John Jay vs. Anti-American Foreigners and Agitators

John Jay vs. Anti-American Foreigner and Agitators

I also posted this on Mario Apuzzo’s NaturalBorn Citizen blog. The italic section below is from a July 10, 2017 at 9:30 AM comment at Mario’s blog.

<i>Are we REALLY supposed to believe THIS:

If prior to the necessity of The Obama Situation forcing us to accept a ridiculous and perverse definition of NBC, we had openly and objectively discussed the definition of NBC?

<b>A severely anti-American foreigner and agitator</b> happens to visit USA and his wife plops out an anchor baby. The baby is taken back to hostile foreign country and indoctrinated for many years. Child/adult moves to USA and takes up residence. Upon living here 14 years and achieving age of 35 he can become president.

Now, tell me with a straight face that Founding Fathers would have thought this was just great.

SIGH</i>

This is my response of agreement:

Dittos "a straight face"

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...where's Bryan (not Linda)?

I'm still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) to get in touch with the obvious implication of John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Jay would NOT have agreed with "a severely anti-American foreigner and agitator", or even a "friendly" foreigner, being eligible to be president when it is obvious that Jay's ONLY reason for underlining the word "born" is that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualified a person in 1787 to be president with the implication that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was to be a perpetual implication from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

It is NOT possible for Jay to have had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the ONLY reason for underlining the word "born" and to have ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship as an implication for underlining the word "born". The myth, the neo-birther theory, the “implicit constitution” suggestion that Jay implied and Washington agreed that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to have command of the U.S. military and to be president, is, well, that theory is just nuts.

In the court of public opinion, this simple and obvious implication of John Jay, the underliner of the word "born" and the author of "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington as implying that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to have command of the U.S. military and to be president, MUST be repeated and repeated and repeated. It MUST be repeated for two reasons: first, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president is very simple to state and to understand and to repeat to others, and second, Jay's original "implication" is NOT debatable, it is NOT refutable, it is NOT rebutable, it is NOT inclusive.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive.

ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship is inclusive.

It is obvious that Jay was promoting the idea that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president and so it is obvious that Jay definitely was NOT promoting the idea that a person was eligible to be president just because a person was born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to only 1 OR 0 U.S. citizen parents (see SCOTUS Wong Kim Ark error about the Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” language) OR born on foreign soil to either 1 OR 2 U.S. citizen parents (see the 1795 Naturalization Act).

Concerning who is eligible to have command of the U.S. military and to be president of the United States, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive for a security reason. The myth that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to command the military and to be president MUST be exposed as the “inclusive” fraud that it is and it must NOT be allowed to gain traction in the discussion that Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar is promoting with his “implicit constitution” theory.

In conclusion, and to repeat the obvious as I posted above:

To be eligible to be president John Jay's ONLY implication is obvious - ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and definitely NOT ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

ONLY <b>"by birth alone"</b>

ONLY on U.S. soil (jurisdiction)

ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents

ONLY married

ONLY to each other

ONLY before the child is born

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...still waiting for Bryan (not Linda) and other myth makers and neo-birthers to get in touch with the obvious reality about Jay’s security concerns.

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

John Jay vs. Shallow Thinking About Natural Born Citizen

John Jay vs. Shallow Thinking About Natural Born Citizen

I also posted this on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog. To read it and other comments there click here and scroll down to the July 7, 2017 at 5:54 PM date and time stamp.

Mario,

I, being a "crank nonsense" spotter, noticed instantly that Bryan came through again with "crank nonsense" on July 7, 2017 at 3:40 AM, and his comment indicates that he is not a very deep thinker at 3:40 in the morning - with or without a drink or two or three or...more.

First, I noticed that he asked a debate question and then finished the paragraph with a shallow thinker insult and then says that to debate me would "show undeserved respect" because my "position" is "unworthy of serious consideration".

Ha!

Bryan wrote:

>>" Ajtelles, in your comments here you hold – and please challenge me if you think I'm wrong on this – that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married. ...."

Bryan, are you serious?

Bryan, do you really believe that the constitution delegates and states' ratifiers were implicitly promoting the myth and theory that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship would quality a person to be president without the parents being married only to each other before the child is born?

Really?

Bryan, are you a Muslim or simply a Muslim supporter (supporting is not a bad thing, but the intent could be detrimental to U.S. internal security if it supports jihad and imposition of sharia jurisprudence as superior to the U.S. Constitution) and, whether you a Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or an animist or a Buddhist or an atheist, do you believe that Muhammad’s multiple marriages, including his marriage to 6 year old Aisha (which was consummated when she was 9 years old) are an example of a good role model for persons in the United States who may aspire to be president if they ALSO have multiple wives OR ALSO marry a 9 year old child? Since you don’t really care for the rule of law, forget for now that consummating marriage with a 9 year old is not lawful in 2017 America just as it was unlawful in 1787 America when Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen”.

Bryan, do you really believe that in 1787 America the Founders and Framers of the Constitution were promoting the myth, the “crank nonsense” theory, that ANY person could be president of the United States simply because they were born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction to only one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe that in 1787 America the social custom of that era would tolerate a child to be eligible to be president if the child was born on U.S. soil to a foreign female who had a child out of wedlock (emphasis is on "lock" by marriage) to a foreign male?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe that when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington that Jay implied and Washington agreed that ANY child born on U.S. soil could be eligible to be president even if born to a U.S. citizen female prostitute who was not married to anybody?

Really?

Bryan, do you really believe your "crank nonsense" drivel implicit in your question to me: "...that to be eligible under Article II, one's parents had to have been married"?

Bryan, are you serious?

Bryan, do you really believe the implicit "crank nonsense" that to be eligible under Article II one's parents did NOT have to be married?

Really?

Bryan, it is your own shallow thinker "position" that is truly "unworthy of serious consideration" but it is definitely worthy of derision because of it's shallowness and thoughtlessness and the opportunity it presents to point out “crank nonsense” as soon as it is posted here on Mario’s Natural Born Citizen blog.

Bryan, that's not mean, but it is responsive.

Bryan, you have revealed – again – that you are simply argumentative without substance?

And Bryan, dittos back at you with your own words:

>>" My position is that your position is so obviously garbage, so clearly unworthy of serious consideration, that to debate would show undeserved respect. Your theory deserves naught but mockery and derision."

Bryan, your position is definitely not worthy of serious consideration, but, you come back, ok, cuz' you are fodder* for "crank nonsense" spotters and your shallowness is just so easy to refute that it is fun to respond and in that way educate others who may happen to read what you write and how you are substantively rebutted and refuted as you try spitting against the wind in your defense of the "crank nonsense" myth and theory of ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president.

* Check the dictionary: the second definition in my American Heritage Dictionary for “fodder” is “Raw material, as for artistic creation.” You’re the fodder Bryan, I’m the artistic creator as is Mario.

AND Bryan, are you aware that you NEVER refer to John Jay to support your "crank nonsense" position that ONLY U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president was NOT Jay's ONLY implicit reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" but that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president.

AND Bryan, are you aware that you NEVER refer to John Jay as a person who would agree with your "crank nonsense" that it does not matter whether or not the couple who reproduced a child should be married for their child to be eligible to be president?

Really? ALSO dual and ALSO not married?

So Bryan, tick...tock...tick...tock...tick...tock…, still waiting for you to adduce the historical record of the debate by the convention delegates and states’ ratifiers.

My common sense position is that since they did NOT debate ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president, the delegates and ratifiers did NOT debate and simply accepted John Jay’s implicit reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” because the obvious does NOT need to be debated.

Jay implied the obvious:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

ONLY by birth alone

ONLY on U.S. soil / jurisdiction

ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents

ONLY married

ONLY to each other

ONLY before the child is born

Bryan, see how easy it is to state the obvious?

Now, you try to state the “obvious” as you see it, and keep your intentional mean attitude to yourself – especially after 3 am, unless that’s when you do your deepest thinkin’ and writin’.

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

John Jay - You're Wrong About Who Is Eligible To Be President

John Jay – You’re Wrong About Who Is Eligible To Be President

I also posted this on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog. To read it and other comments there scroll down to the July 6, 2017 at 3:38 PM* date and time stamp.

* https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html

Mario,

Bryan, who has never really been mean to you or others here on your Natural Born Citizen blog, has become nicer in his commentary and I’m starting to like reading his comments more than before, so my exposition about Bryan’s correction of your erudition is not intended to be directed at Bryan the person in a mean spirited way but directed at the content which could have been written by any person who believes that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be eligible to be president instead of believing that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president. What I like, and which is just too easy to rebut, is that Bryan hangs in there defending “crank nonsense” with sources that “no one” can rebut and refute. “No one” is a play on words since “no one” is one of Bryan’s opposition authoritative sources as will be clear below.

Bryan’s exposition is simple.

You are wrong and his conclusions about his quoted sources prove it. Period.

See, Bryan’s “cheerleading”, as you put it on July 5, 2017 at 9:45 PM, is simple to do. It doesn’t take much thought, and expressing a point without substance input is definitely not playing “the game”; here is an example from Bryan’s own conclusions on July 5, 2017 at 8:45 PM.

Four of Bryan’s quotes:

“ ‘The recurring doubts relate to those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents." [Gordon 1968]
“ ‘But whether a person born abroad of American parents, or of one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved.’ [Pryor 1988]”

“ ‘It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible" [Gordon 1968]

“ ‘It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.’ [Pryor 1988]”

After quoting Gordon and Pryor, Bryan says “No one challenged Gordon or Pryor on those assertions.” That, it seems to me, is an excellent example of “cheerleading”. This “crank nonsense” spotter has a question about the “assertions” of “crank nonsense” that are supported by “no one”. Who are Bryan’s authoritative sources for his conclusion about Gordon’s and Pryor’s “assertions”? Simple, “no one”. How can “no one” be rebutted and refuted?

Simple – by using the historical record.

Pryor’s “never been resolved” conclusion is definitely not an informed conclusion.

The 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language “resolved” the error of the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born Citizen” language of, as Gordon put it, “those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents”. With her “resolved” comment, Pryor is simply tacitly promoting the “crank nonsense” that NOT only singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president but that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president. As a “crank nonsense” spotter I immediately spotted the “crank nonsense” that the implicit dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president instead of John Jay’s common sense implicit reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington (an implicit original genesis original intent with which Washington agreed).

Jay’s common sense in 1787 was that “by birth alone” ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president.

Why and how?

BECAUSE “born” implies<

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

ONLY “by birth alone”

ONLY on U.S. soil,

ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents,

ONLY married before the child is born,

ONLY married to each other (NOT with multiple wives as practiced by some Muslims).

(Note to Prof. Amar: In 1787 America, multiple wives was definitely NOT part of the “implicit constitution” that you are promoting and also NOT part of the “implicit constitution” was the idea that ALSO U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president of the United States. However, what was “implicit” in 1787 in the explicit constitution language in Article II Section 1 clause 5 was the common sense idea that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president).

Jay’s common sense in 1787 was that the word “born” did NOT imply “birth abroad” as Gordon wrote or “born abroad” as Pryor wrote. Do “constitutional scholars” in 2017 America really believe that in 1787 America Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington with the intention to imply birth on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents, OR birth on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?

Really? One? Zero?

That is definitely “crank nonsense” being asserted by Gordon in 1968 and Pryor in 1988, and in 2017 by Prof. Akhil Amar, Mark Levin, Esq., Prof. Larry Solum, Prof. Rob Natelson and et al who use the Fourteenth Amendment to tacitly “amend” the original intent of “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5.

After references to Morse’s “definition of NBC” and Leo Donofrio, Bryan references “no one’s” cousin “no one at all” as his authoritative source to support his quoted source: “I can find no one at all saying that eligibility of U.S.-born children depends upon the citizenship of their parents. Can you?”

Well, duh. It’s common sense that the obvious does not need to be stated.

The common sense assumption is that to be eligible to be president of the United States ONLY U.S. citizen parents can pass on their U.S. citizenship status “by birth alone” to their child.

Right? Yes. Why?

Because foreign citizen parents cannot pass on U.S. citizenship “by birth alone”.

Right? Yes.

That is why the Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” language does not “amend” the Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” language. That is why the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision did NOT explicitly refer to Article II Section 1 clause 5 as being clarified by the Court’s use of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and the court did NOT imply a connection because a Supreme Court decision or Supreme Court dicta cannot “amend” natural law and “by birth alone” in the context of who is eligible to be president.

Mario, after quoting you about Wong Kim Ark Bryan wrote: “Your theories on Wong lost. … I'm pointing out that before Obama could have had any influence the American legal community considered the eligibility of the native-born clear and settled.“

In conclusion Mario, Bryan finished his refutation of your erudition about what is “clear” in the last sentence of the last paragraph with “the eligibility of the native-born” as being “clear and settled”. From the perch of this “crank nonsense” spotter, here, use my binoculars Bryan, do you see that “clear and settled” contradicts what Pryor said because the issue (pun intended) of “one American and one alien parent, qualifies as natural born has never been resolved”.

See, when “no one” is the authoritative source to support the quoted source then “no one” can conclude anything, even when it contradicts “no one at all”… or, whatever, whoever.

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock… still waiting for the references to the debates about ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president and why ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is NOT the ONLY reason for John Jay to underline “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington...Tick...Tock.

P.S. Mario, for people who may be wondering about the repetition of words and phrases, the answer is that it works for reinforcement in the subconscious, and because I’m not writing for a scholarly journal or for a court. I’m writing for the court of public opinion and “it seems to me” style of language fits the setting, similar to sitting around the kitchen table and just talking.

So Bryan, tick...tock...tick...tock………….

<<>>

"We do not know vs. making stuff up"...

Mario,

Wow, Bryan comes through again on July 6, 2017 at 3:52 PM.

Bryan said in his table talk style which I also like:

"Would the Framers have agreed, one way or the other, on whether a foreign-born citizen from birth was a natural-born citizen in sense of Article II? We do not know and anyone who pretends to, in the absence of a clear historical citation not yet presented, is just making stuff up."

Yep... dittos... 100% agreement with Bryan... if "we" refers only to the myth makers who promote the modern theory that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president, and, by implication, that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is too exclusive for modern, uh, "constitutional scholars" like "implicit constitution" promoter Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar.

Bryan, to whom does "we do not know" refer?

Does "we" refer to those who promote the modern myth and theory that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president and that alien idea was the understanding of "some"(?) of the constitution delegates and states' ratifiers, but, and it's a BIG, BIG, BIG, HUMONGUS BIG but, that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualified a person to be president was NOT the ONLY patriotic understanding of ALL of the delegates and ratifiers?

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

John Jay's Singular U.S. Citizenship vs. John Jay's Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship

Common Sense vs. “Crank Nonsense”

or

John Jay’s Singular U.S. Citizenship vs. John Jay’s Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship

In the past I have written on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog that his expositions of the historical records concerning the1787 original meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 are always informative, and absolutely nobody has ever challenged his conclusions with facts that are definitive. They simply say that he is wrong and then they cite a source and give a conclusion that defends their use of their source.

For example, Bryan, a commentator, wrote a few days ago on June 29, 2017 at 4:15 PM* in the first sentence, “… I'm a hobbyist. My avocation is not, primarily, study of law. I study of crank nonsense,”. Does this mean that he is a “crank nonsense” scholar and that his responses and assertions to Mario Apuzzo, Esq. are the conclusions of a hobbyist and are not to be taken as serious expositions intending to advance knowledge? Well, duh, uh, I mean, of course he is a serious “crank nonsense” scholar, as I am when I point out his “crank nonsense” in defense of dual U.S./foreign citizenship ALSO qualifies a person to be president.

*https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html

Just as Bryan is not, I also am not as knowledgeable as Mario Apuzzo is about the historical records, sources, and court cases, and just as Bryan is not, I also am not a constitutional scholar, so this commentary is not directed to Bryan, the person, who wrote that he studies “crank nonsense”, but is written in layman’s language to all who express what I, also a student of “crank nonsense”, call the “crank nonsense” that dual U.S./foreign citizenship was John Jay’s “implicit” original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

Here is how I, a layman student scholar of “crank nonsense” like Bryan, explain in layman’s language, for example, “it seems to me” language, what John Jay really meant by implication on July 25, 1787, an implication what was incorporated into Article II Section 1 clause 5 when the spankin’ brand new U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 by ALL of the constitutional convention delegates and sent to the states for ratification by ALL of the states without any suggestion that a word or words needed to be changed after ratification by amendment. In the case of the “implicit” original meaning of the explicit words “natural born Citizen” – the “implicit” meaning of “nbC” was NOT challenged OR debated by the convention delegates OR by the states’ ratifiers, which included New York state ratifier John Jay who definitely knew what he meant on July 25, 1787 when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington.

Hmm… what does adoption and ratification of the new constitution “as is” tell us natural born citizen “crank nonsense” scholars about the “implicit” meaning of the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5?

The first thing that tells us is that John Jay could NOT have implied EITHER singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship as qualifying a person to be president. Why? Well, there is no record of a debate about the meanings of “natural” or “born” or “citizen” and definitely, absolutely zero, zilch, nada, no debate about the “explicit” OR “implicit” meaning of “natural born Citizen” BEFORE it was inserted into Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the new Constitution.

Since Jay underlined the word “born” common sense dictates that Jay implied that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship would qualify a person to be president. Also, and since our common sense is the same as the common sense of the convention delegates in 1787, our common sense today in 2017 dictates that because ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president, the “implicit” meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship would NOT need to be debated.

Right? Yes.

The second thing that tells us is that “IF” Jay had “implied” that dual U.S./foreign citizenship would qualify a person to be president, that DEFINITELY would have needed debate, and a record of that debate would be at the fingertips of every Prof. Amar inspired “implicit constitution” surrogate who would declare it from the roof tops, so to speak, of their blogs.

Right? Yes.

But, where are they and their blogs? Where are the John Jay and Prof. Amar inspired “implicit constitution” defenders who assert with “constitutional scholar” authority that “implicit” in Jay’s underlining of the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington that Jay ALSO “implied” that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be president?

The convention delegates would have debated the point before adopting the constitution on September 17, 1787 if they got a smidgin’ of an unsavory rotten egg, uh, wind that Jay “implied” ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship instead of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship would qualify a person to command the military AND be “...eligible to the Office of President” according to the language of A2S1c5.

The convention delegates would have debated “dual” and there would be a record of their debate before they sent the constitution to the states for ratification. But, and it’s a BIG but, the record of a convention debate and a states’ ratifying debate about ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship is not in the historical record ‘cuz there was no debate by the convention delegates or by the states’ ratifiers about ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifying a person to be president.

The conclusion of this “crank nonsense” scholar is that John Jay “implied” in 1787 that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be “...eligible to the Office of President” and that Jay NEVER “implied” that ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualified a person to be president.

In conclusion, I have noticed that “crank nonsense” scholar Bryan (he’s become nicer in his comments) and others in the past on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog always seem to have a sometimes snarky, sometimes friendly response to Mario’s obvious erudition about “natural born Citizen” in the historical record but they simply are not persuasive and therefore not convincing, but, for some reason, little ol’ me, a “crank nonsense” scholar like Bryan but who defends John Jay’s ONLY implication that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president, little ol’ me, I NEVER gets a response from “crank nonsense” scholar Bryan or et al. Tick… tock… tick… tock… tick… tock… going on 4 years Bryan. All they need to do, and it’s really simple and not complicated, is say that John Jay, the underliner of the word “born” and the author of “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington, meant...NOT ONLY...singular U.S. citizenship but...AND ALSO...dual U.S./foreign citizenship would qualify a person to be president.

Simple, right? Yes.

Of course, they would ALSO need to present the record of the debate by the delegates and ratifiers that they agreed that Jay correctly “implied” AND ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship would qualify a person to be president.

Simple, right? Yes.

That’s all, simply adduce the historical record to educate “crank nonsense” scholars who defend Jay’s implication that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship qualifies a person to be president, and also educate “crank nonsense” and “implicit constitution” constitutional scholars like Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, and Mark Levin, Esq., and Prof. Larry Solum, and Prof. Rob Natelson and, well, so many more who assert with solemnity that a person with dual U.S./foreign citizenship is ALSO eligible to be president, and who talk and write for and against “originalism” but never seem to apply their erudition and scholarship to explaining John Jay’s “implicit” original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his “inspired” note to George Washington on July 25, 1787..

Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...Tick...Tock...

Art

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com