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