U.S. Citizenship Through U.S. Citizen Parents

→ http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF ... #1

Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of birth, and

The parents were married at the time of birth and at least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.

If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF ... #2

One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birth date is on or after November 14, 1986, and

The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14th birthday.

If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

_Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;

_Employed with the U.S. Government; or

_Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth IF ... #3

One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birth date is before November 14, 1986 but after October 10, 1952, and

The parents are married at the time of birth and the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least ten years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, at least five of which were after his or her 14th birthday.

If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

_Serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces;

_Employed with the U.S. Government; or

_Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted. If the child was born out of wedlock, see N-600: FAQ.

- 301 -

Automatic U.S. Citizenship After Birth – But Before the Age of 18

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen after Birth IF ... #4

The child was under 18 or not yet born on February 27, 2001, and at least one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child is currently under 18 and residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent pursuant to lawful admission for permanent residence.

A Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen after Birth IF ... #5

The child was under 18 from December 24, 1952 to February 26, 2001, and the child was residing as a Green Card holder in the U.S. and both parents naturalized before the child’s 18th birthday; OR

_If one parent died, that the surviving parent naturalized before the child turned 18.

_If the parents legally separated, that the parent maintaining legal and physical custody naturalized before the child turned 18.

_If the child was born out of wedlock and paternity has not been established by legitimization, the mother naturalized before the child turned 18.

NOTE: The order in which the child meets the conditions does not matter so long as the child meets all the conditions before his or her 18th birthday.

The child was adopted by a U.S. citizen parent, and the child resides legally in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of the U.S. citizen parent and meets the following conditions after February 27, 2001 but before his or her 18th birthday:

_The adoptive parent adopted the child before his or her 16th birthday (or, in some cases, 18th birthday) and had legal custody of the child and resided with the child for at least two years; OR

_The child was admitted to the United States as an orphan (IR-3) or Convention adoptee (IH-3) whose adoption by his or her U.S. citizen parent(s) was fully completed abroad; OR

_The child was admitted to the United States as an orphan (IR-4) or Convention adoptee (IH-4) who was

coming to the United States to be adopted and the child’s adoptive parent(s) completed the adoption before his or her 18th birthday.

Volume 12: Citizenship and Naturalization, Part H: Children Of U.S. Citizens

→ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12-PartH-Chapter3.html#S-A

Chapter 3 Outline

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth

B. Child Born in Wedlock

1. Child of Two U.S. Citizen Parents

2. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and U.S. National

3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent

4. Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother and Foreign National Father

C. Child Born Out of Wedlock

D. Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600)

E. Citizenship Interview and Waiver

F. Decision and Oath of Allegiance

1. Approval of Application, Oath of Allegiance, and Waiver for Children under 14 Years of Age

2. Denial of Application

Resources Legal Authorities

Chapter 3: United States Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)

A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth

A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a person born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.[1]

In general, a person born outside of the United States may acquire citizenship at birth if:

One parent is a U.S. citizen; and

The U.S. citizen parent meets certain residence or physical presence requirements in the United States or an outlying possession prior to the person’s birth in accordance with the pertinent provision.[2]

- 302 -

Until the Act of October 10, 1978, persons who had acquired U.S. citizenship through birth outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent had to meet certain physical presence requirements to retain their citizenship. This legislation eliminated retention requirements for persons who were born after October 10, 1952. There may be cases where a person who was born before that date, and therefore subject to the retention requirements, may have failed to retain citizenship.[3]

An officer should determine whether a person acquired citizenship at birth by referring to the applicable statutory provisions and conditions that existed at the time of the person’s birth. These provisions have been modified extensively over the years.[4] The following sections provide the current law.

B. Child Born in Wedlock[5]

1. Child of Two U.S. Citizen Parents[6]

A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:

_Both of the child’s parents are U.S. citizens; and

_At least one parent had resided in the United States or one of its outlying possessions.

2. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and U.S. National[7]

A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:

_One parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national; and

_The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of at least one year.

3. Child of U.S. Citizen Parent and Foreign National Parent[8]

A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if at the time of birth:

_One parent is a foreign national and the other parent is a U.S. citizen; and

_The U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States for at least 5 years, including at least 2 years after 14 years of age.

Time abroad counts as physical presence in the United States if the time abroad was:

_As a member of the U.S. armed forces in honorable status;

_Under the employment of the U.S. government or other qualifying organizations; or

_As a dependent unmarried son or daughter of such persons.

4. Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother and Foreign National Father[9]

A child born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:

_The child was born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934;

_The child’s father is a foreign national;

_The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and

_The child’s U.S. citizen mother resided in the United States prior to the child’s birth.

C. Child Born Out of Wedlock[10]

Child of a U.S. Citizen Father

The provisions listed above[11] for a child born in wedlock apply to a child born out of wedlock outside of the United States claiming citizenship through a U.S. citizen father if:

_A blood relationship between the child and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;

_The child’s father was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth;

- 303 -

_The child’s father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age; and

_One of the following criteria is met before the child reaches 18 years of age:

_The child is legitimated under the law of his or her residence or domicile;

_The father acknowledges in writing and under oath the paternity of the child; or

_The paternity of the child is established by adjudication of a competent court.

In addition, the residence or physical presence requirements contained in the relevant paragraph of INA 301 continue to apply to children born out of wedlock claiming citizenship through their fathers.

Child of a U.S. Citizen Mother

A child born out of wedlock outside of the United States and its outlying possessions acquires citizenship at birth if:

_The child was born after December 23, 1952;

_The child’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child’s birth; and

_The child’s U.S. citizen mother was physically present in the United States or outlying possession for one continuous year prior to the child’s birth.[12]

D. Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600)

A person born abroad who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth is not required to file an Application for Certificate of Citizenship (Form N-600). A person who seeks documentation of such status, however, must submit an application to obtain a Certificate of Citizenship from USCIS. A person may also apply for a U.S. Passport with the Department of State to serve as evidence of his or her U.S. citizenship.[13]

A person who is at least 18 years of age may submit the Application for Certificate of Citizenship on his or her own behalf. If the application is for a child who has not reached 18 years of age, the child’s U.S. citizen parent or legal guardian must submit the application.[14]

USCIS will issue a proof of U.S. citizenship in the form of a Certificate of Citizenship if the Application for Certificate of Citizenship is approved and the person takes the Oath of Allegiance, if required to do so.[15]

E. Citizenship Interview and Waiver

In general, an applicant must appear in person for an interview before a USCIS officer after filing an Application for Certificate of Citizenship. This includes the U.S. citizen parent or legal guardian if the application is filed on behalf of a child under 18 years of age.[16] USCIS, however, may waive the interview requirement if all the required documentation necessary to establish the applicant’s eligibility is already included in USCIS administrative records, or if the application is accompanied by one of the following:

_Department of State Form FS-240 (Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen);

_Applicant’s unexpired U.S. Passport issued initially for a full five or ten-year period; or

_Certificate of Naturalization of the applicant’s parent or parents.[17]

F. Decision and Oath of Allegiance

1. Approval of Application, Oath of Allegiance, and Waiver for Children under 14 Years of Age

If an officer approves the Application for Certificate of Citizenship, USCIS administers the Oath of Allegiance before issuing a Certificate of Citizenship.[18]

However, the INA permits USCIS to waive the taking of the Oath of Allegiance if USCIS determines the person is unable to understand its meaning.[19] USCIS has determined that children under the age of 14 are generally unable to understand the meaning of the oath.

Accordingly, USCIS waives the oath requirement for a child younger than 14 years of age. If USCIS waives the oath requirement, USCIS issues a Certificate of Citizenship after the officer approves the application.

2. Denial of Application

If an officer denies the Certificate of Citizenship application, the officer must notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for denial and include information on the right to appeal in the notice.[20] An applicant may file an appeal within 30 calendar days after service of the decision (33 days if the decision was mailed).

- 304 -

Footnotes

1. See INA 301(a) and INA 301(b). Children of certain diplomats who are born in the United States are not U.S. citizens at birth because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See 8 CFR 101.3.

2. Any time spent abroad in the U.S. armed forces or other qualifying organizations counts towards that physical presence requirement. See INA 301(g).

3. The Act of October 10, 1978, Pub. L. 95-432, repealed the retention requirements of former INA 301(b). The amending legislation was prospective only and did not restore citizenship to anyone who, prior to its enactment, had lost citizenship for failing to meet the retention requirements.

4. Officers should use the Nationality Charts to assist with the adjudication of these applications.

5. See INA 301. See Nationality Chart 1.

6. See INA 301(c).

7. See INA 301(d).

8. See INA 301(g).

9. See INA 301(h).

10. See INA 309. See Nationality Chart 2.

11. See INA 301(c), INA 301(d), INA 301(e), and INA 301(g).

12. See INA 309(c).

13. See 8 CFR 341.1.

14. See 8 CFR 341.1.

15. See Section F, Decision and Oath of Allegiance. See 8 CFR 341.5(b).

16. See 8 CFR 341.2(a)(2).

17. See 8 CFR 341.2(a).

18. See INA 337(a). See 8 CFR 341.5(b). See Part J, Oath of Allegiance, Chapter 2, The Oath of Allegiance.

19. See INA 337(a). See 8 CFR 341.5(b).

20. See 8 CFR 341.5(d) and 8 CFR 103.3(a)

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

→ http://www.uscis.gov/forms

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act [-→ section ‘g’ applies to Texas ‘citizen’ Senator Ted Cruz]

→ http://www.uscis.gov/laws/imigration-and-nationality-act

Immigration and Nationality Act

→ http://www.uscis.gov/iframeilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth

→ http://www.uscis.gov/iframeilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375

Citizenship Through Naturalization

→ http://www.uscis.gov/us-citienship/citizenship-through-naturalization

Citizenship Through Parents

→ http://www.uscis.gov/us-citienship/citizenship-through-parents

2013 S. 301: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013

113th Congress, 2013 – 2015. Text as of Feb 13, 2013 (Introduced)

113th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 301 A BILL To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. Citizenship At Birth For Certain Persons Born In The United States.

(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended-- […]

‘(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) only if the person is born in the United States and at least 1 of the person’s parents is—‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States; …

- 305 -

2013 S. 301 Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s301/text

113th Congress, 2013–2015. Text as of Feb 13, 2013 (Introduced).

S 301 IS 113th CONGRESS 1st Session

S. 301 To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 13, 2013

Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. LEE, and Mr. BOOZMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Birthright Citizenship Act of 2013’.

SEC. 2. Citizenship At Birth For Certain Persons Born In The United States.

(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--

(1) by inserting ‘(a) IN GENERAL- ‘ before ‘The following’;

(2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively, and indenting such paragraphs, as redesignated, an additional 2 ems to the right; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

‘(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) only if the person is born in the United States and at least 1 of the person’s parents is--

‘(1) a citizen or national of the United States;

‘(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or

‘(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in Section 101 of title 10, United States Code).’.

(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) may not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.

1790 Naturalization Act: “considered as natural born citizens”

The 1790 Naturalization Act said that children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other “... shall be considered as natural born citizens ...”. The word ‘considered’ is a statute word, a positive law (law of people) word, not a natural law (law of nature) word like ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

1795 Naturalization Act: “considered citizens”

The single word ‘citizen’ in the January 29, 1795 Naturalization Act replaced the three “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) words in the March 26, 1790 Naturalization Act, and the children are also said to be “considered” but now only as “citizens”. The change of language from “natural born citizen” to “citizens” is internal document proof that the word “considered” in both the 1790 NA and the 1795 NA was understood by the 1795 U.S. Congress as affirming positive law with “natural born citizen”. The 1790 Congress understood that a statute cannot ‘amend’ the Article II natural law original genesis implicit intent in “natural born Citizen” that to be eligible to be president a person must have only singular U.S. citizenship which is only possible by birth alone on U. S soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. The Congress erred with its three “natural born citizen” statute words in 1790, and with its single ‘citizens’ statute word corrected their error in 1795.

- 306 -

The repeal and change of language is original document internal proof that to the original birthers the citizenship designation of “natural born Citizen” had 1787 original genesis meaning that was distinct from “… or a Citizen of ...”, distinct from “citizen” in the 1795 Naturalization Act, and distinct from “citizen” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. The word citizen in “… or a Citizen of ...” in Article II and the word citizen in the 1795 Naturalization Act did not mean the same ‘kind’ of “citizen”, and the two different kinds of ‘citizen’ did not mean the same thing as “natural born Citizen” in clause 5.

It is original genesis obvious that the purpose of the 1795 Naturalization Act was to clarify the citizenship status of the child because the child was born on foreign soil. The purpose was not to clarify the singular U.S. citizenship of the child because the child already had singular U.S. citizenship by being born to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. The purpose of the repeal and change of language was not to clarify that the positive law (law of people) citizenship status of the child was supposed to be determined by the U.S. citizen status of both married parents (plural), which had always been the common law understanding in the 1700s up to and until the 1922 Cable Act, but to simply clarify that birth soil (‘place’) is as important as birth blood (‘parents’, two U.S. citizens married only to each other) to determine the kind of citizenship the child would need to be eligible to be president according to the implicit intent of Article II.

President George Washington in his second term obviously agreed with the intent of the third Congress when it replaced the three 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” words with the single 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” word. By repealing and replacing the language, the third Congress was affirming the original genesis implicit intent of original birthers John Jay and George Washington, which is, simply stated, that the singular U.S. citizenship of the “natural born Citizen” child applied only to children born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other in compliance with the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 U.S. Constitution in Article II, not in compliance with the three 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” or the single 1795 Naturalization Act word “citizen”. The language changes to the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts confirm that being a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” does not mean the same thing as a 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” or an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ or a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’.

The words “... any alien, being a free, white person ....” in the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts was a reference to the prevailing view of that time that had to deal in the real world on a daily basis with institutional slavery in Europe and with the primarily Islamist slave traders who, from the 1700s, had supplied black and white slaves to other black slave traders who supplied the black slaves to white European slave traders who sold the black slaves to white American slave traders who imported them to America.

The “… free, white person ...” words were an everyday reference to the common view of the 1700s era of the cultural differences between the races (caucasian, negroid, oriental, etc.), not a reference to inherent, systemic racism by the ‘negroid guys’ or the ‘oriental guys’ or the ‘caucasian guys’, aka ‘white guys’ such as George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, three of the founders of the new ‘Union’, three original birthers at the time that the presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” were adopted at the September 17, 1787 constitutional convention by delegates who were “white guys” who did not want institutionalized slavery to continue in the new “Union”. However, because some of the states were slave states that is one reason that the delegates, all ‘white guys’, included in Article I Section 2 clause 3 the three fifths clause which benefited the antislavery states and antislavery representatives in the Republican party for fairly determining population and representation in the slave states. The ‘three fifths’ words in Article I Section 2 clause 3 in the 1787 Constitution were removed in Section 2 in the 1868 Constitution with the Fourteenth Amendment ratified July 9, 1868.

- 307 -

The Word ‘Considered’

The 1790 Naturalization Act words “... shall be considered as natural born citizens ...” (lower case ‘c’) were repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act Section 3 words “... shall be considered as citizens ...” (lower case ‘c’). The word ‘considered’ is a positive law (law of people) word which can be amended and repealed by ‘people’. It is not a natural law (law of nature) word which can not be amended or repealed by ‘people’ or by ‘nature’. Repealing the 1790 words in 1795 confirms to us today in the 2000s that to the framers and founders, to President George Washington, and to the third U.S. Congress, that “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” in Article II did not refer to a U.S. ‘citizen’ born on foreign soil or to a U.S. ‘citizen’ who was not ‘born’ with eligibility to be president or not ‘naturalized’ as an ‘or ... Citizen’ as George Washington was, and with eligibility to be president.

Also, in both the 1790 and 1795 naturalization acts, the word ‘considered’ was a statute word, a positive law (law of people) word that identified who was a ‘citizen’ without reference to eligibility to be president. A child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens was not eligible to be president. That would have been in conflict with Article II. If the child was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other the child was already implicitly identified by Article II as a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president by birth alone. A positive law (law of people) statute passed by an Act of Congress which would have ‘considered’ a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other to be eligible to be president would have been in conflict with the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II which implied that only a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens was eligible to be president.

Today in the 2000s we can know with absolute certainty that only U.S. soil is implied in Article II because the 1787 original birthers would have debated the idea that a “natural born Citizen” would be eligible to be president if born on U.S. or foreign soil and to one or two U.S. citizens. In 1787 ‘or’ and ‘or’ would have been incoherent and irrational. That makes sense, right?

And consider this: If ‘or’ and ‘or’ were meant in 1787, then repealing the three 1790 Naturalization Act words “natural born citizen” and replacing them with the single 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” word would have been the error of the third Congress. Right?

So, children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other were ‘considered’ to be only ‘citizens’ by a positive law declaration of the legislature (law of people), not by birth alone (law of nature). In the 1795 Naturalization Act the “such person” who is “considered as a citizen” is the “any alien” who is called a “citizen” after being naturalized by “oath to support the constitution”. To make an “oath to support the constitution” is another way of saying to protect the ‘blood’ connection with the U.S. citizen parents and the ‘soil’ of the United States. To “protect the soil” is another way of saying to protect the location where either a natural birth takes place or where a naturalization oath is made.

According to the 1700s era ‘legal’ common law of ‘unity of citizenship and allegiance’ by marriage, the children of “... such persons so naturalized ...” are the children who are already residing on U.S. soil at the time both of the parents became naturalized by the oath of the husband “… to support the constitution”. Also, at “… the time of such naturalization ...” on U.S. soil of the father on behalf of both natural parents married only to each other, the children who are already born “shall also be considered as citizens” of the U.S. for two reasons: 1) the children were already born on either foreign soil or on U.S. soil, and 2) the children were already residing on U.S. soil.

In 1787 America the common law understanding of the community was that by marriage only to each other, the U.S. citizenship of the male determined the U.S. citizenship of the female, and the singular U.S. citizenship of both parents by marriage determined the singular U.S. citizenship of a child.

In 1787 America the “right of citizenship” of the child was considered to be under the umbrella citizenship status of the natural father and natural mother already married only to each other.

In 1787 America both husband and wife married only to each other before the husband naturalized were recognized to be U.S. citizens by the ‘oath’ of the husband.

In 1787 America after the naturalization of the husband, the new singular U.S. citizen status of both parents determined that their children already born on either foreign or U.S. soil would also have the same U.S. ‘citizen’ status as the two parents by an Act of Congress, by the two houses of Congress, not by birth alone from an act of congress by the two parents (yes, the clean pun is intended, as a humorous memory aid).

- 308 -

In 1787 America the children born on U.S. soil before the father naturalized as a U.S. citizen were not eligible to be president since they were not born with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

A child born after the naturalization of the father has the singular U.S. citizenship status of a “natural born Citizen” because both parents are U.S. citizens by the oath of the father, and also, the child is born on U.S. soil. The “oath to support the constitution” made by a father before a child was born means that the three implicit presuppositions of “natural born Citizen” in Article II for eligibility to be president are protected: 1) soil, 2) birth, 3) citizenship – in that order.

Analysis of the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795

Here is a brief analysis of the 1795 Naturalization Act (January 29, 1795) which repealed the 1790 Naturalization Act (March 26, 1790).

Any Alien

The 1795 Naturalization Act “any alien” is the same “any alien” of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Oath to Support the Constitution

In 1787 America the “any alien” mentioned is the father, it is ‘he’ who takes the oath that “... he will support the constitution of the United States”. The husband is the ‘he’ who makes the oath on behalf of his wife and family if they have children before the father naturalizes. His wife and their children are under the umbrella of the naturalization oath of the father which by the positive law of the legislature (law of people) covers children born before or after his naturalization.

Children of a Naturalized Married Foreign Father

As in the 1790 Naturalization Act, children in the 1795 Naturalization Act are already living on U.S. soil when the foreign born father who is living on U.S. soil makes the oath that ‘he’ will “... support the constitution of the United States”. The father is the ‘he’ in Section 2 and the ‘persons’ in Section 3.

The Children of U.S. Citizens Married to Each Other

“... [C]hildren of citizens ...” who are “... born out of the limits ...” refers to children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. Children are only “... considered as citizens ...” because they were born on foreign soil even though both parents are U.S. citizens before a child is born.

Article I “citizen” · Article II “natural born Citizen” · Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

A couple of days ago Mario Apuzzo wrote about the comment he put on Cafe Con Leche Republicans about citizens ‘by’ birth vs. ‘at’ birth vs. ‘after’ birth. Here is part of his ‘by’ birth v. ‘at’ birth comment about eligibility to be president. See his post on February 27, 2015, 7:45 PM here:

→ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

“ ‘By birth,’ as applied to citizenship, refers to ‘birth alone’ being sufficient to cause citizenship to occur. Under American common law, as confirmed by naturalization Acts of Congress, U.S. citizenship attaches to a child ‘by birth’ without the need of any law to allow that to occur,. ... ‘at birth,’ ... refers to citizenship occurring at the moment of birth. ... If a person needs the benefit of a law in order to be a “citizen” ‘at’ birth or ’by’ oath, that person can not be a ‘natural born Citizen’ by birth alone .... Ted Cruz became a ‘citizen’ ... ‘at birth’ because a law provided that he could be one. That law, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), is a naturalization Act of Congress. Without that law, he would not have been a citizen at all”.

It is obvious common sense. If a person needs the benefit of a naturalization law enacted by Congress in order to be a ‘citizen’ ‘at’ birth or ‘by’ oath, that person can not be a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone and so is not eligible to be president. The U.S. Constitution identifies ‘citizen’ in Article I and “natural born Citizen” in Article II. To help clarify eligibility to be president the two types of ‘citizen’ can be itemized for further clarification into four types of ‘citizens’ according to Article I, Article II, and Article XIV (Fourteenth Amendment).

- 309 -

A 1787 Article I ‘citizen’ is eligible to be a federal representative or senator if they are born on U.S. soil or naturalized on U.S. soil. A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president while a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be the federation president, a federation representative and senator, and also state governor, state representative and senator. For a “natural born Citizen” there are no restrictions on state or federal offices.

A 1787 Article II “... or a Citizen of ...” (singular with plural application) was eligible to be president until the last “... or a Citizen of...” died sometime in the 1800s. After September 17, 1787 all Article I naturalized representatives and senators were not considered to be a 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” and were also not eligible to be president. An Article II “natural born Citizen” is always eligible to be a federation president, a federation representative, or a federation senator.

Since the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, “... all persons born ... in ...” the U.S. to one U.S. citizen parent and “... all persons ... naturalized in ...” the U.S. have been a ‘citizen’ of the United States with, obviously, only singular U.S. citizenship. The error 30 years later by the 1898 Supreme Court was in opining that a person born on U.S. soil is a U.S. ‘citizen’ even if the parents are not U.S. citizens. A person born on U.S. soil under the authority of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment to one or zero U.S. citizens married only to each other is not eligible to be president. An ‘opinion’ by the 1898 Supreme Court (only Article III authority) which naturalizes (an Article I authority) a person who is born on U.S. soil to ‘zero’ U.S. citizens (1898 in Wong Kim Ark, and applicable in the 2000s to Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal, Gov. Haley) or born to only ‘one’ U.S. citizen can not amend Article II which, for eligibility to be president, implicitly requires a “natural born Citizen” to have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

Here are the opening words of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... subject ... jurisdiction ... are citizens ... United States ... and ... State ... reside”. As long as the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ holds that Wong Kim Ark is a U.S. citizen at birth on U.S. soil to two alien parents who had not naturalized before his birth, and Congress does not correct the ‘opinion’ it will continue to be misconstrued to mean that children born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens are ‘citizens’ ‘at’ birth (not ‘by’ birth alone), and that a child with zero U.S. citizen parents is ‘considered’ to be a ‘citizen’ of the U.S. who is able, not only to vote in state and federal elections, but also able to change federal voting and eligibility law, and, because they are ‘considered’ to be U.S. citizens who are able to change federal voting and eligibility law by being elected to state or federal office, that means that they are eligible to be president! Huh? Really?

If that 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ which results in an absurd conclusion is not dumb, foolish, ignorant, well, what is it? Is the ‘opinion’ coherent and brilliant or is it incoherent and absurd? It’s one or the other. The ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court is either coherent and brilliant or it’s incoherent and absurd because of what it ultimately implies for eligibility to be a federation representative or senator, and for eligibility to be president. For that common sense reason, legal and illegal aliens who are born on U.S. soil to parents who are not naturalized U.S. citizens should not be ‘considered’ U.S. citizens ‘at’ birth with the implication that they are eligible to be president for the same reason that naturalized by oath ‘citizens’ are not eligible to be president. That is why the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court needs to be revisited and overturned by the Court, or, to permanently clarify the legal or illegal ‘birthright citizenship’ nonsense, an Article V proposal to amend the Constitution to not allow ‘birthright citizenship’ will permanently correct the error of the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’.

In other words, while the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment implicitly allows children born on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen and persons naturalized on U.S. soil the ability to vote but not eligibility to be president, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment did not negate the implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II that both place (soil) and parents (plural, a blood relationship with both natural parents) are required for a child to acquire singular U.S. citizenship and so be eligible to be president, not soil alone. That makes sense, right?

- 310 -

So, consider the absurdity of the Supreme Court ‘opinion’ in 1898 when it held that when a legal alien has a child on U.S. soil the child is a U.S. ‘citizen’ who is eligible to vote (also applied since 1898 to illegal aliens by Democrat and Republican living constitutionlism neobirthers in the 2000s). The absurdity includes the ‘opinion’ and this implicit conclusion: Because the U.S. Supreme Court held in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ that a child born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen even if born to parents (in this case Chinese but applicable to any parents) who were not naturalized U.S. ‘citizens’, the absurd and incoherent implicit conclusion is that the child now is not only naturalized by Supreme Court ‘opinion’, living constitutionism fiat, but the child naturalized by fiat of the Court will eventually have the ‘legal’ authority to vote to change both state and federal law about state and federal voting, and also eligibility to be federal president. That is obviously incoherent and absurd. Right? The 1898 Supreme Court decision is still incoherent and must be overturned by the current Supreme Court, or, better still, permanently overturned by an Article V amendment proposed by the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to clarify the ‘citizen’ language to say that an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment child with zero or only one U.S. citizen parent ‘at’ birth or a Supreme Court ‘citizen’ naturalized by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ is not eligible to vote or to be president.

Because all children are ‘natural born’ somewhere on earth, there are two types of U.S. ‘citizens’ who are ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil, but only one type is a ‘citizen’ eligible to be president. An Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone has two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

All “natural born Citizens” are born citizens

Not all born citizens are “natural born Citizens”

All persons ‘born’ on U.S. soil (“... in the United States ...”) to one U.S. citizen parent are considered to be 1868 Fourteenth Amendment with only singular U.S. citizenship ‘at’ birth and are not eligible to be president.

All persons ‘born’ on U.S. soil (“... in the United States ...”) to zero U.S. citizen parents are considered to be 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ citizens with dual citizenship ‘at’ birth and are not eligible to be president.

All persons ‘naturalized’ on U.S. soil (“... in the United States …”) ‘at’ birth if born with only one U.S. citizen parent (or later ‘by’ oath as adults) are considered to be 1787 Article I Act of Congress and 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizens with only singular U.S. citizenship, but they are not eligible to be president. The implication of an Article I federation representative or senator who is naturalized a U. S citizen as an adult is that they, as adults, renounce foreign allegiance. Also, an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizens’ at birth is, implicitly understood to be naturalized with only singular U.S. citizenship. However, under 1787 common law, if born to an unmarried U.S. citizen male or an unmarried U.S. citizen female, the child was to be considered to be born with dual citizenship, not singular U.S. citizenship. Why? Because neither the U.S. citizen male or U.S. citizen female were married. So, even if born to an unmarried U.S. citizen, who knows or cares if the other natural law ‘reproducer’ was a positive law U.S. citizen. That makes sense, right?

It is obvious that 1868 Fourteenth Amendment naturalized citizens are ‘natural born’ somewhere on U.S. soil. That is obvious, right? According to the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ (an ‘opinion’ is a law of people word), U.S. ‘citizens’ can be born to parents who are not U.S. citizens. Really?

1787 Article I Naturalization Act Citizen

Some ‘citizens’ naturalize as adults. That makes a Naturalization Act adult a ‘citizen’ at oath (so to speak) and naturalized ‘citizens’ are not eligible to be president.

1787 Article II Natural Born Citizen

Since 1787 some ‘citizens’ are born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. This ‘citizen’ child is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone and eligible to be president.

1868 Fourteenth Amendment Citizen and the 1922 Cable Act

From 1787 until the 1922 Cable Act some ‘citizens’ were born on U.S. soil to U.S. citizens who were not married to each other before a child was born. The Fourteenth Amendment child was a ‘citizen’ at birth and was not eligible to be president. Since the 1922 Cable Act some ‘citizens’ who have been born on U.S. soil to an unmarried U.S. citizen male or an unmarried U.S. citizen female are still not eligible to be president.

1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Citizen by ‘opinion’

The 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ that a child born on U.S. soil to two parents who are not U.S. citizens before a child is born is a U.S. ‘citizen’ by soil alone is incoherent. That is the quicksand foundation on which neobirthers assert eligibility to be president for BHObama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris, and etc.

- 311 -

A 1787 Constitution ‘citizen’ who is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other before a child is born is the only ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president.

A Constitution ‘citizen’ ‘at’ birth, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens not married to each other, with or without the intention of marriage to each other, is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizen ‘at’ birth because the male is a U.S. citizen and so is the female (remember, the common law from 1787 until the 1922 Cable Act was that, by marriage, the male determined the citizenship of the female and of their children), or an Article I Act of Congress naturalized citizen ‘by’ oath. Although both are a U.S. ‘citizen’, neither is a “natural born Citizen by birth alone, and neither is eligible to be president because the ‘union’ of two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other did not precede the ‘natural’ birth. Just because two persons who are U.S. citizens and are not married to each other reproduce a child in a physical ‘union’ who is ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil does not mean that John Jay's singular U.S. citizenship original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implicitly included living together to test compatibility, or adultery, or promiscuity, or philandering, or legal / illegal prostitution, and, well, or whatever ‘transhuman’ person may come down the road in a future ‘enlightened’ America.

A Constitution ‘citizen’ who is a citizen at birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen male (who is married or not married to a U.S. citizen or to a foreign citizen female) is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizen at birth because the male is a U.S. citizen, and, of course, the child is not eligible to be president.

A Constitution ‘citizen’ at birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens is an 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ‘citizen’ at birth, naturalized by a Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’, has, at birth, dual, not singular, dual citizenship by fiat ‘opinion’ of the Court and by birth to two aliens, and so, with dual citizenship, is not eligible to be president.

Sen. Ted Cruz at CPAC 2015

→ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

Here is a question by Sean Hannity and the answer by Sen. Ted Cruz about “natural born Citizen” which took only 46 seconds. I posted a similar comment about this Q/A on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog on March 2, 2015 at 6:02 PM. You will notice that in his introduction Sean Hannity identified Sen. Cruz as having dual citizenship, and in his answer Sen. Cruz let the dual word stand without clarification in relation to his use of the words “federal law” and “natural born citizen”.

Senator Ted Cruz 46 Second Speech at 2015 CPAC (at 20m 12s to 20m 58s)

→ http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529323/senator-ted-cruz-cpac

Fox News host Sean Hannity:

“Alright, I want to warn everybody, I am asking this next question because I know the liberal media will. OK, so we might as well get it out of the way for them. Your mother was an American citizen. You talked about your dad coming from Cuba. You were born in Canada. You had dual citizenship. There are a bunch of liberal birthers out there that would try to make the case that you’re not eligible. Just a quick, short answer.”

Texas Senator Ted Cruz:

“Look, I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth. Under federal law that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural born citizen.”

[My comment about an observation* and amplification* about ‘by’ birth and ‘at’ birth]

Senator Ted Cruz:

→ “Look, I was born in Calgary” [in the state of Alberta, Canada].

* true – ‘Calgary’ is foreign soil and he was not born in a location that was under U.S. jurisdiction such as, for example, a U.S. military hospital.

→ “My mother was an American citizen by birth”.

- 312 -

* true – she was a U.S. citizen ‘by birth’ on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents

→ “Under federal law that made me an American citizen by birth”.

* no – not a “federal law” which results in being considered to be a “citizen by birth”

* yes – a ‘federal law’ enacted by Congress called an Immigration and Naturalization Act (ACT 301 Sec. 301 [8 U.S. C. 1401]) “citizen at birth”

* no – not a Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ at birth or by naturalization when “... born ... in the United States ...” [‘in’ = on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil] to a father who was a U.S. citizen [in the 1700s until the 1922 Cable Act the female was considered to be a naturalized U.S. citizen by marriage to a U.S. citizen male], and “... naturalized in the United States ...” when born to a U.S. citizen male, or by oath of allegiance, again “... in the United States ...”

* no – not an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone because the U.S. Congress can only ‘create’ an (ACT 301 Sec. 301 [8 U.S. C. 1401]) I.N.A. ‘citizen’ ‘at birth’ (if the child is born with only one U.S. citizen parent, male or female, since the 1922 Cable Act) or ‘by naturalization oath’

→ “The Constitution requires that you be a natural born citizen”.

* yes – “Constitution requires...” to be eligible to be president

* no – an INA “citizen at birth” to one U.S. citizen on foreign soil is not an Article II citizen by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, and, for that reason, is not eligible to be president [End of comment]

In Sen. Cruz’s clarification there was no reference to Article II, to the Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1 sentence 1), or to the relevant Immigration and Naturalization Act of Congress, INA: ACT 301, specifically clauses (a) and (g).

→ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375

INA: ACT 301 – Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth. Sec. 301 [8 U.S. C. 1401]

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; [snip]

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was... .

Notice the explicit word ‘at’ in the INA: ACT 301 title, children are “nationals” and “citizens” ‘at Birth’ and not ‘by birth’.

The language of the ACT is not suggesting that ‘at birth’ on U.S. soil or foreign soil the child is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. That is obvious. Right? The ‘Citizens... at Birth’ are INA: ACT 301 ‘citizens’ ‘at birth’, not an Article II “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship ‘by birth alone’. To put it another way, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and the Congress INA: ACT 301 language is not suggesting that a child born on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. Also, the Congress INA: ACT 301 language is not suggesting that a child born anywhere on earth to two or one U.S. citizen is a “natural born Citizen” ‘by birth’ because every child is ‘natural born’ somewhere on earth once.

Senator Ted Cruz said in his 2015 CPAC speech that the Constitution requires being a “natural born citizen”, and, because his mother was “a citizen by birth”, her ‘by birth’ citizenship also made Sen. Cruz “an American citizen by birth”. He conflates natural law by birth alone as implied in 1787 in “natural born Citizen” in Article II with a positive law Act of Congress “at birth” “citizen” and the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “at birth” “citizen”. He is pulling the wool over the eyes of Sean Hannity and the audience by saying that he is also a “natural born Citizen”, as he said, ‘by birth’. Why? Because, he said, “My mother was an American citizen by birth”. Notice that he did not say that his father was a citizen of Cuba by birth. That is a tacit implication that he knows that he has triple citizenship, not dual citizenship. By claiming only dual U.S. and Canadian citizenship Sen. Cruz is implicitly identifying himself as an INA: ACT 301 clause ‘g’ ‘born citizen’ ‘at birth’ who was born on foreign soil.

- 313 -

The neobirthers who promote the Obama dual citizenship birth narrative must be ecstatic that Sen. Ted Cruz, in his answer to Sean Hannity, tacitly suggests that “natural born Citizen” implies dual citizenship with one U.S. citizen parent, an implication that the dual citizenship of President Obama with one U.S. citizen parent (U.S. mother and foreign father) is valid for eligibility to be president. Also, the neobirthers must also be ecstatic that Sen. Cruz’s answer diminishes Article II and only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born.

In his answer to Hannity Sen. Cruz creates confusion between the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘at birth’ implication of only singular U.S. citizenship* and the 1787 Article II implication of only singular U.S. citizenship ‘by birth alone’. The confusion diminishes the distinction of an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘at birth’ citizen and an INA: ACT 301 ‘at birth’ citizen, and, as positive law (law of people) citizens, they are a different type of citizen from a natural law (law of nature) Article II ‘by birth alone’ “natural born Citizen”, the only kind of U.S. ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president.

At the time that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was written it did not imply both singular and dual citizenship. It implied only singular U.S. citizen status for “All persons born or naturalized in the United States …” with this distinction: For an obvious reason, there is a ‘union’ of the two, born and naturalized, but not a fusion; and there is a ‘distinction’ of the two, born and naturalized, but not a ‘separation’. The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words, ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’, make the distinction explicit. There is no doubt about the original genesis implicit intent of the authors of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment.

Both ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ are explicit, the words are written in the Fourteenth Amendment. What is not explicit and not implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment is both ‘singular’ and ‘dual’ citizen status for “All persons born or naturalized in the United States...” for the same ‘union / fusion’ and ‘distinction / separation’ reason. Both ‘singular’ and ‘dual’ are not implicit in the words ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ for an obvious reason. A ‘naturalized’ citizen ‘by oath’ is affirming only singular U.S. citizenship and allegiance, not dual, not allegiance to both the United States and their birth country. That makes obvious sense, right? Only singular citizenship is why Sen. Cruz was compelled by the ‘original genesis’ implicit intent of Article II to renounce dual citizenship and birth on Canadian soil (Notice that he did not mention triple citizenship by not drawing attention to his father’s Cuban citizenship). Being a constitutional scholar Sen. Cruz knows the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. He also knows how to avoid explaining that the implicit intent of “Citizen” in Article II is only singular U.S. citizenship and that singular U.S. citizenship is only possible by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

How do we ‘know’ that Sen. Cruz ‘knows’ the explicit meaning of ‘... at Birth ...’ in the INA 301 section ‘g’ and also the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”? Senator Cruz was compelled by, as he said to Sean Hannity, ‘federal law’ which he knows is only a reference to the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the “at Birth’ language as mentioned previously and not a reference to ‘constitution law’, so to speak, to distinguish the ‘LAW’ of the land from the ‘federal law’ (positive law) which is enacted by the Congress every year. He must know the difference between the two, otherwise, why use the word ‘federal’, right? He was compelled to renounce dual citizenship because, as a ‘constitutional scholar’ who many times represented the state of Texas before the Supreme Court, he ‘knows’ that to be eligible to be president a “natural born Citizen” must have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, not ‘at birth’ to only one U.S. citizen, and obviously not naturalization by Congress (e.g., INA 301) or ‘by oath’ as adults, and definitely not by Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’.

Because constitutional scholar Sen. Cruz should have known the difference between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen”, he, either by accident or deliberate obfuscation, confused the issue of eligibility to be president by combining both and alluding implicitly to both when he said that his mother was “an American citizen by birth” and “... that made me an American citizen by birth ...”. Notice, he did not say by birth alone.

However, if Sen. Cruz knew the difference at the time he was talking with Sean Hannity about a ‘citizen’ who is not eligible to be president and a “natural born Citizen” who is eligible to be president, if he was asked the same question today would Sen. Cruz say that he did not know the difference then (?) or would he say that he did not intend to be confusing when talking with Hannity and, of course, as a constitutional scholar, he does know the difference? Good question, right?

- 314 -

One Amendment · One Act · Six Supreme Court Opinions

The Venus 12 U.S. 253, 289 (1814) Supreme Court

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) Supreme Court

The Civil Rights Act (1866) Congress

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) Congress

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) Supreme Court

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) Supreme Court

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) Supreme Court

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Supreme Court

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

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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 [‘or’ = ‘same as’] natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or [‘or’ = ‘same as’] 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 Itemized For Quick Reading

1. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.

2. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

3. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,

4. it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [plural] who were [already] its citizens

5. became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also.

6. These were natives or [‘or’ = ‘same as’] natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

7. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction

8. without reference to the citizenship of their parents.

9. As to this class there have been doubts,

10. but never as to the first.

11. For the purposes of this case,

12. it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

13. It is sufficient,

14. for everything we have now to consider,

15. that all children,

16. born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction,

17. are themselves citizens.

Going on seven years since December 2008 when he started his blog, nobody has refuted Mario Apuzzo’s definition of “natural born Citizen” as “a child born in a country [soil] to parents [plural] who were [already] its citizens [plural] at the time of the child’s birth”. This is an accurate restatement of the unanimous decision in 1875 of the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, “... it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents [plural] who were [already] its citizens [plural] became themselves, upon their birth [‘alone’], citizens also”.

- 315 -

Minor v Happersett was not about eligibility to be president; it was about the right of females voting in state elections. The Supreme Court said that Virginia Minor, a female who simply wanted to register to vote in Missouri, and, even though both of her parents were U.S. citizens and the Court recognized her as a U. S citizen, the Court said that Virginia did not have the Constitutional right to vote in her state even though she was also a ‘citizen’. The Court did not cite law about females not having the right to vote in their states and simply expressed their common law ‘opinion’ which was the accepted common law since 1787 when the Constitution was adopted and none of the 13 colonies gave all citizens the right to vote and restricted rights based on sex, race, age, and land ownership. The common law prevailed and U.S. citizen females did not have the unlimited right to vote from the 1700s and the 1800s until the 1920 Nineteenth Amendment gave all females of all races who were U.S. citizens the ‘right’ to vote. However, concerning eligibility to be president we can extrapolate from the words of the Court which obviously imply that all children born in the country to two U.S. citizens (plural) married only to each other before a child is born were identified as a “natural born Citizen”.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) Syllabus and Opinion

Minor v. Happersett → http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

Syllabus → http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZS.html

Opinion → http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO.html

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) Syllabus and Opinion

→ U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark – http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

→ Syllabus & Opinion – http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 99 99 (1830) Syllabus/Opinions

Inglis v. Trustees → http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.htm

Syllabus & Opinions → http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/28/99/case.html

Emer de Vattel: The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law

1758 Vol. 1, Chapter 19, Sec. 212

→ Archive.org – Free PDF → http://archive.org/details/lawnationsorpri01chitgoog

Emer de Vattel’s 1758 definition of “natural-born-citizens” is easy to understand:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”.

John Jay understood what de Vattel meant when he, Jay, wrote “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 suggestion to George Washington. John Jay and Emer de Vattel intended to imply only singular citizenship by birth alone to two citizens married to each other, not dual citizenship. That is the obvious implicit intent in the words ‘or’ [= ‘same as’], and ‘parents … are citizens’ (plural). They have only singular U.S. citizenship by marriage. According to prevailing common law in Europe and America in the 1700s it was by ‘legal’ marriage that the citizenship of the male became the citizenship of the female, essentially naturalization by marriage.

The Law of Nations, published by Emer de Vattel in 1758, is one of the books still relevant in the 2000s which helps We the People understand the implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president as the constitution convention delegates understood the intent in the context of the common law of the 1700s, and as the 1800s Minor v. Happerssett Supreme Court understood the common law intent in 1875 which was explicitly mentioned in the unanimous decision.

The book by Vattel was one source which informed the 1700s understanding of the delegates of the blood relationship of birth parents and their children, and how the connection of the blood relationship with the soil of citizenship of the two parents was associated (‘associated’ = Jay said “... shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen ...”) with the blood of birth of the child and the soil of citizenship of the child. The constitutional convention delegates, the 1787 original genesis birthers, obviously agreed with Jay and Washington about the perpetual original genesis implicit intent of the prescient, seminal presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen”.

How can we know the implicit intent without a doubt? The original birther delegates included in Article II Section 1 clause 5 the first original birther John Jay’s suggestion to the second original birther George Washington who, if he had been asked, would definitely not have accepted Jay’s suggestion if Jay was implying by the word ‘born’ that dual citizenship (U.S. and British or French, or German, or Spanish, etc.) was acceptable for eligibility to be president. That makes 1700s to 2000s common law common sense, right?

Next is a list of the 16 presidents of the ‘union’ of 13 colonies. Peyton Randolph and John Hancock served two different terms. This list is followed by the 46 presidents of the ‘Union’ since April 30, 1789.

- 316 -

16 Presidents of the ‘union’ of the 13 British America Colonies From 1774 to 1788

Name	Colony-State	Age	Term Start	Term End	Days	Previous Experience
Peyton Randolph	Virginia	53	9-5-1774	10-22-1774	47	Speaker, Virginia House of Burgesses
Henry Middleton	South Carolina	57	10-22-1774	10-26-1774	4	Speaker, S.C. Commons House of Assembly
Peyton Randolph	Virginia	54	5-10-1775	5-24-1775	14	Speaker, Virginia House of Burgesses
John Hancock	Massachusetts	38	5-24-1775	10-29-1777	889	President, Massachusetts Provincial Congress
Henry Laurens	South Carolina	53	11-1-1777	12-9-1778	403	President, S.C. Provincial Congress, Vice President, S.C.
John Jay	New York	32	12-10-1778	9-28-1779	292	Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court
Samuel Huntington	Connecticut	48	9-28-1779	7-10-1781	651	Associate Judge, Connecticut Superior Court
Thomas McKean	Delaware	47	7-10-1781	11-5-1781	118	Chief Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
John Hanson	Maryland	66	11-5-1781	11-4-1782	364	Maryland House of Delegates
Elias Boudinot	New Jersey	42	11-4-1782	11-3-1783	364	Commissary of Prisoners for the Continental Army
Thomas Mifflin	Pennsylvania	39	11-3-1783	6-3- 1784	213	Quartermaster General of the Continental Army, Board of War
Richard Henry Lee	Virginia	52	11-30-1784	11-4-1785	339	Virginia House of Burgesses
John Hancock	Massachusetts	48	11-23-1785	6-5-1786	194	Governor of Massachusetts
Nathaniel Gorham	Massachusetts	48	11-6-1786	11-3-1786	150	Board of War
Arthur St. Clair	Pennsylvania	52	2-2-1787	11-4-1787	275	Major General, Continental Army
Cyrus Griffin	Virginia	39	11-22-1788	11-15-1788	298	Judge, Virginia Court of Appeals

- 317 -

47 Presidents of the ‘Union’ since April 30, 1789

1. George Washington born 1732 President 1789 – 1797	17. Andrew Johnson born 1808 President 1865 – 1869	33. Harry S. Truman born 1884 President 1945 – 1953
2. John Adams born 1735 President 1797 – 1801	18. Ulysses S. Grant born 1822 President 1869- 1877	34. Dwight D. Eisenhower born 1890 President 1953 – 1961
3. Thomas Jefferson born 1743 President 1801 – 1809	19. Rutherford B. Hayes born 1822 President 1877 – 1881	35. John F. Kennedy born 1917 President 1961 – 1963
4. James Madison born 1751 President 1809 – 1817	20. James Garfield born 1831 President 1881	36. Lyndon B. Johnson born 1908 President 1963 – 1969
5. James Monroe born 1758 President 1817 – 1825	21. Chester A. Arthur born 1829 President 1881-1885	37. Richard M. Nixon born 1913 President 1969 – 1974
6. John Quincy Adams born 1767 President 1825 – 1829	22. Grover Cleveland born 1837 President 1885 –1889	38. Gerald R. Ford born 1913 President 1974 – 1977
7. Andrew Jackson born 1767 President 1829 – 1837	23. Benjamin Harrison born 1833 President 1889 – 1993	39. James E. Carter born 1924 President 1977 – 1981
8. Martin Van Buren born 1782 President 1837 – 1841	24. Grover Cleveland born 1837 President 1893 – 1897	40. Ronald W. Reagan born 1911 President 1981 – 1989
9. William Henry Harrison born 1773 President 1841 (died)	25. William McKinley born 1843 President 1897 – 1901	41. George H. W. Bush born 1924 President 1989 – 1993
10. John Tyler born 1790 President 1841 – 1845	26. Theodore Roosevelt born 1858 President 1901 – 1909	42. William J. Clinton born 1946 President 1993 – 2001
11. James K. Polk born 1795 President 1845 – 1849	27. William Howard Taft born 1857 President 1909 – 1913	43. George W. Bush born 1946 President 2001 – 2009
12. Zachary Taylor born 1784 President 1849 – 1850	28. Woodrow Wilson born 1856 President 1913 – 1921	44. Barack H. Obama born 1961 President 2009 – 2017
13. Millard Fillmore born 1800 President 1850 – 1853	29. Warren G. Harding born 1865 President 1921 – 1923	45. Donald John Trump Born 1946 President 2017 – 2021
14. Franklin Pierce born 1804 President 1853 – 1857	30. Calvin Coolidge born 1872 President 1923 – 1929	46. Joseph Robinette Biden* Born 1942 President 2021 –2025
15. James Buchanan born 1791 President 1857 – 1861	31. Herbert Hoover born 1874 President 1929 – 1933	47. Donald John Trump Born 1946 President 2025 - 2029
16. Abraham Lincoln born 1809 President 1861 – 1865	32. Franklin D. Roosevelt born 1882 President 1933 – 1945	48. Born President

- 318 -

* #46 – This list of presidents was updated November 18, 2022 and January 18, 2025. Questions remain about the legitimacy of J. R. Biden’s (s)election on November 3, 2020, with, for example, more votes in his first term from the black community than ‘biracial’ #44 B. H. Obama had in either of his two terms. Uh, ok, yeah, right..

Presidents of the “union / Union”

From June to July 1776 when the draft of a declaration of independence was being prepared by Thomas Jefferson, a committee of 13 members of the 2nd Continental Congress was meeting to draft a constitution for their ‘union’ of states. The first draft was presented to the Continental Congress on July 12, 1776, and the final draft, prepared in the summer of 1777 after one year of debate, was adopted by the Continental Congress November 15, 1777 to be sent to the states for ratification. When adopted, the final draft of the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States was the constitution of “the United States in Congress assembled” until March 1, 1781 when the Articles were ratified and the name of the Continental Congress was changed to the Congress of the Confederation. Articles of Confederation Article 13 is about the ‘perpetual union’ and explicitly stated that “… the union shall be perpetual”. Here are sources about the 14 Presidents of the ‘union’ from 1774 to 1789, and the 45 Presidents of the ‘Union’ since April 30, 1789.

America’s Four Republics (→ http://www.americasfourrepublics.com). Here is the header on the home page: “13 British Colonies united in a Colonial Continental Congress – 13 States Independent States united in the US Continental Congress – 13 States united under the Articles of Confederation in the United States in Congress Assembled – 50 States united under the United States Constitution of 1787”.

Constitution Facts (→ http://www.constitutionfacts.com). What’s Your Constitution I. Q?

Here is the list of drop down menus: 1) U.S. Constitution & Amendments, 2) Declaration of Independence, 3) Articles of Confederation, 4) Founding Fathers, 5) Supreme Court, 6) Order U.S. Pocket Constitution Books, 7) Constitution Day 2022, 8) The Founders Library

WhiteHouse.gov (→ http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/georgewashington)

Wikipedia.org (→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents) “The president of the United States is the head of state and head of government of the United States, indirectly elected to a four-year term by the American people through the Electoral College. The office holder leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces.”

The administrators of our government, the Article II executive branch DOJ, FBI, etc., 21 months later, still have not investigated election irregularities. The Article I legislative branch House and Senate have also not held serious hearings on the election irregularities. However, the Democratic party controlled Congress is investigating the January 6, 2021 (J-6) insurrection of the U.S. capitol by, they assert with a straight face, by Trump supporters. The House J-6 insurrection committee members are still fooling themselves and the American people by ignoring the evidence in the public record during the summer of love to hate, and love to defund the police, and love of looting, and are ignoring the color revolution aspect that it was the ‘footsoldiers’ of the marxist revolutionaries who were organized by big bucks bad guys and also used by master manipulators in the executive branch (uh, cough cough, uh, the FBI, as revealed by Elon Musk with the release of the ‘Twitter Files’ in the first week of December, 2022), the foot soldiers who masqueraded as Trump supporters, and FBI agents and operatives who were themselves masquerading as ANTIFA members and orchestrating the chaos which turned into a riot which the J-6 committee falsely called an insurrection by Pres. Trump and the Trump supporters. The J-6 committee is not investigating the ‘foot soldiers’ who were masquerading as ‘Trump supporters’ in a false flag operation on January 6, 2020, and they are accusing the true peaceful Trump supporters of being the insurrectionists. That’s nuts.

Update November 21, 2023: Louisiana Representative Mike Johnson has been chosen Speaker of the House and has started releasing the 40,000 + hours of video which does not support the J-6 committee accusation of an “insurrection” by Trump or his supporters on the Capitol grounds. What it does reveal is a peaceful and authorized protest which became a riot instigated by the FBI and other federal agencies, which, as reports are indicating, appears to have been intentional and planned months ahead and executed on January 6, 2021.

- 319 -

Here are a few election day and night irregularities which have been alleged with public and private videos and legal affidavits which should be investigated by Congress and the legal system, and ultimately referred to the U.S. Supreme Court:

1) Mail-in ballots being sent when not requested. I received three. Yes, they went into the trash – I should have saved at least one.

2) Drop-box stuffing before and after midnight by many individuals with boxes of ballots.

3) Ballot counting being stopped in six states for hours and then started again after midnight on the 4th.

4) Video of ballots being recounted.

5) Video of ballots being delivered after midnight.

6) Counting of ballots extended for a few days.

7) Legislatures of the ‘several States’ resisting investigating irregularities in their domains such as the state courts giving the green light to ignoring the previous enactments of the legislatures of the states for voting regulations, and resisting forensic audits of the voting machines and routers, and house to house canvassing of voters in their homes.

8) Voting machine irregularities from inside and outside of the voting locations using, for example, flash drives and Bluetooth connections to communicate with alien entities inside and outside America.

9) Vote totals on live broadcasts changing from high totals for President Trump to low totals and switching from low totals for Biden to the same high total which had been listed as Pres. Trump’s high total.

10) More etc., etc., etc.

Four U.S. Presidents and Their Parents

The 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” is immutable and permanent and an “… or a Citizen of ...” is immutable and temporary due to natural law (law of nature) death when the last ‘or’ died sometime in the 1800s. Let’s look at four U.S. Presidents, (1) the first U.S. President George Washington and his parents, (3) the third U.S. President Thomas Jefferson and his parents, (8) the eighth U.S. President Martin Van Buren and his parents, (10) the tenth U.S. President John Tyler and his parents.

President #1 George Washington

born February 22, 1732, died December 14, 1799

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “… or a Citizen of ...”

President April, 30 1789 – March 3, 1797

Father – Augustine Washington

born 1694 in Westmoreland, Virginia colony, died April 12, 1743

Mother – Mary Ball Washington

born 1708 in Lively, Virginia colony, died August 26, 1789

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

George Washington, the first President of the 1787 ‘Union’ of America, was born a British ‘natural born subject’ by birth alone in one of the British America colonies, and died an American ‘citizen’ of the ‘Union’ by naturalization. Washington was the first British ‘subject’ to be elected U.S. president after being grandfathered into presidential eligibility by the 1787 Article II words “… or a Citizen of the United States … time … Adoption …”, indicating that as a ‘citizen’ of the new ‘Union’ that was created when the Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787, Washington was grandfathered as a ‘citizen’ because he elected, meaning he chose, he elected to adhere to the purpose and conclusion of the revolution and the war for independence. Notice also that only one of Washington’s parents, his mother, was naturalized a U.S. citizen on July 4, 1776 because his father died before July 4, 1776.

President #3 Thomas Jefferson

born April 13, 1743 in Shadwell, Virginia, died July 24, 1862

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 “… or a Citizen of ...”

President March 4, 1801 – March 4, 1809

- 320 -

Father – Peter Jefferson

born 1708 in Chesterfield County, Virginia colony, died August 17, 1757

Mother – Jane Randolph Jefferson

born 1721 in Shadwell Parish, Tower Hamlets, London, England, died March 31, 1776

Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, was born a British ‘natural born subject’ in one of the 13 British colonies, and died an American ‘citizen’ of the ‘Union’ by naturalization. Jefferson was the first President whose father was a British ‘natural born subject’ born in a British America colony and whose mother was also a British ‘natural born subject’ but born in England. Both of his parents died before July 4, 1776, so he was recognized by the people in the general election and by the electoral college as a 1787 Article II “... or a Citizen of ...” even though both of his parents had not been naturalized as U.S. citizens.

President #8 Martin Van Buren

born December 5, 1782 in Kinderhoo, New York (six years after July 4, 1776), died July 24, 1862

1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “… or a Citizen of ...”

President March 4, 1837 – March 4, 1841

Father – Abraham Van Buren

born 1737 in New York, died 1817

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

Mother – Maria Van Alen Van Buren

born 1747 in New York, died 1818

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

Martin Van Buren, the eighth U.S. President, was the first person to be elected President who was born after July 4, 1776 and before September 17, 1787. This means that he was a 1787 Article II U.S. “… or a Citizen of …” at birth on

U.S. soil to July 4, 1776 naturalized U.S. citizen parents married only to each other before he was born.

President #10 John Tyler

born March 29, 1790 in Charles City County, Virginia, died January 18, 1862

1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”

President April 4, 1841 – March 4, 1845

Father – John Tyler, Sr.

born February 28, 1747 in York County, Virginia, died January 6, 1813

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

Mother – Mary Margot Armistead Tyler

born 1761 in Virginia, died 1797

naturalized a U.S. Citizen on July 4, 1776

John Tyler, tenth U.S. President, was the first 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” to be elected President who was born two years and six months after September 17, 1787 on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before he was born.

John Jay’s Note to George Washington about “natural born Citizen”

“...Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and reasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolved on, any but a natural born Citizen....”

Article II Section 1 Clause 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States”.

- 321 -

‘Eligible’ to be president obviously had the implicit and permanent intent from generation to generation – election to election – president to president. John Jay was the author on July 25, 1787 of the presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen” which he wrote with the word ‘born’ underlined in his note to his friend George Washington who was the president of the constitutional convention. Jay’s three word suggestion was accepted without debate about the original genesis implication of the word ‘born’ because the convention delegates understood the common law of the 1700s about the unity of citizenship and allegiance. The ‘legal’ marriage of a U.S. citizen male and a U.S. citizen female or a foreign born female, meant that the U.S. citizenship of the male husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the female wife, and the singular U.S. citizenship by marriage of both U.S. citizens married only to each other determined, by birth alone, the singular U.S. citizenship of the ‘natural born’ child ‘Citizen’. Almost two months later on September 17, 1787, the presidential eligibility phrase was included in Article II Section 1 clause 5 when the language of the entire U.S. Constitution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification.

It is obvious by the language itself that original birther John Jay had only one original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in his note to Washington. It is obvious that in 1787 Jay had in mind only singular U.S. citizenship which is only possible by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before the birth of a new U.S. citizen child. The neobirthers who may read that sentence may ask how we original genesis birthers, and Democratic Party Obama birth narrative neobirthers, and Republican Party ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers, or anybody in 2000s America, can possibly ‘know’ what John Jay meant, suggested, implied in 1787 concerning eligibility to be president.

Neobirthers who never adduce John Jay as a seminal source of the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” ask original genesis birthers how they ‘know’ that in 1787 Jay had in mind, for eligibility to be president, only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

Question 1 for neobirthers – How do neobirthers ‘know’ what Jay did or did not have in mind in 1787 for eligibility to be president if original genesis birthers can not ‘know’ what Jay implied?

Question 2 for neobirthers – How do neobirthers ‘know’ that Jay had in mind dual citizenship, not singular U.S. citizenship but dual citizenship, for eligibility to be president, if original genesis birthers can not ‘know’ what Jay implied?

Question 3 for neobirthers – How do neobirthers ‘know’ that both U.S. and foreign citizenship are implied in the word ‘born’ for eligibility to be president since they believe that “natural born Citizen” has never been defined since 1787 when Article II was adopted for ratification by the 13 ‘several States’.

In response to neobirthers consider this contradiction: They insist that the 1787 Article II and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Supreme Court decision did not define the implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” but the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ did imply that children born on U.S. soil to one or two foreign born parents who had not naturalized before a child was born were eligible to be president. The neobirther rejection of the 1875 Minor v Happersett Supreme Court unanimous ‘decision’ because it did not define the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and the neobirther acceptance of the 1898 Supreme Court fiat ‘opinion’, even though it did not define ‘born’ regarding eligibility to be president, is obviously incoherent and not sensible. Right?

2 of a Kind Citizen Parents = 1 of a Kind Citizen Child if Born on U.S. Soil

Two of a kind (two U.S. married citizens with U.S. singular citizenship) can produce a one of a kind 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” because both parents are U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born on U.S. soil.

2 of a Kind Citizen Parents = 1 of a Kind Citizen Child if Born on Foreign Soil

Two of a kind (two U.S. married citizens) can produce a one of a kind 1795 Naturalization Act citizen (and all Acts of Congress since then) with singular U.S. citizenship, but the 1795 child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents was not eligible to be president because the birth was on foreign soil. That’s the positive law (law of people) consequence of being “natural born” on foreign soil, whether ‘natural born’ to one or two U.S. citizen parents.

- 322 -

1 of a Kind Citizen Parents = 2 of a Kind Citizen Child if Born on Foreign Soil #1

One of a kind (one U.S. citizen married to one foreign citizen parent) can produce a one of a kind 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA: Act SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)]) (and updated Acts) ‘citizen’ with dual citizenship because both parents are not U.S. citizens before a child is born.

1 of a Kind Citizen Parents = 2 of a Kind Citizen Child if Born on Foreign Soil #2

Senator Ted Cruz has dual triple citizenship. U.S. Senator Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada (which was not under U.S. jurisdiction) to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban citizen father, Rafael Cruz, who had not naturalized before son Ted was born on foreign soil which was not under U.S. jurisdiction. This means that Senator Cruz is a 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act ‘citizen’. This means that Senator Cruz is not a 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ or a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (both with lower case ‘c’). Birth to parents with different citizenship status means that Senator Cruz is also not a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”.

Why is Texas Senator Ted Cruz not a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’)? Because the 1790 NA was repealed and replaced with the single 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” word. After 1795 all updated immigration and naturalization laws identified naturalized persons as only a “citizen”, not a “natural born Citizen” because since 1787 “natural born Citizen” has been associated only with Article II and singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

‘IF’ Points since 1787 until the 1922 Cable Act

1. IF Senator Cruz had been born on the foreign soil of Calgary, Alberta, Canada after his father had already naturalized as a U.S. citizen, he would have had two U.S. married citizen parents, and, at birth, would have had dual, not triple, citizenship at birth, and would still not be eligible to be president because of birth on foreign soil.

2. IF means Senator Cruz, naturalized at birth under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, is only a U.S. “citizen” and not eligible to be president because he was naturalized as a U.S. citizen by an act of Congress.

3. IF means Senator Cruz would have been a 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” if he was living in 1795 because he was born on foreign soil and not eligible to be president. All updated naturalization act assert the same thing about birth on foreign soil.

4. IF means Senator Cruz would not have been a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” if he was living in 1790 because he was born on foreign soil,, not eligible to be president.

5. IF couples are not married to each other (since 1787 and until the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and both are U.S. citizens by birth on U.S. soil before a child is born on U.S. soil, the child is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” because of the male being a U.S. citizen, the child is not eligible to be president.

6. IF couples are not married to each other (since 1787 and until the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and both are U.S. citizens by birth on U.S. soil before a child is born on foreign soil, the child is a 1795 NA ‘citizen’ because the male is a U.S. citizen, so the child is not eligible to be president.

7. IF couples are married to each other (since 1787 and until the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and both are U.S. citizens by birth on U.S. soil before a child is born on foreign soil, the child is, since 1795 and under all updated naturalization acts, a ‘citizen’ not eligible to be president..

8. IF couples are married to each other (since 1787 and until the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and only the male is a U.S. citizen when a child is born on U.S. soil, the child is a ‘citizen’ not eligible to be president.

9. IF couples are not married to each other (since 1787 and until the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and the male is a U.S. citizen before a child is born on U.S. soil, the child is only a ‘citizen’ not eligible to be president.

10. IF couples are married to each other (since the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and only one is a U.S. citizen before a child is born on foreign soil the child is only a ‘citizen’ not eligible to be president.

11. IF couples are not married to each other (since the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act) and one is a U.S. citizen before a child is born on foreign soil the child is only a ‘citizen’ not eligible to be president.

12. IF couples are married to each other and (under 1787 Article II) both are U.S. citizens before a child is born on U.S. soil, the child is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

Neither a 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” nor a 1952 Naturalization Act (and updated Acts) “citizen” is equivalent to a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen”, so neither is eligible to be president. Only a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” is “… eligible to the Office of President ...”.

- 323 -

U.S. Soil and Article II Section 1 Clause 5

The soil of birth and the number of U.S. citizen parents, two or one or zero, determine the singular or dual citizenship status of the child and presidential eligibility. The number of U.S. citizen parents, two or one, who are U.S. citizens at the birth of their child on U.S. soil, determines if the presidential eligibility status of the child is as a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two U.S. citizen parents or a “citizen” at birth to one U.S. citizen parent. If the child is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other the child is by natural law (law of nature) a 1787 Article II ‘natural born’ child, and by being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other the child is by positive law (law of people) a ‘Citizen’ child. It is this child who fulfills the natural law original genesis ‘natural born’ requirement and also fulfills the positive law original intent ‘Citizen’ requirement, and this “natural born Citizen” child by birth alone is the only type of ‘citizen’ who is eligible to be president.

If the child is born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen and one foreign citizen, the child has, by positive law (law of people) legislation (i.e., the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act and updates), dual citizenship and so does not fulfill the singular U.S. citizenship original genesis implicit intent of the word ‘born’ for eligibility to be president.

Foreign Soil, 1795 Naturalization Act, 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act

The number of U.S. citizens alone (whether two or one) who are citizens when their child is born on foreign soil does not determine the citizenship status of the child for eligibility to be president. The birth on foreign soil determines that the child is not eligible. It does not matter if both parents are U.S. citizens (the 1795 Naturalization Act, which changed “natural born citizen” to “citizen”, referenced plural parents) before the child is born on foreign soil. Also, for the same reason that it does not matter for eligibility to be president that a child born on foreign soil is born to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, it also does not matter if only one parent is a U.S. citizen. That makes ‘eligibility’ common sense, right?

If a child is born on foreign soil to one or two U.S. citizens, married to each other or not, the child is a U.S. citizen by positive law (law of people) legislation, not natural law (law of nature) by birth alone which does not require legislation for the same reason that Article II does not need legislation. Why? Because ‘by birth alone’ is the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. The child born on foreign soil is a U.S. citizen by positive law (law of people) legislation such as the 1795 Naturalization Act (and all naturalization acts since then), and for that positive law reason the child does not fulfill natural law and only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, the implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ for eligibility to be president.

If a child is born to parents who are married only to each other and only one parent is a U.S. citizen (since the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act ended naturalization of the female as a U.S. citizen by marriage to a U.S. citizen male) the citizenship status of the parents is mixed. That is why the child can be defined by positive law (law of people) legislation (such as an Act of Congress or amendments to the Constitution such as the Fourteenth Amendment) to be a citizen ‘at birth’ and not an Article II natural law (law of nature) “natural born Citizen” by birth alone.

U.S. Soil with Zero U.S. Citizen Parents

If a child is born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens the child, by positive law (law of people) legislation, is maybe a ‘citizen’ after age 21 or maybe not a ‘citizen’ before age 21 (“a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;” see the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (f)])) The child does not fulfill the original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, so the child is not eligible to be president. Denying eligibility to be president because of ‘zero’ citizen parents is common sense.

- 324 -

Foreign Soil with Zero U.S. Citizen Parents, Married or Not Married

If a child is born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizens, married or not married only to each other, the child, by positive law (law of people) legislation, is not a U.S. ‘citizen’ because both ‘foreign soil’ and ‘zero’ do not fulfill the original genesis implicit intent of only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other. So the child is not eligible to be president. Denying eligibility to be president because of ‘foreign’ birth and ‘zero’ citizen parents is common sense.

Common Sense: Living Originalism, Original Genesis, Implicit Intent

Absurd Sense: Living Constitutionism, Original Genesis, Implicit Intent

The 1700s era common law which informed the original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers when they framed the new constitution (specifically Article II for eligibility to be president) was that a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other was a singular U.S. citizen. The absurdity of “living constitutionism” is the arbitrary conclusion, based on a preference and not something legal such as marriage and citizenship of two parents, is that dual citizenship at birth (U.S. and foreign) is good ‘nuf” for eligibility to be president, and only singular U.S. citizenship is irrelevant.

Why is “singular” U.S. citizenship irrelevant to neobirthers? Well, consider how they deny the implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”? If birth soil does not matter to them, Democrats and Republicans, it also does not matter how many parents are U.S. citizens. That is why Senator and then President Barack Obama and Democrat neobirthers say that birth on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen is good ‘nuf for government work, for eligibility to be president, and why Senator Ted Cruz Republican neobirthers say that birth on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen is good nuf for eligibility to be president. Huh?

The 1787 U.S. Constitution Is The “natural born Citizen” ‘Controlling Legal Authority’

The only “natural born Citizen” presidential eligibility controlling legal authority is Article II Section 1 clause 5 in the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution. The three controlling legal authority words that define presidential eligibility are the natural law words “natural born” and the positive law word “Citizen”, in that order. The natural order of every society is not arbitrary, soil precedes birth precedes citizenship:

1) soil, land, nationality = natural law

2) birth parents, heritage, lineage = natural law

3) citizenship, eligibility status = positive law

The ‘natural order’ in Article II is ‘natural born’ precedes ‘Citizen’. A birth precedes citizenship, and both words implicitly inform Article II and eligibility to be president. The natural law (law of nature) birth precedes and informs the positive law (law of people) citizenship.

In other words, the original genesis implicit intent for eligibility to be president is that ‘born’ informs upper case ‘C’ ‘Citizen’, not lower case ‘c’ ‘citizen’, if birth is with only one U.S. citizen, or if ‘citizen’ is by naturalization (see both in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment), and not ‘citizen’ if birth is on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizenship parents (See the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Art Supreme Court naturalization by fiat — ‘because we said so’ — opinion). Does the Article I U.S. Congress not know that the Article III Supreme Court does not have Article I authority to naturalize anybody with an ‘opinion’? Well, now they do, right?

The controlling legal authority meaning of “natural born Citizen” was understood by John Jay and George Washington as implying only singular U.S. citizenship which is only possible by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, not at birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen, and not at birth on foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizens. Jay and Washington were the two 1787 original birthers who influenced the original birther delegates at the convention who adopted Article II and in turn influenced the original birthers of the ‘several States’ who ratified the implicit intent of ‘born’ in Section 1 clause 5.

- 325 -

In Article V there are two entities listed which have controlling legal authority to define ‘citizenship’. Listed first is the Article I U.S. Congress (House and Senate) which has statute authority to enact (pass) laws and propose amendments, and listed second is the Article V Legislatures of the ‘several States’ which do not have Article I or Article V ‘statute’ authority to ‘enact’ laws. Both entities have Article V authority to propose amendments to the Constitution. Neither entity has Article V authority to have a ‘constitutional convention’, derisively called a ‘con-con’ by opponents of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ convening to propose amendments (a ‘con-con’ = a deception, a convention to ‘con’ the people into trashing the entire Constitution and writing a new constitution). The Congress has Article I authority to propose and enact immigration and naturalization bills which are signed into law by the President who has Article II authority as the executive of the federation government. (Article I = a group of people enacting a law, and Article II = a single person signing the law into existence, i.e. positive law (law of people)). In 1868 the Congress used their Article V authority to propose an amendment to give the negro slaves U.S. citizenship when it identified any person who was “... born or naturalized ...” on U.S. soil as a ‘citizen’, not a ‘natural born Citizen’. The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the ‘several States’ and the positive law (law of people) became the law of the Union. Thirty years later that same 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was (mis)construed by the 1898 Supreme Court with the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ which held that a child was a U.S. ‘citizen’ (not a “natural born Citizen”, if born on U.S. soil to two parents who both were not U.S. citizens.

The 1898 holding by the Supreme Court needs to be either revisited and overturned by the current Supreme Court, or, because the bicameral Article I Congress has failed to use their Article I authority to propose an amendment and correct the 1898 naturalization error of the Article III Supreme Court, it should be corrected by an Article V amendment proposed by the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to clarify once and for all time that the original intent of the authors of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment did not include U.S. ‘birthright citizenship’ for ‘anchor babies’ born on U.S. soil to two parents married to each other but who are not U.S. citizens. The implicit assumption by Democrat and Republican neobirthers, including 2016 Republican presidential candidates (Florida Sen. Rubio, Louisiana Gov. Jindal, South Carolina Gov. Haley) that a child whom the Supreme Court has ‘naturalized’ with an ‘opinion’ is also eligible to be president. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was born on foreign soil with one U.S. citizen parent.

Do you see now why voters were confused by the debate about Article II and eligibility to be president of these five candidates? 1) Illinois Senator Obama was born on U.S. soil (Hawaii – his relatives said Kenya) with only one U.S. citizen parent; 2) Texas Senator Cruz was born on foreign soil (Canada) with only one U.S. citizen parent; 3) Florida Senator Rubio was born on U.S. soil with two parents married only to each other who were not U.S. citizens; 4) South Carolina Governor Haley and 5) Louisiana Governor Jindal were born on U.S. soil with two parents who also were not U.S. citizens.

Three Examples of Article I Positive Law (Law of People)

1) 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (repealed).

2) 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” (and all updates since 1795).

3) 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act “citizen” (and all updates since 1952).

Three Examples of Article V Positive Law (Law of People)

1) 1865 positive law Thirteenth Amendment: freedom from human bondage/slavery. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ... shall exist in the United States .....”

2) 1868 positive law Fourteenth Amendment: defined male and female members of all races as citizens of the United States. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, ... are citizens ....”

3) 1870 positive law Fifteenth Amendment: affirmation that the males of all races had constitutional rights as free citizens of the United States to vote to maintain freedom for themselves, for their female spouses, and their children. “The right of citizens ... to vote shall not be denied ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

- 326 -

Females were given the right to vote with the 1920 Nineteenth Amendment. In the 1700s, 1800s, until 1922, a female automatically derived her U.S. citizenship by legal marriage to a U.S. citizen male, and their children born after their marriage were automatically U.S. citizens by birth alone because of the ‘legal’ marriage of the parents. Female ‘naturalization by marriage’ ended with the 1922 Cable Naturalization Act when mature foreign born females were allowed to choose to naturalize by oath either before marriage or after marriage to a U.S. citizen male. After 1922 if children were born before their foreign born mother naturalized, the children had dual citizenship. If the foreign born mother naturalized before a child was born, both natural parents had singular U.S. citizenship, and the singular U.S. citizenship of the two parents was passed on by birth alone.

The Article I Congress can’t enact positive law genesis which is contrary to natural law genesis, the Article II Executive can’t order positive law genesis which is contrary to natural law, and the Article III Supreme Court can’t opine positive law genesis which is contrary to Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen” natural law genesis and say that an Article I Act of Congress citizen at birth, or an Article V amendment citizen at birth has the same presidential eligibility as an Article II “natural born Citizen” who is already eligible to be president by birth alone. A ‘citizen’ as is identified in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment which implies only who is a ‘citizen’ at birth on U.S. soil and who is a ‘citizen’ by naturalization on U.S. soil, and, since 1868 (and including the 1898 Article III Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) “opinion”, the amendment implies absolutely nothing about eligibility to be president.

Neither an Article I law of people naturalization Act of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, 1855 ... 1952 and updates since 1952, etc.), nor an Article III law of people fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court, nor an 1868 Article V law of people amendment to the constitution is able to ‘create’ with a law a child with eligibility to be president. That makes Article II “natural born Citizen” common sense.

A child who is born (law of nature) with singular U.S. citizenship (law of people) is ‘created’ by birth alone (law of nature) on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

A Wikipedia explanation about ‘positive law’ for non-lawyers

→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_law

“Positive law (Latin: ius positum) is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which oblige or specify an action. It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group. Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. The concept of positive law is distinct from natural law, which comprises inherent [law of nature] rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by God, nature or reason. Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as [L]aw actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society”.

1) Positive law (Latin: ius positum) is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which oblige or specify an action.

2) It also describes the establishment of specific rights for an individual or group.

3) Etymologically, the name derives from the verb to posit. The concept of positive law is distinct from natural law, which comprises inherent [law of nature] rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by God, nature or reason.

4) Positive law is also described as the law that applies at a certain time (present or past) at a certain place, consisting of statutory law, and case law as far as it is binding. More specifically, positive law may be characterized as “[L]aw actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society.

→ A statute = man-made law = law of people = defining what citizens are to ‘be’ (free, fair, honest, etc.), to ‘do’ (equal justice, equal opportunity, etc.), and to ‘have’ (equal rights, opportunity to pursue abundance etc.).

→ Natural law = the foundation of all positive laws. The reality of ‘nature’ precedes and informs the purpose of ‘law’. It is ‘nature law’ which informs current and future ‘posit law’, not vice versa.

- 327 -

Natural Law · Positive Law

Original Genesis · Original Intent

Law · Law

Article II · Article I

Natural Law · Positive Law

Law of Nature · Law of People

Original Genesis · Original Intent

Citizen by Birth · Citizen by Words

Citizen by Nature · Citizen by People

Natural Law Birth · Positive Law Oath

Natural Citizen · Naturalized Citizen

Nature Law Birth · People Law Oath

‘act of congress’ · Act of Congress

Nature Genesis · People Intent

Genesis Law · Intent Law

Article II · Article I

Law · Law

For Eligibility to be President Natural Law Genesis Informs Positive Law Intent

Consider this grammar example of ‘positive law’ which relates to understanding (intent) and behavior (function), and ‘natural law’ which influences being (identity) and informs function (intent, purpose) of positive law — ‘being’ informs and influences ‘function’ — ‘nature’ law informs and influences ‘people’ law.

The American Heritage Dictionary, in definition #8 for ‘person n.’ has an easy to understand definition of a natural law person which helps to clarify it from positive law function:

(#8) “Grammar a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person)”.

In other words, to codify grammar it is people who define what is a noun, a verb, an adverb, an adjective, etc., and define form and function (punctuation, word order, etc.), and it is nature which defines identity: 1st person ‘I’, 2nd person ‘you’, 3rd person ‘they’). For citizenship and eligibility to be president, positive law (law of people) defines an idea or ideal outcome of a future event which will be considered to be standard, such as birth (nature alone) and citizenship (people decisions). The ‘nature’ law which informs and influences the ‘positive’ law does not inform and influence a ‘posit’ ‘transgender’ — ‘trans’ — identity.

In other words, whatever ‘nature’ is today can’t be ‘posit’ — ‘trans’ — changed tomorrow into something not ‘nature’. That is obvious, right? A ‘positive’ law can’t do what ‘nature’ law can’t do. That is obvious, right?. That makes nature (‘natural’) and people (‘posit’) common sense, right? For citizenship and eligibility to be president, it is obvious that two heterosexual persons is the natural law (law of nature) number of persons that are required to create — ‘generate’ — to be the ‘genesis’ of a ‘natural born’ child, and positive law (law of people) can not change that original genesis natural foundation. That is natural law (law of nature) obvious, right?

Only the natural law (law of nature) ‘union’ of two can produce one. That is a law of nature and not a law of people, right? A natural law (e.g., birth precedes death) is immutable, right? That being true, consider this: immutable natural law (law of nature) is the genesis of the intent of positive law (law of people), and that positive law is also immutable when, and only when, a law of people is based on a law of nature.

How can a law of people be immutable?

When united with an immutable law of nature: The words “…except…natural born Citizen,…or…Citizen…time…adoption” express natural law and positive law in the same sentence separated by a comma.

- 328 -

For eligibility to be president here is the law of nature controlling the law of people legal authority as found in Article II. The law of nature “natural born Citizen” is distinguished from the law of people “...or a Citizen of...time...Adoption...”. The law of people is immutable only until immutable law of nature death brings to an immutable end the Article II “... or a Citizen of ...” eligibility to be president. When is that? It happened already when the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died in the middle 1800s. As long as children are born on U.S. soil with singular U.S. citizenship to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, only ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is immutable for eligibility to be president. Makes sense? Yes.

To help our understanding of eligibility to be president, here are four practical examples of why immutable law of nature is the original genesis foundation which informs a law of people even when that law is changed by another law of people. A ‘law of nature’ can not change a ‘law of nature’. Immutable law of nature birth can not change immutable law of nature death, or vice versa, immutable law of nature death can not change immutable law of nature birth. A natural law (law of nature) birth does inform positive law (law of people) citizenship, and natural law (law of nature) death does change positive law (law of people) citizenship. Physical ‘death’ changes a law of people ‘thing’ (a citizen) into a law of nature ‘no thing’. Right? Well, yes. Why? Because a ‘citizen’, a person who is by death no longer alive, the ‘citizen’ is also not a ‘person’ and is also not a ‘citizen’ by birth alone. Right?

Parents with singular U.S. citizenship (=law of people) can only produce a singular citizenship (=l aw of people) child (=l aw of nature). That is obvious, right?

Parents with singular U.S. citizenship (= law of people) are not able to produce (‘create’) a dual citizenship (= law of people) child (= law of nature). That is obvious, right?

Parents with dual citizenship (= law of people) can only produce a dual citizenship (= law of people) child (= law of nature). That is obvious, right?

Parents with dual citizenship (= law of people) are not able to produce (‘create’) a singular citizenship (= law of people) U.S. child (= law of nature). That is obvious, right?

In other words, for eligibility to be president as written Article II, immutable natural law (law of nature) ‘birth’ is the original ‘genesis’ source which informs the original ‘intent’ of positive law (law of people) ‘citizen’ and ‘Citizen’.

Opposite Words and Kinds of Words

Opposite words, as written by someone somewhen somewhere, are meaningful: “... in our relative world one can better understand the meaning of a word by understanding its opposite”. We can also understand different kinds of word by understanding how they are different and how they are associated (e.g. birth and citizen, and birth and death). Consider three easy to understand examples about life/birth and death, not related to eligibility to be president and the immutable reality that the last “… or a Citizen of …” died in the 1800s:

1) a) life, b) no life, both reflect law of nature.

2) a) birth, b) death, both reflect law of nature.

3) a) life continues after death, b) death continues after life, both … oops….

Oops, #3 doesn’t work, both parts do not reflect law of nature and law of people.

Both parts do not reflect law of nature reality, and definitely not ‘trans’ unreality.

Q1 Which answer/s below do not reflect law of nature, A1 or A2 or A3 or A4?

A1 a) life continues after death, [ ] yes [ ] no

1 b) death continues after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

A2 a) life continues after life ends, [ ] yes [ ] no

2 b) not living continues after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

A3 a) life does not continue after death, [ ] yes [ ] no

3 b) death does not continue after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

A4 a) life does not continue after life ends, [ ] yes [ ] no

4 b) not living does not continue after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

- 329 -

Q2 Which answer below does reflect law of nature, A5 or A6 or A7 or A8?

A5 a) life continues after death, [ ] yes [ ] no

5 b) death continues after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

A6 a) life continues after life ends, [ ] yes [ ] no

6 b) not living continues after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

A7 a) life does not continue after death, [ ] yes [ ] no

7 b) death does not continue after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

A8 a) life does not continue after life ends, [ ] yes [ ] no1

8 b) not living does not continue after life returns = at resurrection. [ ] yes [ ] no

An example of opposite words: life and death are immutable natural law (law of nature) opposites which are independent of each other while they are associated with each other by the law of nature order in which they happen. For eligibility to be president, the contrast is not between ‘life’ and ‘death’ but between birth and death. For eligibility to be president, they are associated in the same sense that inhaling air is independent of exhaling air, but exhalation of air is definitely dependent on inhalation of air first, the law of nature order in which they happen. According to the law of nature which came first, inhalation of air or exhalation of air? Yes, the chicken or egg origin genesis association is intended.

An example of kinds of words, consider ‘born’ (law of nature) and ‘citizen’ (law of people). A ‘birth’ is immutable natural law (law of nature) and ‘citizen’ is also immutable when acquired either by birth alone under Article II or at birth under Article I naturalization statutes passed by Congress. The only way that a U.S. “natural born Citizen” by birth alone or a U.S. ‘citizen’ at birth or by naturalization can lose immutable U.S. citizenship is when they renounce their U.S. citizenship. If both kinds of citizens (a ‘citizen’ or a ‘Citizen’) want to repatriate they can do so only as naturalized citizens. Both words, ‘born’ and ‘citizen’, are also independent of each other, except for one key fact. For eligibility to be president, the ‘kind’ of birth (by birth alone to two U.S. citizens, or ‘at birth’ to one or zero U.S. citizens) informs the ‘kind’ of citizen which is intended, a “natural born Citizen” or ‘citizen’.

While the Article I U.S. Congress in the 2000s is not able to retroactively change the language of previous immigration and naturalization acts which determine citizenship status (e.g., the citizenship status of Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is defined only by the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act), the 2000s Congress can change previous law of people ‘citizenship at birth’ statutes with new legislation (1790, 1795, 1802, 1855, 1952 etc.).

For eligibility to be president the 2000s Congress also is not able to change by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born as implied by the original birthers in Article II. Not implied by the original birthers in 1787 and into perpetuity was dual U.S. citizenship with at birth naturalization laws passed by Congress (law of people), and also not implied by the 1787 original birthers was the ‘opinion’ naturalization of Wong Kim Ark by the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court (law of people). Mutable law of people ‘citizen’ can be affected by new mutable law of people which can change the intent of words as determined by a previous law of people. All positive law (law of people) can be affected by immutable death. Mutable positive law (law of people) words such as ‘citizen’ are not able to change immutable natural law (law of nature) words such as ‘born’. Both nature and law do not work that way. It is natural law (law of nature) which determines the intent of positive law (law of people).

Another practical example of how opposites are meaningful is the obvious immutable law of nature ‘fact’ that it takes two heterosexual persons to produce one child (birth of twins is a different, uh, ‘issue’). It takes two U.S. citizens married only to each other with singular U.S. citizenship to ‘create’ one U.S. citizen child with singular U.S. citizenship.

Either/Or? Only/Both?

In 1787 the original genesis implicit intent of the word ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen” that the original birthers used to define the U.S. citizenship status of a child for eligibility to be president was associated with only one thing, 1) either only two U.S. citizen parents, 2) or only one U.S. citizen parent. It’s one or the other. It’s not neither and it’s not both. Right?

- 330 -

Both/And? Both/Or?

In 1787 it could not have been the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers who adopted Article II that both the birth place (soil) of a child and the citizenship status of both birth parents (blood) did not matter to them for eligibility to be president, and it also could not have been their implicit intent that either birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil was their original genesis implicit intent for their own posterity from generation to generation. Right?

7 Obvious Eligibility Points

1) A child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other is a 1787 Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship, and so is eligible to be president.

2) A child born to two U.S. citizens on foreign soil was identified by the 1795 naturalization act as a ‘citizen’, and identified by the 1952 (and updates) nationality act as a ‘citizen’ with singular U.S. citizenship. Since it is a naturalization act which makes a ‘citizen’, a naturalized ‘citizen’ is not eligible to be president.

3) A child born to zero or one U.S. citizen on U.S. soil is (according to the fiat naturalization ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ at birth by ‘naturalization’, and so is not eligible to be president.

4) A child born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen and one foreign citizen is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizen with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship, and so is not eligible to be president.

5) A child born on foreign soil to one citizen parent after the 1952 (and updates) nationality act is a U.S. citizen with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship, and so is not eligible to be president.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] (clauses ‘a’, ‘f’, ‘g’)

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth [notice not ‘by’ birth]:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof: […]

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person; [...]

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States; […]

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was….

INA: Title III – Chapter 1 – Nationality At Birth And By Collective Naturalization

→ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html

INA: ACT 301 – Nationals And Citizens Of The United States At Birth - Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]

→ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375

6) A child born to zero U.S. citizens on U.S. soil is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizen with dual citizenship with eligibility to vote but not eligible to be president. However, some living constitutionism neobirthers assert with absolutely no original sources that an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ born with either zero or one U.S. citizen is also eligible to be president. This incoherent connection between eligibility to vote and eligibility to be president for persons born to either zero or one U.S. citizens will continue until – until – until – until – until Congress and the Supreme Court finally WAKE UP!!!

7) Some constitution experts have been promoting for years the idea that children born on foreign soil to two parents who are not U.S. citizens should be grandfathered into eligibility to be president when adopted by two married U.S. citizens. A child born to zero U.S. citizen parents on foreign soil is not a U.S. citizen and so is not eligible to be president either before or after adoption for one common sense ‘legal’ reason. Grandfathering into eligibility to be president is another way of the Congress naturalizing a ‘citizen’. A naturalized citizen is not eligible to be president.

- 331 -

#1 is obvious for eligibility to be president. Yes to only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

#2 is obvious for not being eligible to be president. Yes to singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizen parents but no to being a ‘citizen’ at birth on foreign soil.

#3-#5 are obvious for not being eligible to be president. Yes to birth on U.S. soil but no to dual citizenship because of not being born to two U.S. citizens.

#6 and #7 are also obvious. Parents with zero U.S. citizenship are not able to ‘create’ a U.S. ‘citizen’. Being grandfathered = being naturalized by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ into U.S. citizenship by either an Article I Congress ‘statute’ or the Article III Supreme Court. Being grandfathered / naturalized with Article II presidential eligibility is incoherent and illogical. Right? Also, for eligibility to be president, original birthers John Jay and George Washington and all of the constitutional constitution original birther delegates definitely would not have had a future 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about zero U.S. citizens in mind as the implicit reason for putting the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II for eligibility to be president, or for even being a U.S. ‘citizen’. Some conclusions are just sooooo obvious, right?

Congress and the Supreme Court must get their Fourteenth Amendment act together to overturn the silly and incoherent 1898 Supreme Court Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ which has resulted in the ‘birthright citizenship’ nonsense of a legal or illegal alien who crosses the border to ‘plop and drop’ one ‘anchor baby’ per year who is born on U.S. soil and is naturalized by the ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Court as a U.S. citizen even when one or two of the parents are not ‘legal’ citizens, or they are legal or illegal alien ‘visitors’. A child naturalized ‘at birth’ (not ‘by’ birth, only ‘at’ birth) by the 1898 ‘opinion’ of the Article III U.S. Supreme Court is distinguished from ‘at birth’ (not ‘by’ birth, only ‘at’ birth) by a naturalization act of the Article I bicameral U.S. Congress. Consider this to clarify the point: The Legislatures of the ‘several States’ do not have Article V authority to propose Article I naturalization ‘laws’ or Article III fiat (‘because we said so’) opinions.

Hmm, let’s see. The two parents may or may not be ‘legal’ visitors, but (but !? !? !?) the child is a ‘legal’ citizen? Huh? Why? Because the parents entered the U.S. ‘legally’? What if the alien parents did something ‘illegal’ and managed to ‘break and enter’ and ‘plop and drop’ an ‘anchor baby’ in our country/home?

AMERICA, tell the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court to WAKE UP!!! and correct this silly nonsense of alien parents who are or are not ‘legal’ visitors but their ‘anchor baby’ is a ‘legal’ U.S. ‘citizen’ by Supreme Court fiat ‘opinion’, so now the children will not only be eligible to vote but will also be eligible to be president? Huh???.

I sometimes wonder if that ‘ fiat opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court is why Florida Senator Marco Rubio, South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal thought in 2016 that they were eligible to be president. The three were born on U.S. soil to two married parents who were not U.S. citizens, either by birth or by naturalization, before their children were born. Since the three ‘anchor babies’ were never asked about their understanding of ‘birthright citizenship’, Article II, and eligibility to be president, they never had to clarify their understanding during their 2016 presidential campaigns of the similarity or contrast between an Article III Supreme Court ‘ fiat opinion’ and an Article V constitution amendment, and how those two Articles relate to Article II “natural born Citizen”. So, I still wonder. Do they know the difference? Well, maybe after reading this table talk conversation they will.

Persons born on the soil of one of the 13 American colonies before July 4, 1776 were considered by the revolutionaries to be a ‘citizen’ on July 4, 1776 by naturalization which came with independence. They were designated an “… or a Citizen of ...” the states. “[O]r a Citizen” did not mean the same thing as “natural born Citizen” in 1787 in Article II. On July 4, 1776, a person was considered to be a naturalized ‘citizen’ if born to British ‘subjects’ who adhered to the successful conclusion of the war of independence from England.

The July 4, 1776 citizen naturalized (a law of people word) by the war of independence, and the 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” (“or” and “Citizen” = law of people words) were the same ‘kind’ of ‘citizen’. A ‘citizen’ by the declaration (a law of people word) of the constitutional convention delegates. They were not an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth to two U.S. citizen parents (“two” = law of nature necessity). The ‘natural born subjects’ of England living in the thirteen colonies who were born before July 4, 1776 were grandfathered into ‘”… or ...” presidential eligibility “… at that time … Adoption ...” on September 17, 1787 because they were already living according to the “... or a Citizen of ...” words of Article II.

- 332 -

1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5

Article II (a law of people) has the 1787 language for eligibility to be president: 1) the permanent “natural born Citizen” and 2) the temporary “… or a Citizen of … time ...” until the last “...or a Citizen of ...” died in the middle 1800s.

1790 Naturalization Act

The 1790 Naturalization Act (a law of people) applied the three positive law (law of people) words “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) to children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens.

In the language of the 1790 Act, “natural born citizen” was applied to a person ‘born’ (a law of nature activity) on foreign soil (a law of nature necessity) to two (a law of nature necessity) U.S. citizens married (those are three law of people words) only to each other. The implication of the 1790 language is that a child born to two U.S. citizens would also be eligible to be president. The three words were repealed in 1795 and replaced with the single word ‘citizen’, a word which implies not being eligible to be president.

1795 Naturalization Act

The 1795 Naturalization Act (a law of people) applied the ‘citizen’ (lower case ‘c’) word to children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens with the implication that they were not eligible to be president.

1868 Fourteenth Amendment

The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (a law of people) codified (and tacitly, implicitly applied) the ‘citizen’ status for persons born on U.S. soil to one or two U.S. citizens but not for children born to alien parents. The authors of the amendment would not have intended the implication that children born on U.S. soil to alien parents would also qualify as “... born or naturalized ... are citizens”. Instead the authors would have stated explicitly that children born to alien parents are also U.S. citizens but they would not be eligible to vote.

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (Sec. 301. 8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)) (a law of people) codified the ‘citizen’ status for persons born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen.

Law of Nature Right of Self Defense · Law of People Second Amendment

The 2nd Amendment (a law of people) “… right ... keep ... bear arms … shall not be infringed …” is an example of a law of nature which is the basis of a law of people as written by the elected members of the legislature. The law of nature ‘right’ of self defense was codified by a law of people for the benefit of the people, the law of nature people. Not law of people people, but law of nature people.

Confusion Between Original Genesis Birth and Original Intent Citizenship

The confusion about the tension between original genesis and the 1787 Article II implicit original intent regarding eligibility to be president is easy to understand and to explain. The confusion historically has been about how birth informs citizen and eligibility to be president.

When John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington in which he said that the command of the army (and implicitly eligibility to be president) should only devolve on (be passed to) a “natural born Citizen” (Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in his “hint” to Washington), how many U.S. ‘citizen’ parents was Jay implying are necessary (zero?, one?, two?), and how many ‘citizen’ parents did the constitutional convention delegates imply in Article II are necessary (zero?, one?, two?) to produce (‘create’) a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president?

The issue is about the association of original genesis natural law (law of nature) birth by a physical act of congress of two 1787 heterosexual parents ‘legally’ only married to each other and the implicit original intent of positive law (law of people) citizen. The tension concerning who is eligible to be president is between the positive law (law of people) written by the living original birther delegates on behalf of We the People and for their own ‘posterity’ not yet living (and only the ‘posterity’ of U.S. ‘citizens’ by either birth or naturalization, not ‘anchor babies’ with ‘birthright citizenship’), and natural law (law of nature) that is inherent to existence from zygote (one-celled embryo) conception to and through cell division gestation to birth and through life until death, all examples of the law of nature which is not dependent on a law of people.

- 333 -

A Self-Defense Example of Natural Law

Next is an example of why natural law (law of nature) determines the explicit and implicit intent of a positive law (law of people). Natural law (‘self defense’) is affirmed by positive law (‘keep and bear arms’) which is written about what already exists before it is codified with text which is written into law by people. The law of nature ‘right’ of self-defense is inherent to our physical existence, such as ‘fight or flight’ to protect ourselves from an aggressor against our physical bodies. The law of nature “right” to use our physical fists (with or without dirt or rocks or knives or guns) or our physical feet (to kick or run) to physically defend ourselves is in “political” tension with a law of people which may be written by legislators to prohibit or allow the physical weapons that citizens can hold in clenched fists (dirt or rocks or knives or guns, etc.), and which may also mention the philosophical weapons for self defense such as freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom to not be a witness against ourselves.

We the People with common sense want to defend the law of people Second Amendment and the law of nature ‘right’ of self-defense for all people. All persons, U.S. citizens or not, have the law of nature human ‘right’ to ‘keep and bear arms’ on the basis of the law of nature ‘right’ of self-defense of all people, inherent in and obvious by the fact of their physical existence. That is an easy to understand explanation of natural law (law of nature) and why it precedes, informs, and is the foundation of positive law (law of people) which may be written by a legislature to protect the immutable primacy of law of nature existence and the inherent law of nature ‘right’ of self defense.

The positive law of the people in Article II about being born a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president has as its only purpose to protect and defend the law of nature of existence itself, specifically, in the context of clause 5, to protect and defend the ‘Union’ by allowing only a singular U.S. citizen child only born on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born. That is how easy it is to define and clarify which type of ‘citizen’ is eligible to be president.

A Helpful Wikipedia Explanation of Natural Law (Law of Nature)

→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

“Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis), is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal.

“Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.

“Natural law is classically contrasted with the positive law of a given political community, society, or state, and thus serves as a standard by which to criticize said positive law.

“In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law requires some reference to natural law.

“On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best interpretation of the law itself.

“Some scholars use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), while others distinguish between natural law and natural right.”

Determined by Nature

Put your arms up and clench your fists. That is a physical expression of the natural law (law of nature) right of self-defense, determined by nature, and is inherent in existence itself which does not need positive law (law of people) to be natural law (law of nature).

1) Open your fist and extend a finger as if you are threatening to stick it in the eye of an aggressor.

2) Open your fist and pick up some dirt and hold the dirt as if you are threatening to throw it into the eyes of an aggressor.

3) Open your fist and pick up a stick or a screw driver or a knife or a fork or a pencil and hold it tight with your hand as if you are threatening to use it against an aggressor.

4) Open your fist and pick up a rock or a handgun and hold it tight with your hand as if threatening to use it against an aggressor.

- 334 -

*Self-defense can be accomplished by flight and not fight, or fight and not flight.

*Self-defense can be accomplished with empty and clenched fists to fight against an aggressor.

*Self-defense can be accomplished with clenched fists holding a weapon to fight an aggressor.

*Self-defense can be accomplished with clenched fists to throw dirt at the eyes of an aggressor.

*Self-defense can be accomplished with rock, club, arrow, spear, knife, fork, pencil, handgun, rifle.

*Self-defense by a nation of individuals is natural law (law of nature) reasonable, and the common sense to not use a nuclear weapon or a suitcase bomb or chemicals or chlorine gas, etc. = this is reasonable.

*Self-defense by an individual is natural law (law of nature) reasonable, but the knee-jerk prohibition to not use a handgun with a large magazine or a shotgun or an AR-15 rifle, etc. = this is not reasonable.

Natural law (law of nature) is inherent in physical existence itself. The ‘right’ of self-defense is determined by nature, and obviously is not able to be determined by a law of people. The law of nature ‘right’ of self-defense makes no distinction between the weapons used to protect your physical existence, whether or not the weapons exist by law of nature such as finger, dirt, rock, or are recognized by law of people legislation such as “... right … keep ... bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. Any physical weapon can be an extension of the physical body such as a hand full of dirt, a stick, a rock, a knife, a gun. Self-defense can be with either a finger, which is a part of your physical body, or dirt which, although it does not need to be manufactured, obviously is not a part of your physical body, or a gun which does need to be manufactured and is not a part of your physical body.

A Grizzly Tale About the Law of Nature

Consider the mama grizzly bear if you’re still not sure about law of nature and that which is inherent by existence, the unalienable right of self-defense and the right to use a weapon in the hand whether it is made by humans or not made by humans such as the teeth of a mama grizzly, and whether or not it is recognized as legal or is outlawed by law of people. Can you imagine a legislature in its right mind writing a law of people to outlaw the law of nature right of a mama grizzly to use her law of nature teeth to protect herself or her cubs? Just try to touch the cubs of a wild mama grizzly bear. She will give you a law of nature growl and make a very loud law of nature noise, and if that doesn’t stop you from touching her cubs, she will express her law of nature right of self-defense and try to take a law of nature swipe at you with her law of nature claws. If she can, mama grizzly will law of nature bite you with her law of nature teeth. If you express your law of nature right to run she will express her law of nature right to chase you and scatter some law of nature dirt. That is what ‘determined by nature’ means to a mama grizzly bear. That is what ‘determined by nature’ meant to the authors of the law of people Second Amendment law of nature right when it was ratified in 1791.

Natural Law Informs Original Genesis Birth and Citizen Intent

People who are against keeping the Second Amendment which was included in the Constitution with permanent intent use their own law of nature ‘right’ to promote eradication of the Second Amendment. So, who are their opponents? Defenders of the Second Amendment who want to protect their own law of nature ‘right’ to promote retaining their ‘right’ of self-defense.

1) On what basis does the self-defense law of nature ‘right’ of one group of citizens trump the law of nature ‘right’ of another group?

2) On what basis does the law of nature ‘right’ of defenders of the Second Amendment trump the law of nature ‘right’ of those who oppose the Second Amendment?

3) On what basis does the law of nature ‘right’ of those who oppose the Second Amendment trump the law of nature ‘right’ of those who want to keep the Second Amendment?

4) On what basis does the law of nature ‘right’ of individualists trump the law of nature ‘right’ of collectivists who want all people to not be free to keep and bear arms?

5) On what basis does the law of nature ‘right’ of collectivists trump the law of nature ‘right’ of individualists who want all people to be free to keep and bear arms?

- 335 -

Which natural law (law of nature) presupposition inspired the 1791 authors of the first U.S. Congress in the first administration of President George Washington to write the language of the positive law (law of people) Second Amendment ‘right’ in defense of a law of nature ‘right’ of self-defense? The law of nature which inspired the original intent of the original birthers, the original authors of the first ten amendments, to write the law of people Second Amendment was obviously their own physical existence and their daily living experience. Both ‘existence’ and ‘experience’ are law of nature references and are not codifiable by any law of people written by any legislature anywhere on earth. That law of nature daily living ‘experience’ of the first Congress delegates who adopted the first ten amendments in 1791 was the living ‘source’ which produced the law of nature ‘thought’ that a law of people was necessary to protect what is inherent to ‘existence’ itself, the law of nature ‘right’ of self-defense. A law of nature ‘right’ to keep and bear arms was the source of the law of people Second Amendment.

Individualism vs. Collectivism

The original intent of the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence and the September 17, 1787 adoption of the U.S. Constitution was to have a free republic of free individuals. Right? The original intent was not a commune republic, uh, I mean, not a commune democracy, not a collectivist republic, uh, I mean, not a collectivist democracy. Right? The original intent in 1787 America was not collective freedom from want (need) as is implied in a commune of ‘equals’ with ‘equity’ for all. Right? The original intent of the original birthers in 1787 America was not collectivist freedom to want (desire) to be free from want (need) which the commune(ist) promoters assert offers ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ for all. Right? The original intent of the original birthers in 1787 America was individual(ist) freedom to want (desire) to pursue a want (desire) to be free from want (need) if that is what they wanted (desired). That is obvious, right?

The original intent of 1700s to 2000s collectivists (liberals – progressives – internationalists – globalists) was the freedom to unite in a collective of a more perfect union/commune of, uh, equals who are free from want (need). The perpetual intent of commune collectivism is ‘equal’ freedom from want (need). That means ‘equal’ freedom to unite the collectivist commune into being the only provider of what the commune ‘thought leaders’ say that ‘equal’ individuals ‘need’ daily to avoid ‘want’ and to have the ‘need’ to be fulfilled by the collectivist commune providing freedom from ‘want’ by supplying all of their daily needs.

Individualism is coherent and rational because it promotes freedom of equality of opportunity and equality to be exceptional, and promotes equity with ab increase of freedom of results.

Collectivism is incoherent and irrational because it results in freedom from equality of opportunity and from inequality of results, and it promotes equity with a limit to freedom to be exceptional.

The promise of collective freedom from want (need) is a ruse by collectivist ‘thought leaders’ who simply want (desire and need for self-gratification) control over the commune. The collectivists want two things: (1) to control those who want to be free from want (need), and (2) to control those who want to be free to want (desire) to be free to own and control more property than the neighbor may want to own or wants others to own. If everybody is dependent on the collective ‘thought leaders’ to provide freedom from want (desire), then they all are equal. Right? If everybody does not own private property and they are happy they all are equal. Right?

If citizens are not free to want (desire) to own more property than their fellow citizens want (desire and need) for themselves, and they demand for their fellow citizens to submit to their collectivist vision, well, then some citizens are definitely not free. That is obvious, right? That is 2000s collectivist commune ‘freedom’ from want and desire which leads to submission to inequitable (not just,, fair) inequality. Individualism promotes freedom to want and desire excellence which results in ‘equitable’ (just, impartial, fair) ‘inequality’.

Right of Property and Property of Rights

The commune theme of equity and equality is expressed like this: “the essence of communism is the elimination of private property”. The essence of the commune collectivist way of thinking is equality by eliminating ownership of private property. That is the essence of what the 2000s ideological children of 1800s collectivist true believers are really trying to do – “fundamentally transform the United States of America” by (re)educating individualists with ‘struggle’ sessions to force submission to the collectivist idea of freedom from want (desire) which results in ‘inequality’, which means to be not free to own physical and intellectual property. The commune ‘transformers’ want to eliminate the ‘right of property’ and the ‘property of rights’.

- 336 -

To put it in other words, the ‘transformers’ want to promote the ‘great re-set’ of public private partnership (public private cooperation) where citizens (‘subjects’???) will own nothing and will be happy. A ‘public private partnership / cooperation’ is the essence of fascism. The association of ‘public private’ with ‘own nothing’ is the essence of communism which results in an amalgamation, a ‘trans’ — ‘formed’ hybrid, a ‘new world order union’ of neo-nazi fascism and neo-marxist communism with ‘thought leaders’ who ‘know’ that what their submissive “subjects” really need, uh, I mean, really want (desire) is freedom from want (need).

The ‘right of property’ and the ‘property of rights’ means that ‘free’ people have the natural law (law of nature) inherent right to own their property and to own their rights. The human right to own personal property and the human inherent right to own personal thoughts contrary to the ‘transformers’ of America, the collectivist ‘thought leaders’ (i.e., thought police with their struggle sessions) and their incessant demands to submit to their purity of thought agenda which will usher into existence a world at peace, peace without opposition. That is what commune collectivists want (desire) for the ‘subjects’. That is not what community individualists want (desire) for themselves and for the collectivists.

Collectivism: Freedom From Freedom

The ‘…collectivist vision of freedom to be not free to own private property’ can also be expressed as collectivist freedom from freedom which can take many ‘choice’ forms. Here are nine, but there are many, many more: 1) health care choice, 2) light bulb choice, 3) toilet water tank size choice, 4) soda size choice, 5) school choice, 6) birth choice, 7) life choice, 8) not fund abortion choice, 9) womb to tomb choice. Collectivist freedom from choice (for those lucky enough to exit the womb tomb) means to be totally free from want (need). This freedom from want (need) will result in being not free to choose what we want (desire); essentially this is freedom from desire. To be free from desire sounds like it could be made into a ‘brave new world’ movie which Augustine, a Christian who died about 1,600 years ago, might agree with if he were alive today.

The 9 choices listed are current examples in 2000s America of collectivist tyranny masquerading as ‘freedom’ and not only will you own nothing, you will be happy – or else you will be sent to a reeducation camp for the good of the commune society of submissive ‘subjects’. 2000s collectivist freedom from want (need or desire) is ‘choice’ tyranny. To be free today in the collectivist commune from want (need) will result tomorrow in being totally free from choice about what we want (desire).

Individualism: Freedom To Be Free

What has individualist freedom been from the time in the 1800s when the Communist Manifesto was written in the middle of the 19th century (c. 1850s) until today in the 2000s? Personal individualist freedom is to be free to want (desire) to strive, to acquire, to control, to own, and to own as much property as is wanted (desired) or to be free to not want (desire) to own any private property if that is what is wanted (desired). Period. That is freedom, not tyranny. That is obvious, right?

Core Philosophical Issue: Individual Rights Responsibility vs. Collective Rights Responsibility

This ‘freedom from freedom’ analysis includes a comment by MSNBC personality Melissa Harris-Perry about ‘individual rights’ and ‘collective responsibility’. Her “we built this” and “private … public” comments are implicit references to presidential candidate Obama’s famous comment about the future of America,, “… we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”.

Melissa Harris-Perry: “Our Children Are Not Our Private Property”

The Melissa Harris-Perry transcript is 2 minutes 33 seconds of a 13 minute monologue. The 2013 video was originally on NBC with a link to it on TheBlaze.com. → http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/13/melissa-harris-perry-i-stand-by-kids-belong-to-whole-communities-msnbc-promo

“But I believe our children are not our private property.

“They are not just extensions of ourselves.

“They are independent, individual beings.

“Allow me to quote the poet Kahlil Gibran”.

‘Your children are not your children.

‘They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.

‘They come through you but not from you.

‘And though they are with you yet they belong not to you’.

- 337 -

[My comment about “Kahlil Gibran” and “… through … from ...”]

The Kahlil Gibran words “... come through you ... not from you ...” refer implicitly to a belief system which promotes the idea of the preexistence of the soul before the existence of the body. ‘Preexistence’ also implies a coming into physical existence (‘creation’) of a human body that is not unique to being a human individual born (‘created’) by the physical union of two heterosexual human beings. According to another belief system which does not accept the preexistence of souls which (‘who’?) are available and waiting to inhabit a body, the coming into existence (‘creation’) of body / soul / spirit is possible only by birth alone after the physical union of two heterosexual human beings who also did not preexist before their human existence with body / soul / spirit. The words ‘belief system’ is a reference to Judaism and Christianity, not to atheism, although the three belief systems, Judaism, Christianity, and ‘atheism’ (‘a’ = no = no theism, no deity / god / God), the three belief systems (three points of view) do not believe in the preexistence of souls before existence of bodies. Sometimes reality (no preexistence of souls) results in unusual agreements, right? [End of comment]

Melissa Harris-Perry [cont.]

“But, listen, this is an existential argument, one on which reasonable people can disagree.

“And one which has been more influential in poetry than in policy.

“And, honestly, remote philosophical debate rarely drives relentless news cycles. Unless.

“Unless it is the core philosophical issue of our entire history.

“The balance between individual rights and the collective responsibilities.

“And that is my bet about what is happening.

“This isn’t about me wanting to take your kids.

“Ant this isn’t about whether children are property.

“This is about whether we as a society expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge on individual freedoms in order to advance a common good.”

[My comment about “collective will”]

Candidate Obama’s words mentioned previously, “... we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America ...”, and Harris-Perry’s words mentioned above, “... collective will ... have a right to impinge on individual freedom ...”, represent implicitly a socialism / communism / fascism mindset, the ‘superiorist’ idea that the imposition by law of ‘equitable equality’ (‘equitable equality…’ Huh???) in commune collectivism is morally superior to freedom of individual excellence, and ‘equitable inequality’ (yes, inequality distributed equitably by individualist free ‘choice’) in a free community which encourages equitable individualism. This is why, to globalist ‘trans’ formers, ‘individualism’ is bad and ‘collectivism’ is good — for the greater good of the global society:

= the collective is moral because it is for equitable equality, and it trumps the immoral and inequitable inequality of individualism

= collective equality is moral and trumps immoral individual excellence and inequality

= collective freedom from inequality trumps individual freedom to be unequal

= equality trumps inequality which comes from excellence

= collective equality trumps individual excellence and inequality

= collective conformity trumps individual freedom (that is what the transformers ‘feel’) [End of comment]

Melissa Harris-Perry [cont.]

“And that is exactly the fight that we have been having for a couple of hundred years. Even in this last election [2012], when underneath the layers of the ‘we built this’ meme, was the question of who we are as Americans. Are we a loosely affiliated group of boot-strapped individuals or are we a people tied to one another through collective responsibility to care for our young, our elderly, our poor, even our infrastructure?

- 338 -

“It’s an old question, but one that gained renewed meaning, after the financial collapse of 2007 left many asking whether the invisible hand of the market was enough or whether we need the joined hands of a robust social safety net to catch us when we fall.

“So, this debate is not about me, but it is about us. It is about all of our major issues currently on our political agenda, because, what is a budget debate if not a conversation about finding the balance between our rights and responsibilities. Between our private earnings and our public investments. Our ability to use our household resources to do our very best for our own children, and the imperative that we use some of those resources to support children whose households have less than ours. Or, as conservative thinkers might argue, the need to balance between our desires today and our need to preserve the promise of the American dream for future generations, because our kids, who will inherit our nation, belong to all of us, and we have a collective responsibility to them.”

The Debate is Not About Me, It is About Us

The words “debate … not about me … about us” are Melissa’s way of directing conversation away from individual freedom within the individualist community of equals free to want (desire) more, and directing the conversation toward collective freedom that comes from equality within the collectivist community of equals who are free to want (need) less, not free to want (desire) more. That means individuals within the collective are free from want (need) because the ‘thought leaders’ have provided for every want (need). So, eat your food and be quiet and submit, serf, for the equitable greater good of the commune of equals.

The word ‘within’ the individualist community and ‘within’ the collectivist commune may sound similar but the ends are different. Yes, the debate as articulated in Perry’s monologue is definitely not about the individual person named Melissa speaking on her MSNBC television show. Melissa’s “not about me” comment is implying that the debate is also not about you who choose to be an unequal individual within the community of we are already equal individuals. The individualist in 1787 was not fighting for a new idea of an equitable ‘commune’ of equality for all individuals living without want, either need or desire as expressed in the great reset meme of owning nothing and being happy serfs, uh, I mean, submissive subjects, and neither is the individualist in 2000s America.

Collectivists like Melissa can not bring forward for discussion the original genesis intent of the delegates working collectively as individuals who adopted the Constitution on September 17, 1787, so Melissa’s 2013 collectivist focus on the individualist freedom to want (desire) is bad because it is not equitable (fair) vs. the collectivist freedom from want (need) is good because it is equitable is itself really a debate about the ‘us’ of 2000s America where the collectivist We the People are considered by the collectivist ‘transformers of America’ to be progressive and enlightened, and are more noble than the individualist We the People who formed a “... more perfect union ...” for only their ‘posterity’ generation to generation, not for legal or illegal aliens who ‘plop and drop’ their ‘anchor babies’ which 2000s neobirther ‘transformers’ assert with a straight face is the implicit intent in the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ about ‘birthright citizenship’, and, which they also assert with a straight face, is the implicit intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words “... born or naturalized ... are citizens...”.

Collectivists try to control and direct the conversation away from individualist freedom to be, by choice, unequal in the community of equals and towards the progressive collectivist freedom to be, by choice, equal in the commune of equals by ‘transforming’ the original language of “me and us” which is implicit in “WE the [individual] People ... more perfect Union [of individualists]” into their collectivist version of ‘us’ which they assert with a straight face is implicit in “WE the [collective] People ... more perfect Union [of collectivists]”. What collectivists are attempting to do is to transform America from an individualist ‘charter of negative liberties’ (what the government can not do to or for citizens or aliens) into a collectivist ‘charter of positive liberties’ (what the government can and must do to and for citizens and aliens).

For those who may not agree with the implications of the collectivist ‘me’ / ‘us’ (or me / we) in the previous paragraph, all they need to do is ask the Black Lives Matter and Antifa ideological ‘thought leaders’ what they intend for America and the entire globe, including what they intend for the Muslim ummah (commune). It will be either the Muslims or the Marxists who will win that globalist, internationalist, ideological struggle session. For example, consider the name ‘Antifa’. Both Black Lives Matter and Antifa are marxist groups, and Antifa intends to live up to its name — they are anti-fascist because they are pro marxist, they are communists. And if anyone, you, me, we, us are not communists like them, well, that obviously means that you, me, we, us are fascists and Antifa is against you, me, we, us. That makes sense, right? Well, no, but to cultural marxists it makes implicit sense.

- 339 -

No! Individualists do not accept the premise that the ‘debate’ is about the collectivist ‘us’ for one obvious reason: history. WE the [individualist] People started the community of equals to be “free and independent states” on July 4, 1776, and codified equality and freedom to be unequal implicitly with the language of the September 17, 1787 Constitution so that the free individuals of the ‘united’ community could pursue their own wants (desires). The 1787 original birthers did not want (need or desire) to have the collectivist commune provide for the wants (needs) of individuals from womb to tomb, or, as it used to be said before Roe v. Wade in 1973, from cradle to grave. In a community of individuals who are free to want (desire), the eternal truth is that every free community depends on individuals who do not depend on the collective understanding of ‘me’ vs. ‘us/we’ to provide ‘me’ / ‘we’, the individuals of We the People, some airy fairy freedom from want (need) which ultimately affects in a negative way the individual freedom to want (desire) to be unequal in an equitable (just, impartial, fair) community / society.

The collective conscience ideal commune of Karl Marx which inspires the collective conscience ideal commune of Melissa Harris-Perry, Barack Hussein Obama and other ‘thought leaders’ of the collective in offering and providing by force of positive law (law of people) an airy fairy freedom from want (need) from womb to tomb, is really mandating collectivist freedom from individualist freedom, freedom which is inherent to being human and natural law (law of nature) to want (desire) to be free, unequal, excellent in intent while knowing that some will be equitably excellent and unequal by choice, by hard work, and with results which, by the law of nature, show their equitable, even if it is unequal, it shows their excellence. There’s nothing wrong with being, by choice, excellent, right?

Is ‘freedom from freedom’ (collective freedom from individual freedom) what WE the [individualist] People in 2000s America want?

No! The ideological debate is not about independent individuals with free consciousness submitting to the dependent collective with submissive collective consciousness.

Yes! The ideological debate is about the dependent collective consciousness of the collectivist commune submitting to the community of independent individuals with free consciousness.

No! The ideological debate is not about the collective.

Yes! The ideological debate is about the individual.

No! The debate is not about the COLLECTIVIST consciousness and COLLECTIVE freedom from inequality, inequity, and want (need).

Yes! The debate is about the INDIVIDUALIST consciousness and INDIVIDUAL freedom to want (desire) to be free, unequal, excellent, and, by choice, equitable results.

Independent Individualist Thought vs. Dependent Collectivist Thought

Without individuals it is not possible for a ‘Union’ of individuals to exist. Right?

Without individuals it is not possible for a ‘commune’ of collectivists to exist and promote a collective consciousness ideology to be articulated and promoted by even one ‘individual’. Right?

Melissa “our children are not our private property” Harris-Perry articulates a collectivist ideology about subsuming the individual of a community into the collective to become dependent on the commune meeting the daily wants (needs) of the individual communists (individuals in the commune) from the cradle to the grave.

Without a ‘Union’ of free thinking equitable equality individuals promoting individualism such as you, me, we, us, it is not possible for free thinking equitable equality individuals promoting individualism to exist.

Without free thinking equitable equality individuals promoting collectivism such as Melissa Harris-Perry, President Barack Hussein Obama and other collective ‘transformers’, there would not be the shallow thinking collectivist promotion of the subservience of the individual conscience (freedom to want / desire) to the so called superiority of the collective conscience which wants freedom from want (need).

Without free thinking individuals promoting collective consciousness such as Melissa Harris-Perry and other communists, communism, which was articulated in the 1800s by ‘free thinker’ individualists like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, communism and commune consciousness would not be articulated in the 2000s by a talk show host like Melissa Harris-Perry or her ‘transformer’ leader and dual citizenship ‘citizen’ BHObama.

- 340 -

The vision of collectivist individualists like Melissa Harris-Perry in 2000s America is to community organize so that the want (desire) of collectivists to be free from want (need) is achieved ‘Yeah, we did it, we finally, really, did it’, and now all collectivized people are free from want (desire).

In the collective the individual is free — free — F-R-E-E from the inequitable ‘desire’ to ‘want’ more than the neighbor in the collective. Why? Because all of the individuals in the collective are not F-R-E-E to desire to want more than the neighbor in the commune. In the collectivist commune all of the commune(ists) are theoretically free from freedom to be unequally excellent. Why not be free to be “unequally excellent”? Because that would not be equitable for all members of the commune.

The debate is not about what the collectivist commune promoters call equality. What the collectivists are in reality tacitly implying is what can also be called equitable equality (equality??? yes, equitable = just, impartial, fair) in the commune for those who conform and submit to equality of dependency from cradle to grave.

The debate is about the individualist community and what is in reality freedom with ‘equitable’ (just, fair, impartial) ‘inequality’.

Liberty v Tyranny

When the individual fears the government there is tyranny.

• When the government fears the individual there is liberty.

When the individual fears the collective there is tyranny.

• When the collective fears the individual there is liberty.

Where there is collective freedom from want (need) there is tyranny.

• Where there is individual freedom to want (desire) there is liberty.

Where positive law attacks natural law there is tyranny.

• Where natural law is protected by positive law there is liberty.

Where law of people attacks law of nature there is tyranny.

• Where law of nature is protected by law of people there is liberty.

When natural law is negated by positive law there is tyranny.

• When positive law is derived from natural law there is liberty.

When law of nature is negated by law of people there is tyranny.

• When law of people is derived from law of nature there is liberty.

When positive law is used to try to transform natural law there is tyranny.

• When natural law informs positive law there is liberty.

When law of people is used to try to transform law of nature there is tyranny.

• When law of nature informs law of people there is liberty.

Positive law which promotes (by force of law) freedom from want (need) promotes tyranny.

• Positive law which protects (by force of law) freedom to want (desire) protects liberty.

Law of people which promotes (by force of law) freedom from want (need) promotes tyranny.

• Law of people which protects (by force of law) freedom to want (desire) protects liberty.

Positive law is not the basis, is not the foundation, of natural law.

• Natural law is the basis, is the foundation, of positive law.

Law of people is not the basis, is not the foundation, of law of nature.

• Law of nature is the basis, is the foundation, of law of people.

Nature is the basis, is the foundation, of people.

• Law of nature is the basis, is the foundation, of law of people.

Do you desire (want) to be free from the desire (want) to desire (want)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

• Do you want (desire) to be free from the want (need) to want (desire)? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Do you desire (want) to be free from need (want) if it is fulfilled by the collective? [ ] Yes [ ] No

• Do you want (desire) to be free from want (need) if it is fulfilled by the collective? [ ] Yes [ ] No

Do you desire (want) to be free from need (want) if it is fulfilled by you? [ ] Yes [ ] No

• Do you want (desire) to be free from want (need) if it is fulfilled by you? [ ] Yes [ ] No

- 341 -

The collectivist ‘we’ is inherently anti-community and pro-commune.

The collectivist ‘we’ is inherently anti-freedom and pro-control.

The collectivist ‘we’ is not a transformation from bad ‘control’ to better ‘freedom’.

The collectivist ‘we’ is a mutation from good ‘freedom’ to bad ‘control’.

July 4, 1776

FREE individual citizens produced the Declaration of Independence

The Declaration of Independence did not make individual citizens FREE

September 17, 1787

FREE individual citizens produced the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution did not make individual citizens FREE

What do YOU want?

Do you want freedom to be dependent on the empire, the collectivist commune?

Do you want freedom to be independent in the republic, the individualist community?

The We the People U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, ratified in 1788, and inaugurated on 1789 “...in Order to form a more perfect Union...” of free and independent equals in a community, not into a more perfect commune of dependent equals. After the Constitution was ratified by the ninth state, New Hampshire, on June 21, 1788, George Washington, previously a British ‘subject’ by birth alone, became the first July 4, 1776 naturalized citizen of the ‘Union’ of states to become eligible to be the first September 17, 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” to be eligible to be president of the ‘Union’ of states, which he became ten months later when he was inaugurated on April 30, 1789.

A ‘more perfect commune’ of equitably equal ‘results’: is THAT what you, me, we, us want?

A ‘more perfect union’ of equitably equal ‘opportunity’: is THAT what you, me, we, us want?

The ‘ideological oligarch’ debate in the 2000s is between 1) the neo-marxist collectivists who say the ideal society is one where the people are free from want (need) so that people will be equal (shhhh ... and dependent on the ideological oligarchs of the collective) and 2) the free republic individualists who say We the People must be free to want (desire) to be equitably equal or equitably unequal and independent in a community of equals, even if equality is not equitable, because natural law (law of nature) ‘freedom’ is like that.

The ideological debate is simply about the collective commune providing womb to tomb freedom from want (need), and, for those lucky to get out of the womb, the community of individuals protecting individual freedom to want (desire) to achieve individual freedom from want (need). That’s a play on words, of course, but there it is in a nutshell, the ideological debate in the arena of ideas. The ideological contest is between freedom from want (need) vs. freedom to want (desire). In other words, do not submit to the false premise that individualism is bad and morally undesirable for a stable, equitable, equal society, and collectivism is good and morally desirable. If it wasn’t for individuals, there would be no collectivists to transform an individualist ‘union’ community into a collectivist commune. When Melissa Harris-Perry said the “... debate … not about me … about us ...” she was directing the conversation away from individual freedom in the community of individuals to collective freedom of submissive individuals in the collective.

Yes, the debate as articulated in her monologue is definitely not about the individual person named Melissa Harris-Perry speaking on her MSNBC program. Her “not ... me ... us” comment is implicitly saying that the larger debate is also not about you, the individual, the implicit ‘we / me’ of July 4, 1776 and the implicit ‘me’ that is inherent in ‘we’ in the preamble, WE the [community of individualist] People ... Posterity ... of September 17, 1787. She is clearly articulating in a few words that the debate is about the ‘us’ of the ‘we collective’. Collectivists try to control the conversation by ‘transforming’ the original intent language of ‘me’ that is implicit as WE the [individual] People into the new language of ‘us’ which they assert is implicit as WE the [collective] People. Individualists do not accept the premise that the debate is about the alleged collectivist commune with an implied collectivist ‘us’ in WE the [collective ‘us’] People. Yes, individualists assert the 1700s common law premise, the original public meaning premise, that the debate is about the permanent relevance of individuals in a community with the implied individualist ‘me / us’ in WE the [individualist] People of the new ‘Union’ of individual ‘several States’.

- 342 -

Remember what President Abraham Lincoln said in his 1861 inaugural address?

• The Union is much older than the Constitution.

• It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.

• It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

• It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.

• And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union”.

In President Abraham Lincoln’s 1861 inaugural address, the word ‘Union’ is a reference to a union of a community of individuals where the community is dependent on free individuals who have a vested interest in the community because they own as much property as they want (desire), not because they are free from want (need) as equal shareholders of all property in a commune controlled by a single ‘ideological thought leader’ or a collectivist oligarchy. The ‘Union’ that President Lincoln was talking about was not a ‘union’ to eliminate free enterprise and ownership of as much private property (land, business, money, etc.) as an individual citizen may want (desire). The ‘Union’ that President Lincoln was talking about was a ‘Union’ to protect the freedom of individuals to be enterprising and to own and control as much private property as they want (desire) as the want of ‘desire’ motivated them, and the want of ‘need’ had nothing to do with owning and controlling the property. Of course, if property such as land is needed to build an apartment the ‘need’ fulfills a ‘desire’ for owning more property than the collectivist who has no ‘desire’ to want (need) property.

Let’s get back to basics and repeat what President Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about the ‘Union’. His comment confirms to us in 2000s America that “… in Order to form a more perfect Union” the original intent of the original birthers, founders, and ratifiers, was a permanent ‘Union’.

The Articles of Association dealt with the ‘union’ of the thirteen colonies concerning a “… redress of these

grievances ...” that the colonies had with the Parliament of Great Britain. The Articles were not about having the Parliament provide for the daily ‘womb to tomb’ needs of the colonies. Right?

The Declaration of Independence dealt with the individual freedom and independence of the ‘union’ of thirteen colonies. The ‘union’ of the colonies was not for the purpose of having the Parliament of Great Britain provide for the daily ‘wants’, needs, and desires of the colonies. Right?

The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States dealt with protecting and promoting the freedom of the ‘union’ of states as a self-governing entity. It was not to get the permission of the British Parliament for the states to govern themselves as a ‘union’ of states dependent on Great Britain. Right?

The U.S. Constitution of We the People was to “… form a more perfect Union” as free and independent States, not to get permission to be free and independent states.

Yes, if the four seminal ‘union / Union’ documents do not convey perpetual original intent then they are not seminal or prescient documents of a “more perfect Union”. Right?

Acts · Bills · Resolutions

To the original birthers who adopted the language of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787, the common law definition of “natural born Citizen” was a person born after July 4, 1776, not an “... or a Citizen of ...” who was born before July 4, 1776. Also, obviously, in Article II, the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in 1787 was not a reference to birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil. Right? The original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ was 1) only singular U.S. citizenship, which is possible 2) only by birth alone, 3) only on U.S. soil, 4) only to two U.S. citizens, 5) only married, 6) only to each other, 7) only before a child is born.

1) Only singular U.S. citizenship

2) Only by birth alone

3) Only on U.S. soil

4) Only to two U.S. citizens

5) Only married

6) Only to each other

7) Only before a child is born

- 343 -

The original birthers defined an “… or a Citizen of ...” as a person born before July 4, 1776 until the day before September 17, 1787. The patriots like George Washington were naturalized by the war of independence as citizens and grandfathered into presidential eligibility because on September 17, 1787 there were no Article II “natural born Citizen” children who were old enough to be elected president. In 1787 the original genesis implicit intent of the original birthers was that both a “natural born Citizen” and an “… or a Citizen of ...” were eligible to be president with the obvious implicit intent that ‘or’ was conditional, to last only until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle 1800s. Since the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” died, only a “natural born Citizen” has been eligible to be president in fulfillment of clause 5, generation to generation.

That common sense original genesis implicit intent of the 1787 original birthers brings us to the attempts by the U.S. Congress to propose resolutions to amend the Constitution to permit eligibility to be president to all persons who may be a ‘citizen’ but not a “natural born Citizen”. Why would the elected members of the U.S. Congress in 2000s America try to ignore the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” with an amendment to ‘permit’ eligibility to be president to persons who are statute (positive law) ‘citizens’ born on U.S. soil or foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent? The U.S. Constitution is the only seminal document of the Union where the eligibility words “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” are contained and contrasted in the same sentence, separated by a comma and the word ‘or’ which is obviously inserted there with a definite purpose and a law of nature definite time limit — death.

Just because a child is a U.S. citizen does not mean the child is a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president. It also seems that the 2000s U.S. Congress knows the difference too. In the resolutions found on the following pages, language is used which shows that the sponsors and cosponsors of the resolutions know that not every citizen is a “natural born Citizen”. Although they do not say so in the resolutions, it is obvious with the two words ‘born’ and ‘or’ in clause 5, the two different original genesis phrases with their unique original genesis implicit intent in the same sentence. In 1787 America both ‘born’ and ‘or’ implied eligibility to be president by birth alone on the soil of British America before and after July 4, 1776. Implicit in the words ‘born’ and ‘or’ are birth with only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only to two U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born. Since 1787 that common sense implication is still the only understanding which is relevant in 2000s America.

The parents and children who were grandfathered on July 4, 1776 into presidential eligibility were British subjects by birth alone before July 4, 1776, and were recognized by Article II as “... or a Citizen of ...” the Union on September 17, 1787. Both British ‘subject’ parents and their British ‘subject’ children were naturalized, and for that positive law (law of people) legal reason the patriot children who would be elected president were the only “... or a Citizen of ...” persons who would be recognized as U.S. ‘citizens’ with two naturalized U.S. citizen parents. In 1787, even if one or both of the parents had died before July 4, 1776, the British subject child, born before 1776, was considered by the original birthers to be an “... or a Citizen of …” and eligible to be president. Also, not only the British ‘subject’ children born before 1776 were eligible to be president, but also the British ‘subject’ children born after 1776 and before 1787 to British ‘subject’ parents. The children were recognized as naturalized along with their parents, and so also eligible to be president.

Regarding singular U.S. citizenship, consider this ‘singular’ fact. The first “... or a Citizen of ...” patriots were the first U.S. ‘citizens’ to be recognized as having only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two ‘naturalized’ U.S. citizens. They were the first ‘citizens’ eligible to be president with only singular U.S. citizenship. Since the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle 1800s, only a ‘citizen’ with singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other is eligible to be president by birth alone.

Acts · Bills · Resolutions

In reading the text of the acts, bills, resolutions proposing to amend the Constitution to ‘permit’ eligibility to be president for a “citizen” who is not a “natural-born citizen”, notice that the assumption by the legislators who sponsor and cosponsor the proposals is that a “natural born citizen” is a “citizen” and not every “citizen” is a “natural born citizen”. That implicit aspect of the language of the sitting Congress is important and helps us to understand the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II which was written in 1787 and which is still the intent in the 2000s. Also, an unintended tacit implication of the resolutions is clear, not every ‘citizen’ is a “natural born Citizen”, so they are not eligible to be president. Right? And, this is important, the sitting Article I federal representatives and federal senators know that. They ‘know’ that Article II implicitly refers to only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens.

- 344 -

Nine Bills by Congress to Define (→ Redefine ←) “natural born Citizen”

#1 H.J.Res. 59 (108th): Jun 11, 2003, 108th Congress, 2003–2004

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres59

#2 H.J.Res. 67 (108th): Sep 03, 2003, 108th Congress, 2003–2004

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres67

#3 S. 2128 (108th): Feb 25, 2004, 108th Congress, 2003–2004

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128

#4 H.J.Res. 104 (108th): Sep 15, 2004, 108th Congress, 2003–2004

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres104

#5 H.J.Res. 2 (109th): Jan 04, 2005, 109th Congress, 2005–2006

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres2

#6 H.J.Res. 15 (109th): Feb 01, 2005, 109th Congress, 2005–2006

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres15

#7 H.J.Res. 42 (109th): Apr 14, 2005, 109th Congress, 2005–2006

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres42

#8 S. 2678 (110th): Feb 28, 2008, 110th Congress, 2007–2009

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2678

#9 Res. 511 (110th): Apr 10, 2008, 110th Congress, 2007–2009

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511

URL #1

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres59

H. J. Res. 59 (108^th)

President and Vice President Eligibility for Office

Introduced: Jun 11, 2003 (108th Congress, 2003–2004)

Sponsor: Rep. Victor “Vic” Snyder [D-AR2]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor. S. stands for Senate bill.

OVERVIEW

This resolution was introduced on June 11, 2003, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Jun 11, 2003

Cosponsors 6 cosponsors (3R, 3D) (show) → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:HJ00059:@@@P

H. J. RES.59

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

- 345 -

H. J. RES.59

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States

to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States,

but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years,

to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Sponsor: Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] (introduced 6/11/2003) Cosponsors (6)

Latest Major Action: 5/13/2004 House committee/subcommittee actions.

Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.

COSPONSORS (6), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]:

Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 9/4/2003 Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 6/18/2003 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 6/11/2003 Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] - 6/11/2003 Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 6/26/2003 Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 6/18/2003

Committees House Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Full Title Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Summary Library of Congress »

6/11/2003—Introduced. Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States ...

[‘makes’ eligible?? A positive law (law of people) word, not a natural law (law of nature) word like ‘born’]

Text Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Jun 11, 2003.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres59/text

H. J. Res. 59 (108th): President and Vice President Eligibility for Office bill 108th Congress, 2003–2004. Text as of Jun 11, 2003 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[this is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hjres59ih/pdf/BILLS-108hjres59ih.pdf

HJ 59 IH 108th CONGRESS 1st Session

H. J. RES. 59

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 11, 2003

Mr. SNYDER (for himself, Mr. ISSA, and Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article -- ‘A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President’.

Primary Source View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

- 346 -

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[this is from THOMAS url above] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:hjres59:

Bill Summary & Status 108th Congress (2003 – 2004)

H. J. RES.59

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Sponsor: Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] (introduced 6/11/2003) Cosponsors (6)

Latest Major Action: 5/13/2004 House committee/subcommittee actions.

URL #2

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres67

H. J. Res. 67 (108th)

President and Vice President Eligibility for Office

Introduced: Sep 03, 2003 (108th Congress, 2003–2004)

Sponsor: Rep. John Conyers Jr. [D-MI14]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor. S. stands for Senate bill.

OVERVIEW

Status This resolution was introduced on September 3, 2003, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Sep 03, 2003

Cosponsors 1 cosponsors (1D) (show

Sherman, Brad [D-CA27] (joined Sep 23, 2003)

Committees House Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Full Title Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

Summary Library of Congress »

9/3/2003—Introduced. Constitutional Amendment – Makes [a positive law word ‘makes’ ???] a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.

Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Sep 03, 2003.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres67/text

H. J. Res. 67 (108th): President and Vice President Eligibility for Office bill 108th Congress, 2003–2004. Text as of Sep 03, 2003 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hjres67ih/pdf/BILLS-108hjres67ih.pdf

HJ 67 IH

108th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 67

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

- 347 -

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 3, 2003

Mr. CONYERS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

‘Article -- ‘A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President’.

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:hjres67:

Bill Summary & Status 108th Congress (2003 – 2004) H. J. RES.67

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 9/3/2003) Cosponsors (1)

Latest Major Action: 10/22/2003 Referred to House subcommittee.

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

URL #3

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128

S. 2128 (108th)

Natural Born Citizen Act

Introduced: Feb 25, 2004 (108th Congress, 2003–2004)

Sponsor: Sen. Don Nickles [R-OK]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor. S. stands for Senate bill.

OVERVIEW

Status This bill was introduced on February 25, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Feb 25, 2004

Referred to Committee Feb 25, 2004

Cosponsors 2 cosponsors (1R, 1D) (show)

Inhofe, James “Jim” [R-OK] Landrieu, Mary [D-LA]

Committees Senate Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

Full Title A bill to define the term “natural born Citizen” as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Summary Library of Congress »

2/25/2004—Introduced. Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as: (1) any person born in, and subject to the...

- 348 -

2/25/2004--

Introduced. Natural Born Citizen Act -

Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,”

to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as:

(1) any person born in*, and subject to the...

*[notice: ‘born in’ = the third and sixth words of the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1

which defines ‘citizen’, not “natural born Citizen”]

Read Bill Text »

Last updated Feb 25, 2004.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/s2128/text

S. 2128 (108th): Natural Born Citizen Act

108th Congress, 2003–2004. Text as of Feb 25, 2004 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108s2128is/pdf/BILLS-108s2128is.pdf

S 2128 IS

108th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2128

To define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 25, 2004

Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL To define the term ‘natural born Citizen’ as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Natural Born Citizen Act’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF ‘NATURAL BORN CITIZEN’.

(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--

(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and

(2) any person born outside the United States--

(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents [1 or 2] pursuant to an Act of Congress; or

(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.

(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term ‘United States’, when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s2128:

Bill Summary & Status 108th Congress (2003 – 2004)

S.2128

Latest Title: Natural Born Citizen Act

Sponsor: Sen Nickles, Don [OK] (introduced 2/25/2004) Cosponsors (2)

Latest Major Action: 10/5/2004 Senate committee/subcommittee actions.

- 349 -

URL #4

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres104

H. J. Res. 104 (108th)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the …

... Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States

but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years

Introduced: Sep 15, 2004 (108th Congress, 2003–2004)

Sponsor: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA46]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

See Instead: This bill was re-introduced as H. J. Res. 15 (109th) on Feb 01, 2005.

The resolution’s title was written by its sponsor. H. J. Res. stands for House joint resolution.

OVERVIEW

Status This resolution was introduced on September 15, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Sep 15, 2004

Cosponsors none

Committees House Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Summary Library of Congress »

9/15/2004—Introduced. Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to ...

Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Sep 15, 2004.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/108/hjres104/text

H. J. Res. 104 (108th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of …

...President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

108th Congress, 2003–2004. Text as of Sep 15, 2004 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-108hjres104ih/pdf/BILLS-108hjres104ih.pdf

HJ 104 IH

108th CONGRESS 2d Session H. J. RES. 104

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES September 15, 2004

Mr. ROHRABACHER introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

‘Article[*] – ‘A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States’.

- 350 -

[My comment about “Article”]

‘A person who is a citizen of the United States,

who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years,

and who is* otherwise* eligible to hold the Office of the President,

is not** ineligible to hold that Office

by reason*** of not being a native born citizen of the United States’.

*Notice: “is otherwise eligible” = What? ‘Otherwise’ = a person has at least one U.S. citizen parent, OR has two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other?

What does ‘otherwise’ really mean? Was this 2004 resolution preparation for a future presidential candidate with only one U.S. citizen parent? Was it preparation for a future presidential candidate who might be charged with being born on foreign soil with only one U.S. citizen parent? Who knows? What is relevant is that 2004 when this resolution was presented was only 8 years before Illinois State Senator Barack Hussein Obama (1997-2004) was a presidential candidate in 2012 after only 3 years as an Illinois U.S. Senator (2005-2008) and President for 8 years (2009-2017) even though he was only a ‘citizen’, not a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before their child was born.

**[notice: “is not ineligible” = is eligible]

***[notice: “by reason of not ... native born” = is eligible though not born on U.S. soil.] [End of comment]

Primary Source View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:hjres104:

Bill Summary & Status 108th Congress (2003 - 2004)

H. J. RES.104

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] (introduced 9/15/2004) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 11/5/2004 Referred to House subcommittee.

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

- 351 -

URL #5

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres2

H. J. Res. 2 (109th)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are ...

... not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States

for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President

Introduced: Jan 04, 2005 (109th Congress, 2005–2006)

Sponsor: Rep. John Conyers Jr. [D-MI14]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The resolution’s title was written by its sponsor. H. J. Res. stands for House joint resolution.

OVERVIEW

Status This resolution was introduced on January 4, 2005, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Jan 04, 2005

Cosponsors 1 cosponsors (1D) (show)

Sherman, Brad [D-CA27]

Committees House Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Summary Library of Congress »

1/4/2005--Introduced. Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.

Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Jan 04, 2005.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres2/text

H. J. Res. 2 (109th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least

20 years, to be eligible to hold the 109th Congress, 2005–2006.

Text as of Jan 04, 2005 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[this is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hjres2ih/pdf/BILLS-109hjres2ih.pdf

HJ 2 IH 109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 2

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born

citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 4, 2005

Mr. CONYERS (for himself and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

`Article -- `A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President'.

Primary Source

- 352 -

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hjres2:

Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 – 2006)

H. J. RES.2

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.

Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] (introduced 1/4/2005) Cosponsors (1) Related Bills: H.J.RES.42

Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

URL #6

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres15

H. J. Res. 15 (109th)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the ...

... Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States

but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years

Introduced: Feb 01, 2005 (109th Congress, 2005–2006)

Sponsor: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA46]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The resolution’s title was written by its sponsor. H.J.Res. stands for House joint resolution.

OVERVIEW

Status This resolution was introduced on February 1, 2005, in a previous session of Congress, but was not

enacted.

Progress Introduced Feb 01, 2005

Cosponsors none

Committees House Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Summary Library of Congress »

2/1/2005—Introduced. Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to ...

Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Feb 01, 2005.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres15/text

H. J. Res. 15 (109th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

109th Congress, 2005–2006. Text as of Feb 01, 2005 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hjres15ih/pdf/BILLS-109hjres15ih.pdf

HJ 15 IH

109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 15

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

- 353 -

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES February 1, 2005

Mr. ROHRABACHER introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article -- `A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years, and who is otherwise* eligible to hold the Office of the President, is not ineligible to hold that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States'.

*[notice: see URL #4 about ‘otherwise’ eligible.]

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hjres15:

Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 – 2006)

H. J. RES.15

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has been a United States citizen for at least 20 years.

Sponsor: Rep Rohrabacher, Dana [CA-46] (introduced 2/1/2005) Cosponsors (None)

Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

URL #7

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres42

H. J. Res. 42 (109th)

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are ...

... not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States

for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President

Introduced: Apr 14, 2005 (109th Congress, 2005–2006)

Sponsor: Rep. Victor “Vic” Snyder [D-AR2]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The resolution’s title was written by its sponsor.

H. J. Res. stands for House joint resolution.

OVERVIEW

Status This resolution was introduced on April 14, 2005, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Apr 14, 2005

Cosponsors 1 cosponsors (1R) (show)

Shays, Christopher [R-CT4]

Committees House Judiciary

- 354 -

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Summary Library of Congress »

4/14/2005--Introduced. Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States ...

Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Apr 14, 2005.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hjres42/text

H. J. Res. 42 (109th): Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the

109th Congress, 2005–2006.

Text as of Apr 14, 2005 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-109hjres42ih/pdf/BILLS-109hjres42ih.pdf

HJ 42 IH

109th CONGRESS 1st Session H. J. RES. 42

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 14, 2005

Mr. SNYDER (for himself and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article -- `A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years shall be eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President'.

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:hjres42:

Bill Summary & Status 109th Congress (2005 – 2006)

H. J. RES.42

Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 35 years, to be eligible to hold the offices of President and Vice President.

Sponsor: Rep Snyder, Vic [AR-2] (introduced 4/14/2005) Cosponsors (1)

Related Bills: H.J.RES.2

Latest Major Action: 5/10/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.

Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

- 355 -

URL #8

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2678

S. 2678 (110th)

Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act

Introduced: Feb 28, 2008 (110th Congress, 2007–2009)

Sponsor: Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]

Status: Died (Referred to Committee)

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor. S. stands for Senate bill.

OVERVIEW

Status

This bill was introduced on February 28, 2008, in a previous session of Congress, but was not enacted.

Progress Introduced Feb 28, 2008

Referred to Committee Feb 28, 2008

Cosponsors 4 cosponsors (3D, 1R) (show)

Obama, Barack [D-IL] (joined Feb 29, 2008)

Clinton, Hillary [D-NY] (joined Mar 03, 2008)

Menéndez, Robert “Bob” [D-NJ] (joined Mar 03, 2008)

Coburn, Thomas [R-OK] (joined Mar 04, 2008)

Committees Senate Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

Full Title A bill to clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

Summary

Library of Congress »

2/28/2008--Introduced. Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act - Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria ...

Read Bill Text »

Last updated Feb 28, 2008.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s2678/text

S. 2678 (110th): Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act

110th Congress, 2007–2009.

Text as of Feb 28, 2008 (Introduced).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110s2678is/pdf/BILLS-110s2678is.pdf

S 2678 IS

110th CONGRESS 2d Session S. 2678

To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES February 28, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL To clarify the law and ensure that children born to United States citizens while serving overseas in the military are eligible to become President.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act'.

- 356 -

SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'.

Congress finds and declares that the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States shall include: 'Any person born to any citizen of the United States while serving in the active or reserve components of the United States Armed Forces’.

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s2678:

Bill Summary & Status 110th Congress (2007 – 2008)

S.2678

Latest Title: Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act

Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 2/28/2008) Cosponsors (4)

Latest Major Action: 2/28/2008 Referred to Senate committee.

Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

URL #9

→ http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511

Res. 511 (110th)

A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen

Introduced: Apr 10, 2008 (110th Congress, 2007–2009)

Sponsor: Sen. Claire McCaskill [D-MO]

Status: Agreed To (Simple Resolution)

The resolution’s title was written by its sponsor. S.Res. stands for Senate simple resolution.

OVERVIEW

Status This simple resolution was agreed to on April 30, 2008. That is the end of the legislative process for a simple resolution.

Progress Introduced Apr 10, 2008

Reported by Committee Apr 24, 2008

Agreed To (Simple Resolution) Apr 30, 2008

Cosponsors 5 cosponsors (4D, 1R) (show)

Clinton, Hillary [D-NY] Coburn, Thomas [R-OK] Leahy, Patrick [D-VT] Obama, Barack [D-IL] Webb, Jim [D-VA]

Committees Senate Judiciary

The committee chair determines whether a resolution will move past the committee stage.

Summary

Library of Congress »

4/30/2008—Passed Senate without amendment. (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a ...

Read Resolution Text »

Last updated Apr 30, 2008.

2 pages → http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/sres511/text

S. Res. 511 (110th): A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

- 357 -

110th Congress, 2007–2009. Text as of Apr 30, 2008 (Resolution Agreed to).

Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO

[here is the PDF url] → http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110sres511ats/pdf/BILLS-110sres511ats.pdf

SRES 511 ATS

110th CONGRESS 2d Session S. RES. 511

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES April 10, 2008

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

April 24, 2008 Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment

April 30, 2008 Considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not[*] defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute [1790 Naturalization Act] defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and [‘outside’ = a tacit and implicit reference to only one person, President Chester A. Arthur]

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

Primary Source

View on THOMAS (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here.

[here is the THOMAS info] → http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:sres511:

Bill Summary & Status 110th Congress (2007 – 2008)

S.RES.511

Latest Title: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.

Sponsor: Sen McCaskill, Claire [MO] (introduced 4/10/2008) Cosponsors (5)

Latest Major Action: 4/30/2008 Passed/agreed to in Senate.

Status: Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

[* My comment about “not defined”]

There are two things to notice. First, notice not* defined, and second notice that the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” word is not mentioned as repealing the three 1790 “natural born citizen” words.

The sponsors and cosponsors, the highly educated legislators of the United States House and Senate which includes Illinois Senator Barack Obama, already know that not every ‘citizen’ is a “natural born Citizen”. So, what is the point of the resolution, and what was not defined in Article II, ‘born’ or ‘citizen’? Ah, of course, since the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle 1800s, it must be the word ‘born’ which they must be referring to when they say that “natural born Citizen” was not defined.

- 358 -

Here is the only definition which makes sense for a person to be eligible to be president: A person must have 1) only singular citizenship 2) only by birth alone 3) only on U.S. soil 4) only to two U.S. citizens 5) only married 6) only to each other 7) only before a child is born. However, even without that 7 point definition the highly educated legislators who know how to obfuscate and get around original genesis and original intent already ‘know’ that not every ‘citizen’ is a “natural born Citizen” and that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president.

So, what was the point of the resolution in 2008 if Sen. John McCain, even though he was born on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone when his father was stationed there, was already known to be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president? Also notice that this resolution was presented April 2008, 6 months before the presidential debates between Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama who cosponsored this resolution with Hillary Clinton in favor of Sen. McCain?

That’s a good question, right? Could it be as simple as it having been self-serving on Obama’s part to cosponsor (six months before the Obama — McCain debates) this April 2008 resolution with Hillary Clinton? Obama and Clinton cosponsored this resolution after he, Obama, won the Democratic primary against Hillary.

Could it be that by helping McCain with this resolution and ‘recognizing’ that McCain was eligible to be president, he, Obama, could expect McCain to ignore the question of Obama’s eligibility to be president by not bringing up Obama’s ineligibility to be president like Hillary Clinton did in her campaign against Obama? Could it be that simple? Was Hillary Clinton accurate when she said publicly that Barack Obama was not eligible to be president because he was not a “natural born Citizen”, the implication being that his father was not a naturalized U.S. citizen? Was Barack Obama accurate when he said that he was eligible to be president because he was born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen mother? So, who was accurate, Hillary or Barack? Could it be that simple as to why Obama cosponsored this April 2008 resolution in support of his presidential competitor McCain 6 months before their debates? Who knows? [End of comment]

Seventeen 2016 Politicians with Singular U.S. Citizenship

Joe Biden (D)

Joseph Robinette ‘Joe’ Biden, Jr. was born November 20, 1942 in Scranton, Pennsylvania

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Vice President Joe Biden (Delaware)

Government Site: Office of Vice President Joe Biden

→ http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/vice-president-biden/

Facebook: www.facebook.com/JoeBiden

Twitter: www.twitter.com/JoeBiden

Jeb Bush (R)

John Ellis ‘Jeb’ Bush was born February 11, 1953 in Midland, Texas

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Governor Jeb Bush (Florida)

PAC Site: Right to Rise PAC-→ http://righttorisepac.org/

Facebook: www.facebook.com/JebBush

Twitter: www.twitter.com/JebBush

- 359 -

Ben Carson (R)

Benjamin Solomon ‘Ben’ Carson, Sr. was born September 18, 1951 in Detroit, Michigan

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Dr. Ben Carson (Florida)Campaign Site: BenCarson.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/DrBenjaminCarson

Twitter: www.twitter.com/RealBenCarson

Lincoln Chafee (D)

Lincoln Davenport Chafee was born March 26, 1953) was born in Providence, Rhode Island

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Governor Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)

Campaign Site: Chafee2016.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/GovernorChafee

Twitter: www.twitter.com/LincolnChafee

Hillary Clinton (D)

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton was born October 26, 1947 in Chicago, Illinois

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before Her Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (New York) Campaign Site: HillaryClinton.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/HillaryClinton

Twitter: www.twitter.com/HillaryClinton

- 360 -

Carly Fiorina (R)

Cara ‘Carly’ Carleton Sneed Fiorina was born September 6, 1954 in Austin, Texas

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before Her Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President…”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina (Virginia) Campaign Site: CarlyForPresident.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/CarlyFiorina

Twitter: www.twitter.com/CarlyFiorina

Lindsey Graham (R).

Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955 was born in Central, South Carolina

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

US Senator Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) Political Site: LindseyGraham.com

Government Site: Office of US Senator Lindsey Graham → http://www.lgraham.senate.gov/

Facebook: www.facebook.com/LindseyGrahamSC

Twitter: www.twitter.com/LindseyGrahamSC

Mike Huckabee (R)

Michael Dale ‘Mike’ Huckabee was born August 24, 1955 in Hope, Arkansas

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (Florida)

Official Site: MikeHuckabee.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/MikeHuckabee

Twitter: www.twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee

Sarah Palin (R)

Sarah Louise (Heath) Palin was born February 11, 1964 in Sandpoint, Idaho

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before Her Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (Alaska) Official Site: SarahPac.com

Facebook: → https://www.facbooke.com/sarahpalin

Twitter: https://twitter.com/sarahpalinusa

- 361 -

Martin O’Malley (D)

Martin Joseph O’Malley was born January 18, 1963 in Washington, D.C.

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Governor Martin O’Malley (Maryland) Campaign Site: MartinOMalley.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/MartinOMalley

Twitter: www.twitter.com/GovernorOMalley

George Pataki (R)

George Elmer Pataki was born June 24, 1945 in Peekskill, New York

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Governor George Pataki (New York) Campaign Site: GeorgePataki.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/GovGeorgePataki

Twitter: www.twitter.com/GovernorPataki

Rand Paul (R)

Randal Howard Paul was born on January 7, 1963, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

US Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) Campaign Site: RandPaul.com

Government Site: Office of US Senator Rand Paul → http://paul.senate.gov

Facebook: www.facebook.com/RandPaul

Twitter: www.twitter.com/RandPaul

- 362 -

Rick Perry (R)

James Richard ‘Rick’ Perry was born March 4, 1950 in Paint Creek, Texas

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former Governor Rick Perry (Texas) Campaign Site: RickPerry.org

Facebook: www.facebook.com/GovernorPerry

Twitter: www.twitter.com/GovernorPerry

Bernie Sanders (D)

Bernard ‘Bernie’ Sanders was born September 8, 1941 in Brooklyn, New York

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth / Naturalization Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born with U.S. Soil Citizenship from a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Father

Born with U.S. Soil Citizenship from a U.S. Citizen Mother

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

US Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont) Campaign Site: BernieSanders.com

Government Site: Office of US Senator Bernie Sanders → http://sanders.senate.gov

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BernieSanders

Twitter: www.twitter.com/SenSanders

Rick Santorum (R)

Richard John ‘Rick’ Santorum was born May 10, 1958 in Winchester, Virginia

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth / Naturalization Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born with U.S. Soil Citizenship from a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Father

Born with U.S. Soil Citizenship from a U.S. Citizen Mother

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Former US Senator Rick Santorum (Pennsylvania) Campaign Site: RickSantorum.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/RickSantorum

Twitter: www.twitter.com/RickSantorum

- 363 -

Donald Trump (R)

Donald John Trump Sr. born June 14, 1946 in Queens, New York

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth / Naturalization Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born with U.S. Soil Citizenship from a U.S. Citizen Father

Born with U.S. Soil Citizenship from a Naturalized U.S. Citizen Mother

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Donald Trump (New York) Campaign Site: DonaldJTrump.com

Facebook: www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump

Twitter: www.twitter.com/RealDonaldTrump

Scott Walker (R)

Scott Kevin Walker was born November 2, 1967 in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Both Parents were U.S. Citizens by Birth Before His Birth

“...eligible to the Office of President...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 U.S. Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil

Singular U.S. Citizenship

An Article II “natural born Citizen”

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Governor Scott Walker (Wisconsin) Campaign Site: ScottWalker.org

PAC Site: Our American Revival PAC → http://www.ouramericanrevival.com

Government Site: Office of Governor Scott Walker → http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us

Facebook: www.facebook.com/ScottWalkerForGovernor

Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottKWalker

Five 2016 Presidential Candidates With Dual Citizenship

U.S. Soil Born: Parents with Mixed U.S. /Foreign Citizenship

1) Barack Obama

Barack Hussein Obama II was born August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii

His father, a student from Kenya, did not naturalize as a U.S. citizen before his birth

Not “... eligible to the Office of President ...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 Mixed Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil to a British-Kenya Citizen Father

Born on U.S. Soil to a U.S. Citizen Mother

Dual U.S. /Kenya Citizenship

A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not A Naturalization Act “citizen”

Not an Article II “natural born Citizen”

- 364 -

Foreign Soil Born: Born to a Foreign Father and a U.S. Citizen Mother

2) Ted Cruz (triple citizenship)

Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz was born December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada

His father Rafael, an immigrant from Cuba, did not naturalize as a U.S. citizen before his birth

Not “... eligible to the Office of President ...”

1 Foreign Soil Birth Place

2 Mixed Citizenship Birth Parents

Born in Canada to a Cuban Citizen Father

Born in Canada to a U.S. Citizen Mother

Triple U.S. /Canada/Cuba Citizenship

A Naturalization Act ‘citizen’

Not A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not an Article II “natural born Citizen”

US Senator Ted Cruz (Texas)Campaign Site: TedCruz.org

Government Site: Office of US Senator Ted Cruz → http://cruz.senate.gov

Facebook: www.facebook.com/TedCruzPage

Twitter: www.twitter.com/TedCruz

U.S. Soil Born: Born to Parents with the Same Foreign Citizenship

3) Bobby Jindal

Piyush ‘Bobby’ Jindal was born June 10, 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

His parents, immigrants from India, did not naturalize as U.S. citizens before his birth

Not “... eligible to the Office of President ...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 Same Foreign Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil to Two Same India Citizenship Birth Parents

Dual U.S. /India Citizenship

A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Not an Article II “natural born Citizen”

Governor Bobby Jindal (Louisiana)Campaign Site: BobbyJindal.com

Government Site: Office of Governor Bobby Jindal → http://www.gov.louisiana.gov

Facebook: www.facebook.com/BobbyJindal

Twitter: www.twitter.com/BobbyJindal

4) Nikki Haley

Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley was born January 20, 1972 in Bamber, South Carolina

Her parents, immigrants from India, did not naturalize as U.S. citizens before her birth

Not “... eligible to the Office of President ...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 Same Foreign Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil to Two Same India Citizenship Birth Parents

Dual U.S. /India Citizenship

A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Not an Article II “natural born Citizen”

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (South Carolina) Official Site: nikkihaley.com

Facebook: → https://www.facebook.com/NikkiHaley

Twitter: https://twitter.com/NikkiHaley

- 365 -

5) Marco Rubio

Marco Antonio Rubio was born May 28, 1971 in Miami, Florida

His parents, immigrants from Cuba, did not naturalize as U.S. citizens before his birth

Not “... eligible to the Office of President ...”

1 U.S. Soil Birth Place

2 Same Foreign Citizenship Birth Parents

Born on U.S. Soil to Two Same Cuba Citizenship Birth Parents

Dual U.S. /Cuba Citizenship

A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not a Naturalization Act “citizen”

Not an Article II “natural born Citizen”

US Senator Marco Rubio (Florida)Campaign Site: MarcoRubio.com

Government Site: Office of US Senator Marco Rubio → http://rubio.senate.gov

Facebook: www.facebook.com/MarcoRubio – Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarcoRubio

Foreign Soil Born: Both Parents With Foreign Citizenship

Not “... eligible to the Office of President ...”

One Foreign Soil Birth Place

Two Foreign Citizenship Birth Parents

Zero U.S. Citizenship from Birth Place and Birth Parents

Singular Foreign Citizenship from 1 Place and 2 Parents

Not a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen”

Not an Article I Naturalization Act “citizen”

Not an Article II “natural born Citizen”

Senator Rick Santorum Is Eligible To Be U.S. President

After a short segment from Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog about the eligibility of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum to be president is the 2015 update that I made on my Original Birther Document blog after putting the original comment on Mario’s blog. Included here are clarifying emendations made since then.

On January 28, 2015 Mario Apuzzo posted on his Natural Born Citizen blog his research about the presidential eligibility of Senator Rick Santorum with this title: Senator Rick Santorum Is An Article II Natural Born Citizen and Eligible to Be President.

His conclusion is that Rick Santorum was a legitimate candidate in 2016 because he was born after his grandfather Pietro immigrated to the U.S. and naturalized as a U.S. citizen before his son Aldo (Rick Santorum’s father) joined him in the United States.

Under the immigration law of the 1930s the children were automatically considered to be U.S. citizens under the naturalization of the father.

Next is my comment (no quote marks) which I posted on Mario’s Natural Born Citizen blog on February 3, 2015 at 8:17 PM (→ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/01/rick-santorum-is-article-ii-natural.html)

with affirmative support of his proposition that Senator Rick Santorum is a “natural born Citizen” as original birther John Jay implied when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” (“implied” = for eligibility to be president is that the parents are already U.S. citizens).

Do I qualify? — You qualify if.

Mario,

Your response to “Poor, poor Bob” over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans was right on. Before I saw your comment there, I read the promo copy on the Italian Dual Passport site, and I noticed the language to obtain a simple Italian Dual Passport was similar to the language of the current INA: ACT 320, and it got me thinking about Sen. Santorum’s father Aldo and whether or not he had perpetual singular U.S. citizen by naturalization derived from his father Pietro. Your response to “poor, poor Bob”: “About the comment that I approved, did you even bother to open the link and read the information. It is highly relevant”.

Below is the first Case Scenario from the promo copy posted by the woman on the Italian Dual Passport website → http://eu-italianpassport.com

- 366 -

Do I Qualify?

“You qualify if at the moment of the birth of your Italian ancestor’s child, your Italian ancestor (i.e. grandfather, father, grandmother, great-grandfather etc.) was still an Italian citizen”.

The relevant words of contrast for my purpose here to clarify the singular U.S. citizenship of Sen. Santorum are “... you qualify if ... moment ... birth ... child ... ancestor ... still...” If the time frame language is important for simply getting an Italian Dual Passport, well, concerning the “natural born Citizen” status of Sen. Rick Santorum and his eligibility to be president, the language of a time frame in a naturalization act in the 1930s and the language of an INA ACT in 2015 is more important for determining who is a singular U.S. citizen by naturalization and by birth and who is not, and also if the singular U.S. citizenship is permanent beyond reaching the age of majority and if it is not.

Case Scenario 1 – Applying Through Your Grandfather with an Italian Dual Passport

“Let’s say your paternal grandfather came from Italy. You qualify if at the time of your father’s birth, your grandfather was still an Italian citizen (not yet naturalized American). The reason being is the citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by the parent”.

The woman on the Italian Dual Passport website says, “... you qualify if ... time ... birth ... still ... reason ... citizenship ... right ... transferred ... birth ... parent .” In Sen. Santorum’s case, although the application of the words on the Italian Dual Passport website do not apply to Sen. Santorum, the words of similarity that are relevant become clear when his name and his father’s and grandfather’s names are inserted in the text:

“Let’s say [Rick] your paternal grandfather [Pietro] came from Italy. You [Rick] qualify if at the time of [Aldo] your father’s birth, your grandfather [Pietro] was still an Italian citizen (not yet a naturalized American). The reason being is the citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by a parent.” (i.e.,“at”, not ‘by’ birth.)

So, to acquire a simple Italian Dual Passport, the citizenship passes from grandfather Pietro to son Aldo to grandson Rick. That is simple to understand: a citizen birth ‘right’ does not pass from parent to child by birth; a citizen birth ‘right’ passes from parent to child at birth. To clarify the point, let’s put it in other words: a positive law (law of people) ‘citizen’ right passes from parent to child ‘at’ birth, not ‘by’ birth, while a natural law (law of nature) ‘human’ right passes from parent to child ‘by’ conception / gestation / birth. By law of nature necessity, being human by birth alone precedes law of people ‘citizenship’.

The question about Sen. Santorum’s citizenship status is this: does grandfather Pietro, with a perpetual positive law naturalized ‘right’ of U.S. citizenship, pass perpetual U.S. citizenship automatically to his son Aldo who, under the immigration law at the time, was naturalized without an oath by simple immigration onto U.S. soil, and then, when son Aldo reaches the age of majority, does son Aldo pass on perpetual [and singular] U.S. citizenship to his son Rick who is born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before Rick, son of Aldo and grandson of Pietro, was born?

A Hypothetical Explanation About How To Acquire Citizenship

Change the language in this hypothetical explanation from how to acquire an Italian Dual Passport to how to acquire singular U.S. citizenship by immigration with a naturalization oath, and by natural birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

- 367 -

Let’s say, Rick, your paternal grandfather Pietro came from Italy to America.

You, as grandson, qualify as a U.S. citizen with perpetual singular U.S. citizenship if at the time of your father Aldo’s immigration to America to join your grandfather Pietro, your grandfather had already acquired singular U.S. citizenship by naturalization oath.

The reason is that singular U.S. citizenship is a right that was transferred by statute (law of people) to your grandfather Pietro when he made the naturalization oath of allegiance to the United States (only singular U.S. citizenship is acquired by oath, not dual citizenship).

That makes sense, right?

So, by ‘right’ of birth (natural law / law of nature = Pietro/Aldo) and by statute (positive law / law of people = declaration), the perpetual singular U.S. citizenship of your grandfather Pietro was automatically derived without an oath of allegiance by your father Aldo.

That means, Rick, by the natural law (law of nature) right by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents who were U.S. citizens before you were born, and also married only to each other before you were born, you are a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president.

This conclusion is according to John Jay’s original genesis implicit intent for the word ‘Citizen’ when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington. Jay’s suggestion was included in Article II Section 1 clause 5, adopted by the delegates on September 17, 1787 and ratified by the ‘several States’.

If the language of the law of people (naturalization act) allows it, if there is no language in the naturalization act requiring audible naturalization by oath upon reaching the age of majority, the only implicit conclusion is, yes, the singular U.S. citizenship of the grandfather Pietro passed to the son Aldo and Aldo’s singular U.S. citizenship passed to his son Rick at/by birth alone (“at/by” = ‘when’ born). Makes sense, right?

The words of contrast in the previous quote that are relevant to Sen. Santorum’s eligibility to be president concern his grandfather Pietro being already a naturalized U.S. citizen with only singular U.S. citizenship when his son Aldo arrived in America, as expressed in the current INA: ACT: Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431]

(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled: (1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.

→ http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9983.html

The singular U.S. citizenship of grandfather Pietro, although not citizenship as in Case Scenario 1 referenced above (“... reason being … citizenship is a right that is transferred at birth by the parent ...”), Pietro’s U.S. citizenship, according to the implicature of the language in the current INA: ACT Sec. 320 (“... becomes a citizen ...”), this language indicates a ‘right’ of singular U.S. citizenship created by the U.S. Congress which is transferred by oath (a law of people) by Pietro to his son Aldo when he stepped on U.S. soil when he was still a minor, and a law of people ‘right’ of singular U.S. citizenship which Aldo passed to his son Rick ‘at’ birth. So, since Rick Santorum acquired only singular U.S. citizenship ‘at’ birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, he became a “natural born Citizen” ‘by’ birth alone with eligibility to be president according to the original genesis implicit intent of “born” in Article II.

If Sen. Santorum’s grandfather Pietro’s singular U.S. citizenship which he acquired by naturalization oath (a positive law / law of people required activity) was not perpetually passed on to his son Aldo in the 1930s (this means that, if not perpetual singular citizenship, then when he reached the age of majority Aldo would need to formally naturalize with an oath), then explicit clarifying language would probably have been inserted in the same clause or a succeeding clause which would require a formal naturalization oath by children of a naturalized parent when the children reached the age of majority. In other words, if the immigration statute of the 1930s had explicitly said so, a minor child who, under the same 1930s immigration statute, had already been naturalized by immigration by stepping on U.S. soil to live with naturalized parents, the child (in this case Aldo) would need to speak the audible naturalization oath after reaching the age of majority. However, Aldo did not formally naturalize with an oath when he reached the age of majority.

- 368 -

Since that kind of language is not inserted in the current (1950s) INA: ACT, the only common sense implicature possible is that the perpetual positive law (law of people) singular U.S. citizenship acquired by naturalization oath by grandfather Pietro was, by immigration and stepping on U.S. soil, perpetually acquired by his son Aldo, and the same singular U.S. citizenship of grandfather Pietro transferred to his son Aldo would (at birth) be transferred to Aldo’s son Rick by birth alone in 1958 on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other, Aldo and Catherine. That progression of the parent’s ‘unity of singular citizenship’ and a child’s receiving ‘continuity of singular citizenship’ by birth alone makes Senator Rick Santorum a perpetual U.S. “natural born Citizen” by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before their son was born.

Whether grandfather Aldo’s U.S. citizenship was by either law of nature birth on U.S. soil or by law of people oath on U..S. soil, the INA: ACT Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431] “citizens ... birth” language has only one implicature which can only mean that Sen. Rick Santorum received his ‘natural born’ singular U.S. citizenship from his singular U.S. citizenship father, Aldo, who received his singular U.S. citizenship from his singular U.S. citizenship father, Pietro, who received his singular U.S. citizenship by naturalization oath by authority of the immigration and naturalization statute which was current in the 1930s. The assumption being made here is that the 1930 statute language was similar and with the same implicature as current (1950s and updates since then) INA: ACT Sec. 320 language.

When I read for the first time the Case Scenario #1 detailing how to get an Italian Passport ‘IF’ the grandfather was ‘still’ an Italian citizen when ‘your’ father was born so that ‘you’ can get an Italian Passport, I noticed something that is very relevant to the way that Obama birth narrative neobirthers since 2008 and Republican neobirthers since 2012 seem to deliberately ignore the original genesis implicit intent language in Article II and the language in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. For example, neobirthers, regardless of their political affiliation, never want to give their 2015 opinion about what they ‘think’, not what they ‘know’ but what they ‘think’ about what John Jay may have implied and meant by underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington. Do neobirthers think that Jay, in underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, implied and meant only singular U.S. citizenship, or do neobirthers think that Jay really implied and meant both, singular or dual citizenship? Do neobirthers think that Jay really implied and meant birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil? Do neobirthers think that Jay really implied and meant birth to either two or one or zero (1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’) U.S. citizens? Do neobirthers think that Jay really implied and meant either married or not married only to each other before a child is born?

By asserting either singular or dual citizenship neobirthers are incoherent because there can not be two original genesis implicit intents, either singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. All immigration and naturalization statutes have always allowed only singular U.S. citizenship when taking the naturalization oath, never dual citizenship. For that positive law (law of people) naturalization reason, it is not possible for there to be more than one implicit intent in the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. The implicit intent of ‘born’ can be either only singular U.S. citizenship or only dual U.S. and foreign citizenship (“only dual” does not make sense). So, it can not be both singular and dual. That’s obvious, right?.

John Jay was clear, not schizophrenic or ambiguous or vague, when he underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” with the implication of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president.

The neobirthers seem to want to make of prime importance the implicature of the words “citizens … jurisdiction”, found 81 years later in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, as not meaning only singular U.S. citizenship but meaning also dual citizenship (one parent U.S. and one parent foreign) and also meaning (in conformity with the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’) of birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens, married or not married only to each other before a child is born.

- 369 -

The incessant back and forth about the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ and ‘Citizen’ in the 1787 Article II language and the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ and ‘citizen’ in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language is why we need a change in the conversation. The conversation (debate) so far has been about the 1787 implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president. The debate is finished. Jay meant only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. Also, not only is the debate finished about what ‘born’ implied and meant to the We the People original birthers in 1787 for eligibility to be president, the debate is also finished about what “born … naturalized … are citizens” implied and meant to the original framers of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment — it did not have anything to do with a ‘citizen’ who has eligibility to be president.

The conversation should be about what we in the 2000s want ‘born’ and ‘citizen’ to mean and how to be applied for eligibility to be president. This can be accomplished with a 1787 Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose two amendments to clarify the implicit meaning of the ‘born’ language in 1787 in Article II and the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “... born ... are citizens ...” language. These two amendments should be debated and ratified before someone else says ‘I-I-I also managed to occupy America with only one U.S. citizen parent’, or, if America does not WAKE UP!!!, possibly with zero U.S. citizens who could say something like this: ‘I was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents and I also managed to occupy the oval office of America and be elected President and Commander in Chief’.

Art

U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com: Time to Change the Conversation — Time to Choose

February 3, 2015 at 8:18 PM

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said on February 3, 2015 at 9:16 PM...

ajtelles,

“Your understanding of the Rick Santorum natural born citizen issue is excellent. I can surely say that you see relevancy even when it is hidden deeply in the weeds….”

- 370 -

EPILOGUE

Natural Born Citizen is Perpetual

It is not my intention for Natural Born Citizen and Article II eligibility to be president of the United States to be published and forgotten. The ‘tell’ which reveals that Article II eligibility to be president needs to be incessantly articulated is the fact that ‘natural born citizen’ was not mentioned by candidate Trump or anybody else about Kamala Harris not being eligible to be president because both of her parents had not naturalized before she was born in California. As it turned out though, candidate Trump didn’t need to mention eligibility as it would have simply been mixed in with Kamala’s word salad rhetoric and would probably have created more ‘word salad’ confusion about who is a ‘natural born Citizen’, at least until WE the People become informed and agree that ALL ‘7 points’ accurately identify why only a ‘natural born Citizen’ is eligible to be president.

This is what I mean with this comment, “it is not my intention for Natural Born Citizen … to be published and forgotten”. The 2026 mid-term elections for House and Senate will be followed by the 2028 general election for President and vice President. Who knows if Natural Born Citizen will impact the next presidential election, or the next, or etc., until the ‘7 points’ of Article II are recognized by WE the People as definitive for eligibility to be president with or without an amendment to the Constitution? Also, by being associated with Article II eligibility of a ‘natural born Citizen’ to be president (Trump, Santorum, Graham, Palin, Huckabee, Paul, Perry, Sanders Biden, etc.) and eligibility of a ‘citizen’ to be president who is not ‘natural born’ (Obama, Haley, Jindal, Harris, Rubio, etc.), who knows when ‘birthright citizenship’ will be seen as having resulted from an unconstitutional naturalization by the 1898 Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, with the obvious conclusion that a ‘citizen’ is not eligible to be president if they were not born a ‘natural born Citizen’?

Neither an Article II Executive ‘order’ nor an Article III Supreme Court ‘opinion’ can naturalize any person as a ‘citizen’. Naturalization is an Article I duty. An Article I Act of Congress and an Article II Executive order can negate, nullify, ignore, an Article III Supreme Court interpretation – naturalization error – at any time, in 1898 or in the 2000s. The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment was not proposed and ratified with the intention of promoting ‘birthright citizenship’. Thirty years after 1868 the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we say so’) ‘opinion’ naturalized Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese alien child (1898-2025 is 127 years of of Supreme Court error). The Article III Supreme Court does not have the final say by fiat (‘because we say so’) ‘opinion’. Since the child was born on U.S. soil, the Court only had authority to say either that the child could not stay or could stay in the U.S. as an ‘alien’, not that the ‘alien’ was to be considered a U.S. citizen at birth. The Article III Supreme Court and the Article I established federal lower courts only have authority to interpret law according to the Constitution, not legislating law (e.g. naturalization) by fiat. In a tripartite federation, separation of powers among three equal branches means three ‘equal’ branches, not a superior branch among equals with final say on law, e.g. ‘birthright citizenship’ by fiat naturalization. That is why an Article I Act of Congress or an Article II Executive order have equal authority to negate an Article III fiat (‘because we say so’) ‘opinion’ if the two branches view an Article III ‘opinion’ as unconstitutional if it results in nonsense such as ‘birthright citizenship’, citizenship at birth to parents who are not U.S. citizens. The Court is not the only branch with authority to comment on legitimate law. The Article III Court has authority only to interpret legitimate law ‘enacted’ by the Article I Congress or law ‘ordered’ by the Article II Executive. The Article III Court absolutely does not have constitutional supremacy and ultimate authority to make law by interpretation, by ‘opinion’.

President Donald J. Trump’s executive order nullifying ‘birthright citizenship’ has Article II authority to correct the interpreting error (‘citizen’ v. ‘alien’ allowed to stay in U.S. with alien parents) of the 1898 Article III Supreme Court. The Court’s naturalization of an alien by fiat is making law, not interpreting law. An Article I Legislature ‘enacts’ law, and an Article II Executive ‘enforces’ an Article I law, or authors Executive orders/laws. Because the 1898 Court colored outside the lines, so to speak, both an Article I Legislature and an Article II Executive have ‘equal branch’ authority to ‘make’ law and to erase the colors outside the lines. Only one person, the President, any President, has executive authority to correct with an Executive order any constitutional opinion (e.g., President Andrew Jackson v. Chief Justice Marshall – ‘enforce’ an opinion) or an unconstitutional fiat ‘opinion’ of an Article III Supreme Court and of lower federal courts.

- 371 -

Why is a consideration of ‘equal branch authority’ important? The U.S. Supreme Court needs to be reigned in as the least powerful branch as it was originally intended. Article III Supreme Court ‘opinions’ interpreting law are not as powerful as ‘law’ enacted by the Article I Legislature and the Article II Executive’s executing (enforcing) the law enacted by the Article I legislature or the Article II Executive’s ‘order’ making law.

In the next paragraph is clarifying language (not from an Act of Congress, just info from uscourts.gov about separation of powers, equal branches, and separation of powers.

“The U.S. Constitution established three separate but equal branches of government: the legislative branch (makes the law), the executive branch (enforces the law [+executive order / law]), and the judicial branch (interprets the law). The Framers structured the government in this way to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and to create a system of checks and balances”. … “Under this system of checks and balances, there is an interplay of power among the three branches. Each branch has its own authority, but also must depend on the authority of the other branches for the government to function”.

Three equal branches means equal when the branches stay in their sphere of authority. The greater constitutional authority resides in the law making duties of the Article I Legislature and the Article II Executive. The Article III Supreme Court has the least authority of the three ‘equal’ branches of the tripartite federation and the separation of powers. Interpreting the law enacted by the Article I Legislature and ordered by the Article II Executive is important, but ‘interpreting’ is not the supreme authority among equals. When an Article III Supreme Court opinion (or a lower federal court ‘opinion’) results in a wrong interpretation a new Court can overturn it’s previous ‘opinion’, or the Court can be nullified by an Act of Congress or an Executive order. Remember, Article III Court opinions are not law and can be corrected by all three branches: 1857 Dred Scott – slave freedom; 1896 Plessy – equality/‘separate but equal’; 1898 Wong Kim Ark – citizenship naturalization; 1973 Roe – abortion; 2015 Obergefell – homosexuality and marriage. Homosexual marriage is definitely not implied in the U.S. Constitution because, in 1787 America, only heterosexual marriage was implied– and still is. President Andrew Jackson nullified a Supreme Court ‘opinion’ when he said that Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshal had expressed his opinion about a treaty with a tribe of indians, and he challenged the Court to enforce the ’opinion’. Remember, a Supreme Court or a lower federal court ‘opinion’ is not law, it is simply an ‘opinion’ about law. That is why Article III Supreme Court opinions interpreting law were originally considered to be of lesser importance than law enacted by an Article I Legislature and law ordered by an Article II Executive.

Seven Points About How To Determine Who Is Eligible To Be President

1) Only singular U.S. citizenship

(all words = imply original intent positive law – they could have explicitly said singular or dual)

2) Only by birth alone

(‘birth’ = explicit original genesis natural law)

(‘alone’ = implicit original intent positive law – they could have explicitly said by birth or oath)

3) Only on U.S. soil

(implicit original intent U.S. = positive law, and ‘soil’ = natural law)

4) Only to two U.S. citizens

(implicit original intent positive law – they could have explicitly said two or one U.S. citizen)

5) Only married

(implicit original intent positive law – they could have explicitly said married or not married)

6) Only to each other

(implicit original intent positive law – they could have explicitly said married to others or not married)

7) Only before a child is born

(implicit original intent positive law – ‘before’ precedes original genesis natural law ‘born’)

- 372 -

The seven points about how to determine who is eligible to be president are my own which I arrived at after a few years of reading point and counterpoint comments on various online blogs, and commenting about what seemed to me as obvious – founder and ratifier John Jay had only one natural law reason for underling ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” to his friend George Washington when Washington presided over the constitution convention. What John Jay meant eventually became obvious to me as I wrote and tried to clarify my thinking.

That is how ‘original genesis’ as a reference to natural law birth and ‘original intent’ as a reference to positive law application came to me as an easy way to explain eligibility to be president as expressed in Article II Section 1 clause 5:

“No Person except a natural born [‘original genesis’] Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible [‘original intent’] to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained [‘intent’] to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident [‘intent’] within the United States”.

- 373 -

APPENDIX

Patrick Henry: “Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this...”

The Patrick Henry quote below is from George Washington's Sacred Fire page 292. Copyright © 2006 by Peter A. Lillback, Providence Forum Press:

“Patrick Henry is most known for his fiery, patriotic oratory. But his patriotic fire was strengthened with biblical reflection. In May 1765, the Burgesses passed the Stamp Act Resolves. Years later, on the back of the paper, Henry wrote a note for posterity that highlighted several of the key events that led to the Revolution. His climactic statement declared in bold letters that he was not a Deist.

“This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. ‘Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. Henry’ ”

Amo, Amas, Amat and More: How to Use Latin

Here is helpful info from the pronunciation notes (page xvi):

1) The Latin “u” sounds like “w” after the letters “q”, “g”, and “s” – quick, guava, suave.

2) Latin consonants sound the same as in English, with exceptions.

3) The letter “c” sounds like “k” – Cicero is KIH-keh-roh.

4) The letter “g” sounds like “g” in give – geometria (geometry) is gay-oh-MEH-tree-ah.

5) The letter “s” sounds like “s” in set, pest, pets – semper paratus is SEM-pehr pah-RAH-tuus.

6) The letter “i” is used in Latin, although sometimes the letter “j” is seen before vowels in Latin texts with the initial sound of “y” as in young, so “i” or “j” sound like yoos, and before consonants the “i” sounds like a vowel, usually “e”.

7) The letter “v” sounds like “w”: veni, vidi, vici sounds like WAY-nee, WEE-dee, WEE-kee.

The Bantam New College Latin & English Dictionary

“Note: Following contemporary practice, the letter j has been replaced by the letter i in this dictionary”.

• ius iuris: n – law, the laws (as established by society and custom rather than statute law); legal system, right, justice, law court; legal right, authority, permission; prerogative; jurisdiction

• in ius ire: to go to court

• iura dare: to prescribe laws, administer justice

• iure: by right, rightfully

• ius civil: civic law

• ius dicers: to sit as judge, hold court

• ius gentium: law available to aliens as well as to citizens; international law

• ius patrium: power of life or death over one’s children

• ius praetorium: principles of law contained in a praetor’s edict’

• ius publicum: constitutional law

• mei iuris: subject to my control

• pro iure suo: without exceeding one’s rights, at will, freely; in one’s own right

• sui iuris (or suo iure): legally one’s own master

• summum ius: strict letter of the law

- 374 -

How Firm A Foundation

2 Peter 2:19 The firm foundation of God stands.

Hebrews 13:5 I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you.

- 375 -

How Firm a Foundation

1 How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word
What more can He say than to you He hath said
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled

2 Fear not, I am with thee; oh be not dismayed
For I am thy God and will still give thee aid
I’ll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand
Upheld by My righteous, omnipotent hand

3 When through the deep waters I call thee to go
The rivers of sorrow shall not overflow
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress

4 When through fiery trials thy pathways shall lie
My grace all sufficient shall be thy supply
The flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
Thy dross to consume and thy gold to refine

5 The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose
I will not, I will not desert to its foes
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake

[amen – with hands raised to heaven]

Author (attributed to) “K” in Rippon’s Selection of Hymns published in 1787. “K” is thought to refer to Robert Keen (or Keene), director of music at Carter Lane Baptist Church in London, England when John Rippon was pastor. Fifty years later (1837) the song was included in Caldwell’s Union Harmony. The lyrics and traditional American melody are in the public domain. This is the closing music in the 1983 movie The Day After, about a nuclear strike against the United States.

- 376 -

The Ghost From Valley Forge

01. I had a dream the other night I didn’t understand,

02. A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.

03. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed,

04. He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low he said:

05. We fought a revolution to secure our liberty,

06. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.

07. For future generations, this legacy we gave,

08. In this, the land of the free and home of the brave.

09. The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you’d always keep,

10. But tyrants labored endlessly while your parents were asleep.

11. Your freedom gone – your courage lost – you’re no more than a slave,

12.In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

13. You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun,

14. Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.

15. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent,

16. Although you have no voice in choosing how the money’s spent.

17. Your children must attend a school that doesn’t educate,

18. Your moral values can’t be taught, according to the state.

19. You read about the current ‘news’ in a very biased press,

20. You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the IRS.

21. Your money is no longer made of silver or of gold,

22. You trade your wealth for paper, so life can be controlled.

23. You pay for crimes that make our nation turn from God to shame,

24. You’ve taken Satan’s number, as you’ve traded in your name.

25. You’ve given government control to those who do you harm,

26. So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm.

27. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail,

28. Harass your fellow countryman while corrupted courts prevail.

29. Your public servants don’t uphold the solemn oath they’re sworn,

30. Your daughters visit doctors so children won’t be born.

31. Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores,

32. And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people’s wars.

33. Can you regain your freedom for which we fought and died?

34. Or don’t you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?

35. Are there no more values for which you’ll fight to save?

36. Or do you wish your children live in fear and be a slave?

37. Sons of the republic, arise and take a stand!

38. Defend the Constitution, the supreme law of the land!

39. Preserve our republic, and each God-given right!

40. And pray to God to keep the torch of freedom burning bright!

41. As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came,

42. His words were true, we are not free, and we have ourselves to blame.

43. For even now as tyrants trample each God-given right,

44. We only watch and tremble – too afraid to stand and fight.

45. If he stood by your bedside in a dream while you’re asleep,

46. And wonder what remains of your right he fought to keep.

47. What would be your answer if he called out from the grave?

48. Is this still the land of the free and home of the brave?

(This online poem is in the public domain)

- 377 -

Child of the Patriotic Dead

01. Child of the patriotic dead,

02. A nation’s hand rests on thy head;

03. A nations heart beats close to thine,

04. The country fondly calls thee ‘mine’!

05. On battle-fields, as death’s cold chill

06. Steals o’er the heart, the patriot’s will

07. Gives up, upon that blood-stained sod,

08. His child to country and to God.

09. What legacy so rich? Who loved so well

10. As these—bequeathed ’mid shot and shell—

11. The flesh and blood of him who bore

12. A freeman’s flag on southern shore?

13. Remembered be thy father’s grave,

14. Remembered all he died to save;

15. And welcome to our hearts and home

16. The babes he cherished as his own.

17. How base the heart, how lost to shame,

18. That calls thee by a pauper’s name;

19. That, grudging, has an alms to give

20. For those who died that we might live!

21. Nay, dear one, think not this shall be

22. The kindness we will show to thee;

23. But gather round the homestead board

24. With every blessing bounteous stored.

25. The memory of thy father’s deeds

26. Entwined with all thy wants and needs,

27. Makes all we do but sweet employ,

28. And gives each heart a lasting joy.

29. Close to our hearts, ye noble band;

30. Yours, for a heritage, this princely land;

31. In thanks, a nation, with its care,

32 Will watch and guard you everywhere.

(This civil war era poem is in the public domain)

- 378 -

CALIBRE-ebook.com: Listen While You Read

“Calibre is pronounced as cal-i-ber not ca-li-bre. If you’re wondering, calibre is the British/commonwealth spelling for caliber. Being Indian, that’s the natural spelling for me” [Kovid Goyal].

To listen as you read download the free app.

This is not an affiliate link, the app is 100% free.

→ https://calibre-ebook.com/download ← [Windows, macOS, Linux, Portable, Android, IOS]

1) Install, right click on PDF, Microsoft WORD, LibreOffice ODT documents to see the words ‘Open with’.

2) Hover on ‘Open with’ and left click on ‘The calibre e-book viewer’.

3) To read a document after it is open right click on the document page to see the calibre menu.

4) Left click on ‘Read aloud’ to read and/or listen to the text.

5) Change from one page to two pages (and back again) by pressing ‘Ctrl’ and ‘M’ at the same time.

- 379 -

American English and British English Grammar ‘Rules’

Location of Periods, Commas, Question Marks

I’m including this grammar ‘rules’ info as a heads up notice to avoid confusion. This is a heads up to readers about why I have chosen to punctuate the entire tabletalk conversation the British grammar way, with commas and periods outside (“outside”,) of the quote marks, not inside (“inside,”). While it is not an earthshaking issue, punctuation is considered standard unless there is an exception to the ‘rule’. In the quotes from ’The Grammar Bible’ which follow, the author says there are “no exceptions” for the period and the comma being put inside the quote marks, but there is an exception for the question mark being put either inside or outside the quote marks. That means that grammar ‘rules’ are fluid, not set in stone, not codified by natural law (law of nature) and also, obviously, not codified by positive law (law of people).

Why put commas and periods outside the quote mark? Well, it makes sense, it looks nice, it looks better with the period or comma outside the quote marks, it does not break any rule for punctuation. As an example, the only ‘rule’ that the author of ‘The Grammar Bible’ says about putting the period and the comma inside the quote marks is that they “go inside the closing quotation marks at all times,” and “[t]here are no exceptions to this rule.” Notice that the two quotes are accurate, the comma and the period are inside the quote marks the American grammar way instead of the British grammar way, outside of the marks (“outside the closing quotation marks”, and “[t]here are no exceptions to this rule”.). Notice also that “outside”, the comma closes the partial sentence, not the quote, and the period closes the entire sentence, not the quote. That is what I mean by it “makes sense” and it “looks nice”.

It is not a grammar ‘rule’ for an author of a book on grammar to say that there are ‘no exceptions’ to the ‘rule’. Why? Well, because there is no controlling ‘rule’ authority. There is no grammar controlling ‘legal’ authority. If there were a grammar ‘rule’ authority, American grammarians could and would tell British grammarians to punctuate ‘correctly’ by putting commas and periods inside the quote marks and not outside the quote marks, and British grammarians could and would tell American grammarians to punctuate ‘correctly’ by putting commas and periods outside the quote marks and not inside the quote marks. However, since there is no grammar ruling authority (or authorities), writers for American or British journals can be expected to use the punctuation ‘rules’ of their respective journals. Is that right? Yes, that’s ‘right.’ Uh, I mean, yes, that’s ‘right’.

Next is info from The Grammar Bible, YourDictionary.com, EnglishPlus.com, Grammarly.com about American English and British English punctuation. Should the period, comma, question mark, exclamation mark, colon, semi-colon be placed inside (‘inside,’) or outside (‘outside’,) the quote ‘marks?’ / ‘marks’?

The Grammar Bible: Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Grammar but Didn’t Know Who/m to Ask By Michael Strumpf and Auriel Douglas; © 2004 St. Martin’s Griffin (pages 444-449)

Commas, Periods, Question Marks, Quotation Marks

[snip] “If the entire sentence, including the material within the closing quotes, is a question, place the question mark outside the quote”.

Is it true that he said “including the material within … place … outside”?

YourDictionary.com

→ https://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar/punctuation/does-punctuation-go-inside-quotation-marks.html

Punctuation Almost Always Inside Quotation Marks

“Wondering whether to put a period inside or outside quotes? The correct choice is almost always inside. In American usage, commas and periods at the end of quotes always go inside the quotation marks. In British usage, they can go either inside or outside. American style guides, such as Associated Press (AP), Modern Language Association (MLA), and The Chicago Manual of Style (Chicago) follow the American rule when it comes to commas, periods”. [snip]

- 380 -

EnglishPlus.com

→ http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000104.htm

Question Marks or Exclamation Points in Quotations

“A question mark can be found outside the quotation mark if the sentence is asking about a quotation, but the quotation itself is not a question”.

Grammarly.com

→ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/quotation-marks

Do commas and periods go inside or outside quotation marks?

“Commas and periods always go inside the quotation marks in American English; dashes, colons, and semicolons almost always go outside the quotation marks; question marks and exclamation marks sometimes go inside, sometimes stay outside”.

Periods, commas, and question marks in and out of the quote marks.

A declarative sentence with the period inside and outside the quotation marks.

IN Period – It is helpful to know the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen.”

OUT Period – It is helpful to know the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

A declarative sentence with the comma inside and outside the quotation marks.

IN Comma – It is helpful to know the meaning of ‘born,’ but some people don’t think so.

OUT Comma – It is helpful to know the meaning of ‘born’, but some people don’t think so.

A sentence with the question mark inside and outside the quotation marks.

IN Question Mark – Is it helpful to know the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen?’

OUT Question Mark – Is it helpful to know the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”?

Periods and Commas

Why is ‘in’ or ‘out’ important? Well, consider these two example answers to ‘why’.

Notice that in the previous sentence, from the first word ‘Well’ to the last word ‘why’, the period closes the entire declarative sentence, and the closing quote mark closes only the word ‘why’, not the entire sentence. That’s “why.” Ooops, uh, I mean, that’s “why”.

Saying about periods and commas that “there are no exceptions to this rule”, as the Grammar Bible says how it’s been done since whenever it was first articulated by someone somewhen somewhere as a ‘rule’, suggests the question ‘why’. What is not clear is, as someone might ask, “why not?” As someone might say, why not put the comma or the period outside the quote marks? For example, since the entire sentence is declarative, put the comma “outside the quote marks”, and also put the period “outside the quote marks” because the “entire sentence is declarative”. Makes sense, right?

Question Marks

The Grammar Bible says, “If the entire sentence, including the material within the closing quotes, is a question, place the question mark outside the quote”. The periods and commas go only inside the quote marks, while question marks go either outside the quote or inside the quote depending on sentence structure. So, there are “no exceptions for this rule” for periods and commas (they only go inside the quote marks), and there is an exception for question marks. Well, ok, if that is what American grammarians say, that is the way it is. That common sense reason (a common sense rule?) for question marks makes sense, and the common sense about putting the question mark outside of the quote marks because the entire sentence is a question is why I think that it makes sense to put the period outside the quote marks when the entire sentence is declarative. If it makes sense to put the question mark outside the quote marks for a question sentence, why not put the period outside the quote marks for a declarative sentence?

- 381 -

Since there are common sense grammar ‘rules’ (periods and commas are to ‘always’ be put inside the quotes) which are not codified by natural law (law of nature) and not codified by positive law (law of people), why not change the grammar ‘rule’ of putting periods and commas only inside the quote and put them either inside or outside the quote marks unless doing so causes confusion. To avoid confusion is the reason that the Grammar Bible says to “Place commas and periods that do not belong to the quoted material enclosed in single quotes within those single quotes unless you feel that such placement is confusing. Avoiding confusion makes sense. If putting the periods and commas outside the quotes causes confusion, well, then, put the periods and commas inside the quotes as the American English grammar style guides say to do. Since it is not a law of nature or a law of people that periods and commas are to be placed only inside the quotes, maybe it is time for the American English grammar style guide publishers to study this [un]’controversial’ issue.

A Few Examples of ‘In?’ or ‘Out’?

#1) Why did John Jay underline the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”?

In #1 the entire sentence is a question so the question mark is outside the quote marks.

#2) That is the answer to your question, “why did John Jay underline the word born?”

In #2 only the quote is the question so the question mark is inside the quote marks.

So, he asked, “what do you think now, in or out?”

What do you think now, ‘in or out’?

#1) Who is a September 17, 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”?

#2) I know who is a September 17, 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”.

So why not amend the Constitution and remove from Article II the unnecessary words “… or a Citizen of ...”? Why not? Because even today in the 2000s the word ‘or’ continues to remind us, generation to generation, election to election, of the 1787 ‘original genesis’ implicit intent and the perpetual immutability of both “… except a natural born Citizen...” and “… or a Citizen of ….” since the last ‘or’ died sometime in the middle 1800s.

• Question mark out vs. in: “natural born Citizen”? vs. “natural born Citizen?”

• Period out vs. in: “natural born Citizen”. vs. “natural born Citizen.”

• Comma out vs. in: “natural born Citizen”, vs. “natural born Citizen,”

Now you know why this tabletalk conversation has punctuation with commas and periods outside the quote marks. Grammar ‘rules’ are not written on stone, American or British, and the periods and commas outside simply look good. Also, the British English punctuation makes sense with the comma and the period outside the quote marks. Since punctuation ‘rules’ are not set in stone why not change the American English style guides? The commas and periods can be put outside the quotes instead of saying that there are “no exceptions”. Right? There are “no exceptions” to the ‘rule’. Uh, I mean ‘the rule.’ No, really, I mean ‘the rule’. Just emphasizing for a few million writers and readers.

• Why did John Jay underline ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”?

The entire sentence is a question so the question mark is outside the quote marks.

• That is the answer to your question, “why did John Jay underline the word born?”

Only the quote is the question so the question mark is inside the quote marks.

• Do you understand why John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”?

• So, he asked the audience, “now what do you think, in or out?”

• What do you think now, ‘in or out’?

• Who is a September 17, 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”?

• Now I know who is a September 17, 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 “natural born Citizen”.

• So, why not amend the Constitution and remove “…or a Citizen of...”?

• Why? Because, for eligibility to be president, the Article II word ‘or’ is a 2000s perpetual reminder of the immutable reason for underlining ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

- 382 -

Now that you know the difference between American and British grammar rules which do you prefer: marks placed inside or outside the quotation marks?

• I prefer periods to be “in.” not “out”.

• I prefer periods to be “out”. not “in.”

• I prefer commas to be “in,” not “out”,

• I prefer commas to be “out”, not “in,”

Here is a trick question

• Do you prefer question marks to be “in?” or “out”?

• Do you prefer question marks to be “in?” not “out”?

• Do you prefer question marks to be “out”? not “in?”

Well, it depends. Is the entire sentence a question, or is a question part of a sentence?

Good answer.

- 383 -

384