Sen.
Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz
vs.
Donald
J. Trump
Obfuscation
vs.
Original
Genesis Original Intent Common Sense
At
the 6th GOP debate on January 14, 2016, Senator Ted Cruz
cited an "extreme"
birther theory and concludes that Donald Trump is also not a "natural
born Citizen" and also not eligible to be POTUS if Sen. Cruz,
Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal are not eligible.
Let's
start with the American Heritage Dictionary definition of
"obfuscation."
obfuscation
n.
obfuscate
v.
obfuscatory
adj.
1.
To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or
understand.
2.
To render indistinct or dim; darken.
Transcript
from the Sixth Republican Debate
January
14, 2016
Here
is my
7 min. 30 sec.
transcript of the Cruz and Trump exchange from the January 14, 2016
Republican debate.
The
transcript starts
a little after 28m:
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeqe_XKWs3o
The
transcript starts at about 23 minutes:
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPpWwcmpvH4
This
8 min video with transcript is from RealClearPositics.com:
>>
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/14/cruz_vs_trump_over_natural_birth_under_your_theory_you_would_be_disqualified_from_running_for_president.html
Neal
Cavuto:
I'll
start with you Senator Cruz.
Now,
you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist, no one would doubt
that. And, as you know, the U.S. Constitution says only natural born
citizens are eligible for the office of president of the United
States.
Stop
me if you've heard this before.
Now.
You were born [mild and friendly laughter], you were born in
Canada to an American mother, so you were and are considered an
American citizen. But, that fellow next to you, Donald Trump, and
others, have said that being born in Canada means you are not natural
born, and that has raised questions about your eligibility.
Do
you want to try to close this topic once and for all tonight?
Senator
Ted Cruz:
Hah.
Well, Neil, I'm glad we are focusing on the important topics of the
evening [friendly laughter and applause].
You
know, back in September, my friend Donald said he'd had his lawyers
look at this from every which way and there was no issue there. There
was nothing to this birther issue [friendly laughter and
applause]. Now, since September the Constitution hasn't changed
[friendly laughter and applause and guffaws] but the poll
numbers have [friendly and loud voices and applause]. And, I
recognize, I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers
are falling in Iowa.
But,
the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding
U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad [ed.
the child is the one
born abroad] is a natural born citizen. If a
soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen.
That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was
eligible to run for president. If an American missionary has a child
abroad, that child is a natural born citizen. That's why George
Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to run for president even though he
was born in Mexico.
At
the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward.
But,
I would note the birther
theories
that Donald has been relying on.
Some
of the more
extreme ones insist
you must not only be born on U.S.
soil, but have two parents
born on U.S. soil. Under that theory, not
only would I be disqualified, Marco
Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby
Jindal would be disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald
J. Trump would be disqualified [friendly loud and long
laughter and applause].
Donald
Trump:
Not
me.
Cruz:
Because,
because Donald's mother was born in
Scotland, she was naturalized.
Now,
Donald.
Trump:
But
I was born here.
Cruz:
On
the issue of citizenship, Donald.
Trump:
A
big difference.
Cruz:
On
the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm
not going to use your mother's birth against you.
Trump:
Good,
because it wouldn't work.
Cruz:
You're
an American as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest
we focus on whose best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief, because
that's the most important question facing the country [friendly
loud applause].
Cavuto:
Mr.
Trump. Did you address that? Did you raise that because of his rising
poll numbers?
Trump:
Let
me just tell you something, and you know because you just saw the
numbers yourself. NBC, Wall Street Journal just came out with a poll
[unfriendly audience boos] headlined Trump way
up, Cruz going down. I mean [unfriendly audience noise], so
you can't [noise continues], they don't like the Wall Street
Journal, they don't like NBC, but I like the poll [unfriendly
audience noise continues], and frankly, it just came out, and, in
Iowa now, as you know Ted, in the last three polls, I'm beating you.
So you know, you shouldn't misrepresent how well you're doing with
the polls. You don't have to say that. In fact, I was all for you
until you started doing that, because that's a misrepresentation,
number one.
Number
two. This isn't me saying it. I don't care. I think I'm going to win
fair and square. I don't have to win this way [friendly mild
audience applause]. Thank you.
Laurence
Tribe, from Harvard, of Harvard, said that there is a serious
question as to whether or not Ted can do this. Ok? There are other
attorneys that feel, and very, very fine constitutional attorneys,
that feel that because he was not
born on the land, he cannot
run for office.
Here's
the problem. We're running, we're running, he does great, I win, I
choose him as my vice presidential candidate and the Democrats sue
because we can't take him along for the ride. I don't like that. Ok?
The
fact is, and if for some reason he beats the rest of the field
[unfriendly audience boos], he beats the rest of the field
[unfriendly noise continues], see, they don't like that. They
don't like that. No, they don't like that he beats the rest of the
field because they want me [friendly and loud voices and
applause]. But, if for some reason he beats the rest of the
field, I already know the Democrats are going to be bringing a suit.
You have a big lawsuit over your head while you're running, and you
become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in
office?
So,
you should go out, get a declaratory judgment, let the courts decide.
And, you shouldn't have mentioned the polls because I wouldn't have
been much different.
Cavuto:
Why
now? Why are you raising this issue now?
Trump:
Because
now he's doing a little bit better [loud audience voices and
applause]. I didn't care before [noise continues]. No,
it's true. Hey, look. He never had a chance. Now he's doing better.
He's got probably a four or five percent chance [Cruz smiles,
audience laughter].
Cavuto:
Thank
you, Mr. Trump.
Trump:
The
fact is, there is a big overhang. There's a big question mark on your
head, and you can't do that to the Party. You really can't do that to
the party. You have to have certainty. Even if it was a one percent;
and it's far greater than one percent 'cause he wasn't born. I mean,
you have great constitutional lawyers who say you can't run. I'm not
bringing a suit, I promise, but the Democrats are going to bring a
lawsuit, and you can't. You have to have certainty. You can't have a
question. I can agree with you, or not, but you can't have a question
over your head [unfriendly audience voices].
Cavuto:
Senator,
do you want to respond?
Cruz:
Well,
listen, I've spent my entire life defending the Constitution before
the U.S. Supreme Court, and I'll tell you, I'm not going to be taking
legal advice from Donald Trump [friendly loud audience voice and
applause].
Trump:
You
don't have to. Take it from Laurence Tribe. Take it from your
professor. Take it from your own professor.
Cruz:
The
chances of any litigation proceedig and succeeding on this are zero.
Trump:
That's
wrong.
Cruz:
And
Mr. Trump is very focused on Larry
Tribe. Let me tell you who Larry Tribe is. He's a left wing
judicial activist Harvard Law professor who was Al Gore's lawyer in
Bush vs. Gore. He's a major Hillary Clinton supporter, and there's a
reason why Hillary's supporters are echoing Donald's attacks on me.
Trump:
He's
not the only one.
Cruz:
Because
Hillary wants to face Donald Trump in the general election.
Trump:
He's
not the only one. There are many lawyers.
Cruz:
And,
I'll tell you what Donald. You very kindly, just a moment ago,
offered me the VP slot [Trump smiles, friendly audience voices and
applause]. I'll tell you what. If this all works out, I'm happy
to consider naming you as VP, and so, if you happen to be right, you
could get the top job at the end of the day [friendly audience
voices and applause].
Trump:
No
[audience noise continues]. I like it. I'd consider it, but I
think I'll go back to building building if it doesn't work out.
Cruz:
Actually,
I'd like to get you to build the wall.
Trump:
I
have the feeling it's going to work out, actually.
Cavuto:
Alright.
<<End
of Transcript>>
In
his response to Neil Cavuto Sen. Cruz obfuscated about "natural
born" and tacitly avoided the "Citizen" issue when he
said:
"...
I would note the birther theories that Donald has been relying
on. Some of the more extreme ones insist you
must not only be born on U.S. soil, but have two
parents born on U.S. soil."
"Under
that theory, not only would I be disqualified, ... but ...
Donald J. Trump would be disqualified."
My
Comment:
So,
Sen. Cruz, WHAT are you saying and what are you NOT
saying?
Sen.
Cruz, you are accurate about what is "extreme": "the
birther
theories ...
extreme
... be born on
U.S. soil,
but have
two parents
born on U.S. soil,"
so why do you not spell out what you think is NOT "extreme?"
Sen.
Cruz, what "birther" theory are you
relying on?
Sen.
Cruz, are you relying on a "natural born Citizen" original
genesis original intent theory, a.k.a. an "original
birther" theory of ONLY singular U.S.
citizenship, or are you relying on a "natural born Citizen"
new meaning neobirther theory of ALSO / ONLY
dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
Sen.
Cruz, are you aware (yes, of course you are aware, you
memorized the U.S. Constitution at age thirteen—this is a
rhetorical question to get to a larger point) that "natural
born Citizen" with the ONLY implication of
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was a phrase that was
inspired by "original birther"
John Jay on July 25, 1787 when he underlined the word "born"
in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his
very good friend and also "original
birther" George Washington, a suggestion that was
accepted without debate by the 1787 "original birther"
framers and then eventually by all of the "original
birther" ratifiers of the several states, including it's
author "original birther" John Jay, a New
York state ratifier?
Or,
Sen. Cruz, are you relying on a 2000s mythology, a 2000s theory of
dual U.S./foreign citizenship inspired by "natural born Citizen"
new meaning neobirthers who assert that ONLY
one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient, to use your word, to "qualify"
to be president, and who also assert that it does not matter where
a "natural born Citizen" is born, on U.S. soil or foreign
soil?
Sen.
Cruz, if you do not agree that the ONLY
implication of John Jay's underlined word "born" was
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship to qualify to be
"...eligible to the Office of President," you and other
"natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers
need to adduce your sources who advocated for either ALSO
dual U.S./foreign citizenship, or ONLY dual
U.S./foreign citizenship. Here's a hint: ALSO
dual U.S./foreign citizenship implies that ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship was also discussed.
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating with the suggestion that there are many "birther
theories" are you tacitly suggesting that there are "birther
theories" that are NOT extreme? Are you saying
that there are original genesis original intent
"birther theories" that you do accept?
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are
"extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT
"extreme" is that the child MUST be born on U.S.
soil and that BOTH parents do NOT need to be born on
U.S. soil, but, if both parents naturalize, they MUST
naturalize as U.S. citizens BEFOE their child is born on U.S.
soil?
That
definitely is NOT extreme.
That
IS "...eligible to the Office of President"
common sense.
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are
"extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT
"extreme" is that the child MUST be born on U.S.
soil and that BOTH parents do NOT need to be born on
U.S. soil, but, if one parent IS born on U.S. soil as a U.S.
citizen and the other parent naturalizes, that the naturalized parent
MUST naturalize as a U.S. citizens BEFOE their child is born
on U.S. soil?
That
definitely is NOT extreme.
That
IS "...eligible to the Office of President"
common sense.
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are
"extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT
"extreme" is that the child does NOT need to be born
on U.S. soil but that BOTH parents MUST be born on U.S.
soil?
That
definitely IS extreme.
That
is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President"
common sense.
The
child DOES need to be born on U.S. soil, and the parents do
NOT need to be born on U.S. soil.
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are
"extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT
"extreme" is that the child does NOT need to be born
on U.S. soil and that BOTH parents do NOT need to be
born on U.S. soil?
That
definitely IS extreme.
That
is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President"
common sense.
The
child DOES need to be born on U.S. soil, and the parents do
NOT need to be born on U.S. soil
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are
"extreme" are you tacitly suggesting that what is NOT
"extreme" is that the child does NOT need to be born
on U.S. soil and that ONLY one parent
DOES need to be born on U.S. soil?
That
idefinitely IS extreme.
That
is NOT "...eligible to the Office of President"
common sense.
The
child DOES need to be born on U.S. soil and two parents do NOT
need to be born on U.S. soil.
Sen.
Cruz, by obfuscating about "birther theories" that are
"extreme" with your "extreme" example that
definitely is extreme, what would you say is NOT "extreme"
about citizenship, the heart of the issue about being a "natural
born Citizen" that you avoided by adducing only the issue of
soil of birth of the child and the soil of birth of one parent?
Here
is a way to clarify what is NOT extreme about citizenship.
Is
singular U.S. citizenship "extreme" relative
to being "...eligible to the Office of President" or is
singular U.S. citizenship NOT extreme?
Is
dual U.S./foreign citizenship "extreme"
relative to being "...eligible to the Office of President"
or is dual U.S./foreign citizenship
NOT extreme?
1
- Is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "extreme?"
2
- Is ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship
"extreme?"
3
- Is ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship
"extreme?"
Sen.
Cruz, is ONLY singular citizenship common sense?
Sen.
Cruz, is ALSO dual citizenship common sense?
Sen.
Cruz, is ONLY dual citizenship common sense?
Sen.
Cruz, it is simple to state and simple to understand the common sense
about being "from" birth and "by"
birth a U.S. "citizen" who is a U.S. "natural
born Citizen" who is "...eligible to the Office of
President:
ONLY,
by birth, singular U.S. citizenship.
ONLY
by birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction.
ONLY
by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.
<<>>
Mario
Apuzzo had a short comment about the Cruz / Trump exchange on his
Natural Born Citizen blog on January 15, 2016, the day after the
debate.
>>
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-citizen-is-one-thing-but-natural-born.html?showComment=1452863855001#c6985378128834215493
>>
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
>>
Leo,
>> Did you notice how Cruz attempted to dismiss the "birthers" as at least one state judge has done by arguing the "extreme" example, wherein he said that some birthers contend that the child's parents have to be born in the United States in order for their child born to them in the United States to be a natural born citizen.
>> Did you notice how Cruz attempted to dismiss the "birthers" as at least one state judge has done by arguing the "extreme" example, wherein he said that some birthers contend that the child's parents have to be born in the United States in order for their child born to them in the United States to be a natural born citizen.
>>
He then followed that since Trump's mother was not born in the United
States, Trump would not be a natural born citizen.
>>
Cruz is a liar again like before, like he did not know that he was a
citizen of Canada.
>>
We know that parents do not have to be born in the United States.
They only have to be U.S. citizens, either
natural born citizens of the United States or
citizens of the United States.
>>
When Trump was born in the United States, both of his parents were
U.S. citizens (his mother naturalized before Trump was born). His
father was a natural born citizen and his mother was a citizen of the
United States. That makes Trump a natural born citizen.
>>
Trump should have set Cruz straight on his lies and distortions.
>>
January 15, 2016 at 8:17 AM
<<>>
My
Comment:
Notice
"... the child's parents
have to be born in
the United States."
Sen.
Cruz, if both parents must be born in the U.S. is an "extreme"
example of what is NOT the original intent of Article II
Section 1 clause 5, specifically the word "born"
in "natural born Citizen," what do you say is NOT
the "extreme" proposition? What do you say IS the
1787 original genesis original intent common sense?
Sen.
Cruz, what are you proposing with the obfuscation, the "extreme"
theory, about both "...parents
have to be born in the United States" ?
1.
Are you asserting that two
married parents do NOT need to be born in the United States?
2.
Are you asserting that ONLY one
parent, married or not, must be born in the United States?
3.
Are you asserting that zero
parents, married or not, must be born in the United States?
4.
Are you asserting that the child must have two
U.S. citizen married parents?
5.
Are you asserting that the child must have one
U.S. citizen parent, married to the partner or not?
6.
Are you asserting that the child can have zero
U.S. citizen parents, married or not?
My
Comment:
Notice
"...either
natural born citizens of the United States or
citizens of the United States."
1.
Some "citizens" are U.S. "natural born Citizens"
ONLY "at"
birth and ONLY "by"
birth
2.
Some "citizens" are U.S. "citizens" ONLY
"at"
birth and ONLY "by"
statute
3.
Some "citizens" are U.S. "citizens" ONLY
"at"
naturalization and ONLY "by"
oath
A
"Natural Born Citizen" is Determined ONLY by Natural Law
and Positive Law
Since
"natural law"
(nature) can
not be changed by "positive
law" (statute),
the U.S.
Congress, the "positive
law" law
making body of the United
States, determines the
application of positive law (statute)
as positive law
is informed by natural law (nature).
The
U.S. Congress of "WE the
People" determines both
the positive
law of
"when"
and the natural
law of "how"
U.S. "natural
born Citizen" status
is acquired ONLY
by children: (1) ONLY
by children "at"
birth by positive law (statute),
AND (2)
ONLY
by children "by"
birth by natural law (no statute can change "nature"
and natural law birth).
A
"Citizen" is Determined ONLY by Positive Law and Positive
Law
The
U.S. Congress of "WE the
People" determines both
the positive
law of
"when"
and the positive
law of "how"
U.S. "citizen"
status
is acquired by BOTH
children and adults: (1)
ONLY
by children "at"
birth by positive law (statute),
OR (2)
ONLY
by adults "by"
oath by positive law (statute).
1.
Some "citizens" are U.S. "natural born Citizens"
ONLY "at" birth and ONLY "by"
birth.
1a.
Singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY "at" birth =
positive law.
1b.
Singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY "by" birth =
natural law.
1a
- "At"
birth = positive law:
The
U.S. Congress,
the "positive law" law
making body, determines the
positive law of "when"
U.S. natural
born citizen status
is acquired by the child — "at"
birth. It
must be from and "at"
birth for "...eligible to the Office of President"
at age 35 (to "attain" 35 years of age),
and 14 years residency up to and including age 35 within the United
States, to make sense.
1b
- "By"
birth = natural law:
The
U.S. Congress,
the "positive law" law making body, by the positive law of
"when"
U.S. natural
born citizenship is acquired by the child, determined
in 1787, in Article II Section 1 clause 5, that
the congress of the parents, the "natural law" child maker
bodies,
is "when"
and "how"
singular U.S. citizenship
is acquired by the child — "by"
birth.
So,
how is
Article II Section 1 clause 5
U.S. "natural
born Citizen" status
acquired by the child for the
child to be qualified to be
"... eligible to the Office of President?"
ONLY,
"by"
birth, singular
U.S. citizenship
ONLY,
"by"
birth, at the
instant of birth, on U.S.
soil
ONLY,
"by"
birth, two U.S. citizen
married parents
<<>>
From
1787
Original
Genesis Original Intent Common
Sense About "Natural Born Citizen"
To
2016
New
Meaning Neobirther "Extreme"
Absurdity About "Natural
Born Citizen"
Original
Genesis Original Intent Common Sense
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child must
be born on U.S.
soil to
two U.S. citizen
parents, both of whom
can
be born
on U.S.
soil as
U.S. citizens, either "at"
birth by positive
law (statute) or "by"
birth by
natural law (nature),
or both of whom can be naturalized U.S. citizens.
Since
Sen. Cruz did not adduce other "birther theories" that are
just as "extreme" as the absurd theory he adduced that the
child must be born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizn parents who also
must be born on U.S. soil for the child to qualify to be "...eligible
to the Office of President," here are a few "extreme"
and absurd "natural born Citizen" new meaning
neobirther theories that are contrary to the "natural
born Citizen" original genesis original intent meaning.
See
which theory fits Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley,
Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, Carley
Fiorina, Rand Paul, Chris Cristie, Rick Santorum, or your favorite
federal or state elected officials.
Extreme
Absurdity #1
(the
"must" word for both parents is so obvious and
absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child must
be born on U.S.
soil to
two U.S. citizen
parents, both of whom
must
be born
on U.S. soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #2
("one"
parent and the "must" word for the parent is so
obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on U.S.
soil to
one
U.S. citizen parent who must
be
born
on U.S.
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #3
("one"
parent is absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on U.S.
soil to
one
U.S. citizen parent who can
be
born
on U.S.
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #4
("one"
parent and the "must" word for the parent
is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on U.S.
soil to
one
U.S. citizen parent who must
be born
on foreign
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #5
("one"
parent and the "can" word for the
parent is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on U.S.
soil to
one
U.S. citizen parent who can
be
born
on foreign
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #6
("foreign
soil" and "one" parent and the "must"
word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on foreign
soil
to
one
U.S. citizen parent who must
be
born
on U.S.
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #7
("foreign
soil" and "one" parent is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on
foreign
soil
to
one
U.S. citizen parent who can
be
born
on U.S.
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #8
("foreign
soil" and "one" parent and the "must"
word for the parent is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on
foreign
soil
to
one
U.S. citizen parent who must
be born
on foreign
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #9
("foreign
soil" and "one" parent is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on
foreign
soil
to
one
U.S. citizen parent who can
be
born
on foreign
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #10
("zero"
parents and the "must" word is so obvious and
absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on U.S.
soil to
zero
U.S. citizen parents, both of
whom must
be born
on U.S.
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #11
("zero"
parents is so obvious and absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on U.S.
soil to
zero
U.S. citizen parents, both of
whom can
be born
on U.S.
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #12
("zero"
parents and the "must" word is so obvious and
absurd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on foreign
soil to
zero
U.S. citizen parents, both of
whom must
be
born
on foreign
soil.
Extreme
Absurdity #13
(included
because the "can" word is so obvious and
absurd—except for the open borders crowd)
For
a child to be a "natural born Citizen" the child can
be born on foreign
soil to
zero
U.S. citizen parents, both of
whom can
be
born
on foreign
soil.
Singular
U.S. Citizenship
Original
Genesis Original Intent
Common
Sense
Common
Sense #1
When
a child is ONLY
born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction and ONLY
born to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other, the
child has ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship.
For
a child to be a U.S. "natural
born Citizen" with ONLY
singular
U.S. citizenship the child
must ONLY
be born on U.S.
soil and
ONLY
born to two
U.S. citizen parents married
only to each other who
were U.S. citizens BEFORE their child is born. It
does NOT
matter if both
parents
were born on U.S. soil as
U.S. citizens "at"
birth (positive law)
OR "by"
birth (natural law).
It also does NOT
matter if one OR
both parents were naturalized
(positive law) as
U.S. citizens BEFORE
(positive law) their
child is born on U.S. soil.
Common
Sense #2
When
a child is born on U.S.
soil to two
U.S. citizen parents married
only
to each other,
the child has by
positive law (statute)
and by natural law common
sense (nature), ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship,
the child is a U.S. "natural
born Citizen" because the child was born
on U.S. soil to two
U.S. citizen married parents.
Common
Sense #3
When
a child is born on U.S.
soil to one
U.S. citizen parent, married
or not married to the partner, the
child by positive law
(statute) acquires
the U.S. citizenship of
one parent and the foreign citizenship of the other parent. The child
has dual citizenship, not
singular U.S. citizenship.
The child is not a U.S.
"natural born Citizen"
because the child was not
born on U.S. soil to two
U.S. citizen married parents.
Common
Sense #4
When
a child is born on U.S.
soil to zero
U.S. citizen parents, the child has, by positive law (statute),
singular U.S.
citizenship, but
the child is not a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the
child was not born on
U.S. soil to two U.S.
citizen married parents.
Common
Sense #5
When
a child is born on foreign
soil to two
U.S. citizen parents, married
or not married to each other, the
child has by positive law
(statute) singular
U.S. citizenship, but
the child is not a U.S.
"natural born Citizen"
because the child was not
born on U.S. soil to two
U.S. citizen married parents.
Common
Sense #6
When
a child is born on foreign
soil to one
U.S. citizen parent, married
or not married to the partner, the
child has by positive law
(statute) singular
U.S. citizenship, but
the child is not a U.S.
"natural born Citizen"
because the child was not
born on U.S. soil to two
U.S. citizen married parents.
Common
Sense #7
When
a child is born on foreign
soil to zero
U.S. citizen parents, married
or not married to each other,
the child has by
positive law (statute)
and by natural law common
sense (nature),
foreign citizenship, and the child is not a U.S.
"natural born Citizen"
because the child was not
born on U.S. soil to two
U.S. citizen married parents.
<<>>
In
the sixth debate Sen. Cruz adduced the concept of birth on U.S. soil
for both the child and the parents for the child to be qualified to
be president, but in the debate or on the stump Sen. Cruz does not
adduce the concepts of being a "citizen" or being a
"natural born Citizen" according to the 1787 original
genesis original intent meaning of Article II Section 1
clause 5.
In
his response to Neil Cavuto's question about the question of Sen.
Cruz's eligibility and whether or not he was a "natural born
Citizen" according to the Constitution, Sen. Cruz responded with
obvious obfuscation by referring to a mythical "extreme"
example that no informed or uninformed or misinformed constitutional
scholar has ever espoused, and by citing the "extreme"
example he did not need to refer to the original genesis
original intent meaning of citizenship implied in "natural
born Ctizen" in A2S1c5.
Consider
some of the well rehearsed words by Sen. Cruz.
Neal
Cavuto:
I'll
start with you Senator Cruz.
Now,
you are, of course, a strict constitutionalist, no one would doubt
that. And, as you know, the U.S. Constitution says only
natural born citizens are eligible for the office of president
of the United States.
Senator
Ted Cruz:
"Hah.
Well, Neil, I'm glad we are focusing
on the important topics of the evening [friendly
laughter and applause].
"You
know, back in September,
my friend Donald said he'd had his lawyers look at this from every
which way and there was no issue there. There was nothing to this
birther issue [friendly laughter and applause].
"Now,
since September the
Constitution hasn't changed [friendly laughter and
applause and guffaws] but the poll numbers have [friendly and loud
voices and applause]. And, I recognize, I recognize that Donald is
dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa.
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, as you know, the U.S. Constitution is the foundation of the
eligibility issue, specifically the issue of ONLY singular
U.S. citizenship versus ALSO or ONLY dual U.S./foreign
citizenship, so, yes, Sen. Cruz, dittos to "focusing
on the important
topics."
Sen.
Cruz, in your response to Neil Cavuto that was directed at Donald
Trump and not directed to any of the other candidates who are
definitely natural born citizen, and also not directed at Sen. Rubio
who also is not a natural born citizen, why is it that Article II
Section 1 clause 5 (A2S1c5 — "...natural born
Citizen, or a Citizen...at the time...") of the U.S.
Constitution definitely was NOT your point of focus in your
response at the sixth GOP debate or in your stump speeches?
If
A2S1c5 implied ALSO
or ONLY dual
U.S./foreign citizenship, you would probably refer to dual citizenshp
as the essence, the original genesis original intent essence
of clause 5, specifically the word "born" in
"natural born Citizen" and the word"eligible."
Right?
Yes,
Sen. Cruz, "the
Constitution hasn't changed" since September 2015
when Donald Trump said there was noting to the "birther
issue" except
that he changed his mind. It also has not changed since
September 17, 1787 when the original birthers, the
framers adopted and the ratifiers ratified, the language of A2S1c5
that original birther George Washington recommended to
the convention delegates, also original birthers, after
receiving a note from original birther John Jay written
on July 25, 1787 about protecting the integrity of the executive
office from usurpation.
In
his note original birther John Jay underlined the word
"born" in "natural born Citizen" with the
obvious implication, in fact the ONLY
implication, that the ONLY
"citizen" eligible to be commander of the U.S. military
and to occupy the executive offce would have ONLY,
by birth, singular
U.S. citizenship — ONLY,
by birth, on U.S. soil/jurisdiction
— ONLY,
by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents.
_
ONLY, by birth,
singular U.S. citizenship
_
ONLY, by birth, on U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_
ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents
Sen.
Cruz, if you do not agree that original birther John
Jay did NOT imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship then
you MUST believe that Jay implied either
ONLY dual
U.S./foreign citizenship or
Jay implied ALSO
dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
Sen.
Cruz, if you assert that Jay meant ALSO U.S./foreign
citizenship your are admitting that Jay could
have implied
ONLY singular
U.S. citizenship.
Sen.
Cruz, since you and "natural born Citizen" new
meaning neobirthers can not admit that John Jay implied
"ONLY"
singular U.S. citizenship when he underlined the word "born"
in "natural born Citizen," and since you also can not admit
that John Jay implied "ALSO"
dual U.S./foreign citizenship when he underlined the word "born,"
the burden of proof is on you to adduce the historical record
debating the meaning of "born" in "natural born
Citizen" in clause 5 as having the original genesis
original intent meaning of "ONLY"
dual U.S./foreign citizenship, U.S. soil birth OR
foreign soil birth with ONLY
one U.S. citizen parent.
Sen.
Cruz, the burden of proof is on persons born on foreign soil to only
one U.S. citizen parent married to a foreign citizen parent to adduce
the debates in the historical records in which John Jay's "born"
implication in his "natural born Citizen" suggestion was
discussed and accepted without disagreement as implying "ONLY"
dual U.S./foreign citizenship (U.S. soil
birth OR
foreign soil birth with
ONLY
one U.S. citizen parent)
as superior to "ALSO"
dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth to ONLY
one U.S. citizen parent married to one foreign citizen oarent, and as
ALSO
superior to "ONLY"
by birth singular U.S. citizenship, "ONLY"
by birth on U.S.
soil, "ONLY"
by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents.
Sen.
Cruz, where is the record that the framers and the ratifiers debated
the acceptance of ALSO dual or
ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for POTUS eligibility vs.
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility?
Sen.
Cruz, the burden of proof is on the ALSO or ONLY dual
U.S./foreign citizenship proponents.
Sen.
Cruz, you need to adduce discussion by the framers and ratifiers
about the common sense or lack of common sense of accepting dual
U.S./foreign citizenship for eligibility to be president.
Sen.
Cruz, it is not possible to adduce discussion about dual U.S./foreign
citizenship because the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss
dual citizenship.
Sen.
Cruz, the framers and ratifiers also did NOT discuss singular
U.S. citizenship.
Sen.
Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss EITHER
singualr U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizneship.
Sen.
Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss the good sense
of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship versus the nonsense of ONLY
dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
Sen.
Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss the good sense
of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship versus the nonsense of ALSO
dual U.S./foreign citizenship.
Sen.
Cruz, the framers and ratifiers did NOT discuss anything other
than the good sense of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that was
implicit in the word "born" that John Jay underlined
in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note
to George Washington.
Sen.
Cruz, John Jay's implicit original genesis original intent for
underlining the word "born" in "natural born
Citizen" is simple to state and simple to understand:
_
ONLY, by birth,
singular U.S. citizenship
_
ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_
ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents
Sen.
Cruz, the implicit original
genesis original intent inherent in the explicit
text of Article II Section 1 clause 5 is also simple to state and
simple to understand:
No
Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be
eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be
eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of
thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the
United States.
No
Person except a natural born Citizen,
or
a Citizen of the United States,
at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall
be eligible to the Office of President;
neither
shall any person be eligible to that Office
who
shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,
and
been fourteen Years a Resident
within
the United States.
-
No Person except a natural born Citizen
-
or a Citizen of the United States
-
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
-
shall be eligible to the Office of President
-
neither shall any person be eligible to that Office
-
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years
-
and been fourteen Years a Resident
-
within the United States
1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen
The
"natural born Citizen" is just like a "citizen"
except for being unique among citizens, aka exceptional.
All
children are by "nature" natural when born, but only a
child born to two U.S. citizen married parents is a "natural
born Citizen" who has derived singular U.S. citizenship from two
married parents who are both U.S. citizens.
Singular
U.S. citizenship "by" birth is what makes a "natural
born Citizen" exceptional, aka more than just a "citizen"
"at" birth "by" statute or later in life "by"
oath according to statute, aka "by" statute.
A
singular U.S. citizenship "natural born Citizen" "by"
birth is exceptional compared to a dual U.S./foreign citizenship
"citizen" "at" birth by statute and later in life
"by" oath according to statute, "by" statute.
2.
or a Citizen of the United States
The
"or a Citizen" of #2 is diffrent and distinct from the
"natural born Citizen" of #1.
3.
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution
The
words "at the time" are no longer applicable to POTUS
eligibility since the last 1787 "or a Citizen" died
sometime in the 1800s.
4.
shall be eligible to the Office of President
The
words "be eligible" apply from generation to generation,
election to election, ONLY to ALL federal U.S. Presidents, never to
federal U.S. Representatives or federal U.S. Senators who are covered
with Article I Section 2 and Article 1 Section 3.
5.
neither shall any person be eligible to that Office
The
"neither" reference is obviously a continuation of the
"original genesis original intent" of the word "born"
in "natural born Citizen" as it refers to eligibility.
6.
who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years
The
"thirty five Years" is "from" birth "by"
birth, not "from" birth "at" birth
that is only possible "by" statute "by"
oath.
7.
and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States
The
residency requirement "been fourteen Years"
obbviously can NOT refer to ONLY the first 14 years of residency or
to ALSO sporadic years of residency inside AND outside the U.S. up to
and including age 35. The word "been" can refer to
ONLY the LAST 14 years of residency up to and
including age 35.
8.
within the United States
Also,
the tacit implication is that
after the minimum age
of 35
is attained,
residency "within"
the U.S. must include ONLY the last 14 years up
to and including whateve
the age
is (36
or more) of
the person who is
being inaugurated president.
Sen.
Cruz:
But,
the facts and the law here are really quite clear. Under longstanding
U.S. law, the child of a U.S. citizen born abroad [ed.
the child is the one born
abroad] is a natural born citizen.
If
a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen.
That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was
eligible to run for president.
If
an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural
born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to
run for president even though he was born in Mexico.
At
the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward. But,
I would note the birther
theories that Donald
has been relying on. Some
of the more extreme
ones insist you must not
only be born on U.S. soil,
but have two parents born on U.S.
soil.
Under
that theory, not only would I be
disqualified, Marco Rubio
would be disqualified, Bobby
Jindal would be disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald
J. Trump would be disqualified [friendly loud and long
laughter and applause].
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, you know that the "longstanding
U.S. law" that you are referring to is ONLY
the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" language
which was repealed and replaced with the 1795 Naturalization Act
"citizen" language.
The
specific language of the 1790 NA said:
"And
the children of such
persons so naturalized, dwelling within
the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the
time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of
the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States,
that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United
States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: ...."
The
specific language of the 1795 NA said:
Section
3
And
be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized,
dwelling within the United States, and being under the
age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the
children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and
jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of
the United States:
My
Amplification of the 1790 NA:
"And
the children of such persons so
naturalized, dwelling within
[within]
the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at
the time of such naturalization
[naturalization
of the father and,
under the 1790s doctrine
of "coverture"
which covered the wife
until changed by
statutes of Congress in the 1800s and 1900s,
under the doctrine of
"coverture," the
mother of
the child,
by
marriage, acquired
the U.S. citizneship of her naturalized
husband,
and
by extension, the child acquired
the U.S. citizenship of both
the naturalized father and mother],
"shall
also be considered as citizens
of the United States.
"And
[the
1790 NA children are "condidered"
as different, statute
"citizen"
OR
statute
"natural
born Citizen"]
"the
children of citizens
of the United States, that may be
born beyond sea, or out
[out] of the limits
of the United States,
"shall
be considered
as natural born citizens:
...."
My
Amplification of the 1795 NA:
"And
be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized,
dwelling within [within]
the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at
the time of such naturalization;
"and
[the
1795 NA children are BOTH "considered"
the same, statute "citizens"]
"the
children of citizens of the
United States, born out
[out] of the limits and jurisdiction of the United
States,
"shall
be considered as citizens
of the United States: ...."
A
Brief Analysis of the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts:
Notice
that in both the 1790 NA and the 1795 NA, "considered"
is positive law (statute)
language of Congress, positive law language, not birth
language, not natural law language.
In
the 1790 NA, the child born between 1790 and 1795 within
the United States BEFORE
the father, and by the doctrine of "coverture" the
mother, naturalized, the child, AFTER the father naturalized
as a U.S. citizen, the child was by the 1790 and the 1795 positive
law (statute) "considered" to be a U.S.
"citizen" under the doctrine of coverture until
reaching age 21, AND the child "born beyond sea, or
out of the limits of the United States" between 1790 and
1795, AFTER the U.S.
citizen parents were already residing on foreign soil were, the child
was "considered" to be a "natural born
Citizen."
The
1795 third Congress repealed the 1790 first Congress by removing the
"natural born Citizen" language and replacing it
with the "citizen" language.
Sen.
Cruz, the 1795 NA "citizen" designation has been the
consistent language of ALL statutes of Congress from 1795 to 2016.
Sen.
Cruz:
If
a soldier has a child abroad, that child is a natural born citizen.
That's why John McCain, even though he was born in Panama, was
eligible to run for president.
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, as you know, when married diplomats and married military
personnel, for example, a military spouse and the civilian spouse,
are sent on assignment by the U.S. government to reside on foreign
soil and jurisdiction, the child who may be born outside of the U.S.
is, by "by"
natural law birth (nature), NOT by
positive law (statute), the child is NOT
"considered" to be a natural born citizen, the child IS
"by" birth
a natural born citizen, because the parents, plural, are both U.S.
citizens on official U.S. government assignment under U.S.
jurisdiction, just as if they were assigned to any city within the
United States. That was the official status of Sen. John McCain. The
resolution by the U.S. Senate "declaring" that Sen.
McCain was a natural born citizen was not necessary and it was
meaningless to his "natural born Citizen" status "from"
and "by" birth
to two U.S. citizen married parents.
Sen.
Cruz:
If
an American missionary has a child abroad, that child is a natural
born citizen. That's why George Romney, Mitt's dad, was eligible to
run for president even though he was born in Mexico.
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, as you know, according to American statutes since the 1795
Naturalization Act up to and including the 1952 Immigration and
Nationalict Act, when any U.S. citizens, two U.S. citizen married
parents or one U.S. citizen parent, residing abroad has a child, the
child is, since 1795 up to and including 2016, a "citizen"
of the U.S., not a "natural born Citizen" of the U.S.
Sen.
Cruz:
At
the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward.
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, as you know, "[a]t
the end of the day, the legal issue is quite straightforward":
a U.S. citizen with ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship does not
need to renounce foreign citizenship as you did when you renounced
your Canadian citizenship in 2014.
Sen.
Cruz:
But,
I would note the birther
theories that Donald
has been relying on. Some
of the more extreme
ones insist
you must
not only be born on U.S. soil, but
have two parents born on U.S. soil.
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, why did you mention
only the "extreme" theory? Why not mention the A2S1c5
common sense original intent?
Sen.
Cruz, as you know, the
"extreme"
birther theory that you adduced has never, ever been espoused
by any informed or
uninformed constitutional scholar.
In fact, by
adducing the "have
two
parents born on U.S. soil"
example your
are covering up something important. You are telling
us what the meaning of
"natural born Citizen"
is NOT but your
"extreme"
example is NOT
telling us what the meaning
of "natural born
Citizen" IS.
That
is obfuscation.
Sen.
Cruz, by citing the
"extreme"
example you can
avoid referring to the
original genesis original intent
meaning of "natural born Ctizen" in Article II Section 1
clause 5.
That
is obfuscation.
Sen.
Cruz, by saying
that "you
must
not only be born on U.S. soil"
but the child "must"
be born to "two
parents born on U.S. soil"
with the tacit
implication that birth
on U.S. soil is NOT
the original genesis original intent
meaning of the word "born" in "natural born Ctizen"
is itself "extreme"
mythology.
That
"extreme"
mythology is "extreme"
obfuscation.
Sen.
Cruz, the "have
two
parents born on U.S. soil"
language is itself extreme.
That
is "extreme"
obfuscation.
Sen.
Cruz:
Under
that theory, not
only would I be disqualified,
Marco
Rubio would be disqualified,
Bobby
Jindal would be disqualified,
but interestingly enough, Donald
J. Trump would be disqualified
[friendly loud and long
laughter and applause].
My
Comment:
Sen.
Cruz, under your "extreme"
and mythological theory that
a child "must
not only be born on U.S. soil"
but must
ALSO be born to
"two
parents born on U.S. soil"
for the child to be
qualified to be
"... eligible to the
Office of President,"
it makes it convenient for you to not need
to mention citizenship
at all
because the inclusion of citizenship into your "extreme"
example would change the direction of discussion.
According
to A2S1c5 common sense, when both
parents are naturalized U.S. citizens BEFORE
their child is born on U.S. soil then that child, born
on U.S. soil to
two U.S. citizen married parents, either
born or naturalized as U.S. citizens before
the child is born on U.S. soil,
is an A2S1c5 "natural born Citizen" who is qualified
and "...eligible to the
Office of President."
It
is "extreme"
obfuscation to NOT
mention that birth to two naturalized U.S. citizen parents who
were not born on U.S. soil,
or birth to one U.S. citizen
parent born on U.S. soil married to a naturalized U.S. citizen parent
who was not born on U.S.
soil, makes
a child a "natural born Citizen"
for a
common sense reason. Absolutely
no informed or uninformed
constitutional scholoar, absolutely
nobody would assert
that two
U.S. citizen married parents, EITHER
both born as U.S. citizens OR
both naturalized as U.S. citizens, are NOT
sufficient for a child to be a "natural born Citizen."
Under
A2S1c5 common sense, Donald
Trump would quality, but you Sen. Cruz, and Sen. Rubio and Gov.
Jindal would "be
disqualified."
If
it is truly "extreme"
that two married parents need to be born on U.S. soil before
their child is born on U.S. soil for the child to be qualified
and "... eligible to
the Office of President," what
wuoud you say is
the correct position that is NOT
"extreme" for
eligibility? If two U.S. citizen parents must be born on U.S. soil is
"extreme"
to you, what is NOT
"extreme"
to you? Is only one U.S.
citizen parent must be born on U.S. soil "extreme"
to you? Is
zero parents need to be born
on U.S. soil "extreme"
to you?
How
about this common sense position.
Sen.
Cruz, John Jay's implicit
original genesis original intent
meaning in underlining the word "born"
in "natural born
Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George
Washington is simple to
state and simple to understand:
_
ONLY, by birth,
singular U.S. citizenship
_
ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_
ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents
Sen.
Cruz:
Under
that theory, not
only would I be disqualified,
Marco Rubio would be disqualified, Bobby Jindal would be
disqualified, but interestingly enough, Donald
J. Trump would be disqualified.
Donald
Trump:
Not
me.
Cruz:
Because,
because Donald's mother was born in
Scotland, she was naturalized.
Now,
Donald.
Trump:
But
I was born here.
Cruz:
On
the issue of citizenship, Donald.
Trump:
A
big difference.
Cruz:
On
the issue of citizenship, Donald, I'm
not going to use your mother's birth against you.
Trump:
Good,
because it wouldn't work.
My
Comment:
Donald
Trump should have responded byt saying that "it wouldn't work"
because he
was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, one parent
who was born on U.S. soil as a U.S. citizen and one parent who
naturalized on U.S. soil as a U.S. citizen before
he was born, and that
Sen. Cruz was born on
foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign citizen
parent who didn't naturalize
before his son was born of
foreign soil.
THAT
is why using Trump's "mother's birth against" him "wouldn't
work" against Trump but that Trump using Sen. Cruz's father's
birth against Sen. Cruz would work against
Sen. Cruz.
Sen.
Cruz qualifies as a "citizen" because dual U.S./foreign
citizenship "at"
birth (by
statute) on U.S. soil or
"at"
birth (by statute)
on foreign soil to only one
U.S. citizen parent makes a child a U.S. "citizen" "by"
positive law
(statute),
not "by"
natural law birth (nature).
Donald
Trump qualifies as a "natural born Citizen" because ONLY
singular U.S. citizenship "by"
birth, ONLY "by"
birth on U.S. soil, ONLY
"by"
birth to two U.S. citizen married parents makes Article II Section 1
clause 5 common sense.
_
ONLY, by birth,
singular U.S. citizenship
_
ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_
ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents
Cruz:
You're
an American as is everybody else on this stage, and I would suggest
we focus on whose best
prepared to be Commander-in-Chief, because that's the
most important question facing the country.
My
Comment:
Donald
Trump should have responded
by saying that he IS
focusing on "the
most important question facing the country":
Who
is a better defender
of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5,
the "natural
born Citizen" clause,
that is constitutionally
qualified to be Commander-in-Chief? A person born with ONLY
dual U.S./foreign
citizenship and who needs to
renounce the foreign citizenship,
or a person born with ONLY
singular U.S.
citizenship who does not
need to renounce anything?
Original
birther John Jay and
original birther
George Washington and the original birther
framers and the original birther
ratifiers wrould probably concur with the simple words describing the
original genesis
original intent of
the September 17, 1787
Article II Section 1 clause 5 common sense:
_
ONLY, by birth,
singular U.S. citizenship
_
ONLY, by birth, U.S. soil/jurisdiction
_
ONLY, by birth, two U.S. citizen married parents
Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com
