Thursday, October 29, 2015

Anecdote vs. Anecdote: Sen. Ted Cruz Said He is "Breath of Air" Citizen


Anecdote vs. Anecdote:
Sen. Ted Cruz Said He Is A "Breath of Air" Citizen


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on October 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>


Anecdote vs. Anecdote...
New Hampshire Public Radio published Sen. Cruz's response to a question about his eligibility to be president.
>> http://nhpr.org/post/cruz-opposing-planned-parenthood-where-were-other-presidential-candidates

Cruz On Opposing Planned Parenthood: 'Where Were The Other Presidential Candidates?'
By Brady Carlson • Oct 4, 2015

[...snip...]

"Cruz, like several other Republican hopefuls in this election cycle, heard from an audience member who appeared to question the origins of President Barack Obama, who was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. "Is there anything in the Constitution," the questioner asked to some laughter, "that the new president can deport the last president?"

"You know, there's not," Cruz said, after a pause. "But I can tell you this. On January 20th, 2017, when I rescind every single one of Barack Obama's illegal and unconstitutional executive actions, he might just well self-deport."

Cruz's own origins came under question from a member of the audience, who asked about the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Cruz explained that while he was born in Calgary, Alberta, he was a US citizen because he was born to an American mother. "I have never breathed a breath of air," he said, "when I wasn't an American citizen."

Sen. Cruz's "breath of air" comment is an interesting anecdotal reference and defense that deserves dictionary analysis. Instead of simply responding with my own anecdotal comment about original birther John Jay and his original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, for fun and for those who do not have a dictionary handy, first I will refer to two American Heritage Dictionary definitions of "anecdote" and "anecdotal."

anecdote n.
1. A short account of an interesting or humorous event.
2. Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.

anecdotal adj.
1. Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.

Mario wrote on his blog on October 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM about Cruz and Minor v. Happersett:

Cruz does not define a natural born citizen and state that he is one. Rather, he relies upon breathing fresh air. …,”

“… Rather, the standard may be found in [the] unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the Court defined a natural born citizen as follows:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario's use of the Cruz and Minor anecdotal evidence reflects his consistent and accurate use of “rigorous or scientific analysis” when he adduces, to use only two examples, the actual holding of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court and the actual holding of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court as supported by the quote above. Both Sen. Cruz and the Minor Court use anecdotal references to make their contradictory “natural born Citizen” points. Sen. Cruz uses “breathed...air” and the Minor Court uses “resort...elsewhere...common-law...nomenclature...framers...familiar...never doubted….”

Here is my point.

Original birther John Jay is also anecdotal, and is just as valid for anecdotal support to define an “nbC,” as is Sen. Cruz's “breathed...air” and the Minor Court's “resort ... elsewhere ... nomenclature ... framers ... familiar ... never doubted ….”

In my opinion, the Minor v. Happersett Court affirms John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” that was eventually incorporated into Article II Section 1 clause 5 by the framers, but Sen. Cruz's anecdotal “breathed...air” reference does not follow Jay's “original genesis original intent” presuppositional foundation for being "born" a “citizen” with the “perquisite” of being uniquely "by birth" alone “...eligible to the Office of President.” The “perk” of being “by birth” an Article II “natural born Citizen” is presidential eligibility, a “perk” that is NOT available to an Article I Representative “citizen” or an Article I Senator “citizen.”

I'm all for the primary and foundational use of the “rigorous or scientific analysis” by adducing the actual holdings of the different Courts, and secondarily, as the Minor Court did in adducing an anecdotal “event,” of which the “framers...were familiar,” I'm also for adducing analysis of historical events that support the “rigorous or scientific analysis” holdings of the Court, as the Minor v. Happersett Court did in this citizenship and voting case.

I never get a coherent “dual U.S./foreign citizenship” rebuttal and refutation when I bring original birther John Jay into the conversation, especially when I write that, according to the “nomenclature” with which Jay was familiar, Jay's “original genesis original intent” for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for POTUS eligibility was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child.

For some reason the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Progressive, Conservative, Anarchist (still in the nascent stage of “cell” division), NEVER have a coherent rebuttal to the anecdotal assertion that John Jay's original genesis original intent was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents to be “...eligible to the Office of President.”

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is Mario's comment on October 6, 2015 at 7:06 PM.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Ted Cruz's argument that he is a natural born citizen because he never breathed air when he was not an American is pretty lame.

Depending on when he was born during the history of our nation, there are plenty of times during which being born under the same birth circumstances as he claims for himself, he would not have been breathing any air as an American.

Depending on when he was born, rather than breathing air as an American, he would have been breathing air as a British or Canadian subject (from his birth in the territory which today is called Canada), and Spanish or Cuban citizen (from being born to his Spanish or Cuban father).

That surely does not sound like a natural born citizen to me.


It IS About Islam: The Twenty-year Plan To Establish the Muslim Caliphate


It IS About Islam:
The Twenty-year Plan To Establish the Muslim Caliphate


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on The RightScoop.com on September 4, 2015.
>> http://therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-defends-trump-says-hugh-hewitt-questions-were-gotcha-stuff/
<<>>


All Trump needs to say is that he has been busy building a business, uh, I mean, a GREAT business,, and meeting a payroll and keeping his people employed, and etc.,, and, although he has a general understanding of the idiocy happening in the Middle East, just as most of We the People do in America, and since the jihad continues to roll on, as president he will definitely become more informed about the idiocy of religious/political jihad than Obama was when he was elected.

Here's a reading suggestion for Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal: read Chapter 4, Establishing the Caliphate, in Glenn Beck's new book It IS About Islam, in the section titled The Twenty-year Plan (2000-2020), pages 68-81.

On page 71 Glenn closes the section with this:

"Does this all sound absurd?
Well, consider that, as of 2015,
a decade after the plan was published by Hussein,
the first five phases have been right on schedule."

Hussein is Fouad Hussein.

On page 69 Glenn introduces the seven phases with this paragraph:


Hussein wrote in a
"...2005 book, Al-Zarqawi: The Second Generation of Al Qaeda, which was published in Arabic, Hussein revealed the terrorist group's twenty-year plan, which, in their own words, has seven different phases.

Phase 1: The Muslim Awakening (2000-2003)
Phase 2: Opening Eyes (2003-2006)
Phase 3: Arising and Standing Up (2007-2010)
Phase 4: Collapse (2010-2013)
Phase 5: Caliphate (2013-2016)
Phase 6: Total Confrontation (2016-2019)
Phase 7: Definitive Victory (2020)

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

sp4x2 to Art Telles

Isn't it insane that in the current America, belief in the US Constitution means you are a right wing zealot that deserves to be under surveillance?

Art Telles to sp4x2

Dittos...

And this "surveillance" is happening while the commune organizer is the defender of HIS version of the U.S. Constitution which allows for dual U.S./foreign citizenship and which allows ONLY one U.S. citizen parent to be acceped as "...eligible to the Office of President."

I wonder what would happen during this primary season if Carly Fiorina, or Rand Paul, or Scott Walker, or Mike Huckabee, or Donald Trump said something about defending John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington?

In my opinion, the underlined word "born" requires a POTUS to be a "natural born Citizen" by being born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents who are married ONLY to each other BEFORE the child is born.

When political push comes to political shove, I wonder which of the Republican candidates will say that Obama was NOT constitutionally qualified to be president because he was NOT an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because he was born with only one U.S. citizen parent, so, for that reason, neither is Ted Cruz "...eligible to the Office of President" because he was born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent. Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, who were both born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to two legal immigrant parents who were not U.S. citizens when their children were born, so their children were not born with singular U.S. citizenship and not "...eligible to the Office of President.".

The commune organizer is not a "natural born Citizen" and the Republicans should stop defending Obama's "citizen" status as sufficient and equivalent to "natural born Citizen" status in Article II, because "born" implies ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, Not dual U.S/foreign citizenship.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com/ )


The L.A. Times: How Easy To Think Like A New Meaning Neobirther


The L.A. Times:
How Easy To Think Like a New Meaning Neobirther 


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on September 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>

LA Times Op-Ed

Ignore Trump — the issue of birthright citizenship has been settled
By David Rivkin, John Yoo – September 6, 2015
>> http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0906-rivkin-yoo-birthright-citizenship-20150906-story.html

Did you know this? It must be true. It's in the LA Times.

>> "Reading allegiance into the 14th Amendment would largely defeat the intent of its drafters, who wanted to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they considered insufficiently American."

[...snip]

And did you know this?

"The 14th Amendment's drafting history supports our reading.

"The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which inspired the amendment, guaranteed birthright citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. except those "subject to any foreign power" and "Indians not taxed."

"If the 14th Amendment's drafters had wanted "jurisdiction" to exclude children of aliens, they easily could have repeated the "foreign power" line."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


So, since "...they easily could have repeated" the reference to foreign powers, but they did not, then, ipso facto, dual U.S./foreign citizenship with allegiance to a "foreign power" is not trumped by, and is equal to, allegiance to ONLY the U.S., whether the issue is birthright citizenship for a child or for POTUS eligibility.

See how easy it is to think like a new meaning neo-birther?

An Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther believes the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that birth on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a person a singular U.S. citizen (aka a "natural born Citizen") and "...eligible to the Office of President."

A Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" new meaning neo-birther believes the 2000s theory and myth that birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents was incorporated retroactively by the 1898 Supreme Court into the original genesis original intent meaning of the framers of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, because, since the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court said that a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is, ipso facto, a U.S. citizen even though the child derived U.S. citizen by Supreme Court fiat and did not derive U.S. citizenship from the foreign citizenship parents, then THAT amendment of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment by the 1898 Supreme Court fiat is the perpetual law of the land.

Neat and simple, huh?

Now we know, because the LA Times said so, that the Supreme Court, ipso facto, trumps Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the Artilc 1 naturalization authority of the U.S. Congress.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )


I Am For and Against Automatic Birthright Citizenship


I Am For and Against Automatic Birthright Citizenship


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizn blog on September 14, 2015 at 1:23 AM, September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM, and September 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>

Mario's comment on September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM below was posted after my 1:23 am post and before my 12:08 pm post, but I am posting in first (I opened it up for quick reading) as an introduction to the subject of "automatic" birthright citizenship.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

I think
the best way to look at the question of what is birthright citizenship is to say that there are two types, one that exists by virtue of natural right and one that exists by virtue of positive law. David Ramsay explained that the former ["natural right"] belongs only to the children born in the country to citizens parents since July 4, 1776. In the Constitution, the Framers called these persons "natural born citizens." The latter ["by virtue of positive law"] exists under the naturalization powers that the Framers gave to Congress in the Constitution and under an amendment to the Constitution which is the Fourteenth Amendment.

No branch of our government has the power to alter the meaning of a natural born citizen. Only a duly ratified constitutional amendment can do that. On the other hand, government can always change the conditions precedent for gaining

(e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment give Congress the power to enforce birthright citizenship by appropriate legislation and Congress in its naturalization Acts, when it has even given such a right at all, has over the years required that one or both parents of children born to them out of the United States satisfy a U.S. residency or physical presence requirement)

and conditions subsequent for maintaining

(e.g., Congressional naturalization Acts have over the years provided various conditions for the retention of citizenship gained by one born out of the United States)

birthright citizenship that exists as a creature of positive law.

Concerning, Robert Natelson, he tries too hard and keeps failing. He has the nerve to make this statement:

"I would try to square my case with precedent
instead of arguing that precedent
should be disregarded."

Wow!

He is the one who[,] concerning the definition of a natural born citizen[,] is presenting an argument that disregards both historical and legal precedent.

I've cited and discussed that precedent over the years in my briefs to the courts and on this blog and elsewhere and the best he can do is say that in defining a natural born citizen, we adopted the allegiance of the English common law to define the clause, a position which is treason to and fraud upon the Constitution.

There is simply no evidence of such an outlandish statement and he advances it.

Now he also presents himself as a friend offering a helping hand to those who opposed birthright citizenship.

Natelson needs to be exposed for his treason and fraud on the Constitution which he sneaks into his innocent articles on defining the Fourteenth Amendment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is my comment on September 14, 2015 at 1:23 AM.

In Prof. Rob Natelson's third article at AmericanThinker.com, he says that he does not have a dog in this hunt, but he woould counsel the opponents of birthright citizenship to go with precedent and to not disregard precedent.

Arguing the Constitutional Case Against Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegals
By Rob Natelson, September 12, 2015
>> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/09/9_7_2015_14_53.html

"I do not have a dog in this hunt.

But if I were legal counsel for
opponents of birthright citizenship,
I would take their legal argument in an entirely
different direction.
And I would try to square my case with precedent
instead of arguing that precedent should be disregarded."

"In two prior postings (here and here), I listed flaws in the constitutional arguments of
opponents of birthright citizenship for children of aliens living here illegally.

"For children to be American citizens by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, they
must be born within American territory and they (or rather their parents)
must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Those opposing birthright citizenship
hurt their own case by basing it principally on the claim that
visiting foreigners never qualify as “subject to the jurisdiction.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I can't offer legal counsel to "opponents of birthright citizenship" like Natelson is doing, but I can propose more clarity in framing the argument in a way that Natelson can not because his point is precedent. What he means is not really as clear as it could be.

Here is my second comment on September 14, 2015 at 12:08 PM.

Mario, it seems that I did not include part #2 in my comment yesterday, so here it is, after the "First, dittos" comment.

First, dittos to your first sentence today, September 14, 2015 at 8:25 AM:

"I think the best way to look at the question of what is birthright citizenship is to say that there are two types,

one that exists by virtue of natural right and
one that exists by virtue of positive law."


Your "two types" is another way of saying what I write below in part #2: "by" birth ("natural right") and "at" birth ("positive law").

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

First, from part #1 yesterday:

This is what I mean.

1- Who is a proponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.
2- Who is an opponent of automatic birthright citizenship? I am.

It seems that "automatic birthright citizenship" ("abc") can mean two different things, "by" birth to U.S. citizen parents and also "at" birth to non-U.S. citizenship parents, and confusion arises because "abc" is usually referenced as meaning primarily "at" birth citizenship for the children born on U.S. soil to alien parents, legal and illegal.

This is part #2 -

1 - I support U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "by" birth ONLY for children born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen parents, either born to two U.S. citizen married parents, or born to one U.S. citizen parent, whether that U.S. citizen parent is married to the non-U.S. citizen parent or not married.

2a - I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents.

Some people say that the child born on U.S. soil to legal alien parents is an automatic citizen "at" birth because the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark court implicitly said, tacitly, of course, that both "at" birth and "by" birth was the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and what it "really" meant in 1868, even though the child of alien parents could NOT be an automatic citizen "by" birth because the legal alien parents were, well, still aliens who did not have U.S. citizenship to pass on to the child "by" birth.

2b - I oppose U.S. automatic birthright citizenship "at" birth for children born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents.

Some people manage to "break and enter" our property (cross our borders) to "plop and drop" their "anchor baby" after they are told that the illegal alien child is an automatic citizen "at" birth, not knowing that it was Justice Brennan who said in a note that, according to the 1898 Wong court, the "by" birth children of illegal alien parents should not be treated differently than the "by" birth children of legal alien parents.

Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy
by Lino A. Graglia

Texas Review of Law and Politics Vol. 14
>> http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

[...snip]

" Although there is no Supreme Court decision on the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, it is referred to in the dicta in a few cases."

[...snip]

"In a footnote, Justice Brennan interpreted Wong Kim Ark(64) as holding that “no plausible distinction . . . can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”(65)

"That statement cannot settle the matter, however, because it is not only a pure dictum—a gratuitous statement unnecessary to the decision of the case—but also based on the mistaken premise that Wong Kim Ark decided the case of illegal aliens.(66)"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice Brennan and Prof. Natelson can learn about precedent by distinguishing between natural rights "by" birth (Article II Secion 1 clause5) and positive law "at" birth (Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1).

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )


A Usurper President Can Not Void The U.S. Constitution


A Usurper President Can Not Void The U.S. Constitution


This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on September 12, 2015 at 8:49 PM and September 13, 2015 at 1:01 AM.
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html
<<>>

Here is a succinct comment from Mario that was posted on his Natual Born Citizen blog on September 13, 2015 at 1:01 AM after Brianroy's and Sven's point-counterpoint, but I am putting it here as the intro to their dialogue and my comments that follow.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

If the Constitution is voided upon a usurper president assuming that Office, then the people cannot protect themselves from that usurper by resorting to that very Constitution. I do not think that the Framers would have create such a scenario.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy and Sven have an interesting discussion about the constitution, but, is there really a problem that needs to be resolved that is not protected by the line of succession?

Brianroy quoted what Sven wrote on his blog (see the last two sentences of the last paragraph):
>> http://conventionforamerica.blogspot.com/2015/08/article-ii-of-us-constitution-is-poison.html

"The U.S. Constitution is voided when an ineligible President assumes the highest office in the land to prevent the usurper from inheriting a functioning constitutional republic.

"After installing an ineligible President, the People must renew the constitutional republic with an improved national governing document ratified through a national referendum."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While Brianroy has many excellent points, it seems to me that the best rebuttal and refutation of Sven's assertion (the constitution is voided if the electorate selects an illegal POTUS) is that Sven has not adduced the line of succession to the U.S. presidency that implicitly protects the Union against an unconstitutional usurper.

Here is the line of succession from on Wikipedia:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

"This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

"The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."


1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)
4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)
6 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (D)
7 Attorney General Loretta Lynch (D)
— Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (D)[a]
8 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
9 Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker (D)
10 Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez (D)
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell (D)
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro (D)
13 Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx (D)
14 Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (D)
15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald (R)
17 Secretary of Homeland Security

So, if the Vice President and the President Pro Tempore and the others in the line of succession do not contest the illegal president, is the U.S. Constitution still in effect or is it automatically voided, regardless of the line of succession?

It seems to me that the Article V authority of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose an amendment to rectify a constitution issue would also be voided if the Constitution were automatically voided by an illegal president.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
P.S.

On BirtherReport.com Pixel Patriot has a Emer de Vattel quote by Thomas Jefferson that is entitled VATTEL IS LAW, CITATION BY THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR VATTEL AS LAW, with the header, "Historic: Founding Father President Thomas Jefferson Cited Vattel In Handwritten Manuscript."
>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/09/historic-founding-father-president_8.html

Art
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Line of Succession is "Defacto Incorrect"

ajtelles said...

Brianroy,

The point is not the political party but the line of succession, so simply remove the party designation, as I did below. Also, it is not my line of succession, I copied it from Wikipedia, which says that the line of succession was "specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

"This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

"The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."


1 Vice President of the United States
2 Speaker of the House
3 President pro tempore of the Senate
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
— Secretary of the Interior
8 Secretary of Agriculture
9 Secretary of Commerce
10 Secretary of Labor
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
13 Secretary of Transportation
14 Secretary of Energy
15 Secretary of Education
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
17 Secretary of Homeland Security

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy, on September 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM you wrote:

"...[Y]our line of succession of Democrats...legal is de facto incorrect. ... As I understand it, there would have to be a process by which the Senate would have to nominate and vote in a new temporary President and Vice-President, disqualifying Biden and every Democrat who ever served in that usurpation from being a candidate for POTUS nomination and following the much the same as the Impeachment processes...."

Brianroy, why would anyone in the line of succession be disqualified? Would Vice President Biden, a Democrat, be disqualified? Why would the third in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, a Republican, or President pro tempore of the Senate, Sen. Orin Hatch, a Republican, be disqualified?

The constitution does not contain within it the method of its demise, but it does contain Article V, an article designed to protect the integrity of the entire Constitution, including the line of succession, that remains valid even if the constitution is violated, either by accident or willfully, by a usurper president, senator, representative, or state nullification or secession. Article V would be invalidated if, for some obscure reason, the entire Constitution is voided because of the illegal activity of an officer, from the chief executive on down, the Vice President, the members of the cabinet, and on down to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

In his first inaugural address in 1861 President Abraham Lincoln said something in reference to the secession movement that started a few days after he won the general election as the first president who was a member of the new Republican Party, the second person to attempt election as a Republican, and the first Republican to succeed. Aspects of the speech can be applied (see my comments in brackets [] below) to those who assert that the entire constitution can be nullified and voided by the actions of one person in the presidential line of succession.

See part of Pres. Lincoln's first inaugural speech at ( OriginalBirtherDocument14.blogspot.com ), or read the entire address about the "perpetual Union" as clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861. See paragraphs #12-14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

"… and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."

President Abraham Lincoln: 1861 First Inaugural Speech

“It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration [April 30, 1789] of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

“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.

“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?”

~ ~ ~
One party to a contract may
violate it—break it, so to speak
but does it not require
all to lawfully rescind it?
~ ~ ~

“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."

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

It follows from these views that no State [or a usurper president] upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken [we can add that the line of succession is also unbroken], and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws [including the constitution and the line of succession] of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself [with Article V authority that is not voided.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Article V authority is not void because the U.S. Constitution is not void if a usurper president is chosen by the Electoral College contrary to its fiduciary duty on behalf of We the People. We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution created by the sovereign, or the Electoral College authorized by the Constitution created by the sovereign. We the People are not suicidal and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution, not the Electoral College set up by the authority of the Constitution, and not the executive that is chosen by the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution can NOT be made void by a usurper president for the same reason that the constitution will NOT be made void by We the People even if a usurper succeeds in the effort to "OCCUPY" the oval office again. We the People are not suicidal (Article V is proof of that), and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

~ ~ ~
One party to a contract may
violate it—break it, so to speak
but does it not require
all to lawfully rescind it?
~ ~ ~
Thank you President Abraham Lincoln. Your 1861 words about the secession of eleven states from the Federal Union were prescient and are a guiding light in the 21st century.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Read paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com about the "perpetual Union" as clarified by President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ).

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Automatic Birthright Citizenship Is Constitutional—IF


"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 )