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.
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]”
“ ‘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
No comments:
Post a Comment