote, "I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz to be “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. Here’s why," and also, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth."

* Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law
>> http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

As with Democratic neo-birthers, Republican "MY GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers also NEVER try to defend the proposition that "an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen-ALSO-applies-to-ALL-children-born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents." The political party neo-birthers NEVER assert that John Jay implied ALL of that in his note to George Washington and that Washington agreed with Jay about ALL of that. Why? A2 S1 C5 is a no-go-zone for political neo-birthers to adduce the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" (A2 S1 C5 "natural born" = natural law, and "Citizen" = positive law—and natural law precedes, guides and protects the application of positive law).

Here is an example of natural preceding, guiding and protecting the application of positive law.

Why is it true that an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen" child, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, can not lose "nbC" status simply by adoption (positive law)? It does not matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual adoptive parents because the natural law birth and the positive law citizenship take precedence over the positive law adoption. The perpetuity of the A2S1C5 natural law "natural born" from two persons status protects the perpetuity of the positive law "Citizen" from two U.S. citizens status, not vice versa. Unless there is a future statute (positive law) that legally removes the natural law authority of "nbC" status from adopted children (such as statutes do that give legal credence to requiring naturalization to those who legally renounce U.S. citizenship and then want to repatriate), the child remains an "nbC" for life even if adopted—but "nbC" status MUST be verified BEFORE adoption for “nbC” status to “remain” for life.

It is obvious that John Jay was not memeing what Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, and what William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor and others are memeing. In 1787, John Jay, only four years after he, as one of the three signatories (Franklin, Madison, Jay), signed the 1787 Treaty of Paris formally ending the war with England, Jay certainly was NOT memeing that, (1) whether born on U.S. OR foreign soil, only “one” U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for POTUS eligibility, and (2) being born on U.S. soil to “zero” U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for POTUS eligibility. Accepting the “nbC” new meaning neo-birther meme, others are saying that (3) the constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted children of two or one U.S. citizen adoptive parents, whether the adoptive parents are single OR married heterosexual OR homosexual.

No wonder the American people, including Phd and Master mathematicians and Professors of law at prestigious schools of law are confused about John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in his 1787 note to George Washington. They NEVER consider and adduce John Jay's 1787 original genesis original intent perspective. They are confused about why all three words were included in the 1787 constitution in A2S1C5 and not merely "natural born" or "natural citizen" or "born a citizen" or "a born citizen" or "citizens by birth" or "born" or simply "a citizen."

Mario Apuzzo posted to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka Phd mathematician, the /#comment-80239 mentioned above, on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the blog of make believe about open borders immigration being good for the GOP and a free America, and how the positive law about citizenship defines natural born citizenship and natural law, for some reason never adduces is the natural law foundation of positive law, e.g., natural law birth precedes positive law citizenship.

As a mathematician Kevin must have a logical reason (Or could it be as simple as cadre, paid or unpaid, that he would spend years to "try" to debate you [Mario] with the intent ultimately of helping Obama fulfill the greater agenda of "transforming the United States of America" into a community organizer's (inter)national "commune"?) to promote the proposition that parents with two different citizenships can produce a child with dual citizenship that can somehow, ipso facto, fulfill John Jay's original intent of a child born with singular U.S. citizenship (the meme of the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen" cadre is that dual citizenship is of equal relevance to singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility. Why? 'Cause he was born naturally, and besides, Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, of course).

Kevin, while he is probably a natural born citizen himself, probably born on U.S. soil, probably born to two U.S. citizen parents, he promotes, without historical foundation, the proposition that to be eligible to be POTUS only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because he and other proponents of "one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" such as William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor believe that a child who is a 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" is ipso facto sufficient to fulfill John Jay's 1787 natural law understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant to Jay in 1787. This was three years before the 1790 Naturalization Act used the words "natural born Citizen" and eight years before the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the words "natural born Citizen" and replaced the three word unit with the single word "citizen" so that the 1795 Naturalization Act (and 100% of ALL subsequent naturalization acts of Congress, all positive law) would conform to the natural law part of A2S1C5 ("natural born") which gives natural law credibility to the positive law part of A2S1C5 (“citizen") because the third Congress corrected its error as understood in 1795 that a naturalization act, a positive law, can NOT "make" a person eligible to be POTUS. The two natural parents (natural law) produce a natural law child, and the same two U.S. citizen (positive law) parents produce a singular positive law citizen, NOT a positive law dual citizen.

A hypothetical scenario, an alternative way of looking at what the Congress did in 1795, eight years after John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," shows the irrefutable true original genesis original intent of John Jay in 1787. If Jay had originally intended that "nbC" meant NOT ONLY being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, but ALSO being born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, as the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly said about foreign birth to U.S. citizen parents, plural, that would have meant that the third Congress changed Jay's original genesis original intent meaning about birth ALSO on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, with the 1795 Naturalization Act implication that "nbC" status was reserved ONLY for children born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents (plural).

Of course, that hypothetical scenario is not so. However, even though it is NOT so, the Obama neo-birthers could still obfuscate about it. So, what is it that has stopped the Obama neo-birthers from obfuscating about the 1787 original intent meaning of John Jay and asserting with neo-birther new meaning original intent that what Jay REALLY meant was birth on U.S. OR foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural? Well, maybe two things. (1) They would have to promote the proposition that in 1795, eight years after 1787, the third Congress in Pres. Washington's second term changed Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC" from meaning being born on U.S. soil OR being born on foreign soil, to being born ONLY on U.S. soil, and (2) they would have to admit that, yes, in 1787, Jay did originally mean ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents, "parents" plural as explicitly written in BOTH the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts.

For some reason the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers shy away from the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" (positive law) language and hover around the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen," (positive law*) language when they're not hovering around the 1868 14th Amendment "citizen" (positive law) language. They don't seem to understand that the words "natural born" are natural law language and not positive law language, and the word "citizen" is a positive law word and not a natural law word.

* Positive law only in this one instance. The entire three word unit "natural born Citizen" is positive law language because the first Congress included the entire phrase in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a positive law statute, and linked it to the word “considered.” This 1790 Naturalization Act language and the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language is an example of how positive law can NOT "make" natural law, and, in the 1795 “citizen” language conversely, how natural law defines, clarifies and guides the "making" of positive law. In A2S1C5 "natural born" = natural law, and "Citizen" = positive law. The positive law "follows" and is guided by natural law, NOT vice versa)

A 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" can not be "made" by a positive law amendment or a positive law statute or a positive law, so to speak, court opinion into an A2S1C5 natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen". Being a "natural born" child and born naturally on U.S. soil or foreign soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents can not make that "natural born" child into an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen" child who is born naturally ONLY on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents.

Positive law dual citizenship can not produce positive law singular citizenship in fulfillment of John Jay's common sense original genesis original intent in underlining the natural law word "born" in the natural law/positive law phrase "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, who agreed with Jay. Neither Jay, Washington or the 1787 convention delegate framers and the subsequent states ratifiers of "natural born Citizen" would agree with the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, the Obama neo-birthers, the Cruz neo-birthers, the Rubio neo-birthers, the Haley neo-birthers, the Jindal neo-birthers, or any future "MY GUY/MY GAL" neo-birthers who may promote persons born (natural law) with only one or zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents, whether born (natural law) on or off U.S. soil (natural law) or jurisdiction (positive law).

The soil is "natural law" soil because by the natural law right of conquest, the soil is what it is by natural law, by the law of nature, and natural law, nature, is not changed by conquest. The soil is simply, well, soil, it is not "made" soil by positive law after conquest. In other words, to get an affirmative tip of the hat from the deists and atheists who do not believe there is a God who created the soil, the soil is 100% "natural" made soil and defined by natural law, not man "made" soil and defined by positive law. The soil is a natural law entity independent of whether or not a natural law birth happens on the natural law soil. The soil, being a natural law entity, is not a positive law idea and creation. Natural law, nature, can not be changed by positive law, declaration by congressional statute or judicial opinion.

Sen. Cruz had only one U.S. citizen (positive law) parent at his birth (natural law) outside of U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil, Canada.
Sen. Rubio had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).
Gov. Haley had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at her birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).
Gov. Jindal had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

A2S1C5 “ONLY-singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents” John Jay birthers probably can not and NEVER will agree, for basic common sense and John Jay original genesis original intent reasons, with the proposition of the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers that being born on U.S. OR foreign soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents was included by implication in John Jay's original intent meaning in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and conversely, the “dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-by-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility” neo-birthers can not and NEVER will agree, for political and "transform the United States of America" agenda reasons, that ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction came later) and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents was John Jay's ONLY common sense original intent. How could they? Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent at birth on U.S. soil, or so they say he was born on U.S. soil. They only say so 'cause Obama says so, without authentic and irrefutable verification, so who can believe the same guy who says, if not EVERY time then MOST of the time when something bad happens in his administration, that he didn't learn about it until he heard it on the news just like, uh, well, just like everybody else did.



Time to Change the Conversation and Move on to Agreement

So, how do we change the conversation and move on to agreement about a solution to clarify the perpetual "Union" meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America for ourselves and for our posterity?

It is time to change the conversation with questions. The John Jay birthers, the Obama neo-birthers and the “MY GUY” or “MY GAL” neo-birthers have been making assertions since 2008 that are retrospective and reactive in nature and so are intractable. However, our questions can be prospective and proactive and open to coherent input from ALL of WE the People and not just the few who have been engaging in the POTUS eligibility debate since the 2008 election cycle when BHObama was nominated as the Democratic choice for POTUS.

It is time to move on from what we think "natural born subject" meant to Coke, the Calvin's Case in the 1600s, Blackstone, Tucker and Vattel in the 1700s, etcetera, and what "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers in the 1700s, 18th century America, etcetera, and Congressional acts and statutes, and Supreme Court opinions in the 1800s, 1900s and the 2000s. It is time to agree about what we, WE the People, think "natural born Citizen" meant in 1787 America and what it should mean today in 21st century America. What should "natural born Citizen" mean to us and to our posterity? Which implicit, tacit meaning of "natural born Citizen" (ONLY singular U.S. citizenship vs. ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship) will best preserve for us and for our posterity the perpetual "Union" as Pres. Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861.



A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments

Maybe WE the People, through our state legislatures and an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose amendments, should take the clarification of the meaning of "natural born Citizen" out of the hands of the “See-no-evil-Hear-no-evil-Speak-no-evil-about-Obama” Congress and Supreme Court, and also bring to heel the progressive lap-dog media.

We can let the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers and the "transform the United States of America" cadre claim victory after victory in the court of public opinion and in the courts that did not deal with the merits of POTUS eligibility, while we John Jay original intent birthers can lose in the courts and the court of public opinion and still claim a Pyrrhic victory with an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an A2S1C5 amendment to clarify what we all want, the “dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-born-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility” neo-birthers and and the John Jay “ONLY singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility” original intent birthers, we, singular U.S. citizenship and dual U.S./foreign citizenship proponents, want "natural born Citizen" to mean something definite to help us all to assess future POTUS candidates who will not be able to obfuscate about their eligibility.

The “dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility” neo-birthers can win every battle in the lower courts and in the uninformed court of public opinion but they will most likely lose the ideological long war in the court of informed public opinion, and they will probably lose the ideological debate in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify John Jay's perpetual (from 1787 to today) “original genesis original intent” meaning of “natural born Citizen” to determine POTUS eligibility.

The John Jay inspired “ONLY-singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents-is-good-'nuf” birthers can lose every battle in the lower courts and in the court of public opinion but will most likely win the ideological long war with an Article V convention of states.

At this point it is an open question, and the federal congress and the federal court system is of no help in clarifying the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility. See The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? by Daniel P. Tokaji, published in 2008*, "Conclusion: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates' eligibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter."

* Justiciability of Eligibility – ( http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-justiciability-of-eligibility-may-courts-decide-who-can-be-president )

In an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify what WE the People of 21st century America want the meaning of "natural born Citizen" to be, which definition of "natural born Citizen" listed below will the people choose as their own preferred definition for their own posterity?



Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?

Are there any who do not want clarity about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and what "natural born Citizen" could, should or will mean in our 21st century American future? If there are any who do not want clarity, why? Do they want to "transform" and to "break" the "Union" of America? If so, they are an enemy of the state. If so, they are an enemy of the perpetual "Union" of America. If so, they are an enemy of Pres. Lincoln who fought to save the perpetual "Union" of America from the civil war transformers of 1861-1865.

If he had lived, Pres. Lincoln probably would have fought to defeat the third phase of Reconstruction transformers who wanted to remain separate and resisted being equal for decades after the negro Republican politicians were removed from public office in the south; he would have fought the "living constitution" transformers who don't believe that original intent is applicable in constitutional construction and so cannot inform judicial opinion; and finally, Pres. Lincoln would have fought the “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” transformers; he would have fought the "break it, so to speak" transformers.

To read what Pres. Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who would try to "break" the perpetual "Union" of America, and what he said about the "Union" and the U.S. Constitution, see paragraphs 12 to 16, specifically #13 & #14, at Bartleby.com.*

* President Lincoln – ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ).

In paragraph #13 Pres. Lincoln said "One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" In paragraph #14 he said "The Union is much older than the Constitution." The two sentences together mean that the perpetual "Union" is also older than Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and older than the words "natural born Citizen" with the meaning as understood in 1787 America. However, the "Union" is not older than the natural law that is the original genesis foundation, the guide and the teacher directing the construction of a positive law constitution, and of the original genesis original intent of the natural law/positive law words "natural born Citizen" to mean birth of a child on the soil claimed by U.S. citizen parents, plural. The “nbC” requirement was applied exclusively in A2S1C5 to the Chief Executive of our new tripartite Federation, our federal government.

While the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" apply to the executive of the federation and do not apply to the several sovereign states who are the only creator, singular, of the creature that they created, the constitution, specifically A2S1C5, and the entire tripartite federal government, natural law does apply to the several states. The several states have the natural law right* to determine their own sovereign future, as they did in 1787 with the construction of the federal Constitution and the Federation, the tripartite federal government. It was formed to preserve for the several states at that time their perpetual "Union" of America, and to secure for their posterity the perpetual "Union" of America from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, who would try to "violate it—break it, so to speak" and "transform" the perpetual "Union" of now OUR America by transforming the constitution from a charter of negative liberties into a charter of positive liberties to equalize the people in the (inter)national commune.

* A positive law does NOT determine natural law or grant primacy to natural law, so a positive law could NOT “give” the several states of the Union the natural law “right” to determine the positive law “rights” of the “several states” as members of the Union.

Listen as Obama expresses his "negative liberties" explanation in a 2001 public radio interview. His rejection of the “negative liberties” of the U.S. Constitution is another way of saying that the “positive law” of the Constitution which limits the responsibilities of the new tripartite Federation did NOT include positive law to direct the Federation to do “for” the people what the people could NOT, or would NOT, be allowed to do for themselves.

1min. 45 sec. Youtube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs )
4min. 17 sec. Youtube video, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM )

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” - Barack Obama

After listening to the audio of the above quote, people will understand the "positive liberties" reason why dual citizen Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, as found in this National Review Online article, Kagan: Constitution as Charter of “Positive Liberties”, by Ed Whelan on May 17, 2010*

* Positive Liberties – ( http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/55696/kagan-constitution-charter-positive-liberties/ed-whelan ).

Here is another example of how natural law informs and guides the construction of positive law.

The several states of America who ratified the "negative liberties" constitution can not nullify their own natural law right as creator to direct its creature, the Federation, the tripartite federal government, to correct the problem caused by confusion about the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. There are several ways to correct the problem and eliminate the confusion. Two ways, statute and opinion, are, as directed in the constitution, in the domain of the legislature (Congressional statutes) and the judiciary (Supreme Court opinions). The third way, with references in Article V to both the U.S. Congress and the several states, is, by natural law common sense, the natural law right and in the domain of the several states who are the singular creator of the U.S. Constitution, Article II Section 1 Clause 5, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire Federation, the federal government, U.S. Congress, Executive President and U.S. Supreme Court.

WE the People of the several states are the natural law supreme law of the land with natural law rights since we are the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution, the written supreme law of the land. WE the People, by natural law rights, predate the constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire Federation, the federal government consisting of the congress, the executive, the court. If WE the People want our several states to conduct an Article V convention of states to propose one amendment or multiple amendments because the other Article V designated member of the Federation, the U.S. Congress, will not resolve the confusion surrounding "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility, then, so let it be written, so let it be done according to the will of WE the People of the several states in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.



Move On

How do we in 21st century America resolve the confusion about the original meaning and original intent of "natural born Citizen" and its application today? Let us move on with sensible questions. Let us move on beyond what "nbC" could have or should have meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers in 1787 America, and agreed with by the ratifiers of the thirteen states, and rectified by the 3rd Congress in 1795.



Meaning

What do we in 21st century America want “natural born Citizen” to mean for ourselves and for our posterity?

Some of the questions below are dumb, dumb, dumb, but are included for continuity of thought to show the absurdity of some of the “Obama-Cruz-Rubio-Jindal-Haley-are-all-a-natural-born-Citizen” reasoning proposed by some “dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-by-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers, such as Prof. William Jacobson, Esq. Jacobson wrote on his blog*, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth."

* “...each being a 'natural born Citizen'...plain text...became citizens by birth….”
( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )

Is Prof. Jacobson correct? Is the nebulous "citizens by birth" the meaning of "nbC" that we want in 21st century America?



Born of U.S. Soil

1a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" mean only singular U.S. citizenship only by being born on U.S. soil or jurisdictions only to two U.S. citizen married parents?

There have been a total of 44 U.S. Presidents so far, and for 42 of them there has been no doubt that they ALL have met the eligibility requirement to be POTUS, the first 7 and the 9th, 8 in all, by being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility since they were “...or a Citizen of...” by being born before the accepted national naturalization date of July 4, 1776, and the remaining 34 have had only singular U.S. citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

1b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to one U.S. citizen parent?

The two U.S. Presidents who were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents and were born to one U.S. citizen parent are #21, Chester Alan Arthur and #44, Barack Hussein Obama (although NO, zip, zero, U.S. hospital has issued a public notice with a private or public ceremony that BHObama was born in their hospital).

1c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to zero U.S. citizen parents?

Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley currently, as of December 2014 September 30, 2015, are three Republican potential candidates for POTUS who were born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents. 

1d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean either/or? Born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents?



Born on Foreign Soil

2a- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?

Being born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, plural, was included in the 1790 Naturalization Act (positive law), but it was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act (positive law), and the “nbC” designation has never been included in any subsequent nationality, immigration and naturalization statutes (positive law).

2b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?

Sen. Ted Cruz currently, as of December 2014 September 30,2015, is one Republican potential candidate for POTUS who was not born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, but who was born on the foreign soil of Canada to one U.S. citizen parent.

Sen. Cruz's "citizen" status is defined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)].* See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at USCIS.gov.**

* ( http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html )
** ( http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents )

2c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?

2d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean either/or? Born on foreign soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents?



First Generation Citizen

3a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born to 1st generation citizens, U.S. soil born children of two naturalized U.S. citizens? Implicit is that the following generations are included.



3b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?

3c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?

3d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean either/or? Born to 1st generation citizens, children of either two or one or zero naturalized U.S. citizens?



Second Generation Citizen

4a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born to 2nd genera

4b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?

4c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?

4d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean either/or? Birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of either two or one or zero naturalized U.S. citizens?



Grandfather Them All

1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should Obama, the current "citizen" who has said without verification that he was born on U.S. soil and who has admitted that he had only one U.S. citizen parent, and he was still elected President, should he be retroactively grandfathered into POTUS eligibility to promote national tranquility?

Some may ask, why grandfather Obama into constitutional (positive law) POTUS eligibility before he leaves office?

Others ask, why not?

Well, here are two reasons why, if it can be done before he leaves office. (1) In an Article V convention of states to propose amendments (positive law), WE the People can grandfather into POTUS eligibility anybody we want grandfathered, and we can do it retroactively or prospectively. (2) It might be a way to spur the Article V convention of states movement forward with agreement from the Obama neo-birther camp and the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birther camp and the John Jay original genesis original intent birther camp.

2- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should current "citizens" such as Republicans Sen. Cruz, Sen., Rubio, Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal and future "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" "citizens" be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility just as the first seven and the ninth presidents were, who were grandfathered into POTUS eligibility because they participated in and were loyal to the successful resolution of the revolution, the war for independence that was declared on July 4, 1776? They grandfathered them into citizenship eligibility in 1787, and we can do it again before the 2016 national election cycle to cut the "natural born Citizen" Gordian knot of confusion as if with Alexander's sword.

Personally, I like this idea of grandfathering into POTUS eligibility exceptional American patriots because I really like Sen. Cruz, my favorite federal Senator and my state of Texas junior Senator, and I also like Florida Senator Rubio, as well as Gov. Haley and Gov. Jindal. All would be excellent patriotic Commanders in Chief if elected POTUS.

3- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the current "citizens" who announce their candidacy for POTUS be the last "citizens" to be grandfathered into POTUS elibibility?

4- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility by "citizens" be limited to those who announce their candidacy for the 2016 (or whatever the first date will be—2020, 2024, 2028, etc.) national election cycle?

5- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the 2028, for example, election cycle be the last national election cycle that current "citizens" can participate in (2028 or whatever the second date will be 8 years after the first cut-off date is used to start the “citizen” grandfather cycle)?



Adoption and POTUS Eligibility of U.S. Born or Foreign Born Children

Some are saying that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the U.S. born or foreign born adopted children of two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents, single or married, heterosexual or homosexual.



U.S. Born Children

1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open only to U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction born children, born only to two U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

The purpose is not to promote heterosexuality as superior to homosexuality, or to promote homosexuality as equal with heterosexuality, but to maintain the continuity of two, verifiable natural law birth to two persons and positive law citizenship derived from two U.S. citizens married parents, and carried over to the not "one" but "two" adoptive parents, since the adopted child is already verified as having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born only on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction) only to two U.S. citizen married parents.

2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen married parents, who are then adopted by one U.S. citizenship adoptive parent who is single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?

3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen married parents, who are then adopted by zero U.S. citizenship adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?

4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be either/or? Open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen married parents, who are then adopted by either two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?



Foreign Born Children

1- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?

2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of one U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?

3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?

4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be either/or? Open also to foreign born adopted children of either two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are single or married, heterosexual or homosexual?



How to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify

How should we codify our agreement about our perpetual meaning of and our perpetual intent for "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America?

1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified with an Article V amendment that can only be nullified and repealed if ratified by 75% (38) of the states, and which can not be touched or affected by the U.S. Congress and its statutes or by Supreme Court opinion?

2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified with a statute by one Congress that can be nullified and repealed with another statute by a following Congress, and also by an Article V amendment?

3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified, so to speak, with a Supreme Court opinion that can be nullified and overturned by a following Supreme Court opinion, and also by an Article V amendment?



Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution an Article V amendment that is initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds of both House and Senate, which is sent to the states to be ratified by three-fourths (38) of the states, and then implemented by Congress?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with an Article V amendment initiated by the bicameral U.S. Congress to clarify "natural born [birth]" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) and the original genesis original intent of “born” in A2S1C5 in contrast to the positive law of “born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law and natural law birth, and also positive law and positive law citizenship?



Article V Convention of the Several States to Propose an Amendment

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution an Article V amendment initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures, ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures or ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state conventions, and then implemented by Congress?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the several states resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with an Article V amendment initiated by the “several states” to clarify "natural born" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) and the original genesis original intent of “born” in A2S1C5 in contrast to the positive law of “born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the several states use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law and natural law birth, and also positive law and positive law citizenship?

Yes, we can, with an Article V amendment.
Si, se puede. Pronounced "see se pweth eh," Spanish for "yes, it's possible" or, roughly, "yes, we can."



Statute by Congress

[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution a "what does THAT mean" statute by Congress that can be nullified and replaced with a succeeding statute, and also by an Article V amendment?

[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should we resolve the confusion with a positive law statute?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute clarify natural law and natural law birth?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?



Court Opinion

[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution a nebulous "what does THAT mean" opinion by the Supreme Court that can be nullified and overturned by a succeeding Court, and also by an Article V amendment?

[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should we resolve the confusion with a court opinion?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a court opinion clarify natural law and natural law birth?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a court opinion clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?



My Choice: Codify with an Article V Convention of States

I wonder which meaning of "natural born Citizen" the People will want codified, and which method of codification they think will have the best chance of resisting subversion and usurpation, and which will be the safest long term solution to promote national tranquility and national security?

My choice for the best way to prevent future confusion that allows usurpation of the Executive office of the federal government is an Article V amendment by a convention of the states, the creator of their creature the Federation, the tripartite federal government and its written constitution. It would encourage grassroots participation with a variety of opinions with the final proposition being an amendment with language that would clarify "natural born" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in "natural born Citizen" as meaning (1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, (2) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil or jurisdiction, (3) ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, (4) ONLY U.S. citizens by birth and not by naturalization. This means that only the 2nd generation child, the grandchild of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" grandparents and the child of two U.S. citizen parents, would be a "natural born Citizen" child of the two 1st generation "citizen" parents, and so be “...eligible to the Office of President” at age 35.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“...an amendment with language that would

clarify "natural born" (natural law)

and "Citizen" (positive law)

in "natural born Citizen" as meaning

(1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship,

(2) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil or jurisdiction,

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

(4) ONLY U.S. citizens by birth and not by naturalization.

This means that only the 2nd generation child, the grandchild of

two naturalized U.S. "citizen" grandparents

and the child of two U.S. citizen parents,

would be a "natural born Citizen" child

of the two 1st generation "citizen" parents, and so be

“...eligible to the Office of President” at age 35.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Opponents may present a “positive law” rational (e.g., “MY GUY-MY GAL” is an “original genesis original intent” patriot) against limiting POTUS eligibility to the 2nd generation child, but there is no “natural law” reason preventing a change of POTUS eligibility from the 1787 positive law that made POTUS eligibility open to the 1st generation of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" parents. WE the People can "frame" and change POTUS eligibility and limit it to the 2nd generation (and following generations) if we want to just like the original birthers (the original"framers") did in 1787 and limited it to the children of naturalized U.S. citizens. Just as “natural born Citizen” was restrictive in 1787 America and made applicable ONLY to the 1st generation child born to two naturalized U.S “citizen” parents and not available to the two naturalized citizen married parents, “natural born Citizen” can be restricted today in 2000s America to ONLY to 2nd generation children born to two 1st generation U.S. “citizen” children born to two U.S. naturalized “citizen” married parents.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

“Just as “natural born Citizen” was restrictive in 1787 America and made applicable

ONLY to the 1st generation child born to two naturalized U.S “citizen” parents

and not available to the two naturalized citizen married parents,

“natural born Citizen” can be restricted today in 2000s America to

ONLY to 2nd generation children

born to two 1st generation U.S. “citizen” children

born to two U.S. naturalized “citizen” married parents.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The amendment should include language only grandfathering into POTUS eligibility current "citizens" who announce their "citizen" candidacy before the 20?? national election cycle (whichever national election cycle date is finally selected), and who will then qualify themselves to announce their "citizen" candidacy only one more time for the 20?? (the next national election cycle 8 years after the first national election cycle date) national election cycle (a one time only 8 year term limit to announce). Since pre-amendment "natural born Citizens" will not need to be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility, the amendment should include them with language that indicates that since they were born on U.S. soil or jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen parents before the amendment, they will not be limited and will be eligible in any national election cycle, until the last "natural born Citizen" born before Amendment XXVIII (or whatever the number will be) dies some time in the late 21st century or the early 22nd century.



An Idea Whose Time Has Come? Yes.

With the rise of political and religious anti-American and anti-U.S. Constitution sentiment, maybe designating the 2nd generation child as our 21st century requirement for a "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility is an idea whose time has come?

John Jay was prescient about the "Command in chief" being reserved only for a "natural born Citizen." The perpetual "Union" of America is being threatened by political and religious enemies from without and within the tripartite Federation, the heart federal government of WE the People. The time has come to clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" for the 21st century and beyond to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for ourselves and for our posterity.

Which meaning do the John Jay inspired original genesis original intent birthers, aka the “ONLY-singular-U.S.-citizenship-ONLY-by-birth-on-U.S.-soil-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-married-parents” birthers, think the American people would choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people?

Which meaning do the new meaning neo-birthers, aka the “MY GUY-MY GAL” “dual-U.S./foreign-citizenship-by-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" neo-birthers, think the American people would choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people?

The question is not what do the American people think that "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay and others in Jay's era, or even today, but what do the American people today in 21st century America want "natural born Citizen" to mean for their own "natural born Citizen" posterity?

Which meaning of "nbC" do the American people think WOULD promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of America?

Which meaning of "nbC" do the American people think would NOT promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of America?

It can be done with an Article V amendment, a convention of states to propose amendments just like the House and Senate convene under the authority of Article V to propose amendments. When the House and Senate convene to propose amendments, they are not convening a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the entire constitution, a deliberately mislabled so-called Con-Con. They are doing what Article V gives them authority to do, convene and propose amendments, and that is also what an Article V convention of states does. The several states convene to propose amendments. Period. That is the constitutional way for WE the People of the several states, the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution and the tripartite federal government, to nullify abuses perpetrated by our Federation child, and the ultimate and best way to preserve OUR perpetual "Union" of America for our posterity.

Patrick Henry wrote after independence was won from England on the back of his copy of the Stamp Act Resolves that was passed May 1765 by the Virginia House of Burgesses, an office to which George Washington was also elected for a few years. The quote of Patrick Henry below is from George Washington's Sacred Fire, page 292, by Peter Lillback, published 2010.

"Patrick Henry is most known for his fiery, patriotic oratory. But his patriotic fire was strengthened with biblical reflection. In May 1765, the Burgesses passed the Stamp Act Resolves. Years later, on the back of the paper, Henry wrote a note for posterity that highlighted several of the key events that led to the Revolution. His climactic statement declared in bold letters that he was not a Deist.

'This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us.

'If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.

'Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. Henry' "

Dittos. ajtelles

PS:

A friendly hat tip to Prof. William Jacobson who is mildly persuasive but certainly not convincing in his defense of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz as each being a "natural born Citizen" because each was "born a citizen" of the U.S. because, as he put it, “...because they became citizens by birth,” implying but being very, very, very unpersuasive that "born a citizen" = "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. However, the title of his blog, “Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law,” is the epitome of the explicit purpose of an Article V amendment by a convention of states to propose amendments to clarify for our posterity the confusion between "born a citizen" and "natural born Citizen."

“Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law.”

Yep, THAT is the epitome of an Article V convention of states. Exactly what the framers and ratifiers originally intend as the constitutional way to nullify federal usurpation beyond the powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-18, and the best legal way to preserve the perpetual "Union" of OUR America for our posterity.

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

The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )