Simple Questions for BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers

Simple Questions for BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on April 14, 2015 at 10:46 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

<<>>

Here are simple constitutional intent questions for Democratic and Republican "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, including BIG Talkers on radio and tv, and online BIG Bloggers, who are soooooooooo very concerned about the integrity of the U.S. Constitution, except for the Article II eligibility issue for some opaque reason:

Article II - Section 1 - clause 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen,..., shall be eligible to the Office of President;...."

Amendment XII - clause 2 - entire last sentence
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Article II Section 1 clause 5 was adopted on September 17, 1787, ratified first by Delaware on December 7, 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788 by New Hampshire, the ninth state, officially establishing the Constitution. On July 26, 1788, New York was the eleventh state to ratify, and on September 13, 1788 the Continental Congress put the new Constitution into operation. North Carolina ratified on November 21, 1789 and Rhode Island, the thirteenth state, ratified on May 29, 1790. Almost seventeen years after September 17, 1787, Amendment XII was ratified on June 15, 1804.

Why are the dates important? In seventeen years, the September 17, 1787 original meaning of "natural born Citizen" was EITHER still the same original meaning on June 15, 1804 OR it was NOT.

So, if a caller is able to break through the call screen filters to talk about POTUS eligibility with the radio BIG Talkers, here are a few hypothetical questions for radio BIG Talkers Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Dana Loesch and et al., whoever "et al." may be since there are soooooooooo many "et al." BIG Talkers and wanna be BIG Talkers:

Caller on the radio to Sean Hannity:
Sean, because you claim Ronald Reagan as a political guiding light, what do you think Reagan as President may have said about the original intent of Article II and Amendment XII in the context of POTUS eligibility? Since Amendment XII was ratified almost seventeen years after Article II was adopted, do you think that Pres. Reagan would say that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President" in Amendment XII would mean the same thing as "No person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible to the Office of President" in Article II?

Sean:
Before I answer I need to ask, are you a Joseph Farah fanatic and WND.com reader, and how did you get passed the call screener? Well, since you made it on the radio, it is an easy question with an easy answer: Yes, Pres. Reagan would probably agree that they mean the same thing today in 2015 as they both meant in 1787 and 1804.

Guest on the radio to Mark Levin:
Mark, what do you think Reagan as President may have said that both statements meant in 1787 and 1804? Do you think that Pres. Reagan would say that a "natural born Citizen" would have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents?

Mark:
Get off my phone you big dope! Mr. Screener, how did this Constitution fanatic get through?

Guest on the radio to Glenn Beck:
Glenn, since the truth lives on your radio and tv programs and does not have an agenda, what do you think Reagan as President may have said that both statements meant in 1787 and 1804? Would Pres. Reagan say that the original intent in 1787 was singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation by being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, but that the original intent seventeen years later in 1804 was dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to only one U.S. citizen parent, and that EITHER singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship was A-OK for POTUS eligibility?

Glenn:
How did you get passed the call screener? Are you a Sheriff Joe Arpaio fanatic as well as a Joseph Farah and WND.com fanatic?

Guest on the radio to Rush Limbaugh:
Rush, since excellence in broadcasting is your theme, what do you think Reagan as President may have said that both statements meant in 1787 and 1804? Would he say that Sen. Rand Paul is a "natural born Citizen" since he was born with singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation by being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen married parents, and that Sen. Marco Rubio was ALSO an "nbC" even though he was born on U.S. soil to two married parents were were NOT U.S. citizens?

Rush:
Click. What the...? Snerdly, how did this Constitution fanatic make it passed you?

Guest on the radio with Laura Ingraham:
Laura, since you were a law clerk for Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and you know the U.S. Constitution, what do you think Reagan as President may have said that both statements meant in 1787 and 1804? Would he say that Carly Fiorina is a "natural born Citizen" since she was born with singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation by being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen married parents, and that Sen. Ted Cruz was ALSO an "nbC" even though he was born on foreign soil that was NOT U.S. jurisdiction and born to one U.S. citizen parent married to a non-U.S. citizen?

Laura:
Click. Another Constitution fanatic, sheesh. I'm just trying to defeat ObamaCare and Obama's economic nonsense, so I can't be bothered about the POTUS eligibility issue, pun intended, of any person.

Guest on the radio with Dana Loesch:
Dana, you obviously know the U.S. Constitution, especially the Second Amendment, so what do you think Reagan as President may have said that both statements mean in 1787 and 1804? Since the Second Amendment was intended to be perpetually “necessary to the security of a free State,” do you think that Reagan would say that Article II and Amendment XII were intended to be perpetual too, and, unless amended, they would both mean the same thing in 2008-2015 as they meant in 1787 and 1804?

Dana:

What is it that both are supposed to mean?

Caller:

They both mean that POTUS eligibility required ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Dana:
Reagan would probably say that the original intent of the Second Amendment was perpetual defense against tyranny, and that both Article II and Amendment XII were perpetual defense against foreign agents usurping control and command of our tripartite Federation, Congress, Executive and Judiciary.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, one question remains:

When will the radio and tv and print/web BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers define and defend ALL of the Constitution, not just Article I or Article V or Amendment XIV, and start defending the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II and Amendment XII as having the original genesis original intent meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents?

When?

With the 2008-2015 track record of the radio and tv BIG Talkers and BIG Bloggers, probably not until the day that the anti-U.S. Constitution competing ideologies that promote political tyranny (fundamentalist communism) and political/religious tyranny (fundamentalist islamism) are defeated on the same day, the day that snowballs do NOT melt in the fires of hades.

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