John Jay vs. "Legal Consensus" and "Political Precedents"

John Jay

vs.

"Legal Consensus" and ""Political Precedents"

A U.S. "citizen" who is NOT a U.S. "natural born Citizen" is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on BirtherReport.com on May 24, 2015

>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/05/must-read-fox-and-cnn-debate-rules.html

<<>>

First is some of the comments by Sharon Rondeau from The Post & Email, followed by the original post by Todd Gillman from The Dallas Morning News.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Post & Email Contacts The Dallas Morning News About Challenges to Article II Eligibility

CRUZ’S ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONED,

BUT OBAMA’S, DESPITE FORGERIES OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS,

HAS NOT

by Sharon Rondeau

"(May 24, 2015) — An article in The Dallas Morning News dated Saturday, May 23, 2015 and updated on Sunday morning reported that “Not surprisingly, the GOP presidential debates announced last week will be open only to candidates who can legally serve as president.”

"Washington Bureau chief Todd J. Gillman wrote that Fox News and CNN will be “the first arbiters of Canada-born Ted Cruz’s eligibility. By putting him on stage, they will implicitly be granting a seal of approval to the only contender born outside the U.S.”

"On May 20, Gillman wrote that the first 2016 Republican presidential primary debate, to be held on August 6 of this year, “is only open to announced candidates for president who meet all constitutional requirements. The latter provision would implicitly confer a Fox stamp of approval on Canada-born Sen. Ted Cruz, if he makes the cut,” referring to Fox’s announced criteria of including the ten highest-polling candidates as shown by five national polls prior to the debate.

"Fox News has both reported Cruz as both eligible and not eligible for the presidency based on his birth in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to a U.S.-citizen mother and Cuban-citizen father.

"On August 18, 2013, Gillman reported that Cruz had released his birth certificate exclusively to The Dallas Morning News, posting it at the top of his article titled “Dual citizenship may pose problem if Ted Cruz seeks presidency.” Cruz possesses a Canadian birth certificate and was considered a Canadian citizen until he renounced that citizenship in May of last year, although his spokeswoman, as quoted by Gillman in 2013, said Cruz was unaware of any Canadian citizenship.

[...big snip...]

"While acknowledging the “natural born Citizen” requirement, mainstream media outlets have failed to report on the circumstances leading up to the insertion of the term in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. On July 25, 1787, Founding Father John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington, who was presiding over the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, in which he said:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

"In his article this weekend, Gillman instead cited “legal consensus” and “political precedents” to determine presidential eligibility rather than John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, or “The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel, upon which the Framers were known to have relied heavily in crafting the Constitution and the foreign policy of the new government they created."

[...snip...]

Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/05/must-read-fox-and-cnn-debate-rules.html#Z0G10bYboTjoQhV9.99

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Dallas Morning News

>> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/todd-j-gillman/20150523-gop-debate-rules-could-reignite-questions-about-cruz-birthplace.ece

Todd J. Gillman

GOP debate rules could reignite questions about Cruz birthplace

Published: 23 May 2015 11:05 PM

Updated: 24 May 2015 02:36 AM

"WASHINGTON — Not surprisingly, the GOP presidential debates announced last week will be open only to candidates who can legally serve as president.

"That will make Fox News and CNN the first arbiters of Canada-born Ted Cruz’s eligibility. By putting him on stage, they will implicitly be granting a seal of approval to the only contender born outside the U.S.

"The U.S. Constitution says a president has to be a natural-born citizen. Fox and CNN both listed Article II, Section 1 among the requirements for would-be debaters. It’s inconceivable that either network would invoke that requirement to shut out the Texas senator.

But there are only 10 berths at each debate. It’s not so hard to imagine a candidate who doesn’t make the cut heading to court to say, “Hang on a second, that guy isn’t even a natural-born American.”

Cruz aides shrug off the possibility.

“It would be an interesting spectacle, but I don’t think it has anything to do with the legal precedent that’s been set and accepted,” said Rick Tyler, Cruz campaign spokesman.

So far, only one possible 2016 rival — Donald Trump — has publicly questioned Cruz’s eligibility. He has called on Cruz to find a way to settle the issue. Even if Cruz wanted to, there’s no legal mechanism unless someone goes to court to keep him off a primary ballot or out of a debate.

“There is no court ruling on the question, and there is unlikely ever to be one,” Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who has written extensively on dual citizenship and U.S. citizenship, said Friday by email. “This is a question that gets decided by political and legal elites as well as the electorate. It’s only people on the political and constitutional fringes that are seriously questioning his qualifications.”

[...snip...]

Politically, allowing Cruz on stage could bolster his effort to downplay the issue and marginalize anyone who brings it up.

“There is a clear consensus that because Cruz had citizenship at birth he qualifies as ‘natural born’ for purposes of presidential eligibility,” Spiro said. “CNN’s allowing Cruz’s participation would supply yet further evidence of the consensus — in that respect, it would be significant.”

Cruz was born in Calgary to an American mother. He renounced his Canadian citizenship last year, after The Dallas Morning News pointed out that he’d been a dual citizen since birth, unbeknownst to him or his parents.

While the legal and political consensus is that Cruz is eligible to be president, the issue has never been tested in court.

[...snip...]

Read more at http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/todd-j-gillman/20150523-gop-debate-rules-could-reignite-questions-about-cruz-birthplace.ece

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Todd Gillman cited “legal consensus” and “political precedents” while Sharon Rondeau adduced original founder, (aka original birther) John Jay's 1787 letter to George Washington which definitely is a political precedent worthy of discussion a little bit more.

So, how hard is it for the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers (Obama neobirthers, Cruz neobirthers, Rubio neobirthers, Jindal neobirthers, etc., who promote dual U.S./foreign citizenship as A-OK for POTUS eligibility) to ignore the original genesis original intent of John Jay, for example, in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen"? Apparently not hard at all for the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers, because they don't ask themselves some common sense questions about original birther John Jay's 1787 original intent.

For example, when Jay underlined the word "born" in his note to his friend George Washington in 1787 America, what do deep thinkers in 2015 America think that Jay expected George Washington and the framers to understand in 1787 America? (The framers, without debate as to the meaning of "natural born Citizen," accepted Washington's suggestion to consider "natural born Citizen," which was included in Article II as the exclusive citizenship requirement for POTUS eligibility).

Did Jay mean "born" ONLY in the United States?
Did Jay mean "born" ANYWHERE in the world?
Did Jay mean "born" ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents married ONLY to each other?
Did Jay mean "born" ONLY to two U.S. citizen NOT married parents (and NOT married to anybody)?
Did Jay mean "born" ONLY to one U.S. citizen parent, married OR not married to the partner?
Did Jay mean "born" ONLY to zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other?
Did Jay mean "born" EITHER to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizens?

Question 1 – Married vs. Unmarried
Which would make "natural born" sense in 1787 America?
Born to two married parents OR born to two unmarried parents?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born to two U.S. citizen married parents. Right?

Question 2 – Two U.S. vs. Two Foreign

Which would make "natural born" sense in 1787 America?
Born to two U.S. citizen parents OR born to two foreign citizen parents?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born to two U.S. citizen parents,. Right?

Question 3 – U.S. Soil vs. Foreign Soil
Which would make "natural born" sense in 1787 America?
Born on U.S. soil OR born on foreign soil?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil. Right?

Question 4 – U.S. Soil & Singular vs. U.S. Soil & Dual
Which would make "natural born" sense in 1787 America?
Born on U.S. soil with singular U.S. citizenship OR born on U.S. soil with dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. Right?

Question 5 – U.S. Soil & Singular vs. Foreign Soil & Dual
Which would make "natural born" sense in 1787 America?
Born on U.S. soil with singular U.S. citizenship OR born on foreign soil with dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. Right?

Question 6 – U.S. Soil & Two & Singular vs. U.S. Soil & Two & Dual
Which would make singular "natural born Citizen" sense in 1787 America?
ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO singular U.S. citizenship parents OR born on U.S soil to TWO dual U.S./foreign citizenship parents?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizenship parents. Right?

Question 7 – U.S. Soil & Two & Singular vs. Foreign Soil & Two & Dual
Which would make singular "natural born Citizen" sense in 1787 America?
ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO singular U.S. citizenship parents OR born on foreign soil to TWO dual U.S./foreign citizenship parents?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizenship parents. Right?

Question 8 – U.S. Soil & Two & Singular vs. U.S. Soil & One & Dual
Which would make singular "natural born Citizen" sense in 1787 America?
ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO U.S. singular citizenship parents OR born on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. citizenship parent?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizenship parents. Right?

Question 9 – U.S. Soil & Two & Singular vs. Foreign Soil & One & Dual
Which would make singular "natural born Citizen" sense in 1787 America?
ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO U.S. singular citizenship parents OR born on foreign soil to ONE U.S. citizenship parent?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizenship parents. Right?

Question 10 – U.S. Soil & Two & Singular vs. U.S. Soil & Zero & Alien
Which would make singular "natural born Citizen" sense in 1787 America?
ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO U.S. singular citizenship parents OR born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. citizenship parent ("aliens" in 1787 America)?

In 1787 America, definitely ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizenship parents. Right?

So, when Article II section 1 clause 5 tied "natural born Citizen" to attaining 35 years and residency on U.S. soil for the last 14 years up to at least age 35 or older, what did the framers mean?

Did the framers mean that a person could be born ANYWHERE in the world but MUST reside for the last 14 years on U.S. soil up to at least age 35 (including the last 14 years up to any age after 35)?

or...

Did the framers mean that a person MUST be ONLY be born on U.S. soil AND also MUST reside on U.S. soil for the last 14 years up to at least age 35 (or older)?

It seems to me that "consensus," legal or otherwise, is meaningless if not defined by the "political precedent" of original birther John Jay's original meaning, what I like to call Jay's "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

Before and after the 1952 INA: ACT 301, the act under which Sen. Cruz was born on Dec. 22, 1970, a child born on foreign soil to two* OR one** U.S. citizen parents was designated a "citizen" with the implicit inference that a person who is ONLY a "citizen" has dual U.,S./foreign citizenship, whether born on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent OR born on foreign soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, and so is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

* See ALL naturalization and immigration acts after the 1790 Naturalization Act for a child born on foreign soil to "parents," plural, who is identified as a "citizen" and not a "natural born Citizen." The 1790 Natural Act "natural born Citizen" designation was repealed and replaced by the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" designation.

** See the the immigration and naturalization acts since the 1952 Immingation and Nationality Act.

Since birth on foreign soil to either two U.S. citizen married parents OR one U.S. citizen parent makes a person only a "citizen" and not a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, a natural law/positive law designation that can be derived ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. married parents and "...eligible to the Office of President," for that same singular U.S. citizenship natural law (birth) and positive law (citizenship) reason, birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent on foreign soil OR U.S. soil, makes a person ONLY a "citizen" who is also not a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and so is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."

In other words, a dual U.S./foreign "citizen" who is NOT a singular U.S. "natural born Citizen" is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."

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