Original Intent: Might There Be More To Natural Born Citizen Than The Obvious?

Original Intent:

Might There Be More To Natural Born Citizen Than The Obvious?

This post is modified with corrections from two similar posts on Regent University Professor of Law Scott Pryor's blog "PryorThoughts" on April 21, 2015 at 1:27 PM and 5:41 PM.

>> http://pryorthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-cant-be-president.html

<<>>

Post #1

Scalia original intent...

Scalia said, "Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

What was "known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation" since September 17, 1787?

1 – ONLY Singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents?

2 – ONLY Dual U.S/foreign citizenship by birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil?

3 – ALSO Dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

The "ordinary citizens" of the new Union, from 1787 until the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was misinterpreted by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court, would have recognized "natural born Citizen" to mean what John Jay meant when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington—ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation (America) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

It is common sense obvious that first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay would NOT have meant ONLY dual U.S/English (foreign) citizenship or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship only four years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war of independence from England, a foreign power.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Post #2

Professor Pryor,

I will make only a few comments here that I will bounce off of your comment, quote:

"Just what does "natural-born citizen" mean? Born anywhere in the world to American citizens? Of course. Born in America to non-citizens? Seems so. But might there be more to the constitutional phrase than the obvious? And would the Framers of the Constitution have intended to convey the "more"?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>> "Just what does "natural-born citizen" mean?

John Jay had only one meaning when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. Jay could only mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents. Jay obviously did NOT mean ONLY dual U.S/foreign (English) citizenship only four years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war of independence from England.

>> "Born anywhere in the world to American citizens? Of course."

Under the language of the 1790 Naturalization Act, until it was repealed, YES, of course.

When born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents (plural) the child is identified in the 1790 naturalization statute as a "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, but obviously NOT eligible to be POTUS because, by the authority of a statute, a positve law, the child is, according to the actual word in the 1790 INA, "considered," a positive law word, to be a "natural born Citizen" because the child, although born to two U.S. citizen parents, is not born on U.S. soil. Just as 14 years residence and 35 years of age are necessary, so also are birth parents and birth place.

Under the language of the 1795 Naturalization Act, and ALL subsequent statutes and acts of Congress, the answer is NO, of course.

When born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents (plural) the child is identified in the 1795 naturalization statute as a "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, and also, obviously, because it is a statute, the child is still NOT eligible to be POTUS because the child is ONLY a "citizen," and according to Article II Section 1 clause 5, only a "natural born Citizen" is "...eligible to the Office of President."

>> "Born in America to non-citizens? Seems so. "

No, NOT a "natural born Citizen" when born to non-citizens, only a "citizen" if born in America to non-citizens, according to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment that was misinterpreted (as wrong as the Taney Court's [Dred] Scott v. Sanford decision) by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court which held that Wong Kim Ark, born on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizens parents, was a "citizen." The Court could NOT coherently affirm that Wong Kim Ark was a "natural born Citizen" even though he was born on U.S. soil because his parents were not U.S. citizens at his birth.

Also, definitely NOT under the Fourteenth Amendment with the original intent of John Bingham and Jacob Howard, two framers of the language of the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction are citizens...." That 1868 "born" language, which incorporated the original intent meaning of "born" in the 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born" language, was designed initially for the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes who were naturalized as "citizens" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation, America, not ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship. As naturalized "citizens" the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes were not eligible to be POTUS, eligibility being reserved only for children born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizen married parents. However, their children, and the children's children of the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes, were as eligible to be POTUS as the children of 1787 "natural born Citizens" were eligible, although the recalcitrant Democratic Party Reconstructionists were opposed successfully for about 100 years, until the 1960s, to total inclusive equality for the posterity of the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment "free" Negroes, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" Negroes and the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment "voting" Negroes. In other words, only free citizens vote.

For the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers here on your blog who usually post at Kevin Davidson's blog, who are trying to maintain the incoherent theory of dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to only one U.S. citizen parent, their dual citizenship argument is really with original birther John Jay who underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787 and also with original birthers John Bingham and Jacob Howard who wrote "All persons born...." in the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Both men were coherent in their singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation, America, for the “natural born Citizen” and for the "...born or naturalized...citizens...," with only those persons born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen married parents being eligible to be POTUS from 1787 into perpetuity, until the error of the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court holding of citizenship for a child born on U.S. soil to parents were are not U.S. citizens, with the incoherent conclusion by “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers that the child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is eligible to be POTUS.

>> "But might there be more to the constitutional phrase than the obvious?"

What is "more...than the obvious" if the obvious is the 1787 and 1868 original intent? If the obvious is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, is the “more...than the obvious” ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship? Conversely, if the obvious is ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, is the “more...than the obvious” ONLY singular U.S. citizenship? No, ONLY singular excludes ONLY dual, and ONLY dual excludes ONLY singular.

Would "more...than the obvious" be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign (English in 1787) citizenship or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship? ONLY singular would exclude dual, and ONLY dual would exclude singular. ONLY singular would be coherent to exclude ALSO dual, while ALSO dual would be schizophrenic and incongruous and could NOT include ONLY singular.

>> "And would the Framers of the Constitution have intended to convey the "more"?"

Since original intent is original intent, what is the "more" that negates the original intent of the obvious of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?

Original birther John Jay and his original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington could have ONLY ONE coherent "original intent" that can NOT allow for "more" than Jay's original intent. Jay's original intent could only be -- ONLY birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction (not foreign soil) ONLY citizenship of one nation (not two nations) ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents (not one or zero) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (not dual).

Of course, we are probably on the same side of the ideological divide in America, even if we may disagree about the original meaning of "natural born Citizen." I am simply presenting a coherent view of original birther John Jay's ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility that is common sense when compared to the theory of the 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, whom some who posit the incoherent 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that a child born to only one U.S. citizen parent with the child having dual U.S/foreign citizenship means that the child is eligible to be POTUS.

The neo-birthers insist that since "natural born Citizen" was not defined by the 1787 framers (or the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment framers), that means that their neo-birther theory of ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to only one U.S. citizen parent is what "natural born Citizen" means.

THAT is incoherent, incongruous and schizophrenic.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union