EXclusive
INTENT dittos
or
Exclusive
Original Intent vs. Prof. Akhil Reed Amar’s “Implicit”
Constitution
Today
I also put this on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog
Mario,
that is a good point by Carlyle. Did the "legislative or legal
system" clarify...ever?
On
pages 240-245 of his book The Constitution Today Yale Prof. of
Law Amar seems to think that with the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment the
"system" clarified the issue of who is a citizen and their
birthrights.
He
says on pages 240-41:
"We
begin with the Constitution itself. The Fourteenth Amendment opens
with a promise of birth equality: 'All persons born . . . in the
United States . . . are citizens; and thus equal [his
emphasis] citizens."
In
the last sentence at the bottom of page 240 Amar implies that even
"plop-and-drop" anchor babies are citizens, with the tacit
implication that they are eligible to be president.
He
says:
"A
child born in America to a family of noncitizen parents is a full
birthright citizen with all the same entitlements and privileges as
any other American child."
Amar
concludes the "birthright citizen" point with a comment
about homosexuality and heterosexuality, and then concludes on page
245 with comments about transgenders, implying that the Fourteenth
Amendment from 1868 on also applies to future changes in America.
He
says on page 241:
"And
today we make clear that those born gay or lesbian are no less in
civil rights than those born straight."
Amar
extrapolates further about being “born’” on pages 241-245 and
mentions racial equality, civil rights, sex discrimination, women's
civil rights, being born blind, diseases, marriage laws, religious
equality, racial separation, etc., and concludes with this comment
about “equality and freedom”:
He
says:
“To
put this point about the deep connection between equality and freedom
a different way – and to explain from yet another angle why we now
must vindicate the enacted letter and spirit of the Fourteenth
Amendment without being hamstrung by every specific nontextual and
unratified factual or normative assumption that its framers may have
held – we today take judicial notice of the following basic and
widespread facts of our modern world. Sexual intimacy and human
procreation have been profoundly decoupled in the last half-century.
Persons can have babies without having sex (in vitro fertilization)
and ….”
After
a few more comments about marriage laws, genders, transgenders
staying married to their spouses and creating a same-sex marriage,
transgender birth certificates and transgender driver’s licenses
and transgender passports, Amar concludes his comments with a
sentence which implies that what law professors say the law means
today is what the law meant to the law writers of the past – last
week or last century or 1868:
He
says:
“Our
fundamental nature is not male or female, black or white, but human,
pure and simple. Our most basic law must recognize these basic facts
of modern life, modern law, and modern science.”
Mario,
I would like to add to a previous comment that I put here on June 20,
2017 at 10:45 PM in which I finished with "This is not a
previous essay, but it is definitely an excellent point about the
Fourteenth Amendment and 'citizenship rights'”.
Yes,
it’s an excellent point – except for Prof. Amar's implication
that the Fourteenth Amendment is the constitutional authority that
allows plop-and-drop anchor babies, who are born on U.S. soil to
parents who are not U.S. citizens, to be eligible to be president.
The implication is shallow, thoughtless, irrational, and contrary
to self-preservation.
Mario,
as a lawyer, and since this Article II Section clause 5 “natural
born Citizen” debate will never die as long as “natural born
Citizen” remains in the constitution, you should challenge Prof.
Amar here on your Natural Born Citizen blog about his “equality
and freedom” proposition, something that he has been writing
about for years. You should publicly challenge the “equality and
freedom” of Prof. Amar in the context of a person being
eligible to be president as being “contrary to
self-preservation” relative
to his explicit statement on
page 241:
>>
"A child born in
America to a family of noncitizen parents is a full
birthright citizen with all the
same entitlements and privileges as any other American child."
It
is shallow,
thoughtless and irrational for
a tenured law professor to propose that a child born on U.S. soil to
"noncitizen parents is a full birthright citizen"
because
his statement is another way
of saying
to the whole world these two
things:
(1)
All you parents, citizens of the world,
you all come here, you hear, and have your babies in America
and your baby can be president of America someday just
like wanna be presidents Gov. Bobby Jindal, Sen.
Marco Rubio, Gov./Amb. Nikki Haley –
cuz that's what Prof. Amar teaches his students – the
Fourteenth Amendment includes all peoples of the world who manage to
have their anchor baby born, uh, I mean, who manage to have
their child touch down on U.S. soil.
(2)
Sure, visit Saudi Arabia or ANY Muslim country, and if you are a
woman and have a child to a Muslim man in a Muslim country,
well, for sure, your baby can also be
president of of America with only one U.S. citizen parent
just like wanna be president Sen. Ted Cruz – cuz, well, we're
inclusive in America, shucks, we're so inclusive that we're
for "liberty and equality" for all
– so, you all come here, now. Hear?
Can
you all hear me now?
The
“equality and freedom”
of Prof. Amar being
“contrary to self-preservation” is a point that is
NEVER discussed by Amar because nobody ever challenges him, and of
course it is also never mentioned because it is never considered
relevant by Levin, Solum, Natelson and others when they defend using
the Fourteenth Amendment to justify eligibility to be president to
plop-and-drop anchor babies simply because they were born on U.S.
soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time they (the
father who brought the mother) plopped themselves onto a hospital bed
and dropped their anchor baby.
Mario,
if anybody wants to read more, here is the url and three dates from
two years ago when I commented about Prof. Amar and his "equality
and freedom" emphasis, although previously he phrased it
"liberty and equality" consistently in his 2012 book
America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents
and Principles We Live By.
June
24, 2015 at 3:52 PM – Prof. Amar's Three Rules for amendments
"...that fits our tradition":
Rule
# 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality
_Flag
Burning
_Campaign
Finance Reform
_Marriage
and Tradition
Rule
#2: Both Political Parties Must Agree
Rule
#3: States Test Ideas First
_Direct
Election of the President
_POTUS
Eligibility of Foreign Born
_Homosexual
Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution
1-
Flag Burning
2-
Campaign Finance Reform
3-
Marriage and Tradition
4-
Direct Election of the President
5-
POTUS Eligibility for Foreign Born
6-
Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution
Prof.
Amar's comments, as a recognized constitutional law scholar and
political scientist, are intended to be socially transformative and,
as he self-identified in the panel discussion, a registered Democrat,
so, as the current Democratic Party is constituted since the new
Democrat
activists, aka
Liberals, aka Progressives, aka Socialists, aka Marxists, aka
whatever new “ist” fits,
took it over, Prof. Amar's comments reveal, politically, progressive
new thought socialism with a new meaning to
“liberty and
equality”
and
“implicit.”
Although
Professor Amar does not reference Article II and “natural born
Citizen” in this panel discussion, his “liberty and equality”
focus, along with his
“...three rules, prescriptive and descriptive...for
constitutional amendments”,
indicates that the Constitution's heterosexual preamble word
“posterity,” as related to the three heterosexual related POTUS
eligibility requirement words “natural born Citizen,” will
require the exclusivity of “natural born Citizen” as a reference
to ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents
to be excised from Article II by removing the written words “natural
born Citizen” from the Constitution. The excision of “natural
born Citizen” from Article II will be the necessary consequence if
Prof. Amar's “liberty and equality” proposal to amend the
written Constitution to include homosexuality is endorsed by all
political parties and then ratified by the states because the
“implicit constitution” of Prof. Amar condones the
implication of including natural law homosexuality to be on par with
natural law heterosexuality.
Professor
Amar's 2012 book, titled America's Unwritten
Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live
By*, and the first chapter, titled Reading
Between the Lines: America's Implicit Constitution, indicate
that as a socialist progressive, Yale Law Prof. Amar can allow
anything to be “implicit” in the written Constitution if it
promotes the agenda to “transform the United States of America”
by transforming the U.S. Constitution into a “liberty and
equality” “implicit constitution” in which can be found
anything, including promoting the homosexual agenda of less than 2%
of the American population. See
below an
“implicitly”
constitutional new
meaning: “...no
discrimination on the grounds of [homosexual]
sex. I think it would
be nice to have that in our federal constitution. It's
[homosexual “sex” is]
already there
implicitly,”
followed
in the next sentence with “States are giving us
gay marriage”.
*America's
Unwritten Constitution (
http://www.americasunwrittenconstitution.com/
)
Prof.
Amar's intent is to amend the U.S. Constitution with three
amendments so that each “...fits our tradition” as he
defines “tradition,” specifically the tradition of marriage and
posterity since the 1787 “We the People” wrote the words “...to
form a more perfect Union” for themselves and their
“Posterity” as the Union populated. If Prof. Amar's three
amendments listed below are ratified, at least one amendment will be
required for the excision of
the natural law related words “natural born Citizen” from Article
II to accommodate the inclusion by amendment of
positive law homosexual marriage and the elevation by amendment
of natural law homosexuality, a consistent 1% to 2% of the population
by recruiting through media ridicule and propaganda, to an equal
status with natural law heterosexuality.
Since
Prof. Amar spent so much space (pp. 241-245) on sexuality and
ramifications in society of the transgender phenomenon (e.g., staying
married to a spouse), I will conclude with a brief non-lawyers
response (hey, I’m just one guy in El Paso, Texas – if not me,
who?) to his erudite comments, he being a Yale tenured law professor
and a constitutional scholar and all that implies about his erudite
astuteness (whew, can I handle the stress? Yes – I write, you
decide).
Neither
“natural law homosexuality” (the activity) nor “natural law
heterosexuality” (the activity) require a “positive law” to be
actively practiced – activity is by choice alone, activity is not
mandated by positive law or natural law ( the “activity” of
celibacy is ONLY by choice, “mindset” – not by birth,
“bodyset”). Neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality are
activities determined by birth alone or by birth at all. Being male
or female is by birth alone – engaging in
sexual activity is by choice alone as bisexuality and the
transgender phenomenon prove daily. Bisexuality and transgenderism
are mindsets, not bodysets. A transgender person is exhibiting a
“mindset” about the body, not a “bodyset”
about the mind. Transgenderism is public proof that
homosexuality is a “mindset” activity and not a “bodyset”
activity. Being male or female is a “bodyset” that is not
determined by a “mindset” of choice. Being male or female is,
well, “being” – not choosing. Activity is “choosing” –
not being.
Mario,
in conclusion, if Prof. Amar is not challenged in writing and or
debate his “liberty and equality” amendments to the
constitution, if accepted in the classrooms of America and adopted
and ratified by the people of the states, they will “transform”
the original meaning of the Constitution's 1787 preamble words
“posterity” and “Union.”
Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com
(http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2017/06/exclusive-original-intent-vs-prof-akhil.html)
No comments:
Post a Comment