"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