ONLY
One
Citizenship Makes
ONLY
Dual
Citizenship Superfluous and Irrelevant
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario
Apuzzo's blog onMarch 20, 2015 at 5:22 PM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html
<<>>
The "natural born Citizen" new
meaning neo-birthers, aka the Democratic Party "natural born
Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers who promote the Obama birth
narrative of only one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for government
work—POTUS eligibility, and the Republican Party "natural born
Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers who promote the dual
U.S./foreign citizenship of the Cruz birth narrative that only ONE
U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for government work—POTUS
eligibility, or promote the dual U.S./foreign citizenship of the
Rubio birth narrative that ZERO U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf for
government work.
The new meaning neo-birthers can't win the debate because they never engage in debating first principles and what they think, NOT what they KNOW, but what THEY think the original birthers meant, such as what do THEY think that the original author of "natural born Citizen" and the original convention delegates/framers and the original states' ratifiers understood "natural born Citizen" to mean when the first state ratified the text of the constitution in 1787 and until the last state ratified in 1790.
The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers talk about everybody else EXCEPT the original birthers, John Jay, George Washington, the convention delegate framers, which included Ben Franklin, and the states' ratifiers, which included New York ratifier John Jay.
Certainly text framer Ben Franklin would have said SOMETHING if he thought that John Jay meant that "born" in "natural born Citizen" meant dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to only one U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Cruz) OR birth to zero U.S. citizen parents (Sen. Rubio). The sound of silence is implicit confirmation that Jay meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY of one nation.
The new meaning neo-birthers like Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, authors of On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" in a post on the Harvard Law Review Forum, regurgitate the “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birther meme but with a qualifier, such as the word “generally”, for example:
The new meaning neo-birthers can't win the debate because they never engage in debating first principles and what they think, NOT what they KNOW, but what THEY think the original birthers meant, such as what do THEY think that the original author of "natural born Citizen" and the original convention delegates/framers and the original states' ratifiers understood "natural born Citizen" to mean when the first state ratified the text of the constitution in 1787 and until the last state ratified in 1790.
The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers talk about everybody else EXCEPT the original birthers, John Jay, George Washington, the convention delegate framers, which included Ben Franklin, and the states' ratifiers, which included New York ratifier John Jay.
Certainly text framer Ben Franklin would have said SOMETHING if he thought that John Jay meant that "born" in "natural born Citizen" meant dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to only one U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Cruz) OR birth to zero U.S. citizen parents (Sen. Rubio). The sound of silence is implicit confirmation that Jay meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY of one nation.
The new meaning neo-birthers like Paul Clement and Neal Katyal, authors of On the Meaning of "Natural Born Citizen" in a post on the Harvard Law Review Forum, regurgitate the “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birther meme but with a qualifier, such as the word “generally”, for example:
"All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time.
"And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States."
Well,
that settles it, doesn't it?
Except, is that what THEY think, NOT what they KNOW, but what THEY think? Well, what do they think, not wht they know, but what they think John Jay MAY have meant?
The new meaning neo-birthers NEVER consider to adduce what John Jay MAY have meant, and why there was no debate about Jay's original meaning original intent of ONLY singular US. citizenship of ONLY one nation.
THAT is a debate the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers lose by default by not engaging in debating first principles, such as the 1787 era common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage which is simply stated: by marriage, the US. citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined that their child had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, and so that child, alone of all "citizens/born citizens," is "... eligible to the Office of President.
THAT is a very good reason to have an Article V convention of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose an amendment to (1) clarify that "natural born Citizen" means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, OR to (2) clarify that "nbC" means ONLY dual U.S. citizenship of two OR more nations by birth on either U.S. OR foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married to each other or not.
The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers should start proposing their own “nbC” new meaning amendment language as they try to make coherent sense by defending their proposition that, in addition to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, "born" in "natural born Citizen" can mean ALSO dual U.S/foreign citizenship of two OR three nations, and also defend their tacit proposition that in 1787 John Jay did NOT mean that "nbC" was to perpetually mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation), but ALSO ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
Except, is that what THEY think, NOT what they KNOW, but what THEY think? Well, what do they think, not wht they know, but what they think John Jay MAY have meant?
The new meaning neo-birthers NEVER consider to adduce what John Jay MAY have meant, and why there was no debate about Jay's original meaning original intent of ONLY singular US. citizenship of ONLY one nation.
THAT is a debate the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers lose by default by not engaging in debating first principles, such as the 1787 era common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage which is simply stated: by marriage, the US. citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined that their child had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, and so that child, alone of all "citizens/born citizens," is "... eligible to the Office of President.
THAT is a very good reason to have an Article V convention of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose an amendment to (1) clarify that "natural born Citizen" means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, OR to (2) clarify that "nbC" means ONLY dual U.S. citizenship of two OR more nations by birth on either U.S. OR foreign soil to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married to each other or not.
The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers should start proposing their own “nbC” new meaning amendment language as they try to make coherent sense by defending their proposition that, in addition to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, "born" in "natural born Citizen" can mean ALSO dual U.S/foreign citizenship of two OR three nations, and also defend their tacit proposition that in 1787 John Jay did NOT mean that "nbC" was to perpetually mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation), but ALSO ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
BOTH
"nbC" original intent possibilities, ONLY
singular AND ONLY
dual,
are
incoherent, because "nbC" with the original
meaning of ONLY dual
citizenship negates the primacy of ONLY
one
citizenship,
while ONLY one
citizenship makes ONLY
dual
citizenship superfuluous and irrelevant.
Proposing a coherent Article V amendment should be simple for new meaning neo-birthers to do because, for POTUS eligibility, ONLY dual U.S. citizenship by birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for government work, right—and two U.S. citizen parents is superfuluous and irrelevant, right? Why limit POTUS eligibility to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents when ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married or not, which implies ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, will do for government work, right?
But an Article V amendment to clarify the original genesis original intent of "natural born Citizen" won't happen 'cause some “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, who are really “nbC” ONLY dual anarchists, although they don't know it or can't admit it, will simply propose scrapping “natural born Citizen” language and rewriting an amendment to allow even anchor babies, the “citizen” progeny of the 1898 Court's U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark “citizen” decision which “declared” Wong Kim Ark to be eligible to vote and which 2000s neo-birthers say makes anchor babies like Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley eligible to be POTUS, as well as proposing grandfathering into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted children of one OR two U.S. citizen parents, single or married, heterosexual or homosexual.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
Proposing a coherent Article V amendment should be simple for new meaning neo-birthers to do because, for POTUS eligibility, ONLY dual U.S. citizenship by birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for government work, right—and two U.S. citizen parents is superfuluous and irrelevant, right? Why limit POTUS eligibility to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents when ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married or not, which implies ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, will do for government work, right?
But an Article V amendment to clarify the original genesis original intent of "natural born Citizen" won't happen 'cause some “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, who are really “nbC” ONLY dual anarchists, although they don't know it or can't admit it, will simply propose scrapping “natural born Citizen” language and rewriting an amendment to allow even anchor babies, the “citizen” progeny of the 1898 Court's U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark “citizen” decision which “declared” Wong Kim Ark to be eligible to vote and which 2000s neo-birthers say makes anchor babies like Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley eligible to be POTUS, as well as proposing grandfathering into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted children of one OR two U.S. citizen parents, single or married, heterosexual or homosexual.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
No comments:
Post a Comment