Natural Born Citizen vs. Birthright Citizenship

Natural Born Citizen

vs.

Birthright Citizenship

"No Person...except...Born" 35 & "Age" 35 & 14 Years "Residence" in 1787 Article II

&

"All persons...Born" in 1868 Amendment XIV

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on August 21, 2015 at 12:19 AM and August 22, 2015 at 6:08 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html

<<>>

It seems that we're slowly getting to Article II.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the homework for the media this week, and they'll get to Article II next week, or maybe next month, or maybe next year, just before the primary election when Ann Coulter writes another article about how Carsobn, Trump, or Fiorina, or Walker, or Huckabee challenged the Article II eligibility of Cruze, Rubio and Jindal.

Ann Coulter has an excellent 14th Amendment birthright citizenship article posted on her site which she titled "FOX NEWS ANCHORED IN STUPIDITY ON 14TH AMENDMENT," but comments are not possible there.

>> ( http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-08-19.html#read_more )

She also posted it on FrontPageMag where comments are possible, and it was retitled, "Trump vs. Birthright Citizenship - The true history and meaning of the 14th Amendment."
>> ( http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/259855/trump-vs-birthright-citizenship-ann-coulter ).

Also, Professor Edward Erler, Mark Levin's former professor, also posted a 14th Amendment birthright citizenship article at National Review Online, "Trump’s Critics Are Wrong about the Fourteenth Amendment and Birthright Citizenship."
>> ( http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution )

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I posted a similar but shorter comment at HumanEvents.com in Ann Coulter's Fourteenth Amendment article about birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies titled: "Fox News Anchored in Stupidity on 14 the Amendment”

>> ( http://humanevents.com/2015/08/19/fox-news-anchored-in-stupidity-on-14th-amendment/ )

Ann's article is an excellent clarification of, and this is my emphasis, the original intent of the word "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 sentence 1 authored by Jacob Howard, and, by extrapolation, the original genesis original intent of of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in the 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 that was added to Article II after author John Jay suggested it in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

The Fourteenth Amendment is the homework for the media this week, and they'll get to Article II next week, or maybe next month, or maybe next year, just before the primary election when Ann Coulter writes another article about how Trump, or Fiorina, or Walker, or Huckabee or Bush successfully challenged the Article II POTUS eligibility of Cruz, Rubio and Jindal and others who do not have singular U.S. citizenship.

I thought it might have been Trump or Fiorina to challenge Sen. Cruz about his constitutional eligibility to be president, but it seems that, as recorded in the Dallas News, it seems that Gov. Jeb Bush drew “first blood” in New Hampshire, and Sen. Cruz responded:
>> ( http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/cruz-shrugs-off-complaints-about-anchor-baby-epithet-addresses-birthright-citizenship.html/ )

>> "Cruz also tackled the suggestion Bush made a day earlier in New Hampshire that he and Sen. Marco Rubio had benefited from birthright citizenship.

"He called Bush "confused."

>> "I am a United States citizen because my mother was a United States citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware. And it has been the law since the beginning of the country that the children of American citizens born here or abroad are American citizens by birth,” Cruz said.

>> "It seems Gov. Bush has that confused with the very different notion that someone who comes here illegally should not have the law grant automatic citizenship to their children if they are here illegally."

Next year, hopefully next week rather than later, maybe We the People can get around to clarifying John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his longtime and good friend General George Washington when Washington was presiding over the Constitutional Convention in which the delegates accepted Jay's suggestion that the presidency not devolve on anybody but a "natural born Citizen," and so the "exceptional" language ("No Person except...") was included into Article II Section 1 clause 5:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States [only until the last "...or a Citizen" died sometime in the 1800s], at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

If WE the People finally get around to discussing the original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in Article II, we will discover that "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment meant the same thing to the 1868 framers as "born" meant to the 1787 framers of Article II.

For POTUS eligibility consider the necessary similarity of the word "born" in 1787 and 1868:

In 1787,
"born" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

In 1868,
"born" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

In 1787,
"born" meant ONLY on U.S. soil.

In 1868,
"born" meant ONLY on U.S. soil.

In 1787,
"born" meant ONLY to U.S. citizen parents who had become naturalized "citizens" by the July 4, 1776 declaration of independence.

In 1868,
"born" meant ONLY to U.S. citizen parents who had been born on U.S. soil before or after the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment and then naturalized a "citizen" by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Consider the comment, quoted next, about the 1875 Minor v. Happersett unanimous decision, which tacitly and implicitly affirms John Jay's 1787 "original genesis original intent" as listed in the “ONLY” points listed below and which also affirms the original genesis original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment:

>> "The Constitution does not, in words [but it does by tacit implication, see below], 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 [child “citizens”] were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners...."

"The Constitution does not, in words say...;" but it does "say" by tacit implication, "who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

My Point:

My point is that "elsewhere" is, as the Minor Court affirmed, in the "common law...nomenclature," but "elsewhere" is also in the explicit language of Article I section 2 Clause 2 and Article 1 Section 3 Clause 3 about "who" (not "what" or "what does citizen mean" but "who") is a "citizen" and so is eligible to be a U.S. Representative or a U.S. Senator.

Article I Section 2 Clause 2 says that a (tacitly implicit is a "naturalized") Representative must be at least twenty-five years old and a U.S. citizen for seven years (the LAST seven years) to be eligible to be a U.S. Representative. Twenty-five years old and ONLY seven years a U.S. citizen. Not the first seven years of life, of course, because, if born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents they would be a "natural born Citizen," so requiring a minimum age other than 35 would not be relevant to eligibility to be POTUS. Only the LAST seven years of life, from, at the very least, naturalized by oath on day one of age eighteen to day one of age twenty-five. Also possible is, for example, naturalized by oath at any age above age 18, such as age 54, and eligible seven years later at age 61.

A naturalized citizen U.S. Representative is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

Article I Section 3 Clause 3 says that a (tacitly implicit is a "naturalized") Senator must be at least thirty years old and a U.S. citizen for nine years, meaning the LAST nine years, to be eligible to be a U.S. Senator. Thirty years old and ONLY nine years a U.S. citizen. As with the age requirement for a U.S. Representative, not the first nine years of life, of course, the LAST nine years of life, possible from day one of naturalization at age twenty-one to day one of age thirty. That allows for being elected a U.S. Representative for two years and attaining to the age of thirty and nine years a U.S. citizen, and so eligible to be a U.S. Senator.

A naturalized citizen U.S. Senator is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

The language in Article I for Representatives and Senators implies that, in 1787 America, since, by marriage, the wife took on the citizenship of the husband, both of the parents of the Representatives or Senators were not U.S. citizens if the father was an alien who had not naturalized, which is why the Representatives and Senators had to naturalize to be U.S. citizens for seven years and nine years respectively and of sufficient age before being eligible to the U.S. Congress.

In 1787 America, the American common law understanding of citizenship and allegiance was simple:

1 - If a person was born on foreign soil to foreigners, the person was an alien who would need to naturalize to be a U.S. citizen Representative or a U.S. citizen Senator.

2 - If a person was born on U.S. soil to alien parents before they naturalized as U.S. citizens, the child was identified as an alien who would need to be naturalized.

The language of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 implies that being a naturalized citizen, either naturalized by statute or naturalized by oath, was not sufficient to be a U.S. President, because the person had to be a exceptional person: "No person except ...."

Thirty-five AND Thirty-five—Plus Fourteen

The "exceptional" person must be 35 years a singular U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, AND fourteen years residence on U.S. soil. Residence was not to be only the first fourteen years from birthday day 1 to age 14 day 1 with, for example, foreign residence from age 14 day 1 to age 35 day 1, but residence was to be fourteen years from day one of age 21 up to day one of age 35. Any age after age 35, for example, age 54 day 1, would require U.S. residence from at least day one of age 40 to day 1 of age 54, not just any fourteen year period by age 54 day 1, or a total of fourteen years since birth with the majority years of residence on either U.S. soil or foreign soil by age 54 day 1.

Since the framers did not identify 14 years residence as being any 14 year period of successive years, for example birthday day 1 to age 14 day 1, or age 10 day 1 to age 24 day 1, or age 14 day 1 to age 28 day 1, the natural conclusion is that the framers meant and the ratifiers understood, ONLY the fourteen successive years from age 21 day 1 to age 35 day 1, with the concomitant understanding that whatever day 1 was of the age at which inauguration took place, the last fourteen years were the immediate successive fourteen years preceeding inauguration, for example, age 40 day 1 to age 54 day 1. Fourteen years of successive residence up to and including the age at inauguration being the natural conclusion, the framers and ratifiers obviously did not imply fourteen years residence on U.S. soil to mean residence for a few months on U.S. soil until a total of fourteen years residence are attained, but ONLY fourteen years of successive years up to and including day 1 on inauguration day—age 35 day 1 or age 54 day 1 in this example.

In 1787 America when Article II was proposed, debated, adopted and sent to the states to be ratified, thirty-five years old AND thirty-five years a U.S. citizen meant, implicitly, that to be eligible to be president, a person necessarily MUST be (1) ONLY a singular U.S. citizen (2) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil (3) ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen parents who are citizens either by birth or by naturalization. In 1787 it was NOT understood by the framers and ratifiers that, to be "...eligible to the Office of President," what was meant was that ONLY one parent as a U.S. citizen was sufficient. That being so, it was definitely NOT meant that zero U.S. citizen parents would be sufficient. Not in 1787 America.

Zero U.S. citizen parents is what advocates for birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies are asserting for "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, with the conclusion that a child, born to zero U.S. citizen parents who are legal or illegal aliens in the U.S., is a U.S. citizen because the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court erroneously opined about a child born to legal aliens, and then the birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies advocates attempt to also apply their definition of Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies back to "born" in "natural born Citizen" in the 1787 Article II, with the erroneous conclusion that they can then, after touching the Article II Section 1 most holy place of atonement (aka reconciliation, aka union), Clause 5, they can then fastforward to 2015 America and assert that "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment also means that children born of legal aliens who did not naturalize before their children were born on U.S. soil, such as Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and et al., are constitutionally eligible to be President.

One U.S. citizen parent is what "natural born Citizen" new meaning "neobirthers", aka Democratic Party Obamabots (Obots) and Republican Party Cruzbots (Cbots), Rubiobots (Rbots), Jindalbots (Jbots), are also asserting for "born" in Article II and Amendment XIV with their conclusion that Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, who definitely does NOT have "statute" defined "natural born Citizenship," and also does not have Fourteenth Amendment "birthright citizenship" but, according to the neo-birthers promoting birthright citizenship, since Sen. Cruz does have statute citizenship as defined by the current Immigration and Naturalization Service statute (INA: 301), for that "constitutional" staute reason, Sen. Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be President even though he was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent.

So, it must be repeated incessantly until it sinks into the consciousness of We the People that, for POTUS eligibility, John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" and in Article II Section 1 clause 5 can ONLY mean, for the child to qualify to be "...eligible to the Office of President":

_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
_ONLY before the child is born

Under the language of the current 2015 immigration and naturalization acts, if a child is born on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) to one U.S. citizen parent, father or mother, whether or not they are married to each other, the child is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "born" citizen with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship, but not a 1787 Article II "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship, and so a dual U.S/foreign citizenship child is not "...eligible to the Office of President."

If a child is born on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) to zero U.S. citizen parents who are legal aliens, the child is, by original genesis, an alien, and the child is, by the original intent of ALL statutes since the 1790 Naturalization Act, which declared that a child born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents was "considered" to be a natural born citizen, "considered" because it is a "positive" law word expressing a one-time opinion that was changed by the 1795 Naturalization Act forever opinion that changed "natural born Citizen" to "citizen," a 1795 perpetual opinion that has been adhered to by ALL subsequent acts of Congress, and also adhered to implicitly by the framers of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. The 1787 child was recognized as an alien, and the 1868 child born on U.S. soil to alien parents was recognized as an alien, at least an "alien" before the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court erroneously opined that the alien child has become, thirty years after the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language of "All persons born...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction...are citizens...," automatically what the parents were not, a U.S. citizen with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship. If the child of legal OR illegal aliens is "automatically" a U.S. citizen because of birth touchdown on U.S. soil, then "jurisdiction" is superfluous, "jurisdiction" it is not relevant.

However, jurisdiction is NOT superfluous, that is why the advocates for birthright citizenship for illegal alien anchor babies are wrong.

Jurisdiction is NOT superfluous, that is why birth on U.S. soil to legal aliens was not, is not and never will be the original genesis original intent of both Article II Section 1 clause 5 and Amendment XIV Section 1 sentence 1.

In both Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment, "born" means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship if the child is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents. According to the original genesis original intent of only two U.S. citizen married parents for "born" in Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment, if a child is born on U.S soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, "born" obviously can only mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Right?

Why "obviously" dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

Well, if only one parent is a U.S. citizen, then, obviously, the other person, married or not married to the U.S. citizen parent, is NOT a U.S. citizen.

Right?

The word "born" in the 1787 Article II is related to the word "born" in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1787 in Article II, "No Person...except..." a "citizen" who is "born" to two U.S. citizen married parents on U.S. soil and is at least 35 years a U.S. citizen by "age" 35, and also 14 years a "resident" on U.S. soil by "age" 35, is related to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and "All persons...born" are "citizens."

In other words, depending on how many parents are U.S. citizens at the time the child is born on U.S. soil, two or one or zero, not all "citizens" are "natural born Citizens" so not all "citizens" are "...eligible to the Office of President."

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