Supreme
Court of the United States
vs.
Natural
Born Citizen
Natural
Law Original Genesis "Natural Born"
Positive
Law Original Intent "Citizen"
~
Supreme
Court of the United States
vs.
Natural
Law and Positive Law
Natural
Law Original Genesis "Natural Born"
Positive
Law Original Intent "Citizen"
~
Supreme
Court of the United States
vs.
Original
Genesis Original Intent
Natural
Law Original Genesis "Natural Born"
Positive
Law Original Intent "Citizen"
This
post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario
Apuzzo's blog on June 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/05/senator-cruz-senator-rubio-and-governor.html
<<>>
A
few minutes ago, June 26, 2015 at about 8am El Paso, Texas, USA time,
the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 to 4, with Roberts, Scalia,
Thomas and Alito each writing separate dissenting statements,
declared that homosexual marriage is on par with heterosexual
marriage.
What does that mean for the future of "natural born Citizen" in Article II as it relates to the heterosexual family, the ONLY "family" in which a child is "born" as a natural born citizen to two U.S. citizen "married" heterosexual parents?
Well, an amendment to the Constitution will be necessary to eliminate the confusion that homosexual "marriage" has created as to who is a "natural born Citizen...eligible to the Office of President."
Relative to my two previous comments about Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar's "implicit constitution" in his 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution, and his statement in the National Archive panel discussion where he says at June 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM
What does that mean for the future of "natural born Citizen" in Article II as it relates to the heterosexual family, the ONLY "family" in which a child is "born" as a natural born citizen to two U.S. citizen "married" heterosexual parents?
Well, an amendment to the Constitution will be necessary to eliminate the confusion that homosexual "marriage" has created as to who is a "natural born Citizen...eligible to the Office of President."
Relative to my two previous comments about Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar's "implicit constitution" in his 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution, and his statement in the National Archive panel discussion where he says at June 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM
"Domestically, here are the three rules, prescriptive and descriptive, that I put forth for constitutional amendments. They should add to liberty and equality, not detract from them...,"
and
"One
man, one
woman, marriage, that restricts
liberty
and equality...."
and,
in the next post with the same date and time,
“...no discrimination on the grounds of sex....It's already there implicitly...States are giving us gay marriage...,"
It
looks like Prof. Amar's call for constitutional amendments will be
needed to be fulfilled for, as he emphasizes in his speeches,
"liberty and equality"
purposes.
If and when "natural born Citizen" is removed from the Constitution with it's implicit meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married and ONLY heterosexual parents, that means that defending Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen," including what I prefer to call original "born" birther author John Jay's original meaning, his "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.
Randy Barnett has a review of Prof. Amar's 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution at the Wall Street Journal* titled The Mirage of Progressive Originalism, a new legal theory attempts—and fails—to unite leftist politics with constitutional fidelity.
* The Mirage of Progressive Originalism -
If and when "natural born Citizen" is removed from the Constitution with it's implicit meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married and ONLY heterosexual parents, that means that defending Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen," including what I prefer to call original "born" birther author John Jay's original meaning, his "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.
Randy Barnett has a review of Prof. Amar's 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution at the Wall Street Journal* titled The Mirage of Progressive Originalism, a new legal theory attempts—and fails—to unite leftist politics with constitutional fidelity.
* The Mirage of Progressive Originalism -
(
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444914904577619763983330558
)
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is Mario's comment on his Natutral Born Citizen blog on June 26, 2015
at 12:02 PM.
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Art,
"A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. That means born or reputed born in the United States is necessary, but not sufficient. It also means that birth to two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth is also necessary but not sufficient. What is also necessary but not sufficient is that the status of being a citizen be fixed from the moment of birth and not thereafter. Hence, (1) being a citizen from the moment of birth (2) by being born in a country (2) to parents who were both citizens of that country at the time of the child's birth, are necessary and all together sufficient conditions to be satisfied in order for one to be a natural born citizen. The clause means nothing more and nothing less.
"As seen, necessary conditions of the clause are, in addition to birth in the country of which both parents are citizens at the time of the child's birth, that citizenship attach at the moment of birth and that one be born to citizen parents. In that connection, how we define adoption or marriage by positive laws does not change the clause's meaning, which as we have seen provides the status of a natural born citizen from the time of a child's birth. If we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can change under positive laws, then the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment."
"A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. That means born or reputed born in the United States is necessary, but not sufficient. It also means that birth to two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth is also necessary but not sufficient. What is also necessary but not sufficient is that the status of being a citizen be fixed from the moment of birth and not thereafter. Hence, (1) being a citizen from the moment of birth (2) by being born in a country (2) to parents who were both citizens of that country at the time of the child's birth, are necessary and all together sufficient conditions to be satisfied in order for one to be a natural born citizen. The clause means nothing more and nothing less.
"As seen, necessary conditions of the clause are, in addition to birth in the country of which both parents are citizens at the time of the child's birth, that citizenship attach at the moment of birth and that one be born to citizen parents. In that connection, how we define adoption or marriage by positive laws does not change the clause's meaning, which as we have seen provides the status of a natural born citizen from the time of a child's birth. If we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can change under positive laws, then the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment."
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This
is my comment on June 26, 2015 at 12:04 PM.
ajtelles
said...
Gov.
Walker and a Constitutional Amendment
or
A "several states" Article V Convention of States
or
A "several states" Article V Convention of States
Mario,
two things.
First, in my earlier comment, in the paragraph before the PS, some words are missing. It should read "Mario, if and when "natural born Citizen" is removed from the Constitution with an amendment that the progressives condone, including it's implicit meaning of ONLY...."
Second, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stated after the SCOTUS homosexual marriage decision that, as President, he would propose an amendment stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, aka heterosexual marriage.
As I have commented here on your originalist blog multiple times, today is the day for a serious national discussion about an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose the amendment Gov. Walker is proposing, with clarifying language explicitly AND "implicitly" stating that the original genesis original intent of "natural born Citizen" is to be "born" ONLY with singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents ONLY married BEFORE the child is born.
On his blog I asked Mario what he and his visitors think about We the People, a la the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, taking control of the Article V authority to correct the legislative activity of the SCOTUS, since, as some originalists like David Barton of Wallbuilders said to Glenn Beck in the third hour of his radio program today (June 26, 2015), a constitutional amendment proposed by (my words: the sitting Article V convention of states, aka) the House and Senate, will NEVER propose a corrective amendment AND three quarters of the states will NEVER ratify an amendment if proposed by the Congress?
Art
First, in my earlier comment, in the paragraph before the PS, some words are missing. It should read "Mario, if and when "natural born Citizen" is removed from the Constitution with an amendment that the progressives condone, including it's implicit meaning of ONLY...."
Second, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stated after the SCOTUS homosexual marriage decision that, as President, he would propose an amendment stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, aka heterosexual marriage.
As I have commented here on your originalist blog multiple times, today is the day for a serious national discussion about an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose the amendment Gov. Walker is proposing, with clarifying language explicitly AND "implicitly" stating that the original genesis original intent of "natural born Citizen" is to be "born" ONLY with singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents ONLY married BEFORE the child is born.
On his blog I asked Mario what he and his visitors think about We the People, a la the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, taking control of the Article V authority to correct the legislative activity of the SCOTUS, since, as some originalists like David Barton of Wallbuilders said to Glenn Beck in the third hour of his radio program today (June 26, 2015), a constitutional amendment proposed by (my words: the sitting Article V convention of states, aka) the House and Senate, will NEVER propose a corrective amendment AND three quarters of the states will NEVER ratify an amendment if proposed by the Congress?
Art
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here
is my comment on June 26, 2015 at 12:16 PM about Mario's last words
of the second paragraph with the yellow
highlight.
ajtelles
said...
Dittos
to "the meaning of the clause"
Mario,
As you wrote at June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM, "...the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment" and so the current "natural born Citizen" language will definitely be attacked on "liberty and equality" grounds by homosexual marriage advocates such as Yale Law Professor Amar who has written that the "implicit constitution" contains homosexual marriage.
So a first ever We the People Article V convention of the "several states" MUST propose the constitution amendment first to defend the original genesis of "born" with the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents for the future of the "Posterity" of the Union as is stated in the preamble of the Constitution.
Art
Mario,
As you wrote at June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM, "...the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment" and so the current "natural born Citizen" language will definitely be attacked on "liberty and equality" grounds by homosexual marriage advocates such as Yale Law Professor Amar who has written that the "implicit constitution" contains homosexual marriage.
So a first ever We the People Article V convention of the "several states" MUST propose the constitution amendment first to defend the original genesis of "born" with the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents for the future of the "Posterity" of the Union as is stated in the preamble of the Constitution.
Art
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here
is Mario's comment on June 26, 2015 at 12:35 PM.
Mario
Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Art,
Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say that the meaning of the natural born citizen clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment. The clause means what I said it means. How we define adoption and marriage through positive laws does not change the meaning of the clause.
Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say that the meaning of the natural born citizen clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment. The clause means what I said it means. How we define adoption and marriage through positive laws does not change the meaning of the clause.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ajtelles
said...
Dittos
to "did not say...needs to be changed":
Mario,
No, I did not misunderstand. I was agreeing with your conclusion in the last sentence on June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM:
Mario,
No, I did not misunderstand. I was agreeing with your conclusion in the last sentence on June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM:
"If
we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can
change under positive laws, then
the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional
amendment."
I
am reading "if" and "we" in your sentence
in the inclusive sense, since "if" means if and "we"
probably does not apply to you, or CDR Kerchner, for example, or the
host and commentators on BirtherReport.com, or to me as being
advocates to change the clause.
So I'm assuming that "we" refers to heterosexual advocates for homosexuality with the same social status as heterosexuality such as progressive Prof. Akail Amar, married and the father of two children, OR homosexual advocates of any political persuasion who, on "liberty and equality" grounds, want to change the original genesis meaning of "born" as a reference to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents, and want what they think is inclusive "equality" language to include adopted children. Inclusive "liberty and equality" language to include adopted children will require a constitutional amendment.
So, to counter the incongruous and incoherent inclusive "liberty and equality" language that will change the meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen," the defense in the national conversation on radio, tv, blogs MUST be "proactive," including an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose an amendment defending marriage as Gov. Walker proposes, as ONLY between a male and a female, aka heterosexuals. We must be proactive and not simply reactive on blogs and talk programs because the homosexual marriage advocates will continue to be even more proactive than they have been in the past in achieving "liberty and equality" for homosexuality and homosexual marriage with a constitutional amendment with inclusive language, as Prof. Amar advocates. Prof. Amar didn't talk about POTUS eligibility for adopted children, whether adopte by single or married heterosexuals or homosexuals, but his "liberty and equality" amendments proposal would naturally include POTUS eligibility for adopted children of single or married heterosexual parents or homosexual "parents".
That "inclusive" progressive amendment language will necessitate the excision and separation of the exclusive original genesis meaning of "born" from Article II and rejection of the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth, not by adoption, ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
So I'm assuming that "we" refers to heterosexual advocates for homosexuality with the same social status as heterosexuality such as progressive Prof. Akail Amar, married and the father of two children, OR homosexual advocates of any political persuasion who, on "liberty and equality" grounds, want to change the original genesis meaning of "born" as a reference to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents, and want what they think is inclusive "equality" language to include adopted children. Inclusive "liberty and equality" language to include adopted children will require a constitutional amendment.
So, to counter the incongruous and incoherent inclusive "liberty and equality" language that will change the meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen," the defense in the national conversation on radio, tv, blogs MUST be "proactive," including an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose an amendment defending marriage as Gov. Walker proposes, as ONLY between a male and a female, aka heterosexuals. We must be proactive and not simply reactive on blogs and talk programs because the homosexual marriage advocates will continue to be even more proactive than they have been in the past in achieving "liberty and equality" for homosexuality and homosexual marriage with a constitutional amendment with inclusive language, as Prof. Amar advocates. Prof. Amar didn't talk about POTUS eligibility for adopted children, whether adopte by single or married heterosexuals or homosexuals, but his "liberty and equality" amendments proposal would naturally include POTUS eligibility for adopted children of single or married heterosexual parents or homosexual "parents".
That "inclusive" progressive amendment language will necessitate the excision and separation of the exclusive original genesis meaning of "born" from Article II and rejection of the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth, not by adoption, ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents.
Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )
No comments:
Post a Comment