What If: John Jay - 1787 - Article II - Women for POTUS

What If: John Jay – 1787 - Article II - Women for POTUS

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post that was posted on Mario Apuzzo's blog on July 23, 2014 at 5:22 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=15

<<>>

John Jay & Article II & Women for POTUS

Here is a "what if" possibility about males and females being implied in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.

My original John Jay original genesis and original intent question is simple.

What was John Jay's original genesis intent in 1787 before the first and subsequent naturalization acts and the 1868 14th Amendment?

1-Birth inside OR outside the U.S. to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?
2-Birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?

That's a simple question.
Right?

Well, how about males and females?

Maybe an exercise in possibilities will allow asking what John Jay and George Washington and ALL of the convention delegates implied by accepting John Jay's original genesis intent and inserting "natural born Citizen" into Article II.

Another and more complicated John Jay implicit original genesis original intent question that "one U.S. citizen parents" is good 'nuf birthers might ask if John Jay was not a no-go-zone for Obama-birthers is related. Were males AND females implied in "natural born Citizen?"

It has always been my 2000s understanding that male AND females were included in John Jay's 1700s implicit meaning inherent in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, although Jay's "Command in Chief" words in his note to George Washington were usually associated with men in 1787 America.

Would military veteran George Washington have concurred with John Jay if in 1787 Jay was making an explicit OR an implicit reference to females as also eligible to have "Command in Chief" authority in 1787? Who knows for sure? Absolutely no one knows because male and female eligibility was not debated and recorded.

1-Was John Jay implying and was military veteran George Washington concurring with male OR female U.S. citizens as "... eligible to the Office of the President" in 1787?

2-Was John Jay implying and was military veteran George Washington concurring with ONLY male U.S. citizens as "... eligible to the Office of the President" in 1787?

If a "natural born Citizen" female, born with singular U.S. citizenship inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen married parents, could have had the support of the majority of the voting electorate, females and males, who supported John Adams or Thomas Jefferson and etc. for any of the subsequent male presidents, would a female POTUS aspirant have been Article II Section 1 Clause 5 eligible in their minds?

Yes, according to the implicit meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II.

No, according to the implicit common law understanding that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife. Even though females voted in some states, would they have been accepted as "...eligible to the Office of the President" in all of the states as opponents of any of the males who were elected president?

Probably not, even though Article II did not explicitly deny females eligibility to the "Office of the President."

If eligibility of females had been debated and settled in the affirmative according to Article II and before 1868 and the 14th Amendment, John Jay's implicit meaning being debated today in 2000s America (ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents) would not be debated today.

As the debate stands today, we in 2000s America can point back to John Jay in 1787 and say that if the eligibility of females to the "... Office of the President" were debated and settled in the affirmative in the early years of the republic, the original genesis words "natural born Citizen" in Article II would have been interpreted to mean that BOTH males AND females were implied in John Jay's words because the U.S. Constitution did NOT explicitly deny POTUS eligibility to females, and what would have been settled in the negative is that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 did NOT explicitly include POTUS eligibility to ONLY "one U.S. citizen parent" citizen.

The simple John Jay implicit original genesis and original intent question, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, is helpful in understanding other implicit original intent questions about male and female eligibility to the "... Office of the President."

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario Apuzzo had a short response on July 23, 2014 at 5:22 PM.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is both inclusive and exclusive. The central and controlling point is that the text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 includes women as being eligible to be President. There is nothing in the text which excludes them from such eligibility. As I have shown, they were “persons” and could be “natural born citizens,” at least 35 years of age, and at least a 14-year resident within the United States. Hence, they were included. Also, there is nothing about their nature which requires that they be excluded by the language of the Article.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is my response to Mario with a bit more clarification of the issue.


Dittos Mario...

>> "Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is both inclusive and exclusive."

Agreement.

The "what if" question is that it is an interesting exercise in logic looking back at 1787 and speculating what the debate may have produced in clarifying the original genesis meaning of "natural born Citizen" as related to both U.S. citizenship and male and female eligibility if both had been debated in the early years of the republic.

>> "The central and controlling point is that the text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 includes women as being eligible to be President.

>> There is nothing in the text which excludes them from such eligibility.

>> "As I have shown, they were “persons” and could be “natural born citizens,” at least 35 years of age, and at least a 14-year resident within the United States.

>> "Hence, they were included.

>> Also, there is nothing about their nature which requires that they be excluded by the language of the Article.

Agreement x 4.

We can see the inclusive aspect of Article II clearly today in 2000s America, but the "what if" logical exercise is about what the 1700s and 1800s electorate might have said in their point-counterpoint if the issue of female eligibility was debated AND if John Jay's original genesis intent about citizenship had also been debated.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The point of the "what if" exercise is to point out that the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers can NOT talk about female eligibility in 1787 and in future years without ALSO talking about Jay's original genesis intent about citizenship.

Jay's original genesis intent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is a winner debate point, in addition to the historical record that Mario presents. The Obama-birthers attempt to rebut and refute Mario's analysis without success, but for some reason that they do not want to admit, they NEVER attempt to rebut and refute my emphasis on John Jay's ONLY original genesis and original intent about his ONLY meaning in suggesting "natural born Citizen" to George Washington. The brief point-counterpoint I had with Dave B. in the previous post here reveals the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther lack of consistent logic and coherence.

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