The Math & Logic of ONLY "1"

The Math & Logic of ONLY "1"

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on March 19, 2015 at 9:39 AM.

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

<<>>

I am not a mathematician, so here is a quote I found about why the “1” exponent is not used in a polynomial term. Published by Barnes & Noble and authored by Michael Willers, "Algebra: The x and y of Everyday Math" is a layman's brief history of math and the basics of algebra. On page 32 in the chapter titled "The Power of Polynomials" is an easy to understand definition for non-mathematicians.

What Is a Polynomial?

First let's introduce some terminology: a polynomial is a collection of terms. In elementary mathematics a "term" is a collection of variables raised to exponents and multiplied by a coefficient. An example of a term is 3x² where "3" is the coefficient, "x" is the variable, and "2" is the exponent. Another example of a term would be 5xy³ where "5" is the coefficient, "x" and "y" are the variables, and "1" and "3" are the exponents. Note that although there is no exponent on the "x" it's implied that there is a "1" there.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The math/polynomial quote, specifically "although there is no exponent on the x it's implied that there is a "1" there,” has nothing to do with "natural born Citizen" and how/why "nbC" is a proper subset of "citizen/born citizen," but it is math logic applicable to the Minor v. Happersett Court's "nomenclature" statement which tacitly implies that the unanimous Court understood that "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 had ONLY one meaning, which is itself based on original birther John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington, and which Washington agreed with: ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

In other words, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

The math significance question is this: why does the x in the second example, 5xy³ NOT have a "1" exponent superscript? Well, it simply is not needed. As the author of the text says "it's implied that there is a "1" there." So, the "2" and "3" exponents are written and explicit, but the "1" exponent is implicit. More than one must be explicit and ONLY one is accepted as "implied."

ONLY one is implied, as in ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY one nation.

Applied to original birther John Jay and Jay's "original genesis original intent," there is the birth issue, no pun intended, of why "natural born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers insist that the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a wife by marriage in 1787 America to a U.S. citizen husband implies that, to Jay, a "natural born Citizen" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY "1" nation) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents. That is what the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court tacitly implied.

In other words, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

The birth issue, no pun intended again, requires that a few obvious questions be asked of and answered by 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers who insist that "nbC" was not defined as ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by the 1787 delegates, they insist, even though "nbC" was NOT defined, the new meaning neo-birthers insist that they are absolutely sure that a “natural born Citizen” can have ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship, a citizen of two nations by being born on either U.S. or foreign soil to either two OR one (OR zero—suggested by those who want to naturalize adopted children into POTUS eligibility) U.S. citizen parents, and THAT is why the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, Democratic Obama new meaning neo-birthers support Pres. Obama, and why Republican new meaning neo-birthers support Sen. Cruz or Sen. Rubio.

Q – Where is the factual record, historical and/or anecdotal, that in 1787 America, when "natural born Citizen" was added to the Constitution, that the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a wife by marriage to a U.S. citizen husband implied dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the child, such as U.S./English citizenship?

A – There is no record of debate that the “unity of citizenship and allegiance” implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Q – Why is there no written record of Congress, or even anecdotal public discussion at the time, of George Washington asking Jay what he meant by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington, and if he meant dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the child, such as U.S./English citizenship?

A – Washington never asked the question because he understood that Jay meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Q – Why is there no written or anecdotal record of Washington NOT asking Jay if he meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or BOTH U.S./foreign citizenship, such as U.S./English citizenship?

A – Washington did NOT ask Jay what he meant because he understood what Jay meant and he agreed with Jay.

Q – Why is there no record of the convention delegates debating the purpose of uniting "natural born" and "Citizen," and if it meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship, such as U.S./English citizenship?

A – The convention delegates agreed with the implicit meaning of uniting “natural” and “born” and “Citizen.”

Q – Was it understood by EVERYONE in1787 that "nbC" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?
A – Yes.

Q – Was it understood by EVERYONE in 1787 that "nbC" meant ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
A – No.

Q – Was it understood by EVERYONE in 1787 that "nbC" meant BOTH U.S. citizenship AND U.S./foreign citizenship?
A – No.

BOTH U.S./English citizenship would have been schizophrenic, incongruous, incoherent in 1787 America only four years after the end of hostilities with England in 1783.

In other words, in 1787 "nbC" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Well, since dual U.S./foreign citizenship was NOT the common public meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America, and by using the polynomial simple math logic of the x without the "1" exponent implies one and ONLY one, then, NOT dual citizenship but ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation) MUST have been the common law understanding in 1787 America.

For that simple logic reason, public discussion BEFORE ratification and a public explanation of the meaning of "nbC" was not needed, obviously. Using the logic of math that the x in the term 5xy³ means that the "1" exponent is implied, it is also logical to conclude that not ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by being born to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents who, by marriage in 1787 America, had singular U.S. citizenship, was "implied" in the word "born," but that the citizenship of the child would be ONLY singular U.S. citizenship because it was ONLY derived by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Not only did Washington implicitly understand that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation) was Jay's original meaning and original intent, and the convention delegates implicitly understood that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was the original meaning, but the states ratifiers, including “natural born Citizen” author and New York ratifier John Jay, ALSO implicitly understood that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was the original intent meaning. If John Jay had the original intent meaning of dual U.S./foreign citizenship, U.S./English, for example, he would have explicitly said so, and there definitely would have been debate and a written record would exist. Right?

Other than the diamond glistening in the math weeds, so to speak, that I found in the algebra book, that the "x" in the term 5xy³ means that the "1" exponent is implied, what do I know? I'm not a mathematician..

However, there are two things I DO know by applying the logic of the math that “1” is implied:

(1) ONLY one U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation) was implied by John Jay when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen,” and THAT is why the meaning of “nbC” was NOT discussed before debate, during debate and after debate by the convention delegates or by the ratifiers, one of whom was John Jay from New York.

(2) If ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship, for example U.S./English citizenship, was implied by John Jay when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen,” there most definitely would have been heated debate in 1787 just as there is today, from 2008-2015, and there definitely would be a Congressional record of the debate by the convention delegates about why ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation) ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents would have won the day, and that it would have won the day according to the common public meaning of the unity of citizenship and allegiance by marriage, meaning that ONLY the singular U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND that ONLY the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child, a “natural born Citizen” child, the ONLY “1” proper subset of “citizen/born citizen” who is eligible to be

The concomitant and serendipitous logical conclusion discovered in the polynomial math paragraph defining a “term” is that it could NOT have been the original intent of John Jay to propose “dual” citizenship, BOTH U.S. citizenship AND U.S./foreign citizenship, because by the logic of ONLY "1" (ONLY "1" nation), the union of two U.S. citizen parents who had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship can produce ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation. If the original genesis of the child was by the union of two persons who were NOT married to each other and the father WAS a U.S. citizen, then the child would be a “citizen” not eligible to be POTUS, and not a “natural born Citizen” eligible to be POTUS, because it take two U.S. citizen married parents to pass on ("devolve") their singular U.S. citizenship to a singular U.S. citizenship child.

That's my “hey, what do I know, I'm not a mathematician, Ph.D. or otherwise” math logic conclusion of “1” derived from the serendipitous discovery that the "x" without an exponent in the term 5xy³ means that the "1" exponent is implied—ONLY “1”, and why original birther John Jay would ONLY imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship in the word “born” in “natural born Citizen.”

The math logic of ONLY “1” and ONLY singular U.S. citizenship (ONLY one nation) is applicable retroactively to the Taney Court Dred Scott decision in 1857 which was corrected by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “born...naturalized” language, and also applicable to the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment, the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, the 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision, the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision.

Finally, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents is the ONLY “1” math logic reason why the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court decision that “declared” that a child born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents was a “citizen” and eligible to vote MUST be overturned by the Supreme Court, corrected by the Congress or corrected with an Article V amendment by either the bicameral Congress OR an Article V convention of states' legislatures to propose an amendment to clarify that the Fourteenth Amendment language in the first six words in the first sentence of Section 1, “All persons born or naturalized in...,” specifically “born” a citizen and “naturalized” a citizen, BOTH had the original intent meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

The original intent in 1868 of Rep. John Bingham and Sen. Jacob Howard, the main authors, and specifically of Section 1, was (1) NOT that “born” in 1868 meant for the 1868 free Negroes singular U.S. citizenship with eligibility to be POTUS, and also (2) that “born” most definitely did NOT mean for the 1868 Amendment free Negroes dual U.S./foreign citizenship with eligibility to be POTUS. THAT is as absurd today in 2015 as it would have been in 1868. BOTH of the Fourteenth Amendment words, “born” and “naturalized,” imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship without the eligibility to be POTUS.

BOTH words in Amendment 14 mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.
BOTH words in Amendment 14 do NOT include eligibility to be POTUS.

In other words, in 1868 in the Fourteenth Amendment "born" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents OR ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, while in 1787 in Article II "nbC" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2015/01/time-to-change-natural-born-citizen.html )