Unity
of TWO Parents
ONLY
born
with singular
U.S. citizenship
vs.
ONLY
born
with dual
U.S./foreign
citizenship
vs.
ALSO
born
with dual
U.S./foreign
citizenship
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on
BirtherReport.com on May 14, 2015
>>
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/05/fool-navy-cdr-rips-supreme-court.html
<<>>
Unity
of Two Parents...
A look at the 1787 common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of both parents will add clarity.
The "unity of two parents" can be stated this way:
A look at the 1787 common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of both parents will add clarity.
The "unity of two parents" can be stated this way:
By
marriage the citizenship and allegiance of the husband determined the
citizenship and allegiance of the wife and the citizenship and
allegiance of BOTH parents determined the citizenship and allegiance
of the child.
In other words:
By marriage the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of the U.S. citizen husband determined the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of the wife, AND the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of BOTH parents determined the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of the child, a child having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance and so eligible to be POTUS.
The unity of citizenship and allegiance was tacitly accepted as the common understanding at the time of the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment which gave male and female Negroes their freedom;
The unity of citizenship and allegiance was also tacitly accepted at the time of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which gave male and female Negroes their U.S. citizenship;
The unity of citizenship and allegiance was also tacitly accepted at the time of the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment, the suffrage amendment, which gave the male Negroes the right to vote.
The 1920 Nineteenth Amendment, the women's suffrage amendment, gave ALL women the right to vote, but it was not until the 1922 Cable Act that a wife was given the political right to retain her citizenship independent of her husband.
If the wife retained her alien citizenship after marriage to a U.S. citizen husband, the child had dual U.S./foreign citizenship and did not have POTUS eligibility.
If the wife acquired U.S. citizenship after marriage to her U.S. citizen husband before the child was born, the child had singular U.S. citizenship and POTUS eligibility.
Vattel never dealt with the singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual U.S./foreign citizenship issue, and neither did the framers of Article II Section 1 clause 5. The framers did not debate the meaning of "natural born Citizen" because they obviously understood it to mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship acquired by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents. Married? In 1787 America? Definitely.
As both Cheryl Suber and (CDR) cfkerchner have clarified in their own ways, the tacit implication is that BOTH parents, AFTER September 17, 1787 when "nbC" was adopted, and AFTER the 1922 Cable Act, BOTH parents MUST be U.S. citizens married ONLY to each other so that their U.S. born child would have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance and thus POTUS eligibility.
If original birther John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning for "nbC" was NOT ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, then Jay would have been as schizophrenic and incongruent and incoherent as are the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers of 2008-2015 America who assert with a straight face that John Jay would agree with their neo-birther theory of ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on either U.S. OR foreign soil and being born to only one OR zero U.S. citizen parents.
In other words:
By marriage the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of the U.S. citizen husband determined the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of the wife, AND the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of BOTH parents determined the U.S. citizenship and allegiance of the child, a child having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance and so eligible to be POTUS.
The unity of citizenship and allegiance was tacitly accepted as the common understanding at the time of the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment which gave male and female Negroes their freedom;
The unity of citizenship and allegiance was also tacitly accepted at the time of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which gave male and female Negroes their U.S. citizenship;
The unity of citizenship and allegiance was also tacitly accepted at the time of the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment, the suffrage amendment, which gave the male Negroes the right to vote.
The 1920 Nineteenth Amendment, the women's suffrage amendment, gave ALL women the right to vote, but it was not until the 1922 Cable Act that a wife was given the political right to retain her citizenship independent of her husband.
If the wife retained her alien citizenship after marriage to a U.S. citizen husband, the child had dual U.S./foreign citizenship and did not have POTUS eligibility.
If the wife acquired U.S. citizenship after marriage to her U.S. citizen husband before the child was born, the child had singular U.S. citizenship and POTUS eligibility.
Vattel never dealt with the singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual U.S./foreign citizenship issue, and neither did the framers of Article II Section 1 clause 5. The framers did not debate the meaning of "natural born Citizen" because they obviously understood it to mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship acquired by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents. Married? In 1787 America? Definitely.
As both Cheryl Suber and (CDR) cfkerchner have clarified in their own ways, the tacit implication is that BOTH parents, AFTER September 17, 1787 when "nbC" was adopted, and AFTER the 1922 Cable Act, BOTH parents MUST be U.S. citizens married ONLY to each other so that their U.S. born child would have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance and thus POTUS eligibility.
If original birther John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning for "nbC" was NOT ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, then Jay would have been as schizophrenic and incongruent and incoherent as are the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers of 2008-2015 America who assert with a straight face that John Jay would agree with their neo-birther theory of ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on either U.S. OR foreign soil and being born to only one OR zero U.S. citizen parents.
If
ONLY
dual and
ALSO
dual are
not obviously incoherent,
consider these three choices
for “born”
in “natural born Citizen” in 1787 America.
_ONLY
born with singular
U.S. citizenship
vs.
_ONLY
born with dual
U.S./foreign
citizenship
(English?
or
French? or Spanish? or Chinese?
or
American Indian? in
1787 America)
vs.
_ALSO
born with dual
U.S./foreign
citizenship
(English?
or
French? or Spanish? or Chinese? or
American Indian? in
1787 America)
1
- ONLY
singular excludes
only dual
and also dual.
2
- ONLY
dual excludes
only singular
and also
dual.
3
- ALSO
dual is
schizophrenic, incongruous and incoherent
and excludes
ONLY
singular.
ONLY
singular
is
congruent
and coherent
to exclude ALSO
dual.
On July 25, 1787 John Jay was not schizophrenic, incongruous or incoherent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his longtime friend George Washington. Jay did not suggest that "born" meant ONLY dual or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on EITHER U.S. OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents.
In a nutshell:
Jay implicitly understood that, just as two parents are needed to reproduce a single child, so also two U.S. citizen parents are needed to pass on singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance to a single child with POTUS eligibility.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
On July 25, 1787 John Jay was not schizophrenic, incongruous or incoherent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his longtime friend George Washington. Jay did not suggest that "born" meant ONLY dual or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on EITHER U.S. OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents.
In a nutshell:
Jay implicitly understood that, just as two parents are needed to reproduce a single child, so also two U.S. citizen parents are needed to pass on singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance to a single child with POTUS eligibility.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
No comments:
Post a Comment