Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Today I posted this on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-neither-natural-born-citizen.html

"argumentum ad ignorantiam"

Mario,

Your response to Bob and Bryan Gene Olson is poignant. Definition #3 in my American Heritage Dictionary is 3a: Neat, skillful, and to the point. 3b: Astute and pertinent; relevant: "poignant suggestion".

Maybe you can have a poignant suggestion about "argumentum ad ignorantiam" to Greg Conterio who wrote on March 5, 2015 "Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo" where your response to Bob and Bryan is posted.

>> http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/

>> Mr. Apuzzo continues, explaining that NBC actually has a specific meaning.

>> He cites as proof of the assertion

>> “The fact that there was in the Constitutional Convention no debate

>> on the meaning of the clause gives us more evidence that

>> the clause must have had a settled meaning.”

>> Not being an attorney myself,

>> I could not remember the name for this type of argument,

>> and had to look-up the Latin phrase, which is argumentum ad ignorantiam,

>> or appeal to ignorance.

>> It is a logical fallacy, which loosely translated means

>> “..he didn’t say his name isn’t Mike, so his name must be Mike!”

>> The truth of the matter is, the term NBC does not,

>> and did not at the time hold a specific legal meaning.

>> It actually is an adaptation of the term natural-born subject,

>> as under English common law, the people were subjects, rather than citizens.

>> And to his credit, Mr. Apuzzo does concede

>> that the term NBC derives from English common law.

>> What he fails to note however is that according to Blackstone ... .

Greg Conterio cites a long quote from Blackstone that includes this:

>> "...so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...."

Mario, I'll let you clarify "argumentum ad ignorantiam" if you want to, but I will simply clarify the history of the "birther" nomenclature that Conterio mentions in his first paragraph.

Hey Greg and all "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who continue to deliberately ignore the original genesis original intent for including the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."

Hillary Clinton or her campaign staff did not come up with the "birther" designation implied in the word "born."

John Jay implied the "birther" position of

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

ONLY by birth

ONLY by birth on U.S. soil

ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington who passed the suggestion on to the convention delegates who incorporated the "natural born Citizen" phrase into Article II Section 1 clause 5 without debate because they already knew that "born" and "citizen" were perpetually linked by the word "natural" forever, indefeasible.

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).

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com/

http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/natural-precedes-positive-law.html

Art