Singular
Citizenship vs. Dual Citizenship
This
post is modified with with corrections from a similar post responging
to article contributor Cindy Simpson on American Thinker
on April 23, 2015
>>
http://www.americanthinkercom/articles/2015/04/natural_born_gop_presidential_candidates.html
<<>>
Cindy,
Your
article about "natural born Citizen" is much closer than
other American Thinker authors to original birther John Jay's
original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born"
in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to
George Washington.
"Natural
born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers have
been consistently coherent in asserting that "born" can
only mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY
citizenship of one nation ONLY by birth on U.S.
soil/jurisdiction ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married
parents.
It
is the 2008-2015 "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers who have
been consistently incoherent in asserting that in 1787, only four
years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris ended the war of independence
from England, a foreign power, that original birther John Jay was
promoting the 2000s theory of dual U.S./English (foreign) citizenship
by birth on either U.S. soil OR foreign soil to only one U.S.
citizen parent.
Even
a teenager can define a singular U.S. citizenship "natural born
Citizen" if presented with these six choices.
1-Born
on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents (Fiorina, Paul,
etc.).
2-Born
on U.S. soil to ONE U.S. citizen parent (Obama, etc.).
3-Born
on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. citizen parents (Rubio, Jindal, Haley,
etc.).
4-Born
on foreign soil to TWO U.S. citizen parents (Sen. Schweiker, etc.).
5-Born
on foreign soil to ONE U.S. citizen parent (Cruz, etc.).
6-Born
on foreign soil to ZERO U.S. citizen parents (Absolutely nobody,
etc.)
#1
is coherent and congruent with original birther John Jay's original
genesis original intent for "born."
#2-#5
are obviously incoherent and NOT congruent with Jay.
#6
is thrown in to show the incoherent absurdity of dual U.S./foreign
citizenship, a kissin' cousin of ZERO U.S. citizenship.
Art
U.S.
Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
C_Simpson
Thank
you Art. And isn't it interesting, for example, that Prof. Jacobson,
in his very lengthy essay on the subject, dismissed dual citizenship
in a tiny, 3-sentence paragraph, saying that "nothing"
"would make such a condition disqualifying" -- when it is
exactly that "condition" (of dual citizenship) that
"natural born" would preclude, or for that matter, the
original intent of the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause
in the 14th amendment never create
This
was my response to Cindy Simpson...
Amendment
XIV dittos Cindy...
Also relevant is the original intent of the "born" word written by Jacob Howard, the main author of the first sentence of Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction... are citizens...."
Everybody, "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers and "nbC" original meaning original intent birthers, agree implicitly that the living 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes were "naturalized" by the Fourteenth Amendment. What the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers can not allow as the original intent of "born" in Amendment 14 is the obvious original intent implicit in the word "born" as a reference, initially and primarily, to the children, and their children's children, who would be born to the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes, as having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation, America, in 1868 and perpetually, from generation to generation.
It is not coherent for the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers to tacitly posit with their 2008-2015 theory that John Bingham and Jacob Howard were implying dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the children who would be born to the free Negroes "naturalized" by the Fourteenth Amendment, or for the children born to future generations of Caucasians and Negroes who would immigrate to America and naturalize. In 1868 the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment language, specifically the word "born," had no idea that future legislators and jurists would assert that being born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents would qualify a person to be a citizen, and definitely NOT constitutionally qualified to be "...eligible to the Office of President."
Also relevant is the original intent of the "born" word written by Jacob Howard, the main author of the first sentence of Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction... are citizens...."
Everybody, "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers and "nbC" original meaning original intent birthers, agree implicitly that the living 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes were "naturalized" by the Fourteenth Amendment. What the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers can not allow as the original intent of "born" in Amendment 14 is the obvious original intent implicit in the word "born" as a reference, initially and primarily, to the children, and their children's children, who would be born to the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes, as having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation, America, in 1868 and perpetually, from generation to generation.
It is not coherent for the "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers to tacitly posit with their 2008-2015 theory that John Bingham and Jacob Howard were implying dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the children who would be born to the free Negroes "naturalized" by the Fourteenth Amendment, or for the children born to future generations of Caucasians and Negroes who would immigrate to America and naturalize. In 1868 the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment language, specifically the word "born," had no idea that future legislators and jurists would assert that being born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents would qualify a person to be a citizen, and definitely NOT constitutionally qualified to be "...eligible to the Office of President."
That
is why the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court holding that a child born
on U.S. soil to alien parents (Wong Kim Ark, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal,
Gov. Haley, etc.) is a "citizen" only, but still eligible
to be POTUS, should be overturned and ONLY singular U.S.
citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents
should be recognized as the ONLY original intent of the
framers of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If
the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark holding is not overturned, an Article V
convention of states should be pursued to propose an amendment to
clarify the original intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. A
constitutional Article V convention of states to propose amendments
is an idea whose time has come to be implemented.
Art
U.S.
Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
No comments:
Post a Comment