Natural Law PrecedesAnd Informs Positive Law

Natural Law Precedes And Informs Positive Law

On March 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog I challenged one of Mario's "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers, a commenter with the name of Bryan/Unknown, with something simple about natural law (nature) and positive law (statute):

Rebut and refute a natural law with a positive law.

Rebut and refute nature with a statute.

On March 19, 2016 at 2:27 AM Bryan/Unknown responded on Mario's blog with a nonresponse again as he has done in the past to previous challenges to clarify how dual U.S./foreign citizenship is good 'nuf for government work, specifically eligibility to be chief executive of the United States, and why ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents is not the original intent for the words "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen".

For some reason Bryan/Unknown and all of the other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who espouse the 2000s myth about dual U.S./foreign citizenship is good 'nuf never, ever defend dual citizenship as equal to singular U.S. citizenship and simply ridicule ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the first POTUS eligibility reqirement, the first reqirement that MUST precede by birth alone the fourteen years residence requirement in the United States up to and including the requirement to be at least thirty-five years of age.

Bryan/Unknown wrote:

>> "Why is it *my* challenge to support things that you believe while I argue they are silly?

>> "As I've pointed out several times, only in man-made law are there citizens or nations that could have citizens. I don't hear anyone disagreeing on that.

>> "You think there's a law of natural [sic] on who is and is not a natural-born citizen?

>> "If so, and you accept that nations are man-made, then you necessarily believe in laws of nature that depend upon human inventions.

>> "It makes no sense to me.

>> "You cannot defend a ludicrous position by assigning me the challenge of finding evidence for it."

<<>>

The pertinent sentenc is this:

>> "If so, and you accept that nations are man-made,

>> then you necessarily believe in laws of nature

>> that depend upon human inventions."

Specifically pertinent is "...laws of nature that depend upon human invention."

All Bryan/Unknown and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers need to do to advance (but never to win) their 2000s theory that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is the point of "born" in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and POTUS eligibility is to adduce only one "law of nature" that is said to "depend" on "human invention."

As usual, Bryan's/Unknown's comments are poorly written, and he does not explain his points. He simply throws out his comments that are intended to support dual U.S./foreign citizenship POTUS eligibility while driving by, so to speak, like throwing a molotov cocktail while driving by in a speeding vehicle.

The reality is that ALL positive law (statute) is dependent on natural law (nature).

Absolutely NO natural law is dependent on positive law, what Bryan/Unknown in his comment calls "human invention".

What "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers seem to never want to admit regarding POTUS eligibility is that nature is not dependent on statute, which means that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents is NOT dependent on a old or new statute about dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

The pertinent example that Bryan/Unknown probably thinks makes his positive law case that "...laws of nature...depend upon human invention" is the language of the U.S. Constitution itself.

I'm sure that Bryan/Unknown and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that dual U.S./foreign citizenship makes a person eligible to be president would agree with the next paragraph that the U.S. Constitution is an example of positive law, and yet how it became positive law defeats their position that the original intent of the positive law constitution determines the original intent meaning of the natural law word "born" in "natural born Citizen" concerning POTUS eligibility.

The natural law reality about positive law reality is that the language of the constitution is "positive law" written by humans who are the product of natural law (aka, the unified congress of two bodies and then birth). Also, the language of the written constitution written by humans expresses the "natural law" reality that "birth" is a "natural law" activity of the unified congress of two bodies that necessarily precedes a "positive law" declaration by humans who are members of the unified Congress of two bodies, aka the House and Senate.

In other words, it is "natural" law that "born" precedes positive law "Citizen" and so natural law determines positive law and POTUS eligibility.

If the humans, the result of natural law, did not exist first, the positive law language of the constitution could not be written.

In this obvious sense, existence of humans precedes existence of human law, this is what is meant with natural law precedes positive law and positive law is dependent on natural law.

What Bryan/Unknown identifies as the "...laws of nature that depend upon human invention..." has nature and law reality bass akward. The nature and law reality is that the positive law of the constitution is dependent on the natural law prior existence of the humans who express their positive law thought by writing their common sense positive law declarations, speifically, regarding POTUS eligibility, that ONLY a "natural born (a natural law birth) Citizen (a positive law declaration)" could be "...eligible to the Office of President" because "ONLY by natural law alone", also known as ONLY "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen (positive law) married (positive law) parents (natural law), could a person (natural law) be a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular (positive law) U.S. citizenship (positive law).

In other words, birth alone, which is the natural law result of an natural law act of congress, determines natural born citizenship. For that natural law reason a law, a positive law, a statute passed by an Act of Congress, is not necessary to determine who is "...eligible to the Office of President."

The positive law "Citizen" designation is dependent on the natural law "born" activity that is necessary before a "natural born Citizen" can even exist to become "...eligible to the Office of President."

Since 2012, whenever I've challenged "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the myth, with a similar challenge to defend dual U.S./foreign citiznship as sufficient for POTUS eligibility, they have NEVER, ever responded in depth with substance, either on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog, or Kevin Davidson's ObamaConspiracy.org blog or BirtherReport.com, or AmericanThinker.com, or TheRightScoop.com.

Regarding eligibility to be POTUS, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the ONLY original genesis original intent for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" can NOT be rebutted and can NOT be refuted with dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

That is natural law reality.

Singular U.S. citizenship is the POTUS eligibility reality that Bryan/Unknown and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers NEVER rebut and NEVER refute by explaining in depth the 2000s myth and theory of the sufficiency if not superiority of dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Instead, "nbC" new meaning neobirthers respond in a ways that are similar to Bryan/Unknown. They either say something like, "well, we don't know what "natural born Citizen" means" so that is why dual U.S./foreign citizenship looks ok to them, or they say something similar to what Bryan/Unknown wrote — they simply throw their ideological molotov cocktails as they drive and say something like "...laws of nature...depend upon human invention" without explicating their point with substance.

On Mario's blog Bryan/Unknown wrote about my natural law and positive law comment:

>> "It makes no sense to me.

>> "You cannot defend a ludicrous position by assigning me the challenge of finding evidence for it."

What Bryan/Unknown wrote about "...laws of nature...depend upon human invention" makes no sense to me for the same reason that it would not have made sense to original birther John Jay and original birther George Washington and the original birther framers and ratifiers of the constitution who understood that the laws of nature and nature's God preceded the language and the intent of the constitution.

"Natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is sufficient for POTUS eligibility, and that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is NOT the ONLY meaning, NOT the ONLY original genesis original intent for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen", cannot defend a ludicrous position by denying the natural law reality that precedes positive law reality—nature and birth precede statute and declaration about eligibility to be president.

That is natural law reality about positive law reality.

Art

http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

"Citizen" Clarifies "Born" in Natural Born Citizen

“Citizen” Clarifies the Meaning of “Born” in Natural Born Citizen

"if...then..." and "...born..."

Mario Apuzzo posted The Framers’ Definition of a Natural Born Citizen Is Not Based on Race, Color, or Religion*1 at his Natural Born Citizen blog that is filled with a "whole lotta" meaty morsels, but his "gravy" is good too. He has mentioned the "gravy" before, but I mention it here to tie it in with a comment on Apuzzo's blog by a commenter named Illion on March 1, 2016 at 12:06 PM in which he says "... if your US citizenship can be affected by an Act of Congress, then you are not a natural born US citizen," and to tie Mario's "gravy" comment in with my own emphasis on John Jay's emphasis on the connection between the words "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen," a phrase that Jay authored in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington, a suggestion which Washington, as president of the constitutional convention, passed on to the framers of the language of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause*2 .

*1 http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-framers-definition-of-natural-born.html

*2 [Part 1a] No Person except a natural born Citizen, [Part 1b] or a Citizen of the United States, [Part 1c] at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, [Part 1d] shall be eligible to the Office of President; [Part 2a] neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and [Part 2b] been fourteen Years a Resident [Part 2c] within the United States.

The "gravy" in Attorney Appuzo's post is the clear conclusion in the penultimate paragraph which I have opened up here to emphasize the bold points:

>> Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are all not natural born citizens of the United States.

>> None of them are citizens only by virtue of being born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

>> Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley all need the Fourteenth Amendment to be citizens.

>> Without the Fourteenth Amendment,
>> they could be citizens of the state in which they were born,
>> but not a citizen of the United States,
>> let alone a natural born citizen of the United States.

>> "Cruz needs a naturalization Act of Congress
>> to be a citizen of the United States.

>> Being born in a foreign country,
>> without the Act,
>> Cruz would not even be a citizen of any state,
>> let alone a natural born citizen.

>> He would be an alien."

<<>>

Here are some questions for all "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers in 2016 America tied in with Illion's coherent and cogent "if...then" comment:

>> "... if your US citizenship can be affected
>> by an Act of Congress,
>> then you are not
>> a natural born US citizen"

For "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers who say that the framers and ratifiers of 1700s America did not define the original intent of "born" in the eligibility clause 5 in Article II Section 1 to mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, so that is why they are willing to give Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio the benefit of the doubt because they both have dual U.S./foreign citizenship, here are some helpful clarifying questions.

Question:

In 1787 America did the framers intend for "born" and "Citizen" in the Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligibility clause to be perpetual or temporary?

Question:

If temporary, where is it recorded in the archives that the framers and ratifiers debated that the connection between "born" and "Citizen" was to be temporary?

Since there is no record in the national archives of the framers and ratifiers debating perpetual or temporary, the obvious conclusion is that the connection between "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" was intended to be perpetual, not temporary.

Common sense. Right?

Yes.

Question:

What is the connection between "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen?"

The connection is very simple to articulate.

Question:
When John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, did Jay mean and did Washington agree that "born" meant "born" ONLY in the United States OR "born" in ANY nation on earth?

Question:

When Jay connected the word "born" with "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington, which Washington passed on to the framers, what did the word "Citizen" mean to the 1787 framers and 1787-1790 ratifiers?

Question:

Did John Jay mean to imply that "born" in "natural born Citizen" meant "born" ONLY in the United States OR "born" anywhere on earth?

Question:

Did John Jay mean to imply that "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" meant a "citizen" of ONLY the United States OR a "citizen" anywhere on earth?

Question:
Did the 1787 framers imply that the original intent of "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" was to perpetually mean a "citizen" of ONLY the United States OR a "citizen" of ANY nation on earth?

Well, obviously, the ONLY original intent meaning possible in 1787 America, only four years after the war of independence was ended at the 1783 Treaty of Paris of which John Jay was a signatory, could ONLY be a "citizen" of the United States alone and NOT a "citizen" of ANY other nation on earth alone.

The dissonant association of ONLY the U.S. "alone" and ANY nation on earth "alone" is common sense, right?
Yes.

Question:

Both ONLY the U.S. "alone" and ANY nation on earth "alone" can not be the original intent of the framers, right?

Yes.

Question:
Does the connection of "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" mean either ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

The common sense perpetual original intent connection could obviously NOT be BOTH singular OR dual.

So, "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" can mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, NOT either/or, not either a "citizen" of another nation alone or a "citizen" of both the U.S. and a "citizen" of another nation, aka dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Right?
Yes.

"if...then..." and "...born..."

The constitutional "scholars" and politicos need to remember that the framer's language was eventually accepted without debate or disagreement by the ratifiers of the several states.

Since September 17, 1787 when the Constitution's language was adopted by the framers and sent to the states to be ratified, if a person is born ONLY on U.S. soil and born ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, then that person is a U.S. natural born citizen "by birth" alone and has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship which can NOT be affected by an Act of Congress.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is indefeasible because U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents can NOT be annulled or made void by a law passed by Congress. A positive law (statute) can NOT annul a natural law (nature).

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com