1. A short account of an interesting or humorous event.
2. Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biography.
1. Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis.
Mario wrote on his blog on October 4, 2015 at 4:58 PM about Cruz and Minor v. Happersett:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Here is my point.
Original birther John Jay is also anecdotal, and is just as valid for anecdotal support to define an “nbC,” as is Sen. Cruz's “breathed...air” and the Minor Court's “resort ... elsewhere ... nomenclature ... framers ... familiar ... never doubted ….”
In my opinion, the Minor v. Happersett Court affirms John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” that was eventually incorporated into Article II Section 1 clause 5 by the framers, but Sen. Cruz's anecdotal “breathed...air” reference does not follow Jay's “original genesis original intent” presuppositional foundation for being "born" a “citizen” with the “perquisite” of being uniquely "by birth" alone “...eligible to the Office of President.” The “perk” of being “by birth” an Article II “natural born Citizen” is presidential eligibility, a “perk” that is NOT available to an Article I Representative “citizen” or an Article I Senator “citizen.”
I'm all for the primary and foundational use of the “rigorous or scientific analysis” by adducing the actual holdings of the different Courts, and secondarily, as the Minor Court did in adducing an anecdotal “event,” of which the “framers...were familiar,” I'm also for adducing analysis of historical events that support the “rigorous or scientific analysis” holdings of the Court, as the Minor v. Happersett Court did in this citizenship and voting case.
I never get a coherent “dual U.S./foreign citizenship” rebuttal and refutation when I bring original birther John Jay into the conversation, especially when I write that, according to the “nomenclature” with which Jay was familiar, Jay's “original genesis original intent” for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for POTUS eligibility was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents ONLY married to each other BEFORE the birth of their child.
For some reason the “nbC” new meaning neo-birthers, Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Progressive, Conservative, Anarchist (still in the nascent stage of “cell” division), NEVER have a coherent rebuttal to the anecdotal assertion that John Jay's original genesis original intent was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents to be “...eligible to the Office of President.”
Ted Cruz's argument that he is a natural born citizen because he never breathed air when he was not an American is pretty lame.