Saturday, August 27, 2016

Original Genesis: Who Started The "Birther" Movement?


Original Genesis
Who Started The "Birther" Movement?

This was first posted on the Washington Times .com on August 27, 2016.
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/fact-checking-media-yes-clinton-machine-did-start-/

Original Genesis

Who started the "birther" movement?

John Jay did on July 25, 1787.

Hillary Clintons 2007/08 "machine" picked up the 1787 "birther" singular U.S. citizenship implication of John Jay, then dropped it like a hot potato for some obscure reason, and Donald Trump picked up the "birther" question around the same time that Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio noticed that BHObama's birth certificate was as phony as a 3 dollar bill and reported his findings at a news conference on March 1, 2012.

John Jay started the "birther" movement when he sent a July 25, 1787 thank you note to his friend George Washington.

Jay suggested that the presidency should not devolve on anyone except a "natural born Citizen."

In his July 25, 1787 note to Washington, Jay underlined the word "born," implying that "born" meant to Jay, in 1787 America, that the citizenship that qualifies a person as an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" is possible only from birth (35 years) and only "by birth alone."

1 - The child must be born only on U.S. soil (including U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil--military, diplomat, etc.).

2 - The child must be born only with singular U.S. citizenship, not dual U.S./foreign citizenship as implied by the 1790 Naturalization Act language of "natural born Citizen"--an implication that was corrected when "natural born Citizen" was replaced with "citizen," repealed with the 1795 Naturalization Act language, language that continues today in 2016 in all immigration and naturalization acts of Congress.

3 - The child must be born only to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other.

Singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" is only possible when both parents, who are married only to each other, both have U.S. citizenship. It is that singular U.S. citizenship of both parents that is passed on to the child "by birth alone."

In 1787 America, under the concept of "coverture," the U.S. citizenship of the husband was acquired by the foreign born wife automatically, without an oath of naturalization. It was acquired "by marriage alone." Since both married parents would have U.S. citizenship, the child, born after their marriage, would also have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

If the child was born before their marriage, the child would be a U.S. "citizen" because the father was a U.S. citizen, but not a "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship because the mother was still a foreign citizen.

That is the situation with Donald Trump.

All 5 of DJT's children are U.S. citizens but none is a U.S. "natural born Citizen" because the mothers either naturalized after the children were born (Ivana—Don, Eric, Ivanka, and Melania—Barron) or the parents married after the child was born (Marla—Tiffany).

It was not until an ACT of Congress in the 20th century, the 1922 Cable Act, that the wife was allowed to retain her foreign citizenship if she wanted to. If she did not naturalize, the child, born either before or after their marriage, would be a "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship but not an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship.

Only a "natural born Citizen" is "...eligible to the Office of President... ."

In his short note to Washington, Jay certainly did not imply that eligibility to be president was by birth to persons not married to each other—whether the two persons were both U.S. citizens or if the male was a U.S. citizen and the female was a foreign citizen (whether she is a friend for love or a prostitute for money.

In 1787 America, Jay certainly did NOT imply that eligibility to be president applied to 2016 America children born to an unmarried man with multiple sex partners who expect to receive welfare benefits from the "man" Uncle Sam for the children born to unmarried persons.

In 1787 America, Jay certainly did not imply multiple wives as in Islam. For a Muslim child, or a child born to an an independent Mormon with multiple wives, to be eligible to be president, it would take an amendment to the Constitution change the meaning of “natural born Citizen.”

It would also take an amendment to change the singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "natural born Citizen" to include either birth on foreign soil to only “one” U.S. citizen parent (Ted Cruz), or birth on U.S. soil to “zero” U.S. citizen parents (Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley), or birth to a U.S. citizen father with multiple wives (some wives U.S. citizens and some not).

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Art


The United States doesn't observe made-up birther law. It sure doesn't observe your wacky version of it.


"wacky"…

Hey, Dave B., your "wacky" word is not good enough.

Simply present the history of the United States regarding the origin of "natural born Citizen" in coherent sentences if you can.

If you can't, well, you can't.

Since you can't, don't bother thoughtful readers with your "wacky" silliness.

Art


Persons who acquire US citizenship by birth in the United States are and have always been natural born citizens, regardless of the nationalities of their parents. That's longstanding, well-settled law. The status of persons who acquire US citizenship by birth abroad to a US citizen parent in regard to eligibility for the presidency has long been held to be ambiguous and unresolved.

In 2008, Leo Donofrio dreamed up that business about how a natural born citizen had to be born in the United States to two US citizen parents. Now YOU'VE added your own wacky spin that those two US citizen parents must be married to each other. Whether or not a child is born out of wedlock is of no relevance to that child's nationality if that child is born in the United States-- except, I presume, in the unusual case in which the father was a Blue List foreign diplomat. But that's a matter of REAL law, and not imaginary, wacky birther law, so it's probably over your head.


John Jay underlined "born" for a reason…

Dave B., you continue to digress.

The issue is John Jay's original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

Jay implied only singular U.S. citizenship, only possible by birth on U.S. soil only to U.S. citizen married parents.

The "...nationalities of their parents" is not the issue. The issue is the citizenship status of the parents.
The issue is simple.

Are both of the parents U.S. citizens before the child is born? Not the original foreign "nationality" of the parents.

The 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language about, as you wrote, "...persons who acquire US citizenship by birth abroad to a US citizen parent," (parent = singular in your comment), the 1795 language resolved the issue about the eligibility to be president.

A "citizen" who is not a "natural born Citizen" is not eligible to be president, and a "natural born Citizen" only acquires singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizenship married parents, not by birth to only one U.S. citizen.

Art


Okay since we want to talk conspiracy.

He underlined born meaning one must be born a citizen. Plain and simple. There is no requirement for one to be born of two US Citizen "married parents"

Are you really claiming those born out of wedlock can't be president? How about those those born of a father who died before birth? Do you imply they can't be president either?


"Are you really claiming"…

Pogue Moran, do you really think that when John Jay underlined the word "born"in his note to his friend George Washington that he was telling his friend that he, Jay, did not care about the marriage "union" as much as he cared about the national "union?

Do you really think that Jay believed, in 1787 America, that a married U.S. citizen male who had a child with a U.S. citizen prostitute or a neighboring U.S. citizen woman who was not a prostitute could look his U.S. citizen wife in her eyes and say that his child with a woman to whom he was not married would be eligible to be president of the United States when the child attained the age of 35?

Really?

Art


That's just silly.


"silly...:

Dave B., that is just a silly inarticulate comment.
Art


Really?

Are you really claiming there is more to that letter than there actually is? His letter was a reference to the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces and not the president. Back then the Commander in Chief and the President were going to be two separate positions in the government. Jay said nothing about the status of the parents in his letter or marriage.

I notice you didn't answer my question. Do you believe that it requires the father to be alive at the time the child is born?

What's funny though is the first candidate for the republican Party was actually born of a french citizen father and was born out of wedlock.

John Jay could have clarified this at any time when he was chief justice.


"Jay said nothing about…"

Since Jay said nothing about the status of the parents or about marriage, my common sense natural conclusion is that Jay implied two U.S. citizen married parents.

On what do you base your one U.S. citizen parent, or zero U.S. citizen parent, or unmarried "parents" since Jay did not mention citizen status or marriage of the parents?

Common sense is one thing but an agenda without common sense is not persuasive and not convincing.

Common sense affirms that a child is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president if born to two U.S. citizen married parents before OR after the father dies.

See, Pogue Moran, since Jay did not mention the life status of the father as you adduced, common sense fills in the implications.

Singular U.S. citizenship is a citizenship higher hurdle than dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" according to Article II Section 1 clause 5 to two U.S. citizen married parents is a citizenship higher hurdle than U.S. citizenship "at birth" according to the "citizen" language since 1795 of all naturalization and immigration statutes to one U.S. citizen parent.

Singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" according to A2S1c5 to two U.S. citizen married parents is a citizenship higher hurdle than the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court's decision "declaring" that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen even though he was born to two zero U.S. citizen parents.

See how coherent, persuasive and convincing common sense is when analyzing John Jay's original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen?"

Jay was right in 1787 about "natural born Citizen."

The Supreme Court was wrong in 1898 about "citizen" Wong Kim Ark.

Two U.S. citizen married parents is a citizenship higher hurdle and produces more national stability than zero U.S. citizenship parents.

Art



"Since Jay said nothing about the status of the parents or about marriage, my common sense natural conclusion is that Jay implied two U.S. citizen married parents."

Apparently we STILL haven't found the nexus of common sense and birtherism.


"Apparently..."
Dave B.. apparently you have no coherent substance to add to support your 2016 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther theory, your 2016 myth, that John jay did NOT mean to imply

_ ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_Only by birth on U,S. soil
_Only "by birth alone" 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 friend George Washington.

Do you want to try it again, and add a refutation to my assertion about John Jay's original genesis intent?
If you do not, it's because you can't.

Neither can ANY of the "nbC" new meaning neobirthers, and there are many, that I have asked to rebut and refute my point about John Jay, the author of "natural born Citizen."

Art


Look, if you're that set on marginalizing yourself, don't expect me to try to talk you out of it.


"...marginalizing..."

Dave B., as you have revealed yourself in your comments to Mario Apuzzo in this thread, you have returned to your way of saying nothing with multisyllabic words.

Oh well.

Art


That's because birtherism isn't common sense.


"Common sense" meaning you made up the conclusion and are trying to think you know what a dead person said centuries ago. He was a chief justice clearly it would have come up at sometime during his tenure if he meant what you thought he meant.

There is no basis for there to be a rule for married parents. We're talking about the real world here.

I notice you once again didn't answer my question. Under your theory does the father have to be alive at the birth of the child? Using your "common sense" strict nonsense if a child is born after the father's death then he wouldn't have been born with two citizen married parents at the time of his birth which is what you claimed to require. Article 1 Section 5 says nothing about the citizenship of the parents let alone mentioned parents or even married parents. You just made this up.

You're not using common sense art.


"Common Sense"...

So, then, you admit that you too "...made up the conclusion..." that Jay implied U.S./foreign citizenship for the father and or mother and that Jay also implied that marriage was NOT a factor since Jay did not mention either in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington or at any time before or after he was Supreme Court Chief Justice.

Is that what you are implying, since Jay said noting about what he meant by "natural born Citizen" and whether or not the father died before the child was born?

Where is the common sense in your unrealistic assumptions?

Pogue Moran, I answered your death question about the father. Did you read quickly or slowly? Did you miss this:

>> "Common sense affirms that a child is a "natural born Citizen" and
eligible to be president if born to two U.S. citizen married parents
before OR after the father dies."

That's my common sense. What's your common sense?

Art


See this is the problem you birthers have.

You read something and then just make stuf up from it. Jay didn't really imply anything. Jay implied that he didn't want someone born overseas coming here and being commander in Chief. This has nothing to do with those born here regardless of the status of the parents.

But that's not your original implication Art so now you've adjusted your theory accordingly.

Okay another question. So what happens when a child is born from a rape and the attacker is unknown? Are you going to claim that child can't be president? What about someone in Tom Vilsack's situation? Common sense shows no one should listen to you.

If the early Americans thought as you did they wouldn't have nominated John C Fremont to be the first candidate for the Republican Party for President.



Dittos to "see...just make stuf up…"

If Jay did not imply "anything" then Jay did not imply "anything" when he underlined the word "born In "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, and Washington "knew" that that was not implying "anything" important.

Common sense reveals that a child born of rape is not a "natural born Citizen" since the child was not born to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Pogue Moran, simple common sense is so revealing. Trying it yourself. I know you can do it by simply putting yourself in Jays position and telling yourself what YOU would mean by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America.

Fremont is a digression away from John Jay.

Art


Of course he didn't imply anything by underlining the word born. Just like there's no meaning to natural born citizen being capitalized in the constitution. You're reading into something that wasn't there.

How does common sense say a child born of rape isn't a natural born citizen? Again you're making the assumption that natural born citizen requires two us citizen married parents when it doesn't. Do you have any proof that the founders changed the meaning of the term natural born citizen between what it was under the articles of confederation to the constitution to magically mean born of two citizen married parents?

You're not using simple common sense but rather idiot birther logic which has never held up in a court of law.
Fremont is relevant. If the early americans felt as you claimed Jay did and if they used your "common sense" then Fremont would have never been able to be nominated and someone would have made a fuss about it.

The reality is you don't know what common sense is.


"Of course...you're making the assumption..."

Pogue Moran, you are doing the same thing you say that I am doing.

I say that Jay in 1787 implied
only singular U.S. citizenship that is
only possible "by birth alone" on U.S. soil
only to two U.S. citizen married parents.

You say that Jay did not imply "anything."

You are promoting an eligibility theory, a myth that Jay did not imply anything significant by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787, so you, as do all other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers, say that Jay by NOT saying anything about one or two parents, citizens or not citizens, can be construed today in 2016 America as implying that anything goes concerning what Jay implied about being eligible to be president.

_Two U.S. citizen married parents or two U.S. citizens who are not married only to each other.
_Birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil.
_Birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent or birth two U.S. citizen married or not married parents.
_Birth on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen married parents or not married persons.
_Singular U.S. citizenship or dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

The "nbC" new meaning neobirthers are not coherent, not persuasive, not convincing, not exhibiting common sense about original genesis and the original intent of John Jay, George Washington and the delegates who adopted Article II Section 1 clause 5, and the states ratified who ratified the original intent of Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787.

General Fremont, the first person nominated by the nascent Republican Party lost the general election. Four years later, Lincoln was the first Republican elected president.

Pogue Moran, in his first inaugural address, Lincoln said that the Union is older than the 1787 Constitution, older than the 1778 Articles of Confederation, older than the 1776 Declaration of Independence, older than the 1774 Articles of Association, and that his purpose as President was to preserve the Union. He called it a perpetual Union.


The U.S. Constitution and the Union is defended by defending Jay's original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, possible only "by birth alone" only to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Defending the original genesis original intent of John Jay and his reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" also defends Abraham Lincoln's original intent for defending the U.S. Constitution of the entire Union.

The "union" of the singular U.S. citizenship family is united to the "Union" of citizens who are eligible to be president, the U.S. "natural born Citizen" is the ONLY U.S. citizen eligible to be president.

Art


no I'm actually not making assumptions here. You're the one claiming that in changes one word between natural born subject and natural born citizen that somehow jay made up this new type with new rules that is contrary to the common law that the founders were raised in.

Jay wasn't a delegate to the convention and his letter wouldn't have arrived in time.

You claim Jay implied something that wasn't actually implied. You're putting your own spin on something totally innocuous. I'm not promoting a theory I'm just saying the way things actually are. The way they've held up in court. Your two citizen parents married theory hasn't held up in court on any of the birther related challenges.
What's being said is the founders used the common law in that one born on US Soil regardless of parentage is a natural born citizen. This is something even William Rawle knew and he was there at the founding. He was also appointed first DA for Pennsylvania by President George Washington so I'd think he would know a lot more about this than you:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. " - William Rawle - A View of the Constitution of the United States – 1829

Yes Fremont lost the election but thus he was nominated by one of the major parties despite not meeting your made up requirements. Obviously your made up requirements weren't something the founders or early Americans believed.

Again you claim to know Jay's original intent and yet that's not what he said. So when you claim you're defending his original intent, you're outright lying. Again Art not common sense. You make up a theory which you still can't support.


John Jay v. William Rawle?

No.

Something that would be nice for "nbC" new meaning neobirthers to do is to clarify that Rawle only meant that, for eligibility to be president, the parents could be either U.S. citizens or aliens when their child is born "within" the United States and that is what John Jay meant also, ONLY U.S. soil, not the citizenship status of the parents, married to each other or not.

Are you saying that Rawle, in 1829, although he did not say so, was implying, for eligibility to be president, he was implying zero U.S. citizenship for the married parents of a child, and Rawle was also implying that the reproducers of a child could be unmarried, and that John Jay would agree with Rawle?

Are you saying that Rawle was implying one U.S. citizen parent or zero U.S. citizen parents in 1829 America" as long as the child was born "within" the United States and Jay would agree?

Since Rawle did not clarify himself the way you and other "nbC" new meaning neobirthers want him to be understood, we in 2016 America can infer that Rawle was implying in 1829 America that "...whether the parents are citizens or aliens..." meant what John Jay meant and implied by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America, that the married parents of the child could be either born with U.S. citizenship or could have been born on foreign soil with foreign citizenship who became U.S. naturalized citizens BEFORE their child was born "within" the United States and "... is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution."

Who else after 1829 agreed with Rawle as you understand Rawle?

Did the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Court adduce Rawle for their decision because they agreed with what you say Rawle meant?

No.

Did the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Court adduce Rawle to support their decision because they agreed with what you say Rawle meant?

No

Art


You're trying to make a constitutional case out of an underlined word in a vague passage in a personal letter?

Here's how much attention the Federal Convention paid to John Jay's letter-- he said,

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen."

Jay is believed to have had the German officer, von Steuben, particularly in mind when he wrote that letter. What did the delegates do? They went out of their way, quite purposefully, to make men like von Steuben eligible for the office of president, and the position of "Command in chief of the american army." So much for your underline.

"The "...nationalities of their parents" is not the issue. The issue is the citizenship status of the parents."

In the United States, citizenship completely overlaps nationality, just as it does in every other country I know of; the reverse is not true. All US citizens have US nationality. In US law, "nationality" is linked to permanent allegiance.

"...the 1795 language resolved the issue about the eligibility to be president."

According to what genuine scholarly authority? That's birther law, vintage 2008 or younger. In 1938, here's what the executive departments reporting to the president on US nationality law had to say about that:

""Naturalization," according to the usual acceptation of the term in the United States, undoubtedly means the grant of a new nationality to a natural person after birth. (Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law, 88; Osborne v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 827; 9 Op. Att'y Gen. 859). The term is not ordinarily applied to the conferring of the nationality of a state, jure sanguinis, at birth, upon a child born abroad. It has sometimes been contended that the power conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" included the power to provide for acquisition of nationality at birth by children born abroad to citizens of the United States, and this contention finds some support in the fact that the first naturalization act of the United States, which was passed by the first Congress, that is, the act of March 26, 1790, entitled "An act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization" (1 Stat. 108), contained a provision that 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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.

"It is interesting to note, however, that the statute declares that such children shall be "considered as natural born citizens." Whether the term "natural born citizen," as used in section 1 of article II of the Constitution, with reference to eligibility to the office of President of the United States, includes persons born abroad to citizens of the United States is still a subject of debate.

"From the discussion in the Convention of the Constitutional provision in question it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution were principally concerned with the desirability of making it clear that the acquisition of citizenship of the United States should be governed by a single Federal law and not left to diverse laws of the various States of the Union, the provision in the Articles of Confederation having proved most unsatisfactory. The members seem to have had in mind, primarily at least, the matter of conferring citizenship after birth, through the process of naturalization, upon aliens who should have taken up their abode in the United States, since mention was made of the fact that in some of the States under the Confederation a long period of residence was required before citizenship was granted, while in others it was granted immediately or very shortly after arrival. A uniform rule seemed desirable. (The Papers of James Madison (1840), vol. H, pp. 1274, 1300; The Federalist, A New Edition (1818), No. XLII, pp. 267-268; Story on the Constitution, ch. XVI; Warren, The Making of the Constitution, p. 480. See also Passenger Cases, 7 How. 282, 482). It may be possible to hold, however, that the Convention, when using the expression "an uniform rule of naturalization" contemplated a broader use of the term "naturalization" than that which is now ordinarily applied, and that it intended to cover cases in which citizenship might be conferred by statute at birth upon children born to citizens of the United States in foreign lands. The latter view was expressed in the opinion of Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 1874, 88 U.S. 102, 168, and in the opinion of Justice Gray in US. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898, 100 U.S. 69,679 70-708.

"Even if it is true that the term naturalization" in section 8 of article I of the Constitution should be construed broadly, it does not follow that in the proposed new act the narrower meaning indicated by the definition under discussion cannot properly be used, especially as this meaning is now universally attributed to the word. Certainly in recent years, at least, persons who were born abroad of citizens of the United States and who acquired citizenship of the United States at birth, under the provision of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, have never been termed "naturalized citizens.""

Nationality Laws of the United States- Message from the President of the United States Transmitting a Report Proposing a Revision and Codification of the Nationality Laws of the United States, Prepared at the Request of the President of the United States, by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Labor, submitted to President Roosevelt on June 1, 1938

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/files/1940nat-act-comm-print-pt-1a.pdf

Does that sound like the 1795 act "resolved" it?


Yes…

The 1795 Naturalization Act is a "naturalization" act.

Dave B, everything you adduced is about "naturalization" and citizenship, not a definition of "natural born Citizen" as John Jay obviously understood it when he underlined the word "born" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

An Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" is a U.S. "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" alone to two U.S. citizen married parents, not a naturalization act U.S. "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship "at birth" to one U.S. citizen (Sen. Cruz) or "at birth" to zero U.S. citizens as the Fourteenth Amendment has been redefined by the 1898 U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court (Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley).

The immigration and naturalization statutes since 1795 use only the "at birth" language for naturalized citizens, and do not refer to children born on foreign soil as naturalized U.S. citizens "by birth" to one U.S. citizen parent or two U.S. citizen married parents.

Yes.

The 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language resolved that children born abroad to two U.S. citizen married parents were U.S. "citizens" at birth but NOT U.S. "natural born Citizens" by birth alone, "citizen" language that ALL immigration and naturalization statutes have affirmed since 1795.

Art


I believe I've already addressed those points-- they're not improved by rearranging the words.

The United States observes its own real law, made by its Congress and courts-- not imaginary law cooked up by self-marginalizing cranks and crackpots.


"real law"…

Dave B. Article II Section 1 clause 5 is part of the Constitution, not United States "real law, made by its Congress and courts" and can only be changed by amendment.

Dave B. the original intent of John Jay in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," an intent that was agreed with by Washington, the ConCon delegates and the states who ratified the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5, is not changed by naturalization statutes by the Congress or declarations by the Supreme Court, federal courts, state courts.

Art


Okay, you've got a point-- the original Constitution wasn't made by Congress. But it's real law, and it sure wasn't made since 2008 by those cranks I mentioned, either.

Huh?...


Of course the "original Constitution" is "real" law.


The U.S. Constitution is "positive law" written to support the "natural law" that the delegates possessed BEFORE the positive law was debated, written, adopted and ratified.


Art

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)