Time to Change the Conversation

Time to Change the Conversation

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on December 7, 2014 at 8:43 PM.

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

<<>>

It is time...

Here are some random thoughts about the incessant debate regarding citizenship and POTUS eligibility.

It is time to stop the debate about what OUR "they", our authorities, what "they" meant in 1787 (A2S1C5) and 1865 (13th A.) and 1868 (14th A.) and 1869 (15th A.) and 1875 (M v. H.) and 1898 (US v. WKA) and the 1952 INA vs. what THEIR authorities, what "they" meant in 1868 as defining what THEIR "they" meant in 1875 and 1898, but stay away from the 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)] language.

It is time to start articulating a change from OUR “they" said a “citizen” is and an “nbC” is vs. THEIR "they" said a “citizen” is and an “nbC” is.

It is time to propose ONLY one solution, singular, not two or more solutions.

ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship

ONLY by Birth on U.S. Soil

ONLY by Birth to two U.S. Citizen Parents

ONLY Married to Each Other

ONLY Married Before the Birth of Their Child

Solution #1 – Original Birther John Jay's “nbC” Original Genesis Original Intent
It is time for proponents of “singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents is a high hurdle that must be perpetual for POTUS eligibility" (aka “nbC” original genesis original intent birthers) to define and defend that proposition more effectively. The “high hurdle” of singular U.S. citizenship is superior to any other proposition about birth soil and the number of U..S. citizen birth parents. We must simply press the “higher hurdle” until it is understood by the American people as the ONLY proposition that makes sense. We must define and defend more effectively what we think the only “high hurdle” solution is and why the “higher hurdle” of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (and the four related ONLY's) is superior to the “lower hurdle” of dual U.S./foreign citizenship proposed by “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers.

Is the best and perpetual solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

I say that the permanent solution is a constitutional amendment with specific and clear language, articulating original intent for ourselves, "WE the Posterity" of the 1787 "WE the People," and for our posterity from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, just as the original genesis "WE the People" originally intended in 1787—perpetual from generation to generation.

The "generation to generation" idea was clarified by President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address* in 1861 at the start of the civil war which was fought to protect the integrity and unity of the "Union," not a denial of states rights (see paragraph 14). Lincoln's original intent was to abolish slavery in the southern slave states if it could be done constitutionally, as he expressed it in his Dred Scott speech on June 16, 1857, and in his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, presaging the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in America forever, from generation to generation, and to prevent the entrance of the slavery mindset and practice into the free states and the territories that would eventually become states of the "Union".

Paragraph 12 -

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

* Read President Abraham Lincoln's entire first inaugural address at Bartleby.com:
>> http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

Paragraph 13 -

"Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Paragraph 14 -

"Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, 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, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Union is much older than the Constitution.

1-It was formed, in fact,

by the Articles of Association in 1774.

2-It was matured and continued

by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

3-It was further matured,

and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that

it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.

4-And finally, in 1787,

one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was

"to form a more perfect Union."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Paragraph 15 -

"But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity."

The "perpetuity" of the original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of a child can be defended on the same ground as the "perpetuity" of the "Union" which is much older than the 1787 Constitution. The “union” is one, not two, but “one” when the “two” become “one” with the original intent of perpetual union.

Solution #2 – New Meaing Neo-Birther “nbC” Intent
It is time for proponents of birth on U.S. soil to "one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility (aka “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers) to define and defend their historical sources and what "THEY" the neo-birthers say the solution is.

Solution #3 – New Meaing Neo-Birther “nbC” Intent
It is time for proponents of birth on U.S. soil to "zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility (aka “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers) to define and defend what "THEY" the neo-birthers say the solution is.


Birth on Foreign Soil


Solution #4 – New Meaing Neo-Birther “nbC” Intent
It is time for proponents of birth on foreign soil to "two U.S. citizen parents is a lower hurdle but still a must" for POTUS eligibility (aka “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers) to define and defend what "THEY say the solution is.

Solution #5 – New Meaing Neo-Birther “nbC” Intent
It is time for proponents of birth on foreign soil to "one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility (aka “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers) to define and defend what "they" say the solution is.

Solution #6 – New Meaing Neo-Birther “nbC” Intent
It is time for proponents of birth on foreign soil to "zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility (aka “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers) to define and defend what "they" say the solution is.

What do the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers say that the solution is?
Is it a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

The solution #6 "good 'nuf" proposition is political nuttiness, but it is added for continuity of thought and definition from the “higher hurdle” common sense of singular U.S. citizenship to a “lower hurdle” of dual U.S./foreign citizenship to the “lowest hurdle” of zero U.S. citizenship, to include the proponents of adopting foreign born children who, after naturalization, will have POTUS eligibility when they attain age 35.

Some people are seriously proposing grandfathering into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted children if the U.S. adoptive parents, single OR married, heterosexual OR homosexual, are U.S. citizens before the foreign born child is adopted by them. There are probably others who would try to deliberately throw a monkey wrench into the debate about POTUS eligibility who would say that the adoptive parents could naturalize as U.S. citizens AFTER they adopted a foreign born child. I don't think that there are any who would be foolish enough to propose that a foreign born child could be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility with one adoptive parent who is NOT a U.S. citizen, or two adoptive parents who are NOT U.S. citizens. But—who knows? They may be out there, lurking, somewhere, just waiting to throw the monkey wrench into the debate about U.S. citizenship and POTUS eligibility.

The debate is about how to unite and distinguish an A2S1C5 "citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."
The debate is not about how to fuse/mix or separate an A2S1C5 "citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."

The debate is not about how to unite and fuse/mix an A2S1C5 "citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."
The debate is not about how to distinguish and separate an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."

The debate is about a union, not a fusion/mix, of an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen."
The debate is about a distinction, not a separation, of an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen."

The debate is about distinguishing between two "whos".

Who is a "Citizen" who can only be be a U.S. Senator or a U.S. Representative but not a U.S. President?
Who is a "natural born Citizen" who alone can be President but can also be a U.S. Senator or a U.S. Representative?

A "citizen" born before the naturalization date of July 4, 1776 (“...or a Citizen...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”), as articulated at the time of the 1787 Con Con, was not the same thing as a "natural born Citizen" who was born after July 4, 1776 (the first “nbC” president was Martin van Buren, #8, born 1782, six years after 1776 and five years before 1787).

Instead of debating the meaning of what OUR "they" meant in 1787 and 1868, etc., vs. what THEIR "they" meant in 1868 alone since John Jay is never adduced as one of THEIR "they" authorities, we should now start to articulate the meaning of "natural born Citizen" as "WE the Posterity" of "WE the People" want “nbC” to mean today in 2014 in the 21st century, starting with what OUR "they", including John Jay, meant in A2S1C5 in 1787 in the 18th century when OUR "they" wrote "natural born Citizen...or a Citizen" and what OUR "they" meant in the 14th Amendment in 1868 in the 19th century when OUR "they" wrote "...born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction...are citizens," and what OUR "they" meant in Minor v. Happersett in 1875, and what OUR "they" meant in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and what OUR "they" meant in the 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)]* language.

* 1952 INA, 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 .

OUR John Jay inspired common sense "natural born Citizen"

original intent presupposition about allegiance and security

vs.

THEIR anybody but John Jay and his specifically written

original genesis original intent presupposition about allegiance and security

nbC = born, not naturalized at birth or after birth, applicable at that time and forever
nbC = born only on U.S. soil (jurisdiction), applicable at that time and forever
nbC = born only to two U.S. citizen parents, applicable at that time and forever
nbC = born ONLY with singular citizenship, NOT dual citizenship, applicable at that time and forever

vs.

nbC = born OR naturalized “at” birth since the child was "natural born" by birth and not naturalized by oath
nbC = born on U.S. soil OR born on foreign soil (John Jay is spinning)
nbC = born to two U.S. citizen parents OR one U.S. citizen parent OR zero U.S. citizen parents, singular citizenship OR dual citizenship (John Jay is spinning)

The ultimate solution is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not a statute which everyone acknowledges can not trump the Constitution, except by misconstruction and ambiguous statute language. The ultimate solution is definitely NOT a judicial edict masquerading as a "finding" based on original intent precedence which can be overturned with another edict masquerading as a "finding" based on original intent precedence, which can be overturned..., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

An A2S1C5 “nbC” is about singular U.S. citizenship allegiance, not dual U.S./foreign citizenship allegiance.

Which of the six scenarios below is the “higher hurdle” of allegiance implied by “nbC” author and original birther John Jay?

Which of the six scenarios is the “lowest hurdle” of allegiance implied by (“anybody but John Jay”) “nbC” new mean neo-birthers?

1-ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
2-ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent?
3-ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?

4-ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
5-ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?
6-ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents? (adoption)

Let the "zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" for POTUS eligibility in 21st century America neo-birthers make their most coherent case for adoption and POTUS eligibility, that will stop John Jay from spinning in his grave.

Here is a hypothetical Islamic jihadi possibility about which a free and constitutional republic must be watchful.

Let the "zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" for POTUS eligibility neo-birthers start by telling us how they would counter the threat to a free theistic America or a free atheistic America, i.e., an America free from thought and practice about a God named YHWH, transliterated as Yahuah (some prefer Yahweh, some prefer Jehovah), or an America free from thought and practice about a Muslim God named Allah.

What would the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" atheists, for example, want to do about Islamic theist Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in Louisiana to Islamic theist Saudi parents who were immigrants to the U.S. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi ).

According to the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents for POTUS eligibility, the 1868 14th Amendment was progressive and far sighted, and it means that Yaser Esam Hamdi's U.S. citizen status and consequent eligibility to be POTUS was implicit in 1868 simply because he made his "natural born" birthday touchdown on U.S. soil. Since he renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2004, the issue of his POTUS eligibility is moot, but the "natural birth" on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents point is still valid as a hypothetical.

The "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents may try to assert that, although Hamdi's citizenship was not derived from his parents, his U.S. citizenship was derived from the soil alone, OR they may try to assert that birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is implied in the progressive and far sighted 1868 amendment to the U.S. Constitution, OR they may try to assert that it is not necessary to use the irrelevant and not progressive 1787 Constitution words "natural born Citizen" in order to understand that "natural born" simply means birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, OR birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent (Sen./Pres. Obama), OR also birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents (Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley).

Why don't the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" neo-birthers try to assert that in 1787 John Jay was being progressive and far sighted and would probably agree with them that Hamdi's U.S. citizenship was derived from BOTH “at” birth on U.S. soil AND “by” birth to zero U.S. citizen parents? Would this assertion stop Jay from spinning in his grave or cause him to spin even faster?

Why will the neo-birthers never, ever assert that Hamdi's U.S. citizenship was derived from birth on U.S. soil AND birth to zero U.S. citizen parents?

Why? 'Cause, as progressive and far sighted as “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers are, the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents of POTUS eligibility are, they are not nuts.

Does that mean that the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents want, or will allow, future fundamentalist Islamic jihadists, simply by natural birth on U.S. soil, to be eligible to be elected POTUS?

The neo-birthers might say that language can be written to exclude fundamentalist Islamic jihadists from POTUS eligibility.

The neo-birthers might also say that someone with the same birth history as Hamdi, birth on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents, who is not an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, this person should be eligible by natural birth on U.S. soil to be POTUS.

What about the person who explicitly and religiously adheres to political/religious Islam's ultimate theistic goal of imposing sharia law as superior to the U.S. Constitution law? Should this person be eligible to be POTUS simply because they had a natural birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?

If the proponents of "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" want to assert that U.S. Constitution amendment language can be written to exclude from POTUS eligibility a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, who is also raised as a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist, whose ultimate goal is to impose sharia law as superior to the U.S. Constitution, well, then, we who propose that "two U.S. citizen parents is a higher hurdle must have" can also assert that U.S. Constitution language can be written to exclude from POTUS eligibility ALL children born on U.S. soil to "zero U.S. citizen parents," whether or not the children are raised as fundamentalist Islamic jihadists who want to transform the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America into a sharia law compliant document and nation.

Right?

Of course, the “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” fundamentalist Islamic jihadist scenario would never happen, could it?

Right?

Well, how about obvious and patriotic "friendlies" like Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley and Sen. Ted Cruz?

Sen. Marco Rubio was born on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
Gov. Bobby Jindal was born on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
Gov. Nikki Haley was born on U.S soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
Sen. Cruz was born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent married to a foreign citizen.

Well, that's enough now for the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" for POTUS eligibility proposition, let's consider the "one U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" for POTUS eligibility in 21st century America proposition and see how the Obama birthers, the "one U.S. citizen parent is good nuf" defenders, make their most coherent case.

First, they must assert that "one U.S. citizen parent is good nuf" 'cause, well, their guy Obama ONLY had one U.S. citizen parent at birth—somewhere—maybe U.S. soil, maybe foreign soil; and recently there have been questions developing of birth somewhen—maybe 1961, maybe earlier; and also questions of somewho—maybe Stanley Ann Dunham or... it's getting curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.

John Jay's focus on allegiance and security was the original intent reason for undrlining the word “born in "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility in his note to George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted by ALL of the delegates to the 1787 Con Con.

By simple common sense logic, an 1868 14th Amendment anchor baby definitely was NOT the original intent for a "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. That is WHY anchor babies should NOT be recognized as U.S. citizens as “...eligible to the Office of President” in a future constitutional amendment to calrify A2S1C5 and Amendment 14..

If the House and Senate will not adduce a constitutional amendment to prevent a future usurper slipping and sliding and slithering into the Oval Office, then an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an amendment is the ONLY solution, AFTER "WE the People" become informed about the option provided in Article V in the original constitution BEFORE all ten amendments were added to it in one year, 1791, four years AFTER 1787 when the Constitution, specifically Article V, was ratified.

If the first congress could debate and adopt 10 amendments in one year, we can do two or more in one year.

Amend to clarify "natural born Citizen" in A2S1C5. Amend to clarify “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment. Amend and repeal the 17th Amendment so that the state legislatures will again have control of their Senators and elect their two U.S. Senators to the Federal Government so that the two Senators can represent their states to the Federal Government instead of representing the Federal Government to their states.

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

See Bartleby.com - paragraph #14 to read about the "Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 at the start of the civil war.
>> http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html