"Automatic
Birthright Citizenship" Is
Constitutional—"IF"
&
Do
Rely on John Jay—YES
Do
Not Rely on the 14th
Amendment Congressional Debates—YES
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario
Apuzzo's blog on September 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, September 5, 2015 at
10:39 PM, September 5, 2015 at 10:43 PM and September 6, 2015 at 4:41
PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>
ajtelles
said...
Sven, I didn't quote Blackstone. In part #3 on
August 31, 2015 at 11:58 PM, I quoted Prof. Erler who mentioned
Blackstone and his historical point of view.
Erler's
essential point was that the language of the Declaration of
Independence severed the perpetual allegiance of the perpetual
subjects of the British monarch, and that the U.S. Constitution
codified the independence. Also, the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed
U.S. sovereignty of the citizens, meaning that automatic birthright
citizenship is not implicit in the American common law, not to be
confused with the feudal law and British common law.
Art
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is Mario's comment on September 4, 2015 at 4:13 PM.
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Art,
Natelson's comment "other countries or under
international law" shows how much of a weasel he is. He makes it
look like some other argument would be one under international law,
thereby appealing to an anti-international law spirit. The truth of
the matter is that the Founders and Framers called it the law of
nations, not international law. Jeremy
Bentham coined "international
law" and the expression was not used until after the
Constitution was ratified.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is my comment on September 5, 2015 at 10:39 PM.
Mario,
Two
reasons for this comment.
First, this is my
uncredentialed (aka not having letters after my name, whether summa
cum laude, magna cum laude, cum laude, or whew, I made it), layman's
response to Prof. Rob Natelson, who has another article on American
Thinker in which he clarifies the 1868 “original genesis original
intent” (my words) of the Fourteenth Amendment as understood by two
prominent framers, Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob
Howard of Michigan, and how automatic birthright citizenship should
be construed today in 2015 America.
>>
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/birthright_citizenship_opponents_should_not_rely_on_14th_amendment_congressional_debates.html
Second,
in my comment to Sven on September 4, 2015 at 12:38 PM, I wrote
something accurate but it could be confusing if construed with
Fourteenth Amendment intent as defined by the erroneous 1898 Wong
Court: I wrote "...meaning that automatic birthright
citizenship is not
implicit in the American common law.…"
In a
certain sense, “automatic birthright citizenship” definitely IS
“implicit in the American common law” if the language is
correctly applied and articulated.
If “birthright
citizenship” means that the Fourteenth Amendment implies
“automatic” U.S. citizenship for children of legal immigrants or
children of illegal aliens, then, no,
“not” is
accurate. However, if originalists take control of the language and
use “birthright citizenship” in a better way to constitutionally
mean that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 first sentence word
“born” incorporates the 1787 meaning of “born” in “natural
born Citizen” in Article II because the parents of the child born
on U.S. soil are both U.S. citizens married to each other before the
child is born, then, yes, it is
accurate to say that “birthright citizenship” definitely IS
“automatic” when U.S. citizenship as derived from the two U.S.
citizen married parents.
The way "automatic
birthright citizenship" is construed today in 2015 to mean that
the children of legal immigrants or illegal aliens have “automatic”
Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizenship, yes, "automatic"
citizenship for children of foreign citizenship parents, legal or
illegal, was NOT implicit in the 1787 American common law as
articulated in Article II Section 1 clause 5 ("No Person
except a natural born [U.S.] Citizen"),
or as articulated in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence
1 ("All persons born...subject to [U.S.]
jurisdiction").
Since
the legal immigrant and the illegal alien single parent is not
subject to U.S. jurisdiction as they would be if they were a U.S.
single parent and a U.S. citizen, and the legal immigrant and illegal
alien married parents are both not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as
they would be if they were both U.S. married parents and U.S.
citizens, the obvious commonsense conclusion is that the alien child
of legal immigrants or illegal aliens is also NOT subject to
U.S. jurisdiction as a U.S. citizen.
Commonsense,
even in 2015 America, affirms that, starting in 1787, even
foreigners, the legal immigrants and their children born on U.S. soil
and illegal aliens and their children born on U.S. soil, were subject
to the penal code prohibitions against murder, manslaughter,
stealing, breaking and entering (either breaching the borders of a
house on private property or breaching the borders of a country),
etc., and statutes concerning owning of property. They simply were
not under U.S. jurisdiction as naturalized U.S. citizens are, and so
they could not and still can not pass on to their children what they,
the parents, do not have: U.S. citizenship.
However,
"automatic" U.S. citizenship under the American
common law (the common understanding) of "citizenship
and allegiance" (which, since the July 4, 1776
Declaration of Independence, rejected English
perpetual "subjectship" and perpetual
allegiance" to the monarchy) definitely WAS,
in 1787 (and still IS in today 2015 by originalists, aka John
Jay “born” birthers and constitutional original intent birthers),
a commonsense implied reason for John Jay to underline the word
"born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25,
1787 note to George Washington. That 1787 "automatic"
construction obviously was also accepted by the Constitutional
Convention delegates/framers and eventually was accepted by all
thirteen state ratifiers, including John Jay, a 1783 Treaty of Paris
plenipotentiary signatory (one of three) ending the war of
independence from England, a Union founder, a New York ratifier, and
the first Supreme Court Chief Justice.
Since a child born
in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen married parents in 1787 America meant
that the child had "automatic" U.S. citizenship
status "by birth", well, that child, born to two
U.S. citizen married parents, also had "automatic"
"natural born Citizen" status "by birth".
Also, since, in 1787 America and in the following years, until the
1922 Cable Act gave the wife the option to retain her foreign
citizenship or not, the wife in 1787 America acquired by
marriage the U.S. citizenship of the husband. That being so,
the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship
of the wife, AND the U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents “automatically”
determined the U.S. citizenship of the child born after the marriage
of the parents. This means that the child automatically acquired ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil
ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.
This
1787 commonsense common law understanding continued to and through
the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the three reconstruction amendments
(1865 Thirteenth, 1868 Fourteenth, 1870 Fifteenth) until the
1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court erroneously held that a
child born on U.S. soil to legal immigrant alien parents, was, ipso
facto, regardless of the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment
word “born” as incorporated from the 1787 word “born”
in “natural born Citizen” as a tacit reference to being born with
singular U.S. citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to two U.S.
citizen parents, was by judicial fiat ALSO a U.S. citizen even
though the U.S. citizenship was NOT derived from the foreign
citizenship of the parents.
What the Court gives by
fiat, the Court can take away and correct by fiat. If not the Court
by fiat, then the Congress can take away and correct by statute. If
not the Congress by statute, then the Congress can take away and
correct by Article V amendment. If not the Congress by Article V
amendment, then We the People with our state legislatures of the
“several states” can take away and correct by amendment.
The
way I see it:
By taking control of the language and using
“automatic birthright citizenship” accurately so that
“automatic” means either “by” birth on U.S.
soil to one U.S. citizen parent (a “citizen”), or “by”
birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents (a
“natural born Citizen”), both Article II Section 1
clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 will
cohere and make sense in a way that will show the error of the 1898
United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court holding that a child born on U.S.
soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is still a U.S. citizen. A coherent
constitutional understanding of “born” and “citizen”
in the Fourteenth Amendment that incorporates the original intent of
“born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II can be
agreed to before a possible Article V convention of states to propose
the amendment to clarify that “born” in the Fourteenth
Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 and “born” in “natural
born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 can ONLY mean
“born” on U.S. soil to either one (Fourteenth
Amendment) U.S. citizen parent, or two (Article II)
U.S. citizen married parents.
By statute the U.S. Congress
can declare a child born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent
to be a U.S. citizen “at” birth but NOT “by”
birth. For that reason the child, a U.S. citizen by statute,
can NOT be a “natural born Citizen” “by” birth,
and so the child is NOT “… eligible to the Office of
President.”
By statute the U.S. Congress can also
declare a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents to be
a U.S. citizen “at” birth but NOT “by” birth.
For that reason the child, a U.S. citizen by statute, can NOT
be a “citizen” “by” birth, and so the child is also
NOT a “natural born Citizen” and is also NOT POTUS
eligible.
A U.S. citizen “by” birth to one
Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizen parent obviously could NOT be a
“natural born Citizen” “by” birth to two U.S. citizen
married parents, and would NOT be POTUS eligible, while a U.S.
citizen “by” birth to two Article II U.S. citizen married
parents would be a “natural born Citizen” and so would be POTUS
eligible.
While
it is obvious that an Article II “natural born Citizen” “by”
birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, from whom is
derived “singular” U.S. citizenship, is a higher hurdle
than a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” “by” birth
on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, and definitely a much
higher hurdle to a congressional statute “citizen” “at”
birth, even a Fourteenth Amendment “born” citizen, aka a
U.S. citizen “by” birth on U.S. soil to at least one
U.S. citizen parent, is a higher hurdle than a congressional
statute that simply declares in one session of Congress that
citizenship is “at” birth on foreign soil for a child born
to one U.S. citizen parent, and also a higher hurdle
than the 1898 Supreme Court holding that citizenship is “at”
birth on U.S. soil for a child born to zero U.S. citizen
parents.
If one session of Congress can declare a child
to be a U.S. citizen “at” birth, a succeeding session of
Congress can change the previous citizenship “at” birth
declaration to NOT a citizen “at” birth as was the
case earlier in U.S. statute history when an alien was an alien, not
only “at” birth by statute but “by” birth to
alien parents.
However, absolutely NO Congress can
rescind by statute, and absolutely NO Supreme Court can
rescind by holding, that citizenship “by” birth, EITHER
“by” birth to one Fourteenth Amendment U.S. citizen
parent OR “by” birth to two Article II U.S. citizen
married parents, is the original genesis original intent of “born”
in “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and
“All persons born...subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” in
Section 1 sentence 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
That is
a constitutional way to use the language to clarify that “automatic
birthright citizenship” is implicit in “born” in
“natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and
implicit in “born” in the Fourteenth Amendment when
applied ONLY to a child born with singualr U.S.
citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil, ONLY to a child
born a U.S. citizen “by” birth to one OR two U.S.
citizen parents.
If
Congress wants to declare that a citizen “by” birth on
U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent is a “singular” U.S.
citizen and NOT a dual U.S./foreign citizen, Congress
can do so, according to Article I and Section 5 of Article V.
However, because the “singular” U.S. citizenship status
would be by statute, the child so declared to be a “singular”
U.S. citizen could NOT be construed to have “singular”
U.S. citizenship “by” birth as would a “natural born
Citizen,” and so the child would NOT be “...eligible to
the Office of President.” If the Congress does not pass such a
statute, the child is, “by” birth to one U.S. citizen
parent, a dual U.S./foreign citizen if the parent is NOT
married to the U.S. citizen partner (or the foreign citizen
partner), of if the U.S. citizen parent IS married to the
foreign citizen partner, or if the other parent/partner, U.S. citizen
or foreign citizen, is not known, or, if known, does not or can not
accept paternity or maternity.
For these reasons and more
that could be added (e.g., the jihad percolating in America is an
internal ideological struggle that transcends political parties, and,
it seems to me, only the intervention of the architect of the
universe, YHWH (pronounced Yahuah, some prefer Yahweh) the
transcendent Creator, can alleviate the pain that is coming to
America), this is the way I see it:
_“Automatic
birthright citizenship” for a child born on foreign soil to
one U.S. citizen parent?—NO!
_“Automatic
birthright citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to
illegal alien
parents?—NO!
_“Automatic birthright
citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to legal
immigrant parents?—NO!
_“Automatic birthright
citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to legal
immigrants and one parent joins the military service but who,
at this time, can not become a U.S. citizen by statute until AFTER
release from service?—NO!
_“Automatic birthright
citizenship” for a child born on U.S. soil to one
U.S. citizen parent but NOT “...eligible to the Office of
President”?—YES!
_“Automatic birthright citizenship”
for a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen
married parents and the ONLY “by” birth citizen
“...eligible to the Office of President”?—YES!
Art
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is Mario's comment on September 6, 2015 at 12:21 AM
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Art,
Yes, Professor Robert Natelson is at it again. He follows
with another article, “Birthright Citizenship Opponents Should Not
Rely on 14th Amendment Congressional Debates,” accessed at
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/birthright_citizenship_opponents_should_not_rely_on_14th_amendment_congressional_debates.html
. There he states:
*
As I explained recently, in two cases the U.S. Supreme Court has
decided that the Citizenship Clause’s term “subject to [U.S.]
jurisdiction” means subject to the English common law doctrine of
“allegiance.” In general, that doctrine recognizes most children
born in a country as natural born citizens, including the children of
visiting foreigners. And in the more crucial case, United States v.
Wong Kim Ark, the allegiance rationale was central to the holding,
not mere “dicta” as sometimes asserted.
So
again, under the guise of writing on the Fourteenth Amendment debate,
Natelson again tells the reader what he thinks a natural born citizen
is. Here he errs again. Now he tells us that the English common law
doctrine of allegiance “recognizes most children born in a country
as natural born citizens, including the children of visiting
foreigners.” What is amazing about this statement is that Natelson
tells us that the English common law did something which did not even
exist in that law. There is no such thing as a citizen or natural
born citizen in the English common law. There is also no evidence
that the Framers used the English common law to define a natural born
citizen. Hence, how could the English common law doctrine of
allegiance recognize anyone as a natural born citizen? It cannot.
Additionally, Natelson says that Wong Kim Ark defined an
Article II natural born citizen and that such definition is not
dicta. Again, Natelson is just making things up, for Wong Kim Ark
never held that Wong was a natural born citizen, let alone define a
natural born citizen any differently than how Minor defined one. So,
it is not that Wong Kim Ark’s statement that Wong was a natural
born citizen is dicta. Rather, it is that Wong Kim Ark never even
made any such statement.
As
we can see, Natelson is really far out on the limb on the meaning of
a natural born citizen. He has no further room to go other than to
just fall off.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Do
Rely on John Jay—YES
Do
Not Rely on the 14th Amendment Congressional Debates—YES
Birthright
Citizenship Opponents Should Not Rely on 14th Amendment Congressional
Debates
By Rob Natelson – September 4, 2015
(
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/birthright_citizenship_opponents_should_not_rely_on_14th_amendment_congressional_debates.html
)
Mario,
Dittos to your last sentence September
6, 2015 at 12:21 AM:
"As
we can see, Natelson is really far out on the limb on the meaning of
a natural born citizen. He has no further room to go other than to
just fall off."
The
confusion continues with the use of "birthright citizenship"
continuing to be applied with approval to children born on U.S. soil
to illegal aliens or legal immigrants as well as to children born to
one OR two U.S. citizens. When "birthright
citizenship" begins to be applied accurately ONLY to
children born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen
parent, married or not, and ONLY to children born on U.S. soil
to two U.S. citizen married parents, "birthright
citizenship" will make coherent sense when "born"
in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1
clause 5 is incorporated into "All persons
born...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction..." in Section 1
sentence 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States
"Birthright
citizenship in the United States refers to a person's acquisition of
United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or
her birth.
"It contrasts with citizenship acquired
in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life.
"Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli
or jus sanguinis.
"Under United States law, U.S.
citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S."
When
birthright citizenship is "...granted to any person
born within...U.S.," is the nonsense conclusion when the
Fourteenth Amendment is construed contrary to Article II.
In
the seventh paragraph from the end, Natelson wrote (I separated
the sentences):
"Insofar
as one can divine a consistent understanding of “subject to the
jurisdiction” from these debates, it appears to mean “subject to
American judicial process and the law.”
["It
appears to mean" is tentative language, not conclusive.]
"Tribal
Indians and diplomats were not subject to either one, and therefore
were outside U.S. jurisdiction in the sense that term was used in the
amendment.
"But aliens within the borders of the U.S.
-- legally or illegally -- are subject to both. [emphasis is
his]
In
the sixth paragraph from the end, Natelson wrote (I separated the
sentences):
"Reading
the amendment to grant citizenship to the children or other
descendants of resident foreigners may, in fact, have been necessary
to accomplish its purpose.
"In 1868, when the
amendment became effective, some former slaves had been illegally
imported from Africa, and therefore were foreigners.
"They
remained citizens of the tribe or nation into which they had been
born."
In
the fifth paragraph from the end, Natelson wrote (I separated
the sentences):
"Most
of the other former slaves also were legally aliens: They were the
descendants of foreigners; neither they nor their ancestors had ever
been naturalized.
["...neither...nor...naturalized"
is a true statement, and that fact was rectified by "naturalized"
in the Fourteenth Amendment]
"Because
they were slaves they could not take advantage of the common law
rules of allegiance to claim natural-born status.
["...common
law rules of allegiance to claim natural-born status" is
a curious conclusion, and Natelson does not adduce any history to
support the tacit suggestion that claiming natural-born status was
attempted before 1868 or since then, by any race. Elk in Elk v.
Wilkins (1884) claimed "citizen" status, not "natural-born"
status]
"In
fact, under the rule issued by the Supreme Court in its notorious
1857 Dred Scott decision, all African-Americans living within the
United States, whether or not enslaved, were legally foreigners.
"Arguably, then, the Citizenship Clause could not
have accomplished its goals of overruling Dred Scott and affirming
citizenship for African-Americans if it had excluded foreigners and
their progeny."
["Arguably,...could
not...if" is tentative language, not conclusive]
In
the fourth paragraph from the end, Natelson wrote:
"Arguably,
then, if the Fourteenth Amendment had excluded foreigners and their
progeny, it could not have achieved the goal of granting citizenship
to newly freed slaves."
["Arguably,...if...could
not" is tentative language, not conclusive]
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It
is this kind of "if/then" tentative and not conclusive
conclusion that I had in mind when I wrote previously on Mario's blog
(September 5, 2015 at 10:39 PM) that if "born"
in "All persons born...subject to [U.S.]
jurisdiction" in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is
associated with "born" in "natural born
[U.S.] Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, the
incorporation of the original intent of "born" which
is inherent in Article II will affirm the Article II original intent
(singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to
two U.S. citizen married parents) and affirm
the coherence that is inherent in the original intent (U.S. soil
and at least one U.S. citizen parent) word "born"
in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The "if/then"
conclusion sounds plausible when the fact of the continuing illegal
importation of slaves is adduced to support a presupposition based on
logic that "appears" to be so and is "arguably"
so, but was not so in the debates themselves. Natelson does not
adduce any debate quotes about the illegal importation of slaves
continuing, and so, using Prof. Natelson's logic, it "appears"
that the continuing illegal importation of slaves was "apparently"
implicit in the "possible" intent of the Fourteenth
Amendment even though the continuing illegal importation of slaves
was not, it "appears," explicit in the debates.
Why?
Is it because the debates do not support Prof. Natelson's
eisegetical conclusion?
The "if/then" conclusion
of Prof. Natelson could be made to cohere with both the Fourteenth
Amendment "born" and Article II "born"
as originally intend by John Jay (see below).
But,
hey, what do I know? I don't have honorably earned letters indicating
esteemed constitutional scholarship after my name indicating
respected achievement as Prof. Natelson has, followed by twenty-five
years of esteemed teaching.
None of the preceding
sentence has any sarcasm, intended OR implied. I sincerely mean the
words "honorably earned" and "respected achievement"
and "esteemed" to convey respect. With respect I can ask
the next question about Prof. Natelson's Article II "natural
born Citizen" aberration as revealed in his Fourteenth Amendment
aberration that the 1868 slaves could not "claim"
"natural-born status" before ratification of the
amendment.
I'm curious.
How can Prof. Rob
Natelson be so right about the original intent of Article V
where "...the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments..." and be so wrong about
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at
the time..." in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and also
so wrong about "All persons born...subject to
[U.S.] jurisdiction..." in Section 1 sentence 1 in the
Fourteenth Amendment?
I think I have at least one
plausible reason for Prof. Natelson can be so right about
Article V and so wrong about the Fourteenth Amendment. He did
not consider to adduce John Jay and his original intent as the author
of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen"
in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington. If Prof.
Natelson wants to use tentative language like "appears"
and "arguably" to make a reasonably sounding
conclusion, for example, about the continuing illegal importation of
slaves into antebellum America before the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment
was ratified, well, maybe he can posthumously ask John Jay some basic
questions about Jay's "original genesis original intent"
for underling the word "born" in "natural born
Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.
For
example, Mr. Chief Justice John Jay, on July 25, 1787, when you
underlined the word "born" in "natural born
Citizen" in your note to George Washington regarding who would
be "...eligible to the Office of President," what
did you mean? After virtually no debate by the delegates/framers
about your meaning of "born" in "natural born
Citizen," the framers who signed the new constitution accepted
and adopted your language suggestion with your "original
genesis original intent" (those are my words, not
Jay's) meaning, and sent the entire constitution to
the states for ratification.
So,
what did you mean Mr. Chief Justice, and what did the framers and
ratifiers, and you were one of the New York ratifiers, what did the
other ratifiers understand you to mean?
1_Did you mean
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?
2_Did you mean EITHER
singular U.S. citizenship OR ALSO dual U.S./foreign
citizenship?
3_Did you mean ONLY born on U.S. soil?
4_Did you mean EITHER born on U.S. soil OR born on
foreign soil?
5_Did you mean ONLY born to two U.S.
citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the child is born?
6_Did you mean ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents who
were NOT married to each BEFORE the child was born?
7_Did
you mean ALSO born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?
8_Did
you mean ALSO born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen
parent, married or not?
9_Did you mean ALSO born on
foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, as stated in the
1790 Naturalization Act which "considered" (that
is statute positive
law language)
a child born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents to be a "natural
born Citizen" before the 1795 Naturalization Act changed the
designation from "natural born Citizen" to "citizen?"
I
think that John Jay, an original founder, an original ratifier, and
an original birther according to the "born" word in
Article II Section 1 clause 5, would bring coherence to Prof.
Natelson's articulation of "natural born Citizen" in both
Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment as he attempts to
substantiate that the antebellum (and pre-Thirteenth Amendment
free Negroes???), "[b]ecause they were slaves they
could not take advantage of the common law rules of allegiance to
claim natural-born status, but, and this is speculation based
on his conclusion, the former slaves would probably have liked to
"claim" not only citizenship but also natural
born citizenship, whether or not they would have considered
themselves to be "...eligible to the Office of
President."
Art
U.S. Constitution: The
Original Birther Document of the Union
(
OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )
