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