Article II & Amendment XII: Perpetual Original Genesis Original Intent

Article II & Amendment XII:

Perpetual Original Genesis Original Intent

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on April 15, 2015 at 8:38 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

<<>>

In reading Mario's three posts of two parts each on April 8, 2015 at 12:58 PM about the Fourteenth Amendment, April 8, 2015 at 6:37 PM about Virginia Minor and April 8, 2015 at 9:31 PM about Wong Kim Ark, something became clear to me that clarifies the perpetual original intent of Article II, the Twelfth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fourteenth Amendment - List 1-10 - April 8, 2015 at 12:58 PM
[...snip...]

“Fifth, Wong Kim Ark, like Minor, said that the Constitution, which already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen.“

[...snip...]

“Eight, Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a "citizen" of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, not by virtue of the common law which defined a natural born citizen.“

Minor v. Happersett - April 8, 2015 at 6:37 PM
[...snip...]

“The Court showed through its definition of a natural born citizen that women were always citizens, even before the Fourteenth Amendment. But even though the Court found that a woman was a citizen, it found that her citizenship did not give her any constitutional right to vote.“

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark - April 8, 2015 at 9:31 PM
[...snip...]

“As can be seen from his quote above, even Binney recognized that a natural born citizen was a child born in the country to citizen parents and that a child born in the country to alien parents could be at best a citizen. Indeed, this was the law of nations rule and it was this rule which guided the nation on the national level as to who were the citizens and the natural born citizens by birth in the country.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is what became clearer after considering the original intent of Article II, the Twelfth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the holdings of the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court and the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court.

The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language in the first sentence of Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction, are citizens...,” which the framers of Section 1 intended first for the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes of the Union, north and south, had ONLY one original intent for the free Negroes of the Union: ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation, America. PERIOD! It is common sense obvious that Rep. John Bingham, Sen. Jacob Howard the other framers of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment did NOT intend for the “All persons born....” free Negroes of the Union to have dual U.S./foreign citizenship, just as John Jay, author of “natural born Citizen,” George Washington, President of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the framers of Article II, did NOT intend for the 1787 “WE the People...more perfect Union....” citizens to have ALSO or ONLY dual U.S./English citizenship.

So, to put the obviousness of the 1787 Article II, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court and the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court in the context of the eligibility issue of 2008-2016, a quick look first at the language of the 1787 Article II and the 1804 Amendment XII will clarify original intent from another angle.

Article II - Section 1 - clause 5
“No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President...."

Amendment XII - clause 2 - entire last sentence
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"

Article II was adopted on September 17, 1787. Almost seventeen years later, Amendment XII was ratified on June 15, 1804. What would be the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II and “constitutionally ineligible” in Amendment XII in the context of POTUS eligibility from 1787/1804 to 2016?

Would the original meaning be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign (English in 1787) citizenship or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

ONLY singular would exclude dual, and ONLY dual would exclude singular. ONLY singular would be coherent to exclude ALSO dual, while ALSO dual would be schizophrenic and incongruous and could NOT include ONLY singular.

Well, since Amendment XII was ratified less than seventeen years after Article II was adopted, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" in Amendment XII would probably mean the SAME thing as "No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President" in Article II: ONLY singular U.S. citizenship–ONLY one nation—ONLY birth on U.S. soil—ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Sen. Rand Paul IS eligible to be POTUS according to Article II, Amendment XII and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court since he is a "natural born Citizen" by being born with singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation (America) by being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Carly Fiorina IS eligible to be POTUS according to Article II, Amendment XII and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court since she is a “natural born Citizen” by being born with singular citizenship of only one nation (America) to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Sen. Ted Cruz is NOT eligible to be POTUS according to Article II, Amendment XII and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court because he was born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent married to a non-U.S. citizen, and because he was born on foreign soil that was NOT under U.S. jurisdiction. However, according to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, the statute under which he was born, Sen. Cruz is a “citizen” of the U.S. by birth to one U.S. citizen parent. Before the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, children born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent like Sen. Cruz would have been born with the status of an alien.

Sen. Marco Rubio is NOT eligible to be POTUS according to Article II, Amendment XII and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court, even though he was born on U.S. soil, because his parents were NOT U.S. citizens. However, according to the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court, Sen. Rubio is a “citizen” of the U.S. by birth on U.S. soil even though he was born to parents who were NOT U.S. citizens. Before the 1898 Wong decision, Sen. Rubio would have been designated as an alien born to resident aliens.

Sen. Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina and Virginia Minor have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.
The 1785 Minor v. Happersett Court, in tacitly referring to the 1787 Article II, said that Virginia Minor was a U.S. “citizen” because she was a “natural born Citizen” by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents. The Court did NOT use the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment to declare Virginia Minor a “citizen” OR a “natural born Citizen.”

Wong Kim Ark, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio have dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
The 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court, in explicitly saying that Wong Kim Ark was ONLY a “citizen,” did not tacitly refer to the 1787 Article II; it did explicitly refer to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. Even though Wong Kim Ark was born on U.S. soil, he was born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, NOT singular U.S. citizenship by being born to two U.S. citizen parents as originally intended by John Bingham, Jacob Howard and the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment for the children and the children's children of the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes.

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