Can a SCOTUS Decision be Unconstitutional

Can a Supreme Court Decision be Unconstitutional?

The U.S. Constitution: Article II Section 1 Clause 5

"No Person except...natural born Citizen...eligible...Office of President..."

A Supreme Court Verdict Can Be Contrary to the

1787 Original Genesis Original Intent of

"Natural" & "Born" & "Citizen"

~

U.S. Constitution Positive Law Marriage and Natural Law Posterity by Birth

vs.

U.S. Supreme Court Positive Law Marriage and Positive Law Posterity by Adoption

~

Natural Law

vs.

Positive Law

~

Born

vs.

Adopted

~

Born Posterity

vs.

Adopted Posterity

~

Positive Law Marriage & Natural Law Birth

vs.

Positive Law Marriage & Positve Law Adoption

~

Natural Law Birth With One Positive Law Wife

MonogynyMonogamy

vs.

Natural Law Birth With Multiple Positive Law Wives

Polygyny/Polygamy

~

Natural Law Birth With One Positive Law Heterosexual Wife

Monogyny/Monogamy

vs.

Natural Law Birth With Multiple Positive Law Heterosexual Wives

Polygyny/Polygamy

~

Natural Law Birth With One Positive Law Heterosexual Wife

Monogyny/Monogamy

vs.

Positive Law Adoption With Multiple Positive Law Homosexual Spouses

Monogyny/Monogamy or Polygyny/Polygamy

~

U.S. Constitution Natural Law Posterity By Birth
vs.
U.S. Supreme Court Positive Law Posterity By Birth or By Adoption

~

U.S. Constitution Natural Law Posterity

By Birth in a Heterosexual Positive Law Marriage

Monogyny/Monogamy
vs.
U.S. Supreme Court Positive Law Posterity

By Adoption in a Heterosexual Positive Law Marriage

Monogyny/Monogamy or Polygyny/Polygamy

~

U.S. Constitution Natural Law Posterity

By Birth in a Heterosexual Positive Law Marriage

Monogyny/Monogamy
vs.
U.S. Supreme Court Positive Law Posterity

By Birth to One of the Homosexual Positive Law Marriage Spouses

Monogyny/Monogamy or Polygyny/Polygamy

~

U.S. Constitution Natural Law Posterity

By Birth in a Heterosexual Positive Law Marriage

Monogyny/Monogamy
vs.
U.S. Supreme Court Positive Law Posterity

By Adoption in a Homosexual Positive Law Marriage

Monogyny/Monogamy or Polygyny/Polygamy

~

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on June 29, 2015 at 5:11 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html

<<>>

Regarding Mario's two comments below, here is a legal question for anybody, constitutional scholars and all of WE the People. 

Can a SCOTUS decision be unconstitutional?

On June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM Mario wrote on his Natural Born Citizen blog:

"A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

[...snip]

"The clause means nothing more and nothing less.

"... how we define adoption or marriage by positive laws does not change the clause's meaning, ....

"If we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can change under positive laws, then the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment.

On June 26, 2015 at 12:35 PM Mario wrote:

"...The clause means what I said it means.

"How we define adoption and marriage through positive laws does not change the meaning of the clause.”

Here is the legal question.

Is it possible that the SCOTUS homosexual "marriage" decision of June 26, 2015 is itself unconstitutional for POTUS eligibility purposes?

Yes, I think it is uncostitutional.

The 1787 original genesis original intent of original birther John Jay for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washingtion was prescient with the obvious original intent of being perpetual from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS. That being the common sense implication of "born," a constitutional amendment will be necessary to include, for POTUS eligibility, the birth child of a single heterosexual U.S. citizen parent, or to include the birth child of a single U.S. citizen homosexual parent united by the Supreme Court to a positive law "marriage" partner, or to include the adopted child of two homosexuals united by the Supreme Court positive law "marriage" verdict.

ONLY a constitutional amendment can "make," by positive law declaration, a child born to a single U.S. citizen heterosexual OR homosexual parent to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

ONLY a constitutional amendment can "make," by positive law declaration, a child adopted by two U.S. citizen "married" homosexual "parents" for the child to also be "...eligible to the Office of President."

ONLY the constitutional Article II has already "made," by positive law declaration, a child "...eligible to the Office of President" whtn the child is born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen heterosexual married parents.

Is the 2015 SCOTUS positive law about “marriage” in conflict with the Constitution's Article II Section 1 clause 5 natural law requirement of being "born" a "natural born Citizen" for the child to be eligible to be President?

Yes.

Yes means that a constitutional amendment is necessary to make the born or adopted children of single U.S. citizens, heterosexual OR homosexuals, to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

Yes means that a constitutional amendment is necessary to make the born or adopted children of a U.S. citizen, heterosexual OR homosexual, married or not married to a heterosexual or homosexual foreign citizen partner, to be "...eligible to the Office of President."

Is the 2015 SCOTUS homosexual marriage decision in conflict with the 1787-2015 preamble word "Posterity" and the 1787-2015 Article II Section 1 clause 5 word "born" in "natural born Citizen?"

Yes.

Yes means that the original genesis original intent word "Posterity" in the 1787-2015 preamble can ONLY imply birth exclusive to U.S. citizens, not birth inclusive to aliens. The 1787-2015 Article II original genesis original intent word "born" in "natural born Citizen" can ONLY imply "Posterity" born to "married" U.S. citizen heterosexual parents, not simply children born to two "unmarried" heterosexual persons, even if both unmarried heterosexuals are U.S. citizens. In 1787 America, the original genesis original intent of "Posterity" definitely did not imply a child adopted by one or two U.S. citizens, whether the child was born on U.S. soil or born on foreign soil, and whether adopted by single or married heterosexuals or adopted by single or "married" homosexuals.

Also, in the future, some people who believe in polyamory, and others, such as fundamntalist Muslims and independent Mormons who believe in polygamy, will be asserting a "liberty and equality" constitutional right of "marriage" to multiple wives with the children born on U.S. soil to multiple wives or born on foreign soil to multiple wives to be recognized as "citizens" who are natural born citizens and so "...eligible to the Office of President."

The confusion that will result from the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage to include homosexual marriage and the possible incorporation of polygamy with multiple wives into the redefinition of "marriage"must be addressed, sooner or later.

An Article V convention of the "several states" to propose an amendment is the "WE the People...more perfect Union" way to educate OUR Federation administratiors, the executive, legislative and judicial, what the "original genesis original intent" of "born" in "natural born Citizen" meant in 1787 America and must be recognized as still meaning today in 2015 America: ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents.

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy: More than Two Partners

Politico.com:

Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism. By Fredrik Deboer, June 26, 2015.
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY9DZEYsBpi

[...snip]

“Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

“While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay.

“Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners.

“It’s time to legalize polygamy.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gay Marriage Has Islamists Eyeing Polygamy

Meforum.org:

Here is a pertinent point of view, by David J. Rusin about homosexual marriage and polygamy.
>> http://www.meforum.org/3214/gay-marriage-polygamy

[...snip]

“The "same argument" theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled "Polygamy: Tis the Season?" in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas.

"There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage," it explains.

"As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please." “The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy.

"As far as legalization, I think they should," says Hassan Amin,

a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions.

We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The polygamy advocates are saying things similar to what some homosexual marriage advocates, such as Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, have been saying for years, that we "believe" that some people are "gay and straight" for "liberty and equality" marriage purposes:

Professor Akhil Amar:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AuNu3Wz0Rw
Published on Mar 30, 2013
@ 13m45s

“But, let's put unenumerated rights aside for just a second. Those depend on their strength in society, but they're also enumerated rights, and they're enumerated rights to equality.

“The Fourteenth Amendment already says equality, birth equality. The Nineteenth Amendment adds a very important focus on sex discrimination, that's the one that provides for women's suffrage.

“Now, if the Fourteenth Amendment says no one should be discriminated against because of how he's born, and I think it does say that, and if we now believe that people are born gay and straight in a way that we maybe didn't understand that thirty or forty years ago, then, that's already in the Constitution.

“Maybe we have a new social, scientific fact [“social, scientific fact”???] that we've come to understand [“come to understand???], and Ted Olson began to say that too in his response to Justice Scalia before he got cut off."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, in the immediate future, will some homosexual marriage advocates probably start asking why their adopted children should be excluded from POTUS eligibility if, in the future, the children of polygamous Islamic parents are not excluded from POTUS eligibility? The adopted children are "born" somewhere, aren't they, and they didn't have a choice in their birth parents or their birth soil, etc. etc. etc., but they can have a choice where they place their allegiance, right, etc. etc. etc.?

Maybe the reactive approach needs a proactive next phase. The accurate history of Article II Section 1 clause 5 is still being ignored after 7 years and counting (2008-2015).

While I may believe that “born” in “natural born Citizen” has historically been associated ONLY with children (the preamble's ”posterity”) who have singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY with children born (the preamble's ”posterity”) on U.S. soil, ONLY with children born (the preamble's ”posterity”) to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents ( Obviously ONLY U.S. citizens—EITHER by birth OR by naturalization—are the preamble's ”posterity”), maybe it's time to become proactive and call for a solution to the ignorance and the confusion that results and which radical “transformers” take advantage of to produce “yes we can” "change" that is contrary to the original genesis original intent of the U.S. Constitution.: "...we are five days awaw from fundamenally transforming the United States of America,"

Maybe it's time for an Article V convention of the "several states" to proactively propose the language for an amendment to clarify that "born" in “natural born Citizen” is exclusive and restricted ONLY to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents, the preamble's “WE the People...more perfect Union” POTUS eligible ”posterity” producers, and it has not been, is not now, and never will be inclusive to promote the “liberty and equality” of Prof. Akhil Amar and others who think that the next societal great leap forward includes homosexual marriage, and in the future to have “liberty and equality” to be applied to Is1am and legalized polygamy.

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