Donate

Monday, May 25, 2015

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal Should Not Be Allowed to Participate in the Presidential Debates Because They, Like De Facto President Obama, Are All Not Natural Born Citizens and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 25, 2015

Soon, we will see various presidential candidates debate each other for the right to win their party’s nomination for President and ultimately to win the people’s and Electoral College’s vote for that Office.  The organizations that will be sponsoring these presidential debates, Commission on Presidential Debates, Fox News, Fox Business Network, Reagan Library Foundation, Salem Media Group, CNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Telemundo, and National Review, in keeping with their bylaws, should not allow any person who is not constitutionally eligible for that office to debate.  Allowing constitutionally ineligible candidates to debate will only give the false impression to the American people that such persons are constitutionally eligible to be elected President.  This result is more damaging to the Constitution and the rule of law, given that the federal courts refused to get involved in the question of whether de facto President Barack Obama is an Article II natural born citizen.  There has been mentioned in the news of some individuals who will be vying for the Office of President.  These are Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal.  But these individuals, like Obama, are not natural born citizens and hence not eligible to be elected President.  They should therefore not be allowed to debate.  Allow me to explain. 

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, having satisfied the 35 years age and 14 years residency requirements, being a "citizen" of the United States was sufficient to be eligible to be President.  It also provides that for those born after the adoption, only a "natural born citizen" of the United States is eligible to be President.  So, with presidential eligibility under Article II, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, we are looking to define a natural born citizen, not a citizen.  We can also see from this constitutional scheme that in the United States there are only “citizens” or “natural born citizens” and that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens. 

The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to assure that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military would be born citizens of and in allegiance with only the United States from the moment of birth and throughout their lives.  They concluded that such a person would be one to least have sympathies for some foreign power or influence which could result in conflict of interests which could harm the United States and its people.    

Since the Framers wrote citizen and natural born citizen into the Constitution, the next question is what do these terms mean?  The historical and legal record demonstrates that they did not look to the English common law for the definitions of those terms.  Indeed, Justice Noah H. Swayne, commenting on whether the English common law defined a “citizen” or a “natural born citizen,” said:  “The constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural born citizens;' but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning.  British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.”  United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785,  788 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866).  Rather, that record shows that the Founders and Framers looked to natural law and the law of nations and the Enlightenment for principles which justified and motivated the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the writing of the Constitution.   It was also in natural law and the law of nations that they found their definitions of citizens and natural born citizens. 

As their most trusted expert on the law of nations, the Founders and Framers looked to Emer de Vattel.  In his, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 (1758) (1797), Vattel defined a citizen as:   “The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. Id. at Section 212.  The Framers also knew from the teachings of both the English common law and the law of nations that citizenship and allegiance can be either inherited from one’s parents (jus sanguinis) or acquired from being born in a country (jus soli).  Hence, when the Framers wrote the Constitution, a citizen was any member of the United States made so by any means, which included the American Revolution, Acts of Congress, or treaty.  These citizens were subject to the laws of the United States and enjoyed all the privileges, immunities, and rights of all other citizens, including the right of being protected by the United States.  The early naturalization Acts of Congress reflected this understanding.  As time went on and because of the immediate need to make freed slaves citizens of the United States, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were added to the list of laws that could make citizens.  As we shall see below, these laws, while capable of making one a citizen from the moment of birth or after birth, did not make one a natural born citizen.  

The Framers also defined a natural born citizen under natural law and the law of nations.  Again looking to Vattel upon whom they would have relied for that definition, he defined a natural born citizen as follows: 

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Id. Sec. 212 Citizens and natives.  We can see that Vattel expected not the citizens, but the natural born citizens as being the persons upon whom the expectation lied as being the ones who would best protect and perpetuate the civil and political society into which they were born.  

Under this natural law and law of nations rule, a natural born citizen had to do nothing other than be born in the county to parents who were both citizens of that country.  No law, including any naturalization act or treaty, was needed to make him or her a natural born citizen. 

The universal and immutable principle of the law of nations that defined a natural born citizen was incorporated into American national common law.  We know this by what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said in Minor.  There it explained: 

At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

So Minor explained that it was this common law to which the Framers looked to define a natural born citizen.  Accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (distinguishing a natural born citizen from a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, said that “[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country” can be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and “is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle").  Hence, the Framers defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.  Under that same common law, they saw all the rest of the people as "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized under some positive law.  With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, those otherwise aliens or foreigners became citizens of the United States “at birth” under Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The definition of a natural born citizen as reflected in American common law became under Article IV, Clause 2 upon ratification of the Constitution the supreme law of the land subject to change under Article V only by duly ratified constitutional amendment.  

During the Founding and until the Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act") was passed, married parents of children were both either U.S. citizens or aliens.  See Minor and Wong Kim Ark (only provided for scenarios in which the child’s parents were both either citizens or aliens).  Hence, citizen parents meant that both father and mother had to be citizens. The Cable Act reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage. 
Previously, a woman lost her U.S. citizenship if she married an alien, since she acquired the citizenship of her husband.  The law did not apply to men who married foreign women, for such women became U.S. citizens.   The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.  With this new law, women did not lose their citizenship if they married an alien, provided he was an alien eligible to be naturalized under U.S. law.  Marian L. Smith, "Women and Naturalization, ca. 1802-1940," Prologue Magazine 30 (2) (1998).  Additionally, under the Act, women who married aliens who were eligible for naturalization could keep their U.S. citizenship, provided they lived in the United States.  If they married such aliens and lived on foreign soil for two years, they could lose their U.S. citizenship. In 1931, an amendment allowed females to retain their U.S. citizenship even if they married aliens who were not eligible for U.S. citizenship (e.g. at that time an Asian).  The Cable Act was repealed in 1936. The liberation of wives from their husband’s citizenship done by the 1922 Cable Act, an Act of Congress and not a constitutional amendment, has not nor could it amend the constitutional rule that both father and mother had to be citizens at the time of their child’s birth in their country in order to make a natural born citizen. 

To date, the American national common law meaning of a natural born citizen has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or decision of the U.S. Supreme Court.  
    
So, a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" is defined by either the Fourteenth Amendment (only if born in the U.S.) or naturalization Act of Congress (if born in or out of the U.S.).  Regarding the former, it is any person born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  As to the latter, it includes any person born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents.  Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Act of Congress has any impact on the meaning of a natural born citizen, for, not only because they did not exist when the Constitution was adopted and ratified, but also because they did not repeal or amend the natural born citizen clause or define it. Under these well-established rules, a child of one or two alien parents, if born in the U.S., can be a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment.  A child born out of the U.S., if born to one or two U.S. citizen parents, can also be a "citizen" of the United States "at birth." But not being born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, neither of them can be an Article II "natural born citizen" of the United States, regardless of their "at birth" citizen status, for they are born citizens, not natural born citizens.   
    
De facto President Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because, even if he was born in the United States, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.  Obama was born to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father.  His father was a citizen of Great Britain and then Kenya upon it gaining independence in 1963.  Senator Ted Cruz is also not a natural born citizen.  Unlike Senator John McCain who was born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore reputed born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, Senator Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father who was a citizen of Cuba and both in Canada for private purposes.  Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal are also not natural born citizens, for while they were born in the United States, they were born to two non-U.S. citizen parents who were citizens of Cuba and India, respectively.     

If they are not natural born citizens, then what are they?  President Obama, Senator Cruz, Senator Rubio, and Governor Jindal are all "citizens" of the United States "at birth,” but only by virtue of some non-common law positive law.  None of them are "natural born citizens" by virtue of common law which provides the only definition of the clause which is a child born in a country to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Obama (if born in the United States), Rubio, and Jindal are “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of the Fourteenth Amendment, by the only fact of being born in the United States.  Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” but only because of a naturalization Act of Congress, by the only fact of being born to one U.S. citizen parent.  None of them were born with the complete facts and circumstances needed at birth to be a natural born citizen and which allows one to be a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen without the aid of any positive law.  They are all missing either birth to two U.S. citizen parents or birth in the United States. Obama was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli if he was born in the United States) and Great Britain and then Kenya upon conversion through its independence from Great Britain (through jus sanguinis from his father).  Cruz was born a citizen of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus sanguinis if his mother was still a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth) and born a citizen of and in allegiance to Canada (through jus soli) and Cuba (through jus sanguinis from his father).  Rubio and Jindal were born citizens of and in allegiance to the United States (through jus soli) and Cuba for Rubio and India for Jindal (through jus sanguinis from both of their parents).  They are all therefore under U.S. law not born with sole allegiance to the United States, but also subject to a foreign power and with natural sympathies for those foreign nations, a condition that the Framers did not allow future Presidents and Commanders to have.  Being born subject to foreign powers and influence and with such sympathies, they are not nor can they be natural born citizens.  Not being natural born citizens, they are not eligible to be President. 

These ineligible candidates should not be allowed to participate in the upcoming presidential debates.   

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 25, 2015
####
Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved






65 comments:

CDR Kerchner-Ret said...

Excellent new article. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.;

I am very disappointed that a man who possesses both an education in the legal arts and a wholesome love of country and who has focused on a singular subject for the past number of years still contends that the Constitution and its laws are unable to stand on their own on that singular subject.

In order to remain locked in your failed contentions you must ignore the "statutory" nature of the Constitution, because if you were to accept THAT premise you would be forced to interpret the Constitutional statutory provisions on the subject found both within the Constitution and the subsequent Acts of the Congress.

In doing so you would also be forced to acknowledge that some words, although holding some historical and or general meanings, became idiomatic to the Constitution when imbued with the additions of Constitutional contexts and purposes, if not in all things then at least when the laws of the Constitution are applied to them.

The "term of words" of "natural born citizen" were / are so affected by their usage in the Constitution. Especially so when they BECAME the subject of the "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision" of Article II Section I Clause V (A2S1C5), but even without that extraordinary Constitutional Law being attached to the term of words, then even the simple addition of "United States" to the term of words "natural born Citizen" would be sufficient to make those term of words idiomatic to the Constitution.

My greatest disappointment in your works is your seeming unwillingness to accept that the "original source" of the 'natural law observation" of the specific set of "circumstances" came to be named "natural born" and specifically when viewed through the "political" lens became the term of words, "natural born CITIZEN", in whole BECAME irrelevant once the STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION of the Constitution made the term of words ITS own for ITS specific purpose.

That is NOT to say that the Constitution changed the meaning or circumstances in a manner that defied histories observations nor denied others their particular usage of the term of words, but rather, like the words "republic & democracy", the words were taken and framed for the purposes of the Constitution, no more and no less.

I implore you to reconsider your approach and rather than "resorting elsewhere" choose rather to "rely entirely" upon the Constitution and ITS Laws on this specific subject and I am certain that you will find it a wise and seasonable means of excluding foreign and repugnant influences in the effort to advance THE sustainable premise of statutory black letter law so as to assert the enforceability of the exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision of A2S1C5.

William St. George said...

Various legal mythologies have been cultivated by those who believe they will benefit by deceiving the public. It would appear that law schools among others are guilty of this fraud.
You have pointed out for many years now the primary one regarding presidential eligibility. Yet now we have someone running for that position who was not even born in the USA. I have not seen any proof that his mother was a citizen at the time of his birth or whether becoming a Canadian as she did involved relinquishing her US citizenship.
Then we have the NDAA with its "indefinite detention" clause. This would seem to be the legislature passing its ability to suspend habeas corpus temporarily during rebellion or invasion to the president on a full time basis.
Next we have rumours of the President suspending the Constitution which would of course put him out of a job! Or of instituting marital law of a sort not authorized by the Constitution.
Finally it circulates that a treaty can trump the Constitution which would make treaties a way of amending it.
If law schools make any effort to combat these misrepresentations they do so in whispers. It might be nice if someone were to publish a booklet that dealt with these as well as other myths perpetrated about the Constitution. Personally I am worn out on talking with unreceptive people. The worst thing of all is that Congress persons seem to accept many if not all of them. The whole war powers realm is fraught with confusion unnecessarily.

CDR Kerchner-Ret said...

Yes indeed, the progressive influenced law schools have been changing the meaning of words and terms in our Constitution for the last 100+ years away from original intent and understanding. Even the Constitution.org site is engaging in disinformation as to what the founders and framers were reading and majorly influenced by as the guiding influence in the writing of the founding documents and in particular as to the true original intent, meaning, purpose, understanding of who was a "natural born Citizen" and thus who would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of our military forces once the founding generation was gone, i.e., a person born with sole allegiance to the USA and no other country at birth. A person with a strong check on them against foreign influence and allegiances on them at their birth. It was term meant to be restrictive and not inclusive. The children of citizens (plural) born in this country. As to attempts to change the restrictive nature of the original intent and understanding of the "natural born Citizen" clause, see this rather erudite sounding article at the Constitution.org site which someone sent me a link to: Presidential Eligibility Article at the Constitution.org site - http://constitution.org/abus/pres_elig.htm

CDR Kerchner (Ret)- http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Robert said...

Not only should these gentlemen not be allowed to participate in the debates, they should be confronted with these facts at every opportunity.

All of the candidates should be confronted with their silence on the ineligibility of Mr. Obama and asked why they have never stood up for our Constitution in this matter; especially in light of their numerous and constant complaints regarding Mr. Obama and his steady assault on our Constitution since 2009.

The oath of office which the President Elect must take demands that the President preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. How can any of these candidates take this oath when they are themselves in clear and direct conflict with the Constitution? How can any of these candidates be believed to have the courage to fulfill this oath when they are unwilling to uphold even this most simple part of the Constitution lest they might "offend"?

Will they allow our rights protected under the 1st Amendment to be taken because someone might take "offence".

Will they allow our rights protected under the 2nd Amendment to be taken because someone might take "offence".

And so on down the list. If these candidates will not speak to the simple eligibility requirements clearly established in our Constitution, at what point in our Constitution can we trust them to stand and say, "Not on my watch!" "Not while I have a breath in my body!" "Not as long as even one citizen longs to be free!"

Personally, I can't find any reason to vote for a candidate who continues to ignore this issue. It's not only a matter of trust. It's a matter of survival. Those who can not be trusted in simple things need not be trusted in big things. Eligibility is really a very simple issue. It's simple to understand. It's simple to explain. It's simple to correct and enforce. Yet, left to fester like a cancer or an open wound, it will eventually destroy us.

We don't need any more sweet-talking cowards in office. We need someone who is willing to rally The People around our Constitution and redirect this nation accordingly. This is the only path to restore and sustain a fair and just Republic.

ajtelles said...

Great natural born Citizen diagrams...

Hi Mario,

I posted this on the wrong thread earlier, so, with your permission, I would like to post this here on this Cruz, Rubio and Jindal thread too.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A few days ago on BirtherReport.com someone posted a link to a blog with accurate diagrams showing the difference between a singular U.S. natural born citizens vs. dual U.S./foreign citizens.

Here is the url ( http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/ ).

I liked the diagrams so I posted some of the diagrams on my blog
( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ )
with some of the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

P.S.

Relative to Article II, Sen. Rand Paul's vociferous and correct rant against the Patriot Act yesterday, Sunday May 31, 2015, is what is needed on the floors of the House and the Senate.

If political push comes to political shove, maybe Sen. Paul, if he is not aware of Vattel, Minor v.Happersett, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, and et al., and singular U.S. citizenship vs. dual u.S./foreign citizenship, maybe the Senator will also vociferously comment about the original genesis original intent reason for original birther John Jay's underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington as a reference to meaning only singular U.S. citizenship by being born only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Who knows, maybe Sen. Paul, or Carly Fiorina, or, who knows, maybe even Sen. Cruz, Sen. Rubio and Gov. Jindal, may see this note, someday, and also see the natural born citizen diagrams created by Peter Lettkeman.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Origian Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

John Locke in his celebrated treatise on government attacked the validity of the notion of an absolutely powerful male monarch as existing in natural law and the right of divine Kings to rule over their perpetual subjects. John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (T. Hollis ed. London 1764) (London 1689). There he explained that a child’s father and mother had equal power and influence over the rearing, education, and other development of their child. He maintained that children followed the condition of the parents (father and mother) until reaching the age of reason (21 years old then) at which time they were free as their parents to choose, expressly or by tacit consent, what allegiance and citizenship they wanted to live under. For Locke, both parents had to consent not only for themselves to be members of a political society and to be governed by that society’s government, but also for their minor child to be born as a member of that society and so governed.

Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations defined a natural born citizen as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Throughout his treatise, Vattel refers to a child’s parents as being the child’s father and mother.

The Framers required future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military to be natural born citizens for the sake of the safety and preservation of the new constitutional republic. They saw allegiance to the United States as an absolute necessity in that regard, not only for the President and Commander, who had to be born with it, but also for all the citizens of the United States, including the ones who became so through naturalization. In fact, an adult who is naturalized after birth must take an oath that he or she will have allegiance only to the United States.

The Framers also provided that the Constitution could be changed only by duly ratified Constitutional amendment. Hence, their definition of a natural born citizen, incorporated into the Constitution, became part of the supreme law of the land which could be changed only by duly ratified amendment.

At the time the Constitution was drafted, adopted, and ratified, husbands and wives continued to be both either citizens or aliens, with wives acquiring the citizenship of the husband upon marriage. Wives did not achieve separation from their husband’s citizenship until the Cable Act of 1922 was passed. The Cable Act was a statute and it surely did not nor could it amend the Constitution and its natural born citizen clause.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and stating that that Amendment did not define a natural born citizen and that its meaning could only be found outside the Constitution, defined the clause thus: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar . . . all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens. . . were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” Id. at 167. So, Minor too (paraphrasing Vattel), providing an all-inclusive and all-exclusive definition of a natural born citizen, said it is citizen “parents” giving birth to a child in the nation of which they are citizens which made one a natural born citizen (not to be conflated and confounded with a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress who may not be a natural born citizen).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) cited and quoted Minor and its definition of a natural born citizen and did not criticize or change it. Then it held that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and residents of the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was under the jus soli rule of the colonial English common law born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be conflated and confused with a natural born citizen which Minor defined under American national common law). Given the state of the law when the decisions were rendered, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark also provided for scenarios in which a child’s parents were both either citizens or aliens.

Under these principles of what is a natural born citizen, being a natural born citizen excludes anyone who is born owing allegiance by birth or from birth to any foreign nation.
Hence, “parents” in the definition of a natural born citizen can only mean father and mother. To allow just one parent or no parents citizens defeats the whole purpose of the natural born citizen clause, which is to make sure that a child is born with sole and absolute allegiance to just one nation, the nation of his or her parents and that of his or her birth place. A child inherits as much foreign allegiance from one alien parent as it does from two alien parents, for just one alien parent transmits to the child (the child inherits) by jus sanguinis a full and complete foreign allegiance and citizenship as do each of two alien parents.

Additionally, jus soli citizenship, or citizenship acquired from the place of birth, is also necessary so as to cut off acquiring a foreign citizenship and allegiance from being born on the soil of a foreign nation.

Hence, if the purpose of requiring one to be a natural born citizen is to be realized, i.e., being born with sole and absolute allegiance to one nation, a natural born citizen can only be born to two citizen parents and not one or none, in the nation of which they are both citizens. Under these principles of what is a natural born citizen, being a natural born citizen excludes anyone who is born owing allegiance by birth or from birth to any foreign nation, either by not being born to two citizen parents or by not being born in the country. These principles and historical and legal sources confirm that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens at the time of their child’s birth.

leo derosia said...

Robert is right about the sweet talking cowards and nbc being a simple law. Art is living in a fantasy world if he thinks any of the 535 contemptible, self serving pansys in congress will speak out like Mario and orly have

ajtelles said...

"living in a fantasy world"...

Leo,

Your comment about the 535 "pansys in congress" is ok as a comment about members of the U.S. Congress speaking out, but my comment on June 1, 2015 at 11:44 PM was not an assertion that they will say anything. And it certainly was not a comment that they will say anything as coherent and with the erudition of Mario (Orly Taitz and her efforts in court is a different issue).

My point was a subtle way of encouraging anyone who reads the comment to communicate with the persons mentioned. If nobody communicates with Sen. Rand Paul, Mrs. Carly Fiorina, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, you are correct. None of the "pansys in congress" or out of congress will speak out. Asserting that they will speak out is a different issue, but the assertion was not my issue and it was not my point in my post.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument24.blogspot.com/ )

Justin said...

I'm wondering if there is some way a private citizen could sue their campaigns for fraud. Give them 5 bucks or something then sue them because they are ineligible.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Justin,

Your contribution could not be to a candidate that you believe not to be a natural born citizen. Rather, it would have to be to a general fund. Then you would have to know that the fund used it for an ineligible candidate. You would have to demand a refund. If the fund refunded the money to you, the matter would be resolved. On the other hand, if the fund refused you your refund, you could sue for the refund, preferably in federal court. To sue in federal court, you would have to show that the court has jurisdiction. Standing would not be a problem, since you would be out the money.

The court hearing your case would do all that it could to resolve the matter without reaching the constitutional question of whether the candidate is a natural born citizen. Also at some point during the litigation, the fund could simply pay you your money back which would then make the matter moot. As you see, it is not a simple matter.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

It appears as though the Obots have completed their debate at Western Free Press, at "Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo, accessed at http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/ which to date has 7019 comments.

The Obots final argument is that Wong Kim Ark is the controlling case on the definition of natural born citizen. But there is not one word in Wong Kim Ark on how the Framers defined an Article II natural born citizen. It is simply amazing that the Obots would contend that the decision defined a natural born citizen when there is no discussion by the Court on how the Framers defined the clause and what was the source of their definition. Yet, the Obots want us to believe that the decision defined a natural born citizen simply because it interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause which came 81 years after the adoption of the Constitution. On the contrary, neither the text nor history of the Fourteenth Amendment show that it repealed or amended the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen. Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark explained that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. The reason that Wong Kim Ark was compelled to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment is the very fact that Wong was not like Virginia Minor, a natural born citizen. Unlike Mrs. Minor, he needed the Fourteenth Amendment to be a citizen of the United States. Hence, that Justice Gray held that Wong was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment does not mean that he found him to be an Article II natural born citizen. Minor had already confirmed that an Article II natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Justice Gray even cited Minor and provided its exact definition of a natural born citizen without any objection or criticism. Wong did not meet that definition and therefore could not be a natural born citizen. Justice Gray was therefore compelled to answer the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor, i.e., whether a child born in the United States to alien parents could be, not a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law upon which the Framers relied for their definition of the clause in 1787, but rather a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment which was passed in 1866.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

That Justice Gray gave the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause a different reading than did Slaughterhouse does not change the definition of a natural born citizen. Again, the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II’s natural born citizen. Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark also told us that it did not define a natural born citizen. So, that Justice Gray was willing, based on the colonial English common law jus soli rule that prevailed in the states following the revolution and the adoption of the Constitution (not to be confused with what rule prevailed on the national level), to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning merely subject to the laws of the United States, which does not mean subject to the complete allegiance of the United States and therefore not born subject to any foreign power, and thereby find that a child born in the United States to alien parents was born subject to its jurisdiction and therefore a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, did not change the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen which provided the presidential and vice-presidential standard for citizenship (natural born citizen) and not merely the base standard (citizen of the United States) for all other covered political offices. What this means is that Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, survived Wong Kim Ark and continues to this day to be part of the Constitution and as such “supreme Law of the Land” under Article VI, Clause 2.

Chief said...

Cruz and Rubio are both attorneys therefore should by their legal training understand they are not eligible for the office. Cruz have clerked at SCOTUS should be reminded by the justice he clerked for that he is not eligible. Given they have decided to run for the office shows they are part of the Progressive Movement and supporting the Progressive Agenda to change our constitution by acclamation rather than through the Amendment Process which our Founding Fathers provide in our constitution; the last time they tried they could not even get the amendment out of committee for lack of support knowing full well that 3/4 of the states would not sign the amendment. Jindal on the other hand is simply either not educated to the fact he is not eligible or refusing to just be a citizen and remain governor. NGC has a special place in our nation, and special obligation to the citizens of the United States of America. I could argue McCain's eligibility, but won't. since he is not running and at his and my age he will not be running again so it is a dead horse issue.

Robert said...

Isn't it ironic that Wong Kim Ark has become the lynchpin of the Obot argument; especially when considering that its majority opinion was written by Justice Gray who was illegally appointed by our first illegitimate POTUS, Chester Arthur?

And, just like Justice Gray found words from some mysterious ether surrounding the 14th Amendment, the Obots (and now three more) are arguing Wong Kim Ark with words that just aren't there.

"What a tangled web...."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert,

The Obot argument is such intellectual flimflam that they have to add words to the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark(1898) that are not there (i.e., natural born citizen) and deny words that are in Minor v. Happersett (1875) (i.e., natural born citizen).

Robert said...

Mario,
I'm surprised that the obots haven't just created entire supreme court cases from whole cloth. This "manufactured from thin air" method appears to be how Mr. Obama came to us. So, since it seems to have worked so well, why not use the same trick again? If their followers are truly as lazy and dimwitted as the obots treat them, why would the obots expect anyone to challenge them? And, if anyone ever did squeak out a tiny challenge, a quickly applied dose of ridicule and name calling should suffice to stifle them.

As I've written before, "natural born citizen" is very simple concept to understand. It's as easy as "water runs downhill" and "the sun rises in the East and sets in the West".
It is a law of nature that applies not only to man, but is found universally among animal species.

A "natural born citizen" is a child born to citizen parents within the complete jurisdiction of their country because, having been so born, the child can be nothing else.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Obot misconception is in thinking that there is only one common law and that it is that of Great Britain or what Justice Gray in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) called the English common law. On the contrary, historically and to the present, there have been various kinds of common law, not just the English common law, one of which is American common law. The historical and legal record amply demonstrates that the Founding generation considered the law of nations as part of our national common law and binding upon the nation. If one reads Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 211 to 217 (1758) (1797), Minor v. Happersett (1875) and Wong Kim Ark, it is evident that Minor referred to American common law which adopted the citizenship principles of the law of nations and Wong Kim Ark referred to common law that came from England. This means that an Article II natural born citizen is defined under American national common law as described in Minor and the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is defined under colonial English common law as described in Wong Kim Ark. This also means that as the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor confirmed, a natural born citizen is defined as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

I have asked Bryan Gene Olson, a/k/a brygenon, Unknown, and NotLinda, a set of questions on the very point about to what common law Minor referred when it said that the Framers were familiar with the nomenclature of the common law and then held that under that common law all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized under naturalization Acts of Congress. Note that Minor's exact words, "natives, or natural-born citizens" are found in Vattel's Section 212 where Vattel, in the 1797 English edition, also wrote, "natives, or natural-born citizens" and not found in any expression of the English common law as fully presented by Justice Gray. Evidently, Mr. Olson wants to talk about the performance of New Jersey ALJ Jeff Masin in the New Jersey ballot challenge Purpura and Moran v. Obama rather than address the real issues.

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


1/

Hi Mario,

Here are some interesting comments and conclusions by Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar. Although not his purpose, his conclusions are, in a sense, tacit stipulations about original intent.

In the first quote, Baylor University President Ken Starr asks Professor Amar about why the language in Article II is “terse” as it relates to the vesting of authority and executive power in the president. In his answer Prof. Amar explains how President Washington is the reason for the “terse” language in Article II. His conclusion is that because Washington was Washington and the people trusted him, the Constitution was ratified by the states, and because of Washington, the Constitution and the We the People Union was not “toast.”

In the second quote, Baylor Provost Elizabeth Davis reads an audience question about the extent to which the phrase “We the People” applies to “undocumented residents” of many years in America. In his answer Prof. Amar explains (1) who the phrase “We the People” was referring to in the past at the founding of the Union when the U.S. Constitution was written, (2) how the phrase “We the people” has “grown over time,” (it has “changed,” it is “broader”), (3) who the phrase “We the People” has referred to since the reconstruction amendments, specifically the 1865 Fourteenth Amendment as Prof. Amar applies “birthright citizenship” to himself and others, and (4) who the phrase “We the People” might include in the future if “We the People” of 2015 America choose to be more inclusive (“inclusive” is my word, not Prof. Amar's).

The quote in the next paragraph is from the Baylor University Youtube video* published Jan. 4, 2013 titled, “On Topic with President Ken Starr and Akhil Reed Amar” (September 17, 2012 at Baylor University).

*Baylor University ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLsS5uFKbzM )

“Akhil Reed Amar is a renowned constitutional law and criminal procedure scholar, author and speaker. The U.S. Supreme Court has invoked his work in more than 20 cases and he has testified before Congress on a wide range of constitutional issues. Amar currently serves as the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches constitutional law at both Yale College and Yale Law School.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There is a course offered online by Yale University* America's Unwritten Constitution. It is an introduction to basic techniques of constitutional interpretation.

About the Course:
"America's Unwritten Constitution," (AUC) is the second of two new stand-alone courses, from Professor Akhil Amar. The first course, "America's Written Constitution," (AWC) was completed last month. These courses were offered together in January 2014 under the name "Constitutional Law" ….”

*( https://www.coursera.org/course/auc )

The Editorial Reviews about Prof. Amar's book “America's Unwritten Constitution” at Amazon.com* praise the scholarship of Prof. Amar. The first chapter titled “Reading Between the Lines: America's Implicit Constitution” can be read at Amazon.com

*Chapter One ( http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Unwritten-Constitution-Precedents-Principles/dp/0465064906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434807403&sr=1-1&keywords=America%27s+Unwritten+Constitution )

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


2/

Also interesting is the 2014 review by John O. McGinnis at LibertyLawSite.org. He is co-author with Mike Rappaport of Originalism and the Good Constitution.*
( http://www.libertylawsite.org/2014/03/10/americas-unwritten-constitution/ )

“America’s Unwritten Constitution sets forth a variety of ways that an interpreter of the Constitution can look beyond the text’s words to interpret and implement it today. Some are ways that are always compatible with originalism. As Mike Rappaport and I do in our own book*, Amar shows that context and the methods of interpretation at the time of its enactment are indispensable to understanding the Constitution. ….”

*Originalism and the Good Constitution
( http://www.amazon.com/Originalism-Good-Constitution-John-McGinnis/dp/0674725077 )

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pres. Ken Starr
@ 51m54s
"One of the points that you make in the book is, much of the text of the Constitution is, and you use the term, terse. You read it, and it's not particularly elaborate, at times it's quite specific, but it's not very elaborate. And one of the examples that you use of the lack of elaboration, the lack of specific detail, is Article II, the creation of the presidency and the vesting of the executive power in the president. Why is Article II so terse, as you see it?”

Prof. Akhil Amar:
@52m32s (6 minutes)
"The presidency was a huge challenge 'cause they wanted someone who would be less than a king and more than state governors. There's a vast amount of difference between, more powerful than a governor, less powerful than a king. No model in history, actually, was very good. For a lot of stuff they could borrow from a state example, but none of the states had a strong enough governor and a king was too strong.

"And here a second thing. Presidents do a whole bunch of stuff, and you can't maybe itemize all the things. In a certain way, the nature of executive power is somewhat improvisational 'cause stuff happens in the world. Good stuff and bad stuff, and only the president is there 24/7/365 to deal with all the bad stuff, Katrina and earth quakes and assaults on embassies. And the opportunity. Napoleon is willing to give up all of Louisiana, not just New Orleans, if we seize the day now. The legislature goes in and out of session, the judiciary goes in and out of session, but the presidency revolves around one person 24/7/365, who often has to do what it takes. He does so many different things. He's the lawmaker-in-chief. He's the administrator-in-chief. He's the prosecutor-in-chief. He's the diplomat-in-chief. He's the commander-in-chief. There are so many different things, you probably can't specify them all. Some of what presidents do is Whatever needs to be done that the other branches aren't doing. And, there wasn't a clear model you could say, just like the Massachusetts governorship.

"And three, if they had been able to specify every thing, what matters more than the specification is, to them, was that George Washington would take the job, because if George Washington doesn't take the job we're toast. The entire constitution is basically adopted because people expect George Washington will be the first president. That's why they trust the new central government, 'cause he'll run it, because they trust him. They trust him because he's not going to try to make himself a king, because he had the only army on the continent during the American revolution and he gave it up. Generals didn't do that. Caesar makes himself a dictator, and Darius, Xerxes, Cromwell names himself Lord Protector, Napoleon very soon after all this will grab the crown from the Pope and put it on his own head. Generals had never given up power this way except the ancient Roman general Cincinnatus who went back to the plow.

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


3/

But Washington had his chance to be king and didn't take it, he went back to his farm. And, he doesn't want to make himself a king in part because who is he going to give the throne to? He doesn't have any children of his own, and he says this. He becomes father of his own country because he's not father of his own children, he has none. And so he says, you can trust me because I have no one to give this to. And they do trust him, and they would never have adopted the constitution if Washington hadn't been there.

"But then, you don't want to be to textually specific because you want Washington to have a little bit of flexibility to make the system work. So, in effect, the text was terse, I say, because it was a delegation to Washington to work out the details. So, on issue after issue after issue, what matters for presidential power is not what the text says but what Washington did. And the same way that Christians ask ourselves what would Jesus do, presidents ask themselves what would George do, what did George do.

"So, can presidents negotiate treaties without preclearance from the Senate? The Senate is going to have to agree to them, but can they negotiate without telling the Senate? Yes, because George Washington did. Can presidents recognize new regimes? The Libyan rebels or the Syrian rebels, the People's Republic of China? Yes, they can, because Washington recognized the French revolutionaries as the legitimate successors to King Louis who had been decapitated. Can presidents fire cabinet officers at will? Yes. Not because the text says so, it's not very clear at all on this, but because Washington asserted the power to do so, to get rid of Edmund Randolph, in whom he had lost confidence.

"On issue, after issue, after issue who defines American foreign policy and speaks for America in the foreign policy domain? The president, because George Washington issued a famous neutrality proclamation.

"On issue, after issue, after issue, basically, our presidency is modeled after what George Washington did, at least as much as what the text says.

"So, Washington's model is a huge part of an unwritten constitution, I think, authorized by the people in 1787. They expected Washington to do just what he did. But, we read the terse text of Article II, the presidential text, through, and this is my language in the chapter, the spectacles of George Washington. We read them through a very particular lens.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is the first audience question for Prof. Amar, read by Elizabeth Davis, Executive Vice-President and Provost at Baylor University.

@ 1h (7.5 minutes)
Question:
"To what extent does the phrase We the People apply to undocumented residents who have spent much of their lives in the United States?

Answer:
"The phrase We the people has grown over time. At the founding, there was largely, as a practical matter, we the men, and today women may very well decide the course of the [2012] presidential election.”

[... snip]

@ 1h01m44s
"We the People has changed when it comes to women, and it's broader. We the People originally did not mean slaves. They were kind of aliens among us. Free blacks yes. Free blacks voted and some of them were at Bunker's Hill, and were part of the We do process. The We the People do ordain and establish a constitution, and voted in many states. But slaves, no. So, and after Emancipation Proclamation, the people came to include former slaves.”

[... snip]

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


4/

@ 1h3m27s
"So, America's constitution two hundred years ago was about the Americans, and it wasn't about other peoples. It wasn't for the benefit of the British, we were about kicking them out. The Monroe Doctrine, absolutely right, it was central.

“So, here's the Federalist Papers vision, originally.

“We will kick the Brits out, and we'll kick the Spanish out, and we'll kick the French out eventually, and we'll kick the Indians out—Sam Huston, Andy Jackson, you know, sea to shining sea. We will be hegemons in our hemisphere, and that's because the rest of the world is anti-democratic and we need to protect ourselves against them.

“So, that's the founding vision for the benefit of Americans, it's a national security document. But now, our world is different.... But now, we're one world. We're all God's children. We have one world challenges and opportunities, the internet and supersonic transport, but also pandemic viruses and international terrorism. So, and the rest of the world is democratic in a way that it wasn't before, so we're going to need to rethink.

“I don't have the answer. I'm ducking the question a little bit because I want you to see why it's a difficult question, because America's constitution, originally We the People is us against them because they're not democratic societies the way we are. But, increasingly.

“Now, if you ask me, I would say, folks who are here illegally are not at the core of We the People.

“It might make sense for Us the People to bring them into the system in a whole bunch of ways because they've been living here for a long time, as a matter of humanity and fairness and practicality.

@ 1h5m32s
"All my cards on the table.

“I'm born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and when I'm born, my parents aren't U.S. citizens. Now, they weren't here illegally, but they were just here as students.

“But this country gave me the great gift of birthright citizenship.

“On the day that I was born in Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Fourteenth Amendment made me a U.S. citizen just like everyone else born in that hospital, and they didn't ask whether my parents were citizens or not, or here legally or not. I've been trying to repay that great gift that this country gave me ever since the day I was born.

“So, I actually believe very much in birthright citizenship for those who were born here.

“It is more complicated for people who are not here legally.

“It is, and that's because We the People, there's a dark side of democracy. As good as democracy can be, what about minorities. That's one issue, and what about other peoples? People outside the demos. They’re God's children too.

“So, I'm ducking the question a little bit, because ultimately, We the People today, you all, we all are going to have to decide who else should be part of the process in the same way that Lincoln's generation took people who were slaves and made them citizens.

“And some of them were here illegally, you see. Some of the people who were emancipated and who then became citizens were here illegally because they had been smuggled in in violation of prohibitions against the international slave trade. They had been smuggled in. They were illegal aliens and yet they were made citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment.

“So, remember, we meet on the hundredth and fiftieth anniversary of the battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation.

“So, it's complicated. Our generation is going to have to decide how much broader We the People needs to be today. We the People have gotten broader.

“But, I ducked the question a little bit, and I admit it.”

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


5/

“I ducked the question a little bit”

By saying “I ducked the question...,” does that mean that Prof. Amar did NOT deal with it in his book? Next are a few quotes from the first chapter on Amazon.com. Also, since I have not read the book yet, I ordered it this week (June 20, 2015), I must ask if Prof. Amar discussed “natural born Citizen” in his book? Does Prof. Amar know what the original meaning of “natural born Citizen” was to John Jay and so it still is today in 2015, but he doesn't want to talk about it, or does he NOT know what the original meaning was and still is of the “terse” language of Sec. 1 Cl. 5 of Article II?

Six days before this Baylor University conversation between Baylor President Ken Starr and Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar on September 17, 2012 (225 years after September 17, 1787 when the Constitution was adopted), Prof. Amar's book was published on September 11, 1012, titled “America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By.”* The first chapter is titled, “Reading Between the Lines: America's Implicit Constitution.”

*Amazon.com - Chapter One ( http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Unwritten-Constitution-Precedents-Principles/dp/0465064906/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434807403&sr=1-1&keywords=America%27s+Unwritten+Constitution#reader_0465064906 )

Chapter One - Page 5
[...snip]
“Clause-bound literalism cannot provide the infallible constitutional compass we crave. Yet surely faithful interpreters should not simply toss the written Constitution aside or treat it as an infinitely malleable play-thing. How, then, should we proceed?

“For starters, we must learn to read between the lines—to discern America's implicit constitution nestled behind the explicit clauses. In short, we must come to understand the difference between reading the Constitution literally and reading the document faithfully.

“The best way for us to get a feel for this difference is through a series of detailed historical case studies and hypotheticals. ….”

Chapter One - Page 10
“As Blackstone had explained to his legions of readers on both sides of the Atlantic, unless the supreme legislature made crystal clear its specific intent to command an absurd or unjust result, the supreme law was to be interpreted so as to avoid patent absurdity or gross injustice.

“Ellsworth and Wilson understood that this well-settled English rule of legal interpretation properly applied to America as well, but with a twist. In England, the supreme legislature was Parliament, and the supreme law was the corpus of parliamentary statutes. In America, the supreme lawmaker would be the American people themselves, who were being asked by the Philadelphia framers to ordain and enact the supreme law of the Constitution. Unless that supreme law—the Constitution—specifically and pointedly authorized Congress to pass ex-post-facto criminal laws, the proper presumption would be that the document withheld this authority from Congress. Such unjust congressional enactments would simply fall outside the ambit of proper “legislative Power” vested in congress by the Constitution. ….

“As finally proposed by the Philadelphia framers and eventually enacted by the American people, the Constitution's opening sentence proclaimed that one of the document's paramount objects was “to establish Justice.” Here was additional textual support in the written Constitution itself for the Ellsworth-Wilson position, following Blackstone, that all the document's clauses had to be construed against the backdrop of the first principles of justice. Such principles could be contravened only by pointed textual language or undeniably clear enacting intent.”

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


6/

Chapter One – Pages 12 and 13
“While expressly authorizing compensation for House and Senate members in Article I, for presidents in Article II, and for supreme Court (and other federal) judges in Article III, the document failed to even mention compensation for the vice president. Surely we should place no weight on this thoughtless omission; it would be silly to deny compensation to vice presidents on the theory that the document demands this odd result by negative implication. ….”

Chapter One – Page 19
“The Take-Home lesson of our story thus far is that sound constitutional interpretation involves a dialogue between America's written Constitution and America's unwritten Constitution. The latter, at a minimum, encompasses various principles implicit in the written document as a whole and/or present in the historical background, forming part of the context against which we must construe the entire text. …. “

Chapter One – Page 22
“To better understand the kind of interpretative approach needed when we seek to find the implicit constitution hiding behind the document's explicit words, let's now undertake a completely different case study. … [A] close look at the Court's landmark decision will make clear that the technique of reading between the lines has widespread application.”

Chapter One – Page 25
“Marshall in McCulloch was indeed a faithful interpreter, but he was not a clause-bound textualist. Rather, he elegantly blended a close reading of the written constitution with a sensitive understanding of America's unwritten Constitution.”

Chapter One – Page 26
“Marshall's constitutional genius was to grasp that Americans had not ratified the Constitution clause by clause, enumerated power by enumerated power. The people had ratified the Constitution as a whole, and thus the federal government’s powers needed to be read as a whole rather than as a jumble of discrete clauses. In Marshall's words, the question of federal power should “depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument” (emphasis added), read through the prism of the general purposes that the American people had in mind when they framed and ratified the document.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Before the first audience question by the Provost, Elizabeth Davis, Prof. Amar answered an Article II question from Prof. Starr about the vesting of executive power and authority on a president. Prof. Amar answers Starr's specific question about the vesting of executive power in the president, and touches various presidential authority issues, and does not touch the eligibility issue because Starr never asked him about Sec. 2 Cl. 5.

After four years of national discussion, 2008-2012, both Baylor President Starr and Yale law professor Amar totally ignore the hottest issue concerning the "terse" language of Article II during the 2012 general election cycle at the time of this conversation at Baylor University, about two months before Obama was reelected with a dark and dingy and expensive (in 2008 almost $3 million dollars) eligibility cloud over his head. Both law scholars ignore the Article II presidential eligibility requirement. Starr does not ask and Amar does not mention the issue of the "terse" language of of Article II, specifically the first half of Sec. 1 Cl. 5, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...."

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


7/

This would have been an excellent opportunity for Starr and Amar to educate their audience that day and forever educate the American people about John Jay, the author of "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington where Jay underlined the word "born," and to educate We the People of the Union about the original genesis original intent meaning in the Constitution of "born" in "natural born Citizen" as associated and clarified by the words "Union" and "posterity" in the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Using Prof. Amar's “implicit constitution” method of application, we can look at the 1787 Constitution's preamble words “Union” and “Posterity” and, with Amar common sense in 2015, 228 years after 1787, accurately surmise that “posterity” ONLY implies natural law reproduction and positive law “citizen” children who derive their own U.S. citizenship by being reproduced by U.S. citizen married parents. That “ONLY” word means that a “union” of two people and the resultant “posterity” definitely does NOT mean ALSO simply hot-to-trot buckle polishing sexual activity that increases the “Union” by producing children with persons who are both U.S. citizens but are not married to each other, even though they may be married to other persons, or not married to anybody, or to persons who are of mixed citizenship, U.S. and foreign, married or not married to each other.

Prof. Amar could have used two scenarios to educate both the Baylor University audience and We the People of the Union at the same time. He also could have asked the Baylor audience to choose with a loud voice vote which of the two scenarios listed below was the original genesis original intent of “natural born Citizen” author John Jay, and which scenario was the original intent for incorporating “natural born Citizen” into the 1787 explicit constitution and Prof. Amar's “implicit constitution”:

Scenario #1:
The “natural born Citizen” of Original Birther John Jay
The “natural born Citizen” of Original Meaning Original Intent Original Birthers
The “natural born Citizen” of the 1787 Explicit Constitution
The “natural born Citizen” of the 2015 Implicit Constitution

Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Means:
Singular U.S. Citizenship
ONLY Born on U.S. Soil
Only Born to Two U.S. Citizen Married Parents

The "posterity" are the children born with singular U.S. citizenship because they are born to U.S. citizen married parents, whether born on U.S. soil or born on foreign soil. The We the People Union was a Union of American citizens, some single and some married, and the Union of their posterity was to be a Union of their own children born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, not simply children born on U.S. soil to unmarried U.S. citizens, or children born on U.S. soil or on foreign soil to U.S. citizens married—OR—unmarried to aliens, or children born on U.S. soil to aliens who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their children are born.

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


8/

The 1787 word "posterity" was not a reference to a possible amendment in the future, such as the Fourteenth Amendment which, not according to the original intent of the 1865 Fourteenth Amendment but according to the error by the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court decision which made persons like me a birthright citizen simply by being born on U.S. soil even though my parents were not U.S. citizens because they were still citizens of India at the time of my birth in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1958*. The word "posterity" was not a reference to aliens arriving on U.S. soil who plop-n-drop babies with the expectation that the babies would be considered to be U.S. citizens and at age 35 be eligible to be POTUS.

*Akhil Reed Amar ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar )

Scenario #2:
The “natural born Citizen” of Original Birther John Jay
The “natural born Citizen” of New Meaning Neo-Intent Neo-Birthers
The “natural born Citizen” of the 1787 Explicit Constitution
The “natural born Citizen” of the 2015 Implicit Constitution

Article II Section 1 Clause 5 Means:
Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship
Born on U.S. OR Foreign Soil
Born on U.S. Soil to Two OR One OR Zero U.S. Citizen Married OR not Married Parents
Born on Foreign Soil to Two OR One U.S. Citizen Parent Married OR not Married

The "posterity" are the citizen children born on U.S. or foreign soil to two U.S. citizens, or a mix of a U.S. citizen and an alien citizen, married or not married to each other before their child is born, or to two persons who are not U.S. citizen when their child is born on U.S. soil, or to one U.S. citizen parent when the child is born on foreign soil. The We the People Union is a Union of American citizens and aliens, some single and some married. The Union of their posterity, U.S. citizen or alien citizen, is a Union of children born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents or one U.S. citizen and one alien citizen. The citizen children can be born on U.S. soil married or unmarried U.S. citizens, or born on U.S. soil or on foreign soil to U.S. citizens married—OR—unmarried to alien citizens. The children can also be born on U.S. soil to alien citizens who have not become naturalized as U.S. citizens by oath before their children are born.

The 1787 word "posterity" was not a reference to a possible amendment in the future, such as the Fourteenth Amendment which, not according to the original intent of the 1865 Fourteenth Amendment but, since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court decision declared that persons like me are birthright citizens simply by being born on U.S. soil even though my parents were not U.S. citizens because they were still citizens of India at the time of my birth in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1958*. The word "posterity" since 1898 therefore is now a reference to aliens arriving on U.S. soil who plop-n-drop babies with the expectation that the babies will be considered to be U.S. citizens and at age 35 be eligible to be POTUS.

Either “natural born Citizen” synopsis of the Article II presidential eligibility issue would have been a very easy slam-dunk explanation for a Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, who teaches constitutional law.

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


9/

So, three questions.

1-Why do both Prof. Starr and Prof. Amar duck the issue of the presidential eligibility requirement in Article II in the first quote in the September 2012 Baylor University conversation, an excellent time that eligibility could have been discussed before BHObama's second election in November 2012?

2-Why does Prof. Amar, in the second quote, duck the audience question read by Provost Elizabeth Davis about the phrase “We the People” and its application to "undocumented residents?”

3-Which scenario would the Baylor University audience have chosen as the original genesis original intent of John Jay and the subsequent explicit constitution/”implicit constitution” after incorporation into Article II Section 1 Clause 5.

What will the people of the “UNION” choose if (when?) Prof. Amar gives the students in his classroom or the people in his audience a chance to express their common sense informed opinion?

(1a) ONLY Singular U.S. citizenship?
(1b) ONLY birth on U.S. soil?
(1c) ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents?

(2a) ALSO Dual U.S./foreign citizenship?
(2b) ALSO birth on EITHER U.S. soil OR Foreign soil?
(2c) ALSO birth on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents?
(2d) ALSO birth on foreign soil to two OR one U.S. citizen parent?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

An observation about what Prof. Amar says that We the People are to do:

Chapter One – Page 26: “read through the prism of the general purposes that the American people had in mind when they framed and ratified the document.”

Using Prof. Amar's method to understand the “general purposes” and relating to Article II and the word “born” in “natural born Citizen,” and relating to eligibility, my observation is that the word “implicit” in the Chapter One title is used in the sense of the 1791 Bill of Rights, specifically the Ninth Amendment and the “enumeration...retained” language:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others [“rights”] retained by the people.”

It is obvious that the rights “retained” includes the “implicit constitution” rights that are common law rights but are not in the explicit constitution text.

The literal text of the explicit constitution and Article II Sec. 1 Cl. 5 does not deny the, to coin a phrase, the “implicit literal text” of the “implicit constitution” as it applies to “natural born Citizen” in A2 S1 C5. The explicit constitution text is the initial authority, but the written text absolutely must be construed in a way that does not disregard the 1787 common law of the “implicit constitution” of the people. Relative to A2 S1 C5, one of the “implicit” rights retained by the people is to definitively determine if the candidate for President is a “natural born Citizen” or not, and to expect that the U.S. Constitution's 1787 original genesis original intent of “natural born Citizen,” aka the original meaning of being “born” ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents ONLY married to each other ONLY before the child is born, is retained generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

And, if that was not the 1787 original intent for POTUS eligibility, well, what other original intent was there in 1787 to consider for Article II eligibility only four years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris finalized the end of the war of independence from England?

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


10/

_Not born ONLY on U.S. soil—foreign/English soil is a-ok for POTUS eligibility? Born on English soil In England or Canada? Nope!
_Not born ONLY to two U.S. citizens—ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married or not married is a-ok for POTUS eligibility? Nope!
_Not born ONLY to U.S. citizen married parents—a U.S. male impregnating an alien female is a-ok for POTUS eligibility? Nope!
_Not born ONLY to U.S. citizen married parents—a U.S. female being impregnated by an alien male is a-ok for POTUS eligibility? Nope!

So, the common sense “words” of the “implicit constitution” affirm that the explicit words “natural born” MUST be construed in a way that does not “deny or disparage” the “implicit constitution's” original genesis original intent of John Jay, and Jay's explicit and literal word “born” that he underlined in “natural born Citizen” in his short note to his friend George Washington, the presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The explicit word “born” MUST be construed with the “implicit constitution” Prof. Amar in mind, and with the same “original genesis original intent” of John Jay, and, having been incorporated into Article II of the Constitution, the “original genesis original intent” can NOT allow for having “grown over time,” or being “changed,” or becoming “broader” as Prof. Amar has said about the phrase “We the People” as applied to “undocumented residents” who are aliens in America for many years.

The 1787 construction and application of “born,” only four years after the 1787 Treaty of Paris was signed ending the war of independence with England, “born” MUST include the implicit (and common sense literal) meaning of ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents who are married BEFORE the child is born, with the common sense implicit understanding that John Jay in 1787, as well as George Washington, did not imply birth on U.S. OR birth on foreign (Canada or English) soil, and in 1787 Jay did NOT imply birth on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, married or not, and John Jay certainly did NOT imply, nor would George Washington have concurred with the implication that Article II compliance for POTUS eligibility allowed for being born to zero U.S. citizen parents as the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Court opined, and certainly John Jay did NOT imply birth on foreign soil to two OR one U.S. citizen parents.

ajtelles said...

Yale Professor Akhil Reed Amar
or...
The “Implicit Constitution” vs. Duck (...and Cover)


11/

So, Mario,

What do you think?

What do you and the visitors to your Natural Born Citizen Blog think about why Yale Sterling Professor Akhil Reed Amar “ducked” the Provost's audience question about the phrase “We the People” and its application to “undocumented residents?”

Also, what do you and your visitors think about both Starr and Amar ignoring the Article II eligibility issue in September of 2012, the fire on the back burner so to speak, when they had a chance to educate the people of the Union in the Baylor audience and on Youtube about two months before Obama's November of 2012 second election?

What do you and your blog visitors think about why Starr did not ask Amar to clarify only one of two possible scenarios: (1) BHObama WAS born a “natural born Citizen” because he was born on U.S. soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent, or (2) BHObama was NOT a “natural born Citizen” because he was NOT born on U.S. to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Either scenario would have been a slam-dunk for Ken Starr, Baylor University President, and for Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University, who teaches constitutional law at both Yale College and Yale Law School.

However, both Starr and Amar did not touch either scenario for the benefit of their Baylor University audience and Youtube community.

I wonder why?

Maybe Prof. Amar can clarify in future speeches, plural, why ONLY one scenario is constitutional, explicit AND implicit, and the other is not either “explicit” OR “implicit.” Which scenario does Prof. Amar support? One speech and then silence will not be sufficient for an experienced extemporaneous talker.

So, I wonder to which scenario Prof. Amar subscribes? That should be easy to explain in six minutes. Six minutes is how long Prof. Amar took to explain the “terse” language of Article II in quote # 1 above.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument26.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

The State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
or
“Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America


1/

Hi again Mario,

Here is another short quote (4 minutes, followed by a 3 minute response to a question by a 9 year old girl about the possible rewriting of the U.S. Constitution) from Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar on a Youtube video titled The State of the Constitution: Is the Constitution Still Working for America?. Prof. Amar's two comments, a total of 7 minutes on the Youtube video, is from a panel discussion at the National Archives on Sept. 17, 2014, the 227th anniversary of the adoption on September 17, 1787 of the “We the People” U.S. Constitution, exploring court cases and proposals to amend and transform the “We the People” U.S. Constitution to include constitutional transformative new thought, my words, not Prof. Amar's.

US National Archives
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3S1Vdeblvk )

_Doug Smith from the Robert H. Smith Center for the Constitution
_Robert Hurt, U.S. Representative from Virginia
_Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale Law School
_Ben Wittes from the Brookings Institution

Here's a link to more Youtube videos with Prof. Amar. ( https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Akhil+Reed+Amar+-+America%27s+Constitution%2C+A+Biography )

In the previous post I wondered why Baylor University President Ken Starr and Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar did not talk about the "terse" language of Article II and the Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" POTUS eligibility requirement two months before dual U.S/foreign citizenship President Obama was elected for his second term. I think I have discovered at least one possible constitutional amendment reason why Prof. Amar did not want to clarify the "terse" language of "natural born Citizen" when he had the contextual opportunity even though Pres. Starr did not ask him specifically to clarify the original genesis original intent “terse” language of “natural born Citizen” in Sec. 1 Cl. 5.

The possible reason is in (1) the "prescriptive and descriptive" "three rules" for constitutional amendments that Prof. Amar proposes in this panel discussion about the state of the U.S. Constitution and how it is still working for America, and (2) in the "...regional and global systems of government" that the children of the United States will have to think about in the world government scenario he mentions in this September 17, 2014 panel discussion because "...problems and opportunities exist on a global scale."

Prof. Amar's Three Rules for amendments "...that fits our tradition":

Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality
_Flag Burning and Liberty and Equality
_Campaign Finance Reform and Liberty and Equality
_Marriage and Tradition Liberty and Equality

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

ajtelles said...

The State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
or
“Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America


2/

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 singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by 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/ )

ajtelles said...

The State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
or
“Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America


3/

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 (neither “natural law homosexuality,” the activity, nor “natural law heterosexuality,” the activity, require a “positive law” to be actively practiced).

If Prof. Amar's “liberty and equality” amendments are ratified, they will “transform” the original meaning of the Constitution's 1787 preamble words “posterity” and “Union.”

My observation of the original intent of the word “posterity” in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution is, for POTUS eligibility purposes as the Union grew from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, is that the word “posterity” of the Union in 1787 was ONLY a reference to U.S. “natural born Citizen” children ONLY born with singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

For children born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen father who was not married to the mother of the child, the child was considered to be a positive law U.S. “citizen” but not a natural law “natural born Citizen” and thus not eligible to the office of President since only one parent was a U.S. citizen.

If the maternity of the child was of a U.S. citizen mother and the paternity was known to be of an alien father, the child was considered to be a positive law alien and thus not eligible to the office of President since BOTH parents were considered by the common law of that era to be aliens.

If the maternity was of a U.S. citizen mother but the paternity was not known, or was kept hidden by the mother, the child was considered to be a positive law U.S. citizen but also not eligible to the office of President since only one parent was a U.S. citizen.

ajtelles said...

The State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
or
“Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America


4/

Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar:
@ 59m47s (4.5 minutes)

“Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago the framers created an audacious continental democracy, the likes of which had never been seen in world history. Democracy had existed only in tiny, little city-states.

“What was basically being proposed was nothing less than world government for a new world, for a continent separated by vast oceanic moats from the ... old world. If we take seriously, that, if we project things forward, you have to think, our children have to think, about regional and global systems of government. Because, actually, problems and opportunities exist on a global scale, whether we're talking about pandemic viruses, or international terrorism, or nuclear proliferation, or climate change. And, thinking about these regional, intercontinental, even global systems of constitutionalism. Remember I told you, we were the only democratic project going 227 years ago. Now half the planet is democratic on an American model. So, that's what the next fifty years, that will be a serious conversation.

[Prof. Amar's Three Rules for Constitutional Amendments]

[Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality]


"Domestically, here are the three rules, prescriptive and descriptive, that I put forth for constitutional amendments.

“They should add to liberty and equality, not detract from them. All the amendments thus far, except for prohibition, have done that. Prohibition was not a great success.

[Flag Burning and Liberty and Equality]

"So, flag burning amendments that make it a criminal thing, restricting first amendment freedoms, not a great idea.

[Campaign Finance Reform and Liberty and Equality]

"I don't think, actually, restricting the First Amendment in the name of "campaign finance reforms" [his finger " " air quote] is such a great idea either.

"So, amendments should add to liberty and equality.

[Marriage and Tradition Liberty and Equality]

"One man, one woman, marriage, that restricts liberty and equality. I don't think that's such a great idea. I don't think, actually, that fits our tradition. Amendments should add to liberty and equality, not take away. That's what we've done thus far.

[Rule #2: Both Political Parties Must Agree]

“Amendments are going to have to be supported by both parties, because you can't get two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, three-fourths of the States unless both parties are on board.

[Rule #3: States Test Ideas First]

“States are going to have to road test all these ideas first. Every single thing in the Constitution, virtually, states did first.

"States had written constitutions first.
"Massachusetts put the Constitution to a vote first.
"States had three branches of government.
"States had bicameral legislatures; single member districts.
"States had bills of rights.
"States got rid of slavery first.
"States let women vote first.
"States let blacks vote first.

"So, states are going to road test these ideas. It's a Brandeisian model. What would pass these descriptive and prescriptive tests?

ajtelles said...

The State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
or
“Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America


5/

[Direct Election of the President]

"Well, we could imagine direct election of the presidency, 'cause that's actually an equality idea. All the states have little mini-presidents; we call them governors. In none of the states do we have a little electoral college; it's one person, one vote. I could imagine both parties supporting this because, actually, the Republicans will increasingly come to understand that the Electoral College disfavors them going forward, and the Democrats like one person, one vote. They like the equality idea. So, that could happen.

[POTUS Eligibility for Foreign Born]

"People who were not born under the flag can be governors in the states; Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jennifer Granholm. I could imagine Republicans getting on board with their version of the Dream Act, 'cause you come here, we want a fence, we want a big fence, we want an electrified fence. Did we say we want a big fence? Ok, fine, but, now what else do you have to offer? They're going to say, you come here and you play by the rules; you come here legally, you contribute for thirty years, you should be eligible to be president. Orin Hatch proposed that ten years ago. He still believes in it, I think, he just cant say it yet, but eventually he will be able to say it because it will be in the Republican Party's interest to have an alternative for that.

[Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution]

“States have formal ERA's, no discrimination on the grounds of sex. I think it would be nice to have that in our federal constitution. It's already there implicitly, but, let's say it again, this time with feeling. States are giving us gay marriage, and sometimes in state constitutions, and I could imagine, actually, that being something, because both parties eventually are going to find it in their interests to do it. It adds to liberty and equality.

“States are doing these things.

"These are the three principles, and those are both descriptive and prescriptive principles."

ajtelles said...

The State of the Constitution:
Is the Constitution Still Working for America?
or
“Liberty and Equality” Amendments will Transform America


6/

The first audience question was from Ellie, a nine year old girl.
@ 1h4m25s (3 minutes)

"I'm Ellie Pugh, and, do you think that the Constitution will ever be completely rewritten, and how far in the future do you think it will happen?

"Can I say something to Ellie? I met you, Ellie, at the reception, and you told me you're nine and a half years old? Is that right? I think I came, for the very first time, before adulthood, to this building when I was nine and a half years old, and it changed my life; in this building, the National Archives.

"Ellie, you should, have your parents give you a dollar bill. They should, I've met them. On the back, you see, there's this pyramid, and it's unfinished. I think that America's constitutional project will keep going. When it says it's a more perfect union, but I don't think we'll ever get there, we're always building. I don't know if we're going to rewrite the whole thing. It's interesting, we've added amendments to the end. James Madison called it a careless written letter; so many postscripts, post posts, pps's. They didn't rewrite the thing. Most state constitutions, actually, when there's a new amendment, they kind of word process the thing. They rewrite the main text, but here, we just say, oh, another thing, and another thing, and we just kind of add them. So, I'm not sure we're going to rewrite it. We haven't done that since Philadelphia 227 years ago, but we're going to add a bunch of amendments and the pyramid will keep growing and growing and growing, but I don't think we'll ever get there. I don't think we'll ever be perfect, but, I do think that your generation is going to have a lot to say. You have to figure out what you want to put on top, you know, as the next layer of that pyramid.

"Do you know, can you tell us what the preamble to the Constitution says?"

Ellie:
"It says, we the people of the United States of America, um."

Prof. Amar:
"That's a very good start. That's like half of the Constitution, right there [much applause]. We the people of the United States, dot dot dot, we do ordain and establish the Constitution, and that's what began 227 years ago, but here's one little piece of it that was written, actually, just for you. It's to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. They were thinking about later generations. They thought about you, and you have obligations to them to try to make the Constitution even better for your children still unborn, and that's actually the challenge of your generation.

"That's what I believe."

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument26.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

As to the natural born citizens, the American Revolution created the original citizens out of those persons born before July 4, 1776. Adults become citizens through consent to the revolution and their minor children followed their choice, being free to make a different choice upon reaching the age of majority. Those who were born after July 4, 1776 in the United States to original citizen parents were like their parents citizens and also the original natural born citizens. All their descendants born in the United States thereafter were also like their parents citizens and also natural born citizens.

More citizens were added to the original citizen line through naturalization under Acts of Congress or treaties. Any naturalized citizen could join another citizen, whether from the original citizen line or from a line created through subsequent naturalization, to make more citizens. Children born to them in the United States became citizens like them and also natural born citizens.

As to the citizens, again, there were the original citizens, who were so made after their birth either through the revolution or through a naturalization act of a state and later of Congress. There were also citizens so made at birth. These were so made by naturalization Acts of Congress and later the Fourteenth Amendment. They were recognized by those laws as citizens at birth. They were not natural born citizens because they were either born in the United States to one or two alien parents (born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment), or born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (born citizens under a naturalization Act of Congress). Finally, there were also citizens so made after their birth. These persons were born out of the United States to two alien parents and who naturalized as citizens after birth under an Act of Congress or treaty.

So, that is it. We can see who are the natural born citizens (born in the United States to citizen parents), the born citizens (born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress), and the citizens after birth (citizens under a naturalization Act of Congress or treaty). They are all citizens. But only those children born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents are not only citizens, but also natural born citizens.

ajtelles said...

An Excellent Summary...

Mario,

In my estimation, your summary on June 24, 2015 at 8:39 PM, is, as always, right on the mark, pertinent, relevant, coherent and contextually irrefutable. It is consistent with the 1787 Constitution and the original genesis original intent of John Jay, author of "natural born Citizen" and the original genesis original intent meaning of John Jay that George Washington agreed with, and which was, of course, agreed with by the 1787 framers and ratifiers of Article II, and confirmed by ALL of the Naturalization Acts of Congress, including, contextually the 1790 Naturalization Act. Also, thought leaders such as Coke, Blackstone, Vattel and et al would probably say "dittos."

However, relevant to my previous two posts here on your blog, I and others would like to know what your thoughts, predictions and admonitions are about Yale Law Professor Amar's "Three Rules for amendments "...that fits our tradition" listed in part #1 above at June 24, 2015 at 3:52 PM, specifically the consequences of Prof. Amars emphasis Rule #1: "Marriage and Tradition" comment and the constitutional consequences of Amar's emphasis in Part #3" "Homosexual Marriage "Implicitly" in the Constitution"?

Rule # 1: Amendments must add to Liberty and Equality
_Flag Burning and Liberty and Equality
_Campaign Finance Reform and Liberty and Equality
_Marriage and Tradition Liberty and Equality

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


Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument26.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

SCOTUS v. Original Genesis Family and Article II Section 1 Clause 5

Mario,

A few minutes ago, June 26, 2015 at about 8am El Paso, Texas, USA time, the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 to 4, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito each writing separate dissenting statements, declared that homosexual marriage is on par with heterosexual marriage.

What does that mean for the future of "natural born Citizen" in Article II as it relates to the heterosexual family, the ONLY "family" in which a child is "born" as a natural born citizen to two U.S. citizen "married" heterosexual parents?

Well, an amendment to the Constitution will be necessary to eliminate the confusion that homosexual "marriage" has created as to who is a "natural born Citizen" for POTUS eligibility.

Relative to my two previous comments here on your originalist blog about Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar's "implicit constitution" in his 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution, and his statement in the National Archive panel discussion where he says at June 24, 2015 at 3:54 PM

"Domestically, here are the three rules, prescriptive and descriptive, that I put forth for constitutional amendments. They should add to liberty and equality, not detract from them...,"

and

"One man, one woman, marriage, that restricts liberty and equality...."

and, in the next post with the same date and time,

“...no discrimination on the grounds of sex....It's already there implicitly...States are giving us gay marriage...,"

It looks like Prof. Amar's call for constitutional amendments will be need to be fulfilled for, as he emphasizes in his speeches, "liberty and equality" purposes.

Mario, if and when "natural born Citizen" and it's implicit meaning of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married and ONLY heterosexual parents, that means that your work will be finished defending Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen," including what I prefer to call original "born" birther author John Jay's original meaning, his "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

PS.

Randy Barnett has an excellent critique of Prof. Amar's 2012 book America's Unwritten Constitution at the Wall Street Journal* titled The Mirage of Progressive Originalism, a new legal theory attempts—and fails—to unite leftist politics with constitutional fidelity.

*( http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444914904577619763983330558 )

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. That means born or reputed born in the United States is necessary, but not sufficient. It also means that birth to two parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth is also necessary but not sufficient. What is also necessary but not sufficient is that the status of being a citizen be fixed from the moment of birth and not thereafter. Hence, (1) being a citizen from the moment of birth (2) by being born in a country (2) to parents who were both citizens of that country at the time of the child's birth, are necessary and all together sufficient conditions to be satisfied in order for one to be a natural born citizen. The clause means nothing more and nothing less.

As seen, necessary conditions of the clause are, in addition to birth in the country of which both parents are citizens at the time of the child's birth, that citizenship attach at the moment of birth and that one be born to citizen parents. In that connection, how we define adoption or marriage by positive laws does not change the clause's meaning, which as we have seen provides the status of a natural born citizen from the time of a child's birth. If we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can change under positive laws, then the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment.

ajtelles said...

Gov. Walker and a Constitutional Amendment

or

A "several states" Article V Convention of States


Mario, two things.

First, in my earlier comment, in the paragraph before the PS, some words are missing. It should read "Mario, if and when "natural born Citizen" is removed from the Constitution with an amendment that the progressives condone, including it's implicit meaning of ONLY...."

Second, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stated after the SCOTUS homosexual marriage decision that, as President, he would propose an amendment stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman, aka heterosexual marriage.

As I have commented here on your originalist blog multiple times but nobody ever responded negatively or positively, today is the day for a serious national discussion about an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose the amendment Gov. Walker is proposing, with clarifying language explicitly AND "implicitly" stating that the original genesis original intent of "natural born Citizen" is to be "born" ONLY with singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents ONLY married BEFORE the child is born.

What do you think, and what do your blog visitors think, about We the People, a la the Ninth Amendment, taking control of the Article V authority to correct the legislative SCOTUS, since, as some originalists like David Barton of Wallbuilders said to Glenn Beck in the third hour of his radio program today, a constitutional amendment proposed by (my words: the sitting Article V convention of states, aka) the House and Senate, will NEVER propose a corrective amendment AND three quarters of the states will NEVER ratify an amendment if proposed by the Congress?

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

Dittos to "the meaning of the clause"

Mario,

as you wrote at June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM, "...the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment" and so the current "natural born Citizen" language will definitely be attacked on "liberty and equality" grounds by homosexual marriage advocates such as Yale Law Professor Amar who has written that the "implicit constitution" contains homosexual marriage.

So a first ever We the People Article V convention of the "several states" MUST propose the constitution amendment first to defend the original genesis of "born" with the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents for the future of the "Posterity" of the Union as is stated in the preamble of the Constitution.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say that the meaning of the natural born citizen clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment. The clause means what I said it means. How we define adoption and marriage through positive laws does not change the meaning of the clause.

ajtelles said...

Dittos to "did not say...needs to be changed":

Mario,

No, I did not misunderstand. I was agreeing with your conclusion in the last sentence on June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM:

"If we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can change under positive laws, then the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment."


I am reading "if" and "we" in your sentence in the inclusive sense, since "if" means if and "we" probably does not apply to you, or CDR Kerchner, for example, or the host and commentators on BirtherReport.com, or to me as being advocates to change the clause.

So I'm assuming that "we" refers to heterosexual advocates such as progressive Prof. Akail Amar, married and the father of two children, OR homosexuals advocates of any political persuasion who, on "liberty and equality" grounds, want to change the original genesis meaning of "born" as a reference to ONLY being born to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents, and want inclusive "equality" language to include adopted children. Inclusive "liberty and equality" language to include adopted children will require a constitutional amendment.

So, to counter the inclusive language that will change the meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen," the defense in the national conversation on radio, tv, blogs MUST be "proactive," including an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose an amendment defending marriage as Gov. Walker proposes, as ONLY between a male and a female, aka heterosexuals. We must be proactive and not simply reactive on blogs and talk programs because the homosexual marriage advocates will continue to be even more proactive than they have been in the past in achieving, as Prof. Amar advocates, "liberty AND equality" with a constitutional amendment with inclusive language.

That "inclusive" progressive amendment language will necessitate the excision and separation of the exclusive original genesis meaning of "born" from Article II and rejection of the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

"What do we do?"

Mario,

Mark Levin started his radio program today with Article V.

He said that people are asking what do we do?, what do we do?, what do we do?.

His response: Article V tells you what to do!

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

Serendipity...

Mario,

On Sean Hannity's radio program today, June 26, 2015, Texas Federal Sen. Ted Cruz said that Article V is a viable solution to an activist, aka legislative, Supreme Court.

The RightScoop.com
@ 7m30s

>> http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-these-are-some-of-the-darkest-24-hours-in-nations-history/

Quote:

"I think we need to look at fundamental structural changes, such as periodic retention elections, and if Congress won't act to adopt a fundamental structural amendment like that, I think you're going to see more and more movement for an Article V convention of the states because the men and women of America are fed up with politicians in Washington who won't listen and won't lift a finger to stop this lawlessness."

Mario, here is the serendipity.

With an Article V convention of the states that both Mark Levin and Sen. Ted Cruz advocate, both of these "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, aka Article II kissin' cousins to Obot-in-Chief Obama and his cohort who promote the 2008-2015 myth, the theory, the neo-birther half-baked idea that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to be an "nbC" and eligible to be President, both Levin and Cruz and et al. will be forced to admit that "natural born Citizen" is ONLY a reference to ONLY being born to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents. That means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is possible ONLY by birth on U.S. soil, ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents, not by birth to somebody and then being adopted by two "married" homosexual "parents."

So, Mark Levin and Sen. Cruz, some of us right thinking citizens want to encourage you two to promote an Article V convention of the states to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that marriage is ONLY between a male and a female, aka ONLY heterosexual men and women, for the purpose of expanding the "We the People...Union..." for the We the People "Posterity" from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

So, Mario, what do you, and what do your blog visitors think, about this "serendipity" and about an Article V convention of states to propose a constitutional amendment to smoke out Levin and Cruz and Hannity and Beck and Limbaugh and Ingraham and et al., there are so many et als, into the John Jay originalist camp and the understanding that the original genesis meaning of "born" and the original intent of "natural born Citizen" means, since July 25, 1787 when John Jay authored the phrase, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married "heterosexual" parents?

Serendipity, what an appropriate word for a terrible SCOTUS decision about homosexual marriage having equal status with heterosexual marriage. That is not a negative expression about people, simply an observation that human kind would not exist if it was not for heterosexual activity producing "posterity" from generation to generation, so that from election to election an eligible President could be chosen by We the People, the Posterity.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

Natural Law v. Philosophy

Mario,

It seems that the constitutional amendment movement will transition from the recent codifying by judicial fiat homosexual marriage to codifying by a constitutional amendment polygamy and marriage, and the Islamic influence of one husband and four wives is already being exerted in various "liberty and equality" ways.

Three examples are from Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org on June 26, 2015, discussing Islam and Christianity, a Middle East Forum repost of a 2012 National Review article discussing polygamy in Islam, and Politico.com where yesterday, June 26, 2015, polygamy is being proposed as a next step in societal advancement.

Politico.com:

>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY9DZEYsBpi

"Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. .../”

"...Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals? The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.

"...In Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissenting opinion, he remarks, “It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” ... ."

Jihad Watch.org:
>> http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/offer-for-rod-dreher-of-the-american-conservative-a-free-one-way-ticket-to-the-islamic-state

"[...snip]

"...I wonder if Dreher knows that American Muslim advocacy groups, already firmly aligned with the Left, generally supported gay marriage, for the obvious reason that it will lead to the legalization of polygamy.

"There can be little doubt that he knows about Islamic law’s classic provisions for the subjugation and institutionalized second-class status of Christians and other non-Muslims; ...."

Middle East Forum:
>> http://www.meforum.org/3214/gay-marriage-polygamy

"[NOTE: The National Review title is "Polygamy, Too: Muslims have started seeking their own redefinition of marriage"; the following text includes some material cut from the published version.] ...."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, what this appears to suggest is that your accurate account of the history of the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" since the time of John Jay in 1787, and the influence before the time of Jay from Coke, Blackstone, Vattel and others, including following John Jay in the naturalization acts of Congress since 1790, will require a transition from being reactive and simply recounting the history of the presidential eligibility language in Article II, to being aggressively proactive and proposing a statute or constitutional solution.

Article V is the ONLY constitution way, either proposed by the House and Senate (cough, cough, hack, wheeze, yeah, right) or by the "several states" initiated by We the People.

What do you think?

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

What do you call an Obot who is interested in Donald Trump's hair, but not interested in Barack Obama's ears?

ajtelles said...

Ok, what?

Bald?
Envious?
Hair stylist?
Fetishist?
Silly?
Poor?

Art

thalightguy said...

What's the Constitutional difference between a woman not being able to vote in 1875 and people with the same gender chromosomes being able to marry in 2015?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Just like adoption does not change the definition of a natural born citizen, same-sex marriage also does not change its definition.

ajtelles said...

Dittos "just like"...

Mario,

Adoption does not change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" but an amendment to the constitution to incorporate homosexual marriage and Islamic polygamy, see the three urls listed in my earlier comment, plus the most recent articles on National Review onlne since June 26, 2015 regarding homosexual marriage and Islamic polygamy, Section 2 Clause 5 will, specifically the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" will, on "liberty and equality" grounds, need to be amended.

We right thinking John Jay oriented originalists MUST begin to be proactive now, not simply reactive.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

"What's the Constitutional difference"...

It seems, thalightguy, that the difference between a woman not being able to vote in 1875 and homosexual marriage is that the common law of 1875 was different from the "liberty and equality" common law of progressives like Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar of 2015 (see my previous comments here over the last four days).

The 1787 words "We the People" included everybody physically touching the soil of the United States, however, according to the common law of 1787, for voting purposes, "WE the People" in some of the states included ONLY "We the Men," and definitely did NOT include "we the White Women" OR "We the Negro Men" and not the "We the Negro Women."

The 1865 Thirteenth Amendment gave "freedom" to ALL Negroes, male AND female.

The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment gave "citizenship" to ALL Negores, male and female.

The 1870 Fifteenth Amendment gave "suffrage rights", the right to vote, to "ONLY Negro males".

The 1920 Nineteenth Amendment gave "suffrage rights to ALL women", Caucasian AND Negro.

So, it seems that, according to our U.S. history, homosexual marriage has never been considered to be equal to heterosexual marriage.

Why?

Well, probably because the preamble "Posterity" that can increase the population of the "We the People...Union" can ONLY be produced by heterosexual activity.


Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

ajtelles said...

1/
Constitution natural law:
"Posterity" by being "born" to Heterosexual Married Parents
vs.
SCOTUS positive law:
"Posterity" by homosexual "marriage" and adoption (and eventually polygamy)


Natural law "born" vs. Positive law "marriage"


Mario,

After your two comments below I have a legal question for you and for others, constitutional scholars or not. Can a SCOTUS decision be unconstitutional?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On June 26, 2015 at 12:02 PM you wrote:

"A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

[...snip]

"The clause means nothing more and nothing less.

"... how we define adoption or marriage by positive laws does not change the clause's meaning, ....

"If we want to subject the clause to such definitions which can change under positive laws, then the meaning of the clause needs to be changed by constitutional amendment.

On June 26, 2015 at 12:35 PM you wrote:

"...The clause means what I said it means.

"How we define adoption and marriage through positive laws does not change the meaning of the clause.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, here is my legal question.

Is it possible that the SCOTUS homosexual "marriage" decision of June 26, 2015 is itself unconstitutional for POTUS eligibility purposes? Is the SCOTUS positive law about “marriage” in conflict with the Constitution's natural law requirement of being “born” to be eligible to be President?

Is the SCOTUS homosexual marriage decision in conflict with the preamble word "posterity" which implies birth to U.S. citizens, and the Article II Section 1 Clause 5 word "born" in "natural born Citizen" which implies “posterity” born to married heterosexual parents, not simply born to two unmarried heterosexual persons?

In the future some people who believe in polyamory, and others, such as Muslims who believe in polygamy, will be asserting a “liberty and equality” constitutional right to “marriage” to multiple wives.

ajtelles said...

2/
Constitution natural law:
"Posterity" by being "born" to Heterosexual Married Parents
vs.
SCOTUS positive law:
"Posterity" by homosexual "marriage" and adoption (and eventually polygamy)


Natural law "born" vs. Positive law "marriage"

It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
Why group marriage is the next horizon of social liberalism. By Fredrik Deboer, June 26, 2015.
>> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/gay-marriage-decision-polygamy-119469.html?ml=po#.VY9DZEYsBpi

[...snip]

Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right.

“While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay.

“Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners.

“It’s time to legalize polygamy.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Gay Marriage Has Islamists Eyeing Polygamy, by David J. Rusin
>> http://www.meforum.org/3214/gay-marriage-polygamy

[...snip]
“The "same argument" theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled "Polygamy: Tis the Season?" in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas.

"There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage," it explains.

"As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please." “The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy. "As far as legalization, I think they should," says Hassan Amin, a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions. "We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The polygamy advocates are saying things similar to what some homosexual marriage advocates, such as Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, have been saying for years, that we “believe” that some people are "gay and straight" for "liberty and equality" marriage purposes:

ajtelles said...

3/
Constitution natural law:
"Posterity" by being "born" to Heterosexual Married Parents
vs.
SCOTUS positive law:
"Posterity" by homosexual "marriage" and adoption (and eventually polygamy)


Natural law "born" vs. Positive law "marriage"

Professor Akhil Amar:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AuNu3Wz0Rw
Published on Mar 30, 2013
@ 13m45s

“But, let's put unenumerated rights aside for just a second. Those depend on their strength in society, but they're also enumerated rights, and they're enumerated rights to equality.

The Fourteenth Amendment already says equality, birth equality. The Nineteenth Amendment adds a very important focus on sex discrimination, that's the one that provides for women's suffrage.

“Now, if the Fourteenth Amendment says no one should be discriminated against because of how he's born, and I think it does say that, and if we now believe that people are born gay and straight in a way that we maybe didn't understand that thirty or forty years ago, then, that's already in the Constitution.

“Maybe we have a new social, scientific fact [“social, scientific fact”???] that we've come to understand [“come to understand???], and Ted Olson began to say that too in his response to Justice Scalia before he got cut off."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, Mario, in the immediate future some homosexual marriage advocates will probably start asking why their adopted children should be excluded from POTUS eligibility if, in the future, the children of polygamous Islamic parents are not excluded from POTUS eligibility? The adopted children are "born" somewhere, aren't they, and they didn't have a choice in their birth parents or their birth soil, etc. etc. etc., but they can have a choice where they place their allegiance, right, etc. etc. etc.?

Maybe the reactive approach needs a proactive next phase. The accurate history of Article II, as you and others have written, is still being ignored after 7 years and counting (2008-2015).

While I may believe that “born” in “natural born Citizen” has historically been associated ONLY with children (the preamble's ”posterity”) who have singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY with children (the preamble's ”posterity”) born on U.S. soil, ONLY with children (the preamble's ”posterity”) born to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents (the preamble's ”posterity”), maybe it's time to become proactive and call for a solution to the ignorance and the confusion that results and which “transformers” take advantage of to produce “yes we can” change in the United States of America.

Maybe it's time for an Article V convention of states to proactively propose the language for an amendment to clarify that “natural born Citizen” is exclusive and restricted ONLY to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents, the preamble's “We the People...Union” POTUS eligible ”posterity” producers, and it has not been, is not now, and never will be inclusive to promote the “liberty and equality” of Prof. Akhil Amar and others who think that the next societal great leap forward includes homosexual marriage, and in the future to have “liberty and equality” to be applied to Is1am and legalized polygamy.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Under the law of nations and American national common law which incorporated it, all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth are natural born citizens. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

The natural born citizen clause is in our Constitution and part of the supreme law of the land. The clause can be changed only with a constitutional amendment. The Framers required that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be natural born citizens for the sake of the safety and preservation of the nation as conceived by them and its people.

The great majority of Americans are natural born citizens. It is mostly from the natural born citizens that the generational values of the nation are preserved. Still, the Constitution uses the clause only as an eligibility factor for those wanting to be President or Vice-President.

As the clause informs from its face, the status of natural born citizen is established at birth and not thereafter.

Because of the natural born citizen clause, our nation has from its beginnings always accepted without much fanfare that a person who becomes a U.S. citizen after his or her birth is not a natural born citizen. Disagreement has arisen in determining who among the born citizens are natural born citizens, for not all of them are. Of all the born citizens, only those who obtained that status by birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens. All other born citizens, whether by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress, are “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” but not natural born citizens.

Birth of humans as we know them today can only occur by joining a male’s sperm with a female's egg. That is a biological fact of nature. This law of nature cannot be changed by the positive laws of man.

Hence, if either a male's sperm or a female's egg is missing, there cannot be a birth. If there is no birth, there cannot be a natural born citizen.

That is not to say that children already in being cannot be adopted under controlling law. But again, those children would have already been born to a father (male) and mother (female) in some place and the adoption, regardless to whom granted, would occur after the birth. So the adoption, which is a status created by positive law and which occurs after birth, cannot establish natural born citizen status. That adopted child’s natural born citizen status still rests with his or her place of birth and biological parents. The burden of proof is on the person claiming to be a natural born citizen. We cannot give free passes based on inability to prove the case. After all, we do not have any sympathy in this connection for those persons who became citizens after birth or for those persons who under our immigration laws are one day late or one mile short.

This is the way the Framers wanted it. They wrote it into the Constitution. If we the people want to change it, then we need a constitutional amendment to do so.

ajtelles said...

Dittos "...If we the people want to change it..."

Mario,

It seems that some of "we the people want to change" the Constitution to preserve the common sense meaning of marriage to mean ONLY male and female, heterosexual marriage for the scientific and "that's the way it always has been, it is now, and it always will be" sperm and egg reason. Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz and other prominent thought leaders are already talking about amending the constitution to define marriage and to reign in the Supreme Court and the Justices.

However, some of "we the people want to change" the Constitution contrary to the nature, aka sperm and sperm, egg and egg, and so the natural law aspect of "born" in Article II will need to be amended to include the new homosexual marriage positive law declaration of SCOTUS on June 26, 2015.

For those who may be reading this and who think that removing the natural law "born" requirement to two U.S. citizen married heterosexual parents will "NEVER happen in my lifetime," well, how young are you, and how long did it take for the proactive "liberty and equality" homosexual marriage agenda take to bear fruit, so to speak, among "we the people" in the several states and finally in the Supreme Court, and how about in the lifetime of your "posterity?"

Mario, the very last sentence of your comment is my point for being proactive immediately with an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment, not with the Congress as Gov. Walker suggests and Sen. Cruz suggest as a start but also moving forward to an Article V convention of the several states, to maintain the POTUS eligibility requirement "...the way the Framers wanted it" before the "liberty and equality" advocates like Yale Law Prof. Akhil Amar and others move on the the next logical step, which is to amend the constitution to include adopted children of homosexual adoptive parents OR heterosexual adoptive parents, and eventually Muslim polygamous parents.

Common sense "sperm and egg" science is ignored by the "liberty and equality" crowd, and Justice Kennedy's feel good emphasis is the case in point. As the June 26, 2015 homosexual marriage decision of the Supreme Court reveals, feel good "liberty and equality" trumps sperm and egg science.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

When the Framers were going to constitute the new nation under a new Constitution, they had to decide whether to make a republic or a monarchy. The Framers chose a republic and rejected a monarchy as the form of government for the United States and so reflected that in the Constitution they wrote. In the Constitution they also chose citizen rather than subject as the nomenclature of what to call the members of the United States. Why did they do that? Because they knew that people living under a republican government were called citizens and those living under a monarchy were called subjects. The members of the United States were to have a different relation to their government than did a natural born subject. This member was to be the sovereign and only through his or her consent was the government to attain and keep it powers to govern over them.

The word citizen was found in the history of the Roman republic. Given that the Framers chose that nomenclature and history to name their new member of the republic, they would have also chosen how that history defined a citizen and natural born citizen. We know from the historical record that how citizenship was defined in the Roman republic was reflected in the law of nations. The historical record demonstrates that the Founders and Framers exhibited a great respect and admiration for the law of nations and saw that law as binding upon the new nation. Hence, the Framers would have looked to the law of nations for their definition of a citizen and a natural born citizen for their new republic.

Our U.S. Supreme Court has informed that to find the content of the law of nations, one source that we can look to is the writings of the scholars and publicists who wrote on the law of nations. One of these publicists was Emer de Vattel. We also know that Vattel was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite writer on the law of nations. In Section 212 “Citizens and natives,” of The Law of Nations, he defined the citizens and natives, or what he calls the “natural-born citizens” as follows: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter XIX, Section 212 Citizens and natives (1758) (1797).

In the rest of the paragraph Vattel explained why it was important that a child be born to citizen parents:

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. . . . I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Id.

Vattel also explained that a child upon reaching the age of majority had the right to renounce the citizenship with which he or she was born and take on a different one. He said: “We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.” Id.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The Framers adopted this law of nations definition of citizen and natural born citizen. Requiring that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be natural born citizens, they also accepted the policy behind the natural born citizen clause, being that the future President had to have an unquestionable love of and commitment to country. Finally, they also accepted the law of nations explanation that citizens had the right to expatriation, i.e., to cast off the citizenship with which they were born and to take on a different one. Being a natural born subject under English common law satisfied none of these needs. Only one of royal blood could be King and so the English common law did not have to deal with the question of the King having to be loyal and faithful from birth only to the British Empire. Additionally, a natural born subject under English common law, with its notion of broad allegiance to the King, could be born with dual and conflicting allegiances. Dual allegiance was anathema to the Framers. Moreover, a natural born subject was also in perpetual allegiance to the King and so therefore did not have a right to expatriate. It can therefore be seen that the Framers chose the meaning and rationale of a natural born citizen under the law of nations and not that of a natural born subject under the English common law.

We also have confirmation from our early Congress that the Framers adopted the law of nations and not the English common law to define the new national citizenship. See the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (in these acts Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization after birth by an Act of Congress; as Vattel explains in Section 214 of The Law of Nations, entitled “Naturalization,” under the English common law, they would have without more been naturalized at birth as English natural-born subjects).

Finally, we have further confirmation from our U.S. Supreme Court that the Framers chose the law of nations for defining a natural born citizen and not the English common law. See The Venus (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (citing and quoting Vattel and his Section 212 definition of “natives, or indigenes” (translated to “natives, or natural-born citizens” in the 1797 English translation of The Law of Nations) and not the English common law); Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the law of nations and not the English common law); Shanks v. Dupont (1830) (decided on the citizenship principles of the law of nations and not the English common law); Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) (relied upon the law of nations definition of citizenship and not the English common law) (Daniel, J., concurring) (specifically citing and quoting Vattel and his Section 212 for the definition of a “natives, or natural-born citizens” and not the English common law); and Minor v. Happersett (1875) (paraphrasing Vattel’s Section 212 definition of “natives,” or natural-born citizens” and calling it “common-law”); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (citing with approval Minor’s Vattelian/common law definition of a “natives, or natural born citizen”).

As we can see from this evidence, and there is more, the Framers relied upon the law of nations to define their national citizen and natural born citizen and not the English common law. And that law, which Minor called “common-law,” defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. With this definition never having been changed by any Constitutional amendment or decision of the U.S. Supreme Court and the definition being part of the “supreme Law of the Land,” today this is still the definition of the clause.

CDR Kerchner-Ret said...

Why most so called moderate followers of Islam remain silent about the violent actions of the so called radical Islamists. For the truth about Islam one must read in addition to the Quran the other two holy books of Islam. They are the Hadith (traditions and sayings of the Prophet) and the Sira (bio and life examples of the Prophet). Devout Muslims try to emulate the life of the Prophet. They consider him the perfect role model for a Muslim. Thus one must study the life and actions of the Prophet Mohammad to understand why many Muslims act the way they do in overt actions and in other cases total silence to the violence going on. Their Prophet Mohammad was a violent and aggressive person as one can see from the Hadith and Sira. One can get easy to read Cliff Note style versions of the The Quran, The Hadith, and The Sira (the true Muslim three holy books which are found in every devout Muslim's home) via this link: http://www.kerchner.com/islam/books.htm The Muslim disinformation talking heads put on TV will try to cover up the innate aggressive nature of Islam using the tactics and techniques of Taqiyya and Kitman. They will say ... that is not in the Koran. True maybe, but it is in the Hadith or the Sira. They will not volunteer the truth about Islam and the true teachings of Mohammed as found in his sayings, traditions, and life examples. And they cannot reform since they believe that the Prophet Mohammad was the last prophet. Any attempting to reform Islam would be seen as blasphemy to their belief in the Prophet Mohammad as the last word, a foundational principle in Islam. They are stuck in the 7th Century in their belief system as to man's relationship with God. Islam means submission. For the devout Muslim they believe there will be no peace on earth from the Islamic point of view until Islam achieves world supremacy and all submit to Allah and the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad and live under Sharia law. There is no separation of church and state in true Islam as taught by Mohammad. Devout followers of Islam cannot speak out against what we and they see happening without violating the core teachings and actions of their Prophet Mohammad. Devout followers of Islam have read and studied the Quran, Hadith, and Sira and have those books in their home. Even the not so devout Muslims know about the life of Mohammad. Thus, they will remain silent to those who pursue the barbaric violence we see dished out by the militant Islamists, for they know the militants are modeling their actions after the teachings, life, and examples of their prophet Mohammad.

Chief said...

Mario, has anyone ever sued SCOTUS on the merits of "lack of standing", its is codified nowhere in our laws that I can find, its is only a precedence established by the courts over the years, very progressive and the courts do not make law only interpret the laws based on their constitutionality???

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Chief,

There is no law that allows anyone to sue the U.S. Supreme Court. Judges enjoy immunity from any suit related to their decisions. The only way to undo what the U.S. Supreme Court has done is to wait for another case to reach the Court which raises the same issue and hope that the Court changes its mind or have a constitutional amendment passed which in effect overturns what the Court did.

Chief said...

Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal, who I like, always says the right thing except when it comes to their birth citizenship which makes them ineligible for POTUS. Have any published there verified birth certificates? You cannot, according to our Constitution succeed, to the Presidency based on being a US citizen only. Our Constitution requires a Natural Born Citizen, which Cruz, Rubio & Jindal are not. Our Founding Father used the Law of Nation as a reference source when forming our nation and drafting our Constitution and therefore the Law of Nations more definitively describes the requirement referred to in Article II of our Constitution, read this from Volume One:
§212. Citizens and natives.
"The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Cruz, Rubio and Jindal are all attorneys and knows better, Cruz even clerk at the Supreme Court, are they all self-serving, pandering or simply another covert Progressive furthering their movement?

R. Vail said...

There is evidence that BHO's biological father was someone other than the purported father, BHO Senior, a citizen of Kenya. Namely: Frank Marshall Davis, a registered Communist & U.S. citizen from Chicago, Illinois who later re-located to Hawaii. So: it may be that BHO's biological parents were actually both U.S. Citizens, even though there's no available GENUINE official birth documentation to prove it.
The presumed reason for having the Kenyan (BHO Senior) falsely registered as the biological father: change of his immigration status.
Only DNA testing would conclusively resolve the question.