In the Court of Public Opinion

In the Court of Public Opinion

the Natural Born Citizen Clause has Been

"Eviscerated With Bad Precedent"

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on March 29, 2015 at 7:48 PM.

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

<<>>

After reading many of the comments in Virginia attorney Monte Kuligowski's article at American Thinker that Mario Apuzzo linked to earlier today*, it looks like there is still a "whole lotta" confusion after seven years about what I like to refer to as John Jay's "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" as a 1787 reference to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to who U.S. citizen married parents.

* http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/cruz_obama_and_the_eligibility_clause_comments.html#disqus_thread 

I really like Monte Kuligowski's 7 concluding paragraphs, and the only thing that I can fault him for is NOT adducing John Jay into the conversation. Yes, attorney Kuligowski did mention “sole allegiance” and “dual allegiance” in his article, but there are two reasons to specifically adduce John Jay into the conversation every time the “original genesis original intent” meaning of “natural born Citizen” is discussed: (1) Jay was the author of "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington and (2) Jay for that reason, as one of the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers, is THE historical fulcrum point that reaches back to published "citizenship" authors such as Emer de Vattel and his 1758 book "The Law of Nations" and forward to today, 2008-2015, and contestants in the "natural born Citizen" original meaning arena of ideas such as Monte Kuligowski, Esq. and others, including Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

If people, scholars and laymen alike, are going to say that, as attorney Kuligowski wrote in paragraph #4 below, “the natural born citizen clause has been eviscerated with bad precedent” and for that reason to speculate as to what Jay probably meant in underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” is open to debate, well, at least Jay should be adduced into the conversation with simple “court of public opinion” questions such as, (1) did Jay originally intend ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation, OR (2) did Jay originally intend ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship of two OR three nations?

Those are two very simple questions for “court of public opinion” speculators who may be constitutional scholars with a whole lotta letters after their names and for constitutional laymen (aka WE the People) to meditate on and opine about, right?

Also, if Democratic Party O-bots and Republican Party C-bots or R-bots or J-bots (aka Obama-neobirthers, Cruz-neobirthers, Rubio-neobirthers, Jindal-neobirthers, aka “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers) say that THEY do not KNOW what Jay meant, well, the natural, uh, the natural "born" question for Independent “natural born Citizen” original meaning original intent birthers to ask is, well, what do you THINK Jay MAY have meant in 1787? NOT what do you KNOW Jay meant in 1787. Simply what do YOU THINK Jay MAY have meant based on your 2015 common sense about what YOU MAY have meant in 1787 if YOU had written the note to YOUR friend George Washington?

See, simple “court of public opinion” arena of ideas questions. Right, “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers of all political persuasions?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

These are attorney Kuligowski's anecdotal and "court of public opinion arena of ideas" concluding paragraphs:

“When we hear the requirement “natural born citizen,” what should come to mind? What is the clause safeguarding against? A technicality over birth venue? Is it pointlessly discriminating against naturalized citizens? Or is the real concern of the clause to safeguard against foreign allegiance and influence? Just as the founders were not safeguarding against the arbitrary number 34, they were safeguarding not against naturalized citizens per se, but rather against the influence and worldview they might bring to high office as a result of having had foreign parentage and allegiance.

“The modern concept of birth with dual allegiances raises the very concern the founders were safeguarding against.

“To get it right, we must ask what the understanding of an Article II natural born citizen was at the time of its ratification. To have been born a U.S. citizen at the time of our Constitution’s ratification meant that one was born with sole allegiance to the United States. So by necessity, an Article II natural born citizen is one born with natural, undivided allegiance to the United States. That is reasonably the heart of the natural born clause.

“Though the previous definition is intellectually honest and an accurate statement, we must acknowledge that, like many constitutional provisions, the natural born citizen clause has been eviscerated with bad precedent – in this case, to accommodate Mr. Obama.

“Short of a constitutional amendment, the original purpose of the clause is gone forever. It’s not right, but something so monumental is not going to revolve without some degree of revolution. The requirement of undivided natural allegiance at birth for future candidates would undermine the Obama presidency, and not enough government workers in black robes would ever let that happen.

“Alas, from this point forward, the clause effectively means that anyone born a U.S. citizen can become president, regardless of prior foreign allegiance.

“I suppose some comfort may be taken in the fact that the unimaginable, worst-case scenario has already happened. What the founders sought to safeguard against has come to pass: a U.S. president with a foreign, anti-traditional American mindset has inflicted immeasurable havoc upon our system and way of life. At least the odds of it happening again, especially consecutively, are slim.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maybe American Thinker readers can also be educated by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. with regular contributions, since Mario, who has been posting on his Natural Born Citizen blog since December of 2008, is an attorney who not only has sensible questions like attorney Monte Kuligowski, but who also has sensible and practical conclusions relevant to the “court of public opinion” and also the court where the rules of evidence are required.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2015/01/time-to-change-natural-born-citizen.html )