tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post3651895997482884113..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl ReporterMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger3179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-10575970802054395432015-03-05T14:17:18.655-05:002015-03-05T14:17:18.655-05:00I posted this over at Mr. Conterio's article: ...I posted this over at Mr. Conterio's article: Also read the U.S. Supreme Court case Rogers v Belllei (1971) which clearly points out the Citizens created at birth under U.S. law are NATURALIZED citizens and what Congress grants, Congress can take away. Congress cannot create or take away citizenship from people who are "natural born Citizens" who are created under the laws of nature and not the laws of Congress or man-made enactments. Naturalized and Natural born both begin with the same few letters but other than that similarity they are very different and Citizens created under man-made laws, whether at birth or some time after birth are NATURALIZED citizens.CDR Kerchner (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08723450250376537457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55211347813269392562015-03-05T13:58:14.409-05:002015-03-05T13:58:14.409-05:00I'll post this set of my articles over at Greg...I'll post this set of my articles over at Greg Conterio's page, if I'm permitted to: To Conterio: Read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQCDR Kerchner (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08723450250376537457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-70068211431765119972015-03-05T13:56:02.196-05:002015-03-05T13:56:02.196-05:00Did you see this? I just got a google alert about...Did you see this? I just got a google alert about it. This writer appears to be saying the statutory law 1401 addresses the meaning of "natural born Citizen" when in fact the words "natural born" appear no where in that law. Anyway, just a heads up in case you had not seen this since he is speaking directly to you and about you in this piece.<br /><br />Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo | Western Free Press<br />http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/<br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.orgCDR Kerchner (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08723450250376537457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80848558375297305442015-01-29T22:43:08.769-05:002015-01-29T22:43:08.769-05:00"Doublemint Twins"...
Doublemint thanks..."Doublemint Twins"...<br /><br />Doublemint thanks Mario.<br /><br />It doesn't really matter who neo-birther "Bob" is 'cause "original birther" John Jay was not a "neo-birther" and he was not confused, ambiguous or vague about "natural born Citizen."<br /><br />However, maybe we should expand the previous questions to include Bob Quasius to tag-team with "confused...intelligent" neo-birther "Bob".<br /><br />As "rope-a-dope" author Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali might have said if he were here, the ropes are waitin'.<br /><br />No "Bob" or Bob Q., you are not dopes, simply neo-birther misguided, that's all.<br /><br />Art<br />U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union<br />OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59168732518763247872015-01-29T22:15:11.726-05:002015-01-29T22:15:11.726-05:00ajtelles,
There are two Bobs at Cafe Con Leche R...ajtelles, <br /><br />There are two Bobs at Cafe Con Leche Republicans. The host of the blog is Bob Quasisus. Then there is Obot Bob, the mangler of understanding radio shows. We are now dealing with the latter and not the former. They both espouse the same silly and fallacious position that all born citizens are natural born citizens, regardless of how the status is obtained. We can therefore say that they are Doublemint Twins which explains why you confused one with the other. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68411063403244361772015-01-29T21:55:41.299-05:002015-01-29T21:55:41.299-05:00Neo-birther is confusing" but kudos anyway......Neo-birther is confusing" but kudos anyway...<br />2/2<br /><br />Well Mario, there it is for the history books.<br /><br />My use of the phrase "neo-birther" is confusing but still "more intelligent" than Obot which is not confusing.<br /><br />Maybe Bob can comment about John Jay's <b>"original genesis original intent"</b> that I also posted here on January 18, 2015 at 11:58 PM:<br /><br />Bob, put yourself in John Jay's place.<br /><br />What would YOUR original intent have been on July 25, 1787 if YOU had underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in YOUR note to YOUR friend George Washington.<br /><br />Surely you have a 2015 opinion, so saying that you don't know what John Jay meant in 1787, or anything suggesting uncertainty about original intent, will not be responsive.<br /><br /><br /><b>Since the 1787 "Union" of America<br />A John Jay "original genesis original intent" natural born Citizen has ONLY 1 meaning:</b><br /><br />The "higher hurdle" essence of John Jay’s clear and coherent <br />"original genesis original intent" about "natural born Citizen"<br />vs<br />The "lower hurdle" essence of neo-birther's confusing and incoherent <br />"new meaning" about "natural born Citizen"<br /><br /><b>John Jay:</b><br />1.<br />ONLY U.S. soil<br />2.<br />ONLY birth on U.S. soil<br />3.<br />ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents<br />4.<br />ONLY married to each other<br />5.<br />ONLY before their child is born<br />6.<br />ONLY single U.S. Citizenship<br /><br />vs<br /><b>Neo-Birthers:</b><br /><br />1.<br />U.S. soil OR foreign soil<br />2.<br />birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil<br />3.<br />to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents<br />4.<br />married OR NOT married to each other<br />5.<br />Before OR after their child is born<br />6.<br />Dual citizenship—U.S. AND foreign<br /><br />Art<br />U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union<br />OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com<br />ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20906564141775631872015-01-29T21:53:17.809-05:002015-01-29T21:53:17.809-05:00"Neo-birther is confusing" but kudos any..."Neo-birther is confusing" but kudos anyway...<br />1/2<br /><br />Mario, <br /><br />Over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Bob Quasius, the host, today responded to something I had posted here on your blog very early this morning, January 29, 2015 at 12:52 AM. In his compliment of my use of "neo-birther" in point #6, even though he thinks it is confusing, he adds that it is more intelligent than Obot.<br /><br />Hmmm.<br /><br />So, "neo-birther" is something that is confusing but still more intelligent than Obot, a word that is NOT confusing? <br /><br />Original birther John Jay was not a neo-birther and was not confused, ambiguous or vague when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" with the common law understandig of 1787 America that the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child, meaning having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as a "natural born Citizen" and NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.<br /><br />Bob wrote the point #6 "confusing...intelligent" sentence after making 5 points negatively opining, but without substantive articluation, about your comments on the January 26, 2015 interview with Jo Anne on her The Moretti Underground Show -<br />>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXvz4mR6AA <br /><br />Here is Bob's 5 point rebuttal, for what it's worth, so that future historians and authors can compare Bob's opinion about your The Moretti Undergound Show comments with your substance in the interview and here on your blog of record about John Jay's "original genesis original Intent" for underlinging the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington who did NOT disagree with Jay's 1787 America common law meaning.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />January 29, 2015 at 11:55 am<br />>> http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-134899<br /><br />"Hey Art!<br /><br />"1. Apuzzo’s tripe about an unspecified international tribunal hearing an unspecified treaty violation is just stupid. A competent attorney would have at least specified the tribunal and treaty. Notice how Apuzzo can’t do that?<br /><br />"2. The proffered testimony of Apuzzo’s purported (unnamed) “expert” at the Purpura hearing was irrelevant to the issues raised in the complaint, which is why the judge ruled the testimony was unnecessary. No mystery there.<br /><br />"3. The judge then ruled that President Obama was not required to demonstrate where was born. And Apuzzo failed to show that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.<br /><br />"4. The judge, like many judges before him, then ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to bestow natural-born citizenship. A ruling that Apuzzo appealed up to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and no superior tribunal disagreed with the initial ruling.<br /><br />"5. Apuzzo’s assertion that McCain was born “under U.S. jurisdiction” is just wrong.<br /><br />"6. “Neo-birther” is confusing and won’t catch on. But more intelligent than “Obot,” so kudos for that.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br />ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76961127287140710752015-01-29T09:06:01.395-05:002015-01-29T09:06:01.395-05:00An oops correction...
Mario,
This is the correct...An oops correction...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />This is the correct Youtube url for your January 26, 2015 interview on The Moretti Underground Show:<br />>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXvz4mR6AA<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />Since I met my new best friend John Jay, on other forums I've been asking neo-birthers, aka promoters of the "new meaning" of "nbC" as mentioned below, what THEIR "original genesis original intent" might have been if THEY had underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in THEIR note to George Washington.<br /><br />For example:<br /><br />If YOU were John Jay and YOU had a friend at the 1787 framing of the new constitution, and YOU had authored the "natural born Citizen" phrase in the note to your good friend George Washington, what would YOUR original intent have been?<br /><br />1-Would YOU have meant <b>ONLY</b> singular U.S. citizenship <b>OR BOTH</b> U.S./foreign citizenship?<br /><br />2-Would YOU have meant birth on <b>ONLY</b> U.S. soil <b>OR ALSO</b> birth on foreign soil?<br /><br />3-Would YOU have meant birth to <b>ONLY</b> two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the child is born <b>OR ALSO</b> birth to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who were married or NOT married to each other?<br /><br />"OR one" = Obama born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent (or so he says)<br /><br />"OR zero" = Rubio, Jindal, Haley born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.<br /><br />"OR one" = Cruz, born on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, but on foreign soil, to one U.S. citizen parent.<br /><br />If the folks respond with "OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero," the natural question is, well, who is NOT eligible if everybody is eligible? <br /><br />Well, silly me, of course, ONLY the person born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, 'cause, you see, <b>THAT</b> makes sense, doncha know.<br /><br />See how easy it is to be a neo-birther in 2008-2015 America?<br /><br />When John Jay's higher hurdle of singular U.S. citizenship by being born to two U.S. citizen parents is replaced with the neo-birther lower hurdle of dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil, well, who knows who will be the next person able to say: I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America too?<br /><br />Art<br />U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union<br />ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46021344317398772442015-01-29T07:21:24.662-05:002015-01-29T07:21:24.662-05:00ajtelles,
Since I have known Bob, I have not yet ...ajtelles,<br /><br />Since I have known Bob, I have not yet seen him make one comment in my regard which attempts to tell the truth. He lies about and misrepresents everything under the sun. He will not engage in any substantive argument. He will focus on items that are not material to the discussion and misrepresent them in an attempt to discredit me on the real points. He is what Bob Grant called a "fake, phony, fraud." Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90914741242957159402015-01-29T00:52:17.537-05:002015-01-29T00:52:17.537-05:00The Moretti Underground... 1hr3m40s
Mario,
Yeste...The Moretti Underground... 1hr3m40s<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Yesterday I heard your Jan. 26, 2015 fifty minute interview on The Moretti Undergound Show-The Liberty Report, hosted by Jo Anne Moretti. It starts at 1h 3m 40s - <br /><br />>> ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822qlXqFiyo )<br /><br />Over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Bob, the host posted another derogatory comment about some of your statements in the interview.<br /><br /><i>"January 27, 2015 at 3:42 pm<br /><br />"I listened to the recent episode of the Moretti Underground which had Apuzzo as a guest. In addition to mangling the history of his own cases, Apuzzo really launched some <b>groaners</b>:<br /><br />"* An uninsured person who doesn’t pay the newly imposed penalty under the Affordable Care Act would have standing to challenge whether President Obama was actually the president when he signed the law.<br /><br />"* An (unspecified) international tribunal could try President Obama for (unspecified) treaty violations.<br /><br />Even Orly Taitz isn’t this dumb."</i><br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <br /><br />Now, Bob's posting of the two points looks to the uninformed to be what you said, but for those who listen, your full comments are common sense. You point of a treaty violation is simple to understand, and nothing to grumble about like Bob does by posting a part of your comment with no comment of his own to refute your point.<br /><br /><br />Oh well, what's a neo-birther to say when there's nothing to say to your point?<br /><br /><br />Also, for some reason Bob does not mention your point that your expert witness in the Purpura v Obama ballot challenge was going to testify that Obama's website birth certificate image was not a reliable image to be used in a court of law, so the judge accepted the stipulation of the Obama lawyer that the birth certificate posted on the web site was not evidence to be used in New Jersey. <br /><br />Your point as you stated it in the interview is that after accepting the stipulation by the Obama lawyer that the image of the birth certificate can not be used as evidence of where Obama was born, the judge later, after the presentations of evidence and lack of evidence, said that since Obama was born in the United States, it does not matter who the parents are, Obama is a natural born citizen.<br /><br /><br />Oh well, what's a neo-birther supposed to say when there's nothing to say in response to your point of the judge's incoherent <b><i>"groaner"</i></b> of a declaration?<br /><br /><br />The entire interview is worth listening to.<br /><br /><br />Your point, at about 1hr31min, about Sen. McCain and his being born to U.S. citizen parents in Panama under U.S. jurisdiction, was brief and to the point—being born in the country is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition—and Sen. Cruz's situation is different because he was born on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, but on foreign soil. <br /><br /><br />You should post here on you blog when you will be interviewed so more people can call in and talk with you.<br /><br /><br />Art<br />U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union<br />OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14039978252005501082015-01-24T00:40:35.507-05:002015-01-24T00:40:35.507-05:00Scratch my last post. He would have to apply to re...Scratch my last post. He would have to apply to regain his citizenship. I totally misread.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072695992597706526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43234578774346672432015-01-22T10:48:11.716-05:002015-01-22T10:48:11.716-05:00Wholly crap, have you guys seen that Kenya changed...Wholly crap, have you guys seen that Kenya changed their Constitution in 2011 and Obama is NOW a citizen of Kenya?<br /><br />Read number 5:<br /><br />http://kenyahighcommission.ca/dual-citizenship/Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072695992597706526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85403132302622728902015-01-19T21:57:06.358-05:002015-01-19T21:57:06.358-05:00ajtelles,
Yes, Bryan Gene Olson has received not ...ajtelles,<br /><br />Yes, Bryan Gene Olson has received not only a technical TKO, but a substantive and an absolute one. He never did produce any evidence or make any legal argument supporting his absurd position that all born citizens are Article II natural born citizens. <br /><br />He has to date not been able to refute all the historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that 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 and that de facto President Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz, not satisfying that definition, are not Article II natural born citizens. He, like the rests of the Obots, thinks that his sophomoric smear campaign can make up for the intellect and integrity that he so sorely lacks.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-79154983651161389272015-01-18T23:58:10.999-05:002015-01-18T23:58:10.999-05:00TKO...
Mario,
It looks like your "rope-a-do...TKO...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />It looks like your "rope-a-dope" strategy (if it was a strategy) worked and resulted in a TKO, a technical knock out. To be a KO, a knock out, it would require Bryan and his neo-birther cohort, Slartibartifast (aka Kevin-Ph.D mathematician) and Bob Q., the host. of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, to admit that when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" he meant <b>ONLY</b> U.S. soil, <b>ONLY</b> birth on U.S. soil, <b>ONLY</b> to two U.S. citizen married parents, and he did <b>NOT</b> mean <b>ALSO</b> birth on EITHER U.S. soil <b>OR</b> foreign soil, to EITHER two <b>OR</b> one <b>OR</b> zero U.S. citizen married parents.<br /><br />Oh well, Bryan's admission of frivolous intent is good 'nuf for a TKO and for you to hold up both of your hands and circle around the arena of ideas.<br /><br />A TKO is a legitimate win. Period.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />This is your January 14, 2015 at 11:19 am on Cafe Con Leche Republicans to Bryan (FKA NotLinda) - <br /><br /><i>"Bryan Gene Olson,<br /><br />"You said: “You misunderstand. I’m not trying to convince you, just make fun of you.”<br /><br />"Apart that it is hilarious to think that someone of your intellectual caliber would think so highly of himself that he would believe that he can make anyone laugh, thank you for conceding that your comments are not based on history, law, and reason, but rather only on bunk."</i><br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />All that the <b>"birth-on-U.S.-soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility"</b> neo-birthers need to do to refute the above paragraphs is to cogently articulate why the <b>lower hurdle</b> of birth on U.S. soil <b>OR</b> foreign soil with <b>DUAL</b> citizenship with <b>ONLY</b> "one U.S. citizen parent" <b>IS</b> good 'nuf, and why the <b>higher hurdle</b> of <b>ONLY</b> birth on U.S. soil with <b>ONLY</b> "two U.S. citizen married parents" is <b>NOT</b> the <b>ONLY</b> John Jay <b>"original genesis original intent"</b> and <b>NOT </b>good 'nuf.<br /><br />Simple. Right? <br /><br /><br /><b>Since the 1787 "Union" of America<br />A John Jay "Natural Born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing</b><br /><br />The <b>"higher hurdle"</b> essence of John Jay’s clear and coherent <br /><b>"original genesis original intent"</b> <b>IS</b> simple:<br /><br />1.<br /><b>ONLY</b> U.S. soil<br />2.<br /><b>ONLY</b> birth on U.S. soil<br />3.<br /><b>ONLY</b> to two U.S. citizen parents<br />4.<br /><b>ONLY</b>married to each other<br />5.<br /><b>ONLY</b> before their child is born<br />6.<br /><b>ONLY</b> single U.S. Citizenship<br /><br />vs<br /><br />The <b>"lower hurdle"</b> essence of neo-birther's confusing and incoherent <br /><b>"new meaning"</b> is <b>NOT</b> simple:<br /><br />1.<br />U.S. soil <b>OR</b> foreign soil<br />2.<br />birth on U.S. soil <b>OR</b> foreign soil<br />3.<br />to two <b>OR</b> one <b>OR</b> zero U.S. citizen parents<br />4.<br />married <b>OR NOT</b> married to each other<br />5.<br />Before <b>OR</b> after their child is born<br />6.<br /> Dual citizenship—U.S. <b>AND</b> foreign<br /><br />Art<br /><b>U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union</b> <br /><b>( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )</b><br /><br />The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"<br />The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861<br />See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )<br />ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4536495656748702102015-01-06T14:31:21.137-05:002015-01-06T14:31:21.137-05:00Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers...
2/
First is n...<b>Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers...</b><br /><br />2/<br /><br />First is neo-birther Bryan's December 26, 2014 at 11:30 am quote from the Arizona Pima County Superior Court*.<br /><br />"Here’s a real court on that issue:<br /><br />“Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and <b><i>this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen</i></b> under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” Allen v Obama, et. al. Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona 2012.” (bold emphasis is added)<br /><br />*( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-113889 )<br /><br />Next are the multiple neo-birther meanings to choose from compared to the single John Jay original intent meaning.<br /><br /><b>John Jay Single Original Intent Meaning of "natural born Citizen"</b><br /><br /><b>(1) ONLY</b> U.S. soil<br /><b>(2) ONLY</b> born on U.S. soil<br /><b>(3) ONLY</b> to two U.S. citizen parents<br /><b>(4) ONLY</b> married to each other<br /><b>(5) BEFORE</b> their child is born<br /><br /><b>Neo-birther Multiple Original Intent Meanings of "natural born Citizen"</b><br /><br /><b>(1) EITHER</b> U.S. soil<br /><b>(2) OR</b> foreign soil<br /><b>(3) EITHER</b> born on U.S. soil<br /><b>(4) OR</b> born on foreign soil <br /><b>(5) AND</b> born to two U.S. citizen parents<br /><b>(6) OR</b> born to one U.S. citizen parent<br /><b>(7) OR</b> born to zero U.S. citizen parents<br /><b>(8) Married OR NOT Married</b> to each other<br /><b>(9) BEFORE</b> their child is born on U.S. soil<br /><br />So, it looks like the Pima County Arizona Superior Court chose neo-birther definition <b>#3</b> and <b>#6</b>, born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent. Why? Obama was born naturally to one U.S. citizen parent, right? So, according to the neo-birther definition, he was born a natural born citizen, right? The number of U.S. citizen parents is irrelevant. That must be the erudite presupposition of the Pima County Arizona Superior Court, and it does not matter what John Jay's original intent was in 1787.<br /><br />That means that neo-birther Bryan's definition of "nbC" that does not consider and then adduce John Jay for guidance about Jay's 1787 original intent will always define "nbC" in a neo-birther way that is contrary to the 1875 Minor v. Happersett court that agrees with John Jay's original intent birther definition <b>#2</b> and <b>#3</b>: a child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents. Also, maybe somebody can also ask the SCOTUS which of the meanings of "nbC" listed do they adhere to; the single John Jay original intent birther definition or the multitude of neo-birther definitions?<br /><br />Art <br />U.S. Constitution<br />The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"<br />The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861<br />See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( <b>http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html</b> )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24305048892124696782015-01-06T14:30:51.633-05:002015-01-06T14:30:51.633-05:00Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers...
1/
Mario,
Y...<b>Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers...</b><br /><br />1/<br /><br />Mario, <br /><br />You have the etiological (origin, reason) and teleological (aim, purpose) history of "natural born Citizen" under control, and going on seven years since December 2008 when you started your blog, absolutely nobody has refuted your definition of an "nbC" as "a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth," which is simply an accurate restatement of Minor v. Happersett, "...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."<br /><br />Mario, since I have no intention of ever posting a comment on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the neo-birther blog of make believe about open borders for immigrant dreamer children of illegal aliens being a societal good for a free, safe and secure America, and for the nascent "progressive" Republican party, and also how positive law statutes ipso facto define the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen," maybe you can ask a question relative to John Jay in your point-counterpoint with nit picker neo-birthers Bryan (FKA NotLinda) and Slartibartfast (aka Kevin, aka Phd mathematician) and Bob Quasius (aka Bob, the host). Maybe it's time to change the conversation by adducing the original intent of original birther John Jay. Of course, you should continue to respond to their denigrating comments against your legal erudition and your personal integrity, but after doing that, maybe you can also ask the neo-birthers a very simply question related to original birther John Jay's "natural born Citizen" original intent: which of the definitions of "natural born Citizen" listed below would the neo-birthers want articulated by the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John (call it a tax) Roberts? However, maybe the neo-birthers would prefer to have the U.S. Congress to define "nbC" instead. Maybe they might even have a preference for an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose an amendment to clarify the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "nbC" once and forever.ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72506575664834785662015-01-03T23:23:38.773-05:002015-01-03T23:23:38.773-05:00Correction...
Instead of my 2 year eight month st...Correction...<br /><br />Instead of my 2 year eight month study since May 1, 2012, it is March 1, 2012 and 2 year 10 month study.<br /><br />My short two year 10 month study, "...as of January 3, 2015, of the "nbC" issue since March 1, 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference ..."<br /><br />Mario, the length of time it took me to get a handle on the "nbC" debate is not really important in the greater scheme of things, but your coherent expositions have certainly helped me to get a grasp of the essence of the "nbC" debate and to clarify what I think was and still is the <b>single</b> original intent of John Jay as compared to the multitude of possible original intents articulated by the neo-birthers as I wrote in the previous post to this.<br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53304043963152336402015-01-03T22:54:28.565-05:002015-01-03T22:54:28.565-05:00John Jay v Neo-birthers...
2/
The relevance of B...<b>John Jay v Neo-birthers...</b><br /><br />2/<br /><br />The relevance of Barnett's quote from McGinnis's and Rappaport's book is contained in the second sentence, <b>"When a provision is ambiguous or vague, ..."</b><br /><br />Well, was John Jay ambiguous or vague? <br /><br />George Washington and the founders, framers and ratifiers of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen" did not think so. Although in the first Congress of Washington's first administration some misapplied Jay's original intent in the 1790 Naturalization Act when they passed the Act that identified a child as a "natural born Citizen" if born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, under James Madison's guidance in the third Congress of Washington's second administration, the misapplication was corrected in the 1795 Naturalization Act when the Act was passed with the clarification that a child was only a "citizen" if born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural.<br /><br />Mario, if there's anything that is not correct in the items listed below, maybe you or another John Jay original intent birther can correct the error, or simply amplify the accuracy of the clarification. The neo-birthers may not care to engage, but, who knows, they may, since Obama ONLY has one U.S. citizen parent and so <b>"one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility"</b> MUST be accurate and true. Right?<br /><br />Here are the multiple neo-birther meanings to choose from compared to the single John Jay original intent meaning.<br /><br /><b>John Jay Single Original Intent Meaning of "natural born Citizen"</b><br /><br /><b>(1) ONLY</b> U.S. soil<br /><b>(2) ONLY</b> born on U.S. soil<br /><b>(3) ONLY</b> to two U.S. citizen parents<br /><b>(4) ONLY</b> married to each other<br /><b>(5) BEFORE</b> their child is born<br /><br /><b>Neo-birther Multiple Original Intent Meanings of "natural born Citizen"</b><br /><br /><b>(1) EITHER</b> U.S. soil<br /><b>(2) OR</b> foreign soil<br /><b>(3) EITHER</b> born on U.S. soil<br /><b>(4) OR</b> born on foreign soil <br /><b>(5) AND</b> born to two U.S. citizen parents<br /><b>(6) OR</b> born to one U.S. citizen parent<br /><b>(7) OR</b> born to zero U.S. citizen parents<br /><b>(8) Married OR NOT Married</b> to each other<br /><b>(9) BEFORE</b> their child is born on U.S. soil<br /><br />The ultimate question for an Article V convention of the <b>"several states"</b> legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is very simple: to maintain the perpetual <b>"...more perfect Union"</b> of America as expressed by the 1787 WE the People, and which President Lincoln clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861*, which <b>"original intent"</b> meaning of "natural born Citizen" will the American people choose for their own "natural born Citizen" children?<br /><br />It's time to choose. <br /><br />*See section 8: <b>Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?</b> ( OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com )<br /><br />Art <br />U.S. Constitution<br />The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"<br />The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861<br />See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( <b>http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html</b> )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20110976456451110732015-01-03T22:53:56.717-05:002015-01-03T22:53:56.717-05:00John Jay v Neo-birthers...
1/
Mario,
You have ...<b>John Jay v Neo-birthers...</b><br /><br />1/<br /><br />Mario, <br /><br />You have the etiological history of "natural born Citizen" under control, and absolutely nobody has refuted your definition of an "nbC" as a child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to U.S. citizen parents, plural. <br /><br />Those neo-birthers who do try to refute you try to do so by starting with the lack of clarity in the "nbC" phrase since 1787, and then some assert that they are definitely sure that BHObama is an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "nbC" because he was simply born naturally to at least one U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil, while other neo-birthers assert that they are also absolutely sure that any child born naturally is an A2 S1 Ct "nbC" if born to zero U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil (Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley), while still others assert that they are also absolutely clear that any child born naturally is an A2 S1 C5 "nbC" if born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Ted Cruz).<br /><br />So, not being a lawyer like you, Leo Donofrio and others, or a law school or legal foundation affiliated constitutional scholar like <b>"only-one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is -good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility"</b> neo-birthers Larry Solum, William Jacobson, Jack Maskel, Rob Natelson, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, etcetra, etcetra, etcetra, below is my normal person's articulation of the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" as John Jay may have clarified it if he had been asked by 1787 neo-birthers, but he never was asked because neo-birthers did not exist in 1787. It is the POTUS eligibility debate in a nutshell as I see it in my short two year 8 month study, as of January 3, 2015, of the "nbC" issue since May 1, 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference about Obama's fraudulent birth certificate posted on OUR federal government website.<br /><br />Randy Barnett* has a brief look at John McGinnis and Mike Rappaport’s book <i>Originalism and the Good Constitution</i>.<br /><br /><i>"A very problematic paragraph appears on page 8. Here it is in its entirety:<br /><br />'More recently, a new form of originalism, which we call constructionist originalism, has arisen in response to this critique of original public meaning. Constructionist originalists argue that interpreters are bound by the Constitution’s original meaning only when it is clear. ... <br /><br />'<b>When a provision is ambiguous or vague</b>, interpreters may resort to nonoriginalist materials to determining the Constitution’s meaning. But constructionist originalism raises its own difficulties because it significantly reduces the scope of originalism. <br /><br />'Indeed, some theorists have questioned whether constructionist originalism’s embrace of nonoriginalist methods to resolve ambiguity and vagueness does not largely collapse originalism into living constitutionalism. <br /><br />'Constructivist originalism also leaves unanswered the question of what replaces originalism when originalism does not apply.' "</i><br /><br />*( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/23/off-to-a-bad-start-originalism-and-the-good-constitution/ ) ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5293135083668746442014-12-30T23:01:42.389-05:002014-12-30T23:01:42.389-05:00Article V vs. Nullification...
3/
But because of...Article V vs. Nullification...<br /><br />3/<br /><br />But because of the 17th Amendment taking control away from the states of "choosing" their two Senators who were to represent the interests of their individual states "TO" the Federal Government, the direct "election" of the two Senators has gradually degenerated into a political pig sty situation with the two Senators turning on their individual states and representing the interests of the Federal Government, mainly the Executive, "TO" their states. Obamacare is the most recent and obvious case in which many Federal Senators voted for Obamacare and went against the wishes of their Governors and their Attorney's Generals who were fighting in the courts against Obamacare.<br /><br />THAT political war between the Federal Senators and their states is one example of why the 17th Amendment MUST be repealed. After the states take back control of their own two Federal Senators, then WE the People, in an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose amendments, WE the People can use the return of the Senators to the control of the states to repeal the Marxist progressive 16th Amendment. Now THAT is definitely an idea whose time has come.<br /><br />Also, an Article V convention of states legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" for us and for our own posterity MUST be addressed by the "several states," either after but preferably before the 17th Amendment is repealed by an Article V convention of the states legislatures because the entrenched U.S. Congress House AND Senate definitely will not convene to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Federal Senator back to the control of the "several states."<br /><br />I have recently written some of this on my blog*, titled <b>Time to Change the Conversation—Time to Choose</b>.<br /><br />*( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )<br /><br />Art <br />U.S. Constitution<br />The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"<br />The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861<br />See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( <b>http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html</b> )<br />ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65182124846372348512014-12-30T23:01:12.807-05:002014-12-30T23:01:12.807-05:00Article V vs. Nullification...
2/
Of course Madi...Article V vs. Nullification...<br /><br />2/<br /><br />Of course Madison's and Jefferson's, especially Jefferson's articulation of simple state "nullification" to counter Federal errors, is the natural law right of the several states. Since the natural law right of "nullification" predates the written U.S. Constitution, it is not a constitutional right. That simply means that it is a natural right of a free state to defend itself from tyranny, to practice self defense. In other words, it is a natural law right that predates the 2nd Amendment, which was ratified because it was a natural law right that did not need a positive law for it to be a natural law right.<br /><br />Also, because the natural law right of "nullification" predates the positive law of a written constitution, the framers inserted and the ratifiers ratified, their natural law right of "nullification" into Article V of the Constitution to protect the natural law right of the "several states" who were the creator, singular, of their creature, the written Constitution, and the Federation that the written constitution defined, the bicameral Congress, House and Senate, the singular Executive President, the Supreme Court.<br /><br />Article V starts with these words: <br /><br />"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress: ... ."<br /><br />The point is that "whenever" means whenever, of course, and implying for whatever reason the Congress or the "several states" may want to convene. It could be to restrict distribution of alcohol, or to repeal the restriction 14 years, 10 months and 20 days later. The 16th Amendment, fullfiling the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto*, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, is still the cash cow of the progressives after ratification in the Woodrow Wilson administration of OUR federal government on February 3, 1913. It will be 102 years next February 2015. <br /><br />*( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto )<br /><br />Also, the 17th Amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913 in Woodrow Wilson's administration of OUR federal government, repealed the original Article I Section 1 Clause 1 which said that the two Senators for each state were to be "chosen" by the state legislatures.<br /><br />The original intent was simple: Article I Section 2—Representatives, Article 1 Section 3—Senators, and Article II Section 1—Executive.<br /><br />(1) The grassroots, the people closest to the candidate, were to "elect" their Federal Representatives. (2) The states were to "choose" their own Federal Senators who were to represent their individual state to the Federal Government, meaning as equals among the other states regardless of population. (3) The electors were to "vote by ballot" for the Executive of the Federal Government who would be the referee to make sure that the people's interests in the House and the states interests in the Senate were to be protected but not controlled by the Executive.<br /><br />That was brilliant!<br /><br />(1) The people "elect" their Representative "to" the Federation.<br />(2) The states "choose" their Senators "to" the Federation.<br />(3) The electors "vote by ballot" for the Executive "of" the Federation.ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88194214872122099842014-12-30T23:00:33.129-05:002014-12-30T23:00:33.129-05:00Article V & Nullification are "WE the Peo...<b>Article V & Nullification are "WE the People" Kin Folk</b><br /><br />1/<br /><br />Robert, on December 30, 2014 at 12:08 AM you certainly made some cogent points, but something is missing in the solution. That something has to do with the time frame for doing all the good things that you wrote should be done, and the hit-or-miss element of getting the "we need" items done in an organized and timely manner. <br /><br />"A more effective remedy is to push for nullification..."<br />"All we need is for one state - or even ..."<br />"So, while we flood the offices of ..."<br />"... we need to flood the precinct meetings of ..."<br />"... push the Constitution as the primary agenda ..."<br />"... elect people who are dedicated ..."<br />"... elect Sheriffs with backbones ..."<br />"... we need to demand that they completely rebuild their staffs ..."<br />"... a great idea if we could limit the time that anyone can spend in paid public service ..."<br />"We the People have the right to remove those who have violated their oaths of office by several means, often referred to as the "four boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. ... ."<br /><br />An Article V convention of "several states" legislatures to propose one or multiple amendments, such as was done in 1791 with ratification of the 12 amendments, which was whittled down to 10 amendments, including the 2nd, is the constitutional way to "nullify" the errors of any Federal administrator of OUR Federal Government. The time frame could be shorter in fulfillment than the "we need" items listed above, or it could take longer than it should if the the pro-nullification proponents that I have heard on Youtube such as Publius Hulda, <b>James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers</b>,* whose passion I really appreciate and whom I respect as a true American patriot, continue to mislabel Article V proponents such as Mike Farris and Mark Levin as something like the Devil's disciples, and mislabel an Article V convention of states legislatures as a constitutional convention, a con-con. <br /><br />*(1hr24min speech on March 17, 2014 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ay8Niu7ndM )<br /><br />Article V gives authority to convene to propose amendments to two entities, the U.S. Congress and the "several states" legislatures, who wrote themselves into the Constitution in Article V because the "several states" predate and are the creator of it's creature, the U.S. Constitution, and they chose to "nullify" the errors of it's creature, the Federation, with an Article V convention of states legislatures. If the Congress can convene to propose amendments to be ratified by the several states, well, then, so can the "several states" convene to propose amendments. Right?ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44391177051780628552014-12-30T10:28:39.842-05:002014-12-30T10:28:39.842-05:00Lynch v. Clarke
Mario,
I couldn't let 2014 e...Lynch v. Clarke<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />I couldn't let 2014 end without reposting here to your own blog your November 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm* brief Lynch v. Clarke comment on Cafe Con Leche Requblicans to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Obama neo-birther defender of the Obama birth narrative theory that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to be eligible to be POTUS. Why only one U.S. citizen parent? 'Cause that is all Obama had, one. <br /><br />*( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-67010 )<br /><br />Obama neo-birthers who point to the Lynch v. Clarke real estate inheritance case as relevant are oblivious to the fact that the 1844 lower court got it wrong about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" because the court did not consider and then adduce John Jay and his 1787 original intent, which can ONLY mean ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />November 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm<br />Slartibartfast, <br /><br />I have written extensively on this blog on Lynch and will not do so again at this time. Suffice it to say that Lynch was a state law case that did not deal with political rights but rather with property rights. <br /><br />Lynch v. Clarke was decided in 1844. The case involved an issue of inheritance of real estate in the State of New York. The state law case does not come close to being any authority on the constitutional national question of what is an Article II “natural born citizen.” <br /><br />Deciding who may inherit land in New York was strictly a state issue which could have been decided strictly under state law. It had nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen under Article II and eligible to be President which is to be decided by national constitutional law. <br /><br />The Lynch state court was correct that a natural born citizen must be defined by national common law. But it then, among the many other errors that it made, used the wrong common law. It thought that the common law existing in the several states was all uniform and was our national common law. This was super dicta and folly to boot. <br /><br />Additionally, the New York legislature in 1860 overruled Lynch. Political Code of the State of New York (1860):<br /><br />Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:<br /><br />1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;<br /><br />2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.<br /><br />Lynch’s parents were “transient aliens.” <br />Hence, under this statute, Lynch would not have been a citizen of New York. <br /><br />Before the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a person was a citizen of the United States only if he or she were first a citizen of a State. If the children of transient aliens were not even considered citizens, they surely would not have been considered natural born citizens.<br /><br />Finally, Lynch’s dicta definition of a natural born citizen was also overruled by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), who said that a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. <br /><br />Lynch had said that parental citizenship was not relevant. <br />The last time that I looked, the U.S. Supreme Court trumps a state court decision. <br /><br />The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 demonstrates that the Lynch decision is bad law on the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen and to be rejected for that score. <br /><br />P.S. Don’t feel bad that no one recognized you during Halloween. What counts is that you knew who you were.<br /><br />Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. <br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />Art <br />U.S. Constitution<br />The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"<br />The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861<br />See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41210286960689239852014-12-30T00:08:10.196-05:002014-12-30T00:08:10.196-05:00An Article V Convention would be held on the premi...An Article V Convention would be held on the premise that writing new laws would be an effective remedy against those who are violating the current laws. It would also be attended and prosecuted by those very violators. I'm sorry, but this sounds like insanity to me. It is, in the least, a sucker play.<br /><br />A more effective remedy is to push for nullification of and passive resistance to the current set of unconstitutional actions. All we need is for one state - or even one Governor or one Senator - to stand up for our Constitution. The truth will take care of the rest.<br /><br />So, while we flood the offices of our current politicians with the truth and confront them, their staff, their associates, and their family at every opportunity and at every place they can be found, we need to flood the precinct meetings of both major parties, push the Constitution as the primary agenda, and elect people who are dedicated to upholding it. We need to elect Sheriffs with backbones and knowledge of the Constitution (As Constitutional officers, they can arrest public servants for treason.) and follow this pattern all the way up the political ladder. <br /><br />As these folks take office we need to demand that they completely rebuild their staffs with individuals who will hold fast to the Constitution. It would also be a great idea if we could limit the time that anyone can spend in paid public service. No super healthcare plans. No public retirement programs. These folks need to be completely dedicated to serving and building the private sector - because they will be returning to it!!<br /><br />We the People have the right to remove those who have violated their oaths of office by several means, often referred to as the "four boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. In the Constitution the last of this list is actually 2nd. "... necessary for the security of a free state.." obviously implies the "state" as it was established by the Constitution: one of limited and enumerated powers (and specific presidential eligibility requirements). <br /><br />Even though We the People entrust the President with the power and responsibility of his oath of office, as the true sovereign citizens of this Constitutional Republic, it remains our birthright and our duty to preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65033407005618046602014-12-28T01:07:30.322-05:002014-12-28T01:07:30.322-05:00#2 Time to Change the Conversation—the Question is...#2 Time to Change the Conversation—the Question is How to do It<br /><br />3/<br /><br />Who are Obama birth narrative neo-birthers?<br /><br />They are defenders of the Obama birth narrative theory that being born naturally on U.S. soil AND being born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent AND one non-U.S. citizen parent, whether they are married or not, with dual citizenship, is sufficient to qualify for POTUS eligibility.<br /><br />Who are "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers"?<br /><br />They are proponents of the theory that being born naturally on U.S. soil (and jurisdiction on foreign soil) AND foreign soil that is NOT under U.S. jurisdiction, AND being born to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, who may or may not be married to each other, is sufficient to qualify for POTUS eligibility.<br /><br />John Jay was and still is today, 238 years later as of December 2014, obvious in his original intent meaning.<br /><br />By underling the word "born" in his note to Washington, it is obvious that Jay had ONLY one meaning and one original intent, NOT two meanings AND two original intents. The number of "intents" is obvious, right?<br /><br />It is obvious that "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean only born on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen married parents. <br /><br />It is obvious that Jay was NOT saying that "natural" and "born" and "Citizen" meant that citizens of other nations, married or not married to each other, could come to U.S. soil and have THEIR children on OUR U.S. soil and THEIR dual citizenship children would be eligible to be POTUS, and, as Article II Section 1 Clause 5 clarified, eligible at the age of 35 after residing on OUR U.S. soil for a minimum of 14 years.<br /><br />Obviously Jay was NOT saying that, right?<br /><br />What Jay WAS obviously saying was that OUR U.S. citizens, married to each other, who had THEIR children on OUR U.S. soil would produce their own U.S. "natural born" child, and THEIR "natural born" child would ALSO be a U.S. "Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship because BOTH of the married parents were U.S. citizens BEFORE their child was born.<br /><br />If the Obama neo-birthers and the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers insist that Jay was not obvious in saying ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other, well, just how do the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay did NOT obviously mean ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other?<br /><br />Conversely, just how do the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay obviously, and Washington obviously agreed with Jay, that Jay obviously DID mean ALSO born on U.S. OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents,whether they were married to each other or not?<br /><br />Well, those and similar questions are what I am referring to in this essay as a way to change the conversation from one of intractable assertions about past history and to move on to future history. That is why it is Time To Change the Conversation—The Question Is How To Do it.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />Well, Mario, that's it about the common sense original intent of John Jay, the Sword of Alexander to "cut" the Gordian knot of confusion surrounding the original intent of "natural born Citizen."<br /><br /> Seasons greetings. <br /><br />John Jay would probably consider with approval your efforts to breach the federal ramparts of the courts and the lethargy of the lap dog media. An Article V convention of states legislatures is all WE the People have in our constitutional quiver.<br /><br />Art <br />U.S. Constitution<br />The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"<br />The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861<br />See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.com