For some reason the Obama neobirthers never try to defend the proposition that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” just like 42 of the 44 presidents (Washington to Obama). However, contrary to the assertions of the Obama neobirthers, 42 previous presidents were recognized as eligible to be president by either being grandfathered into presidential eligibility as were presidents #1 to #9 and #12, or by being authentic Article II natural born citizens because they were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens. The two exceptions in 44 presidencies are Chester Alan Arthur (#21) and Barack Hussein Obama (#44).

This incoherence about the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is important to clarify because, along with Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and nebulous Anarchists, there are Republicans who are getting into the redefinition game and are promoting the same meme, ‘birth on U.S. or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility’.

See the essay Natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz posted by William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School (Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 9:05 am

→ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

in which he says that he believes that

Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz are all natural born Citizens and eligible to be president because “There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a natural born Citizen as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth”.

A Friendly Hat Tip to Professor William Jacobson

Question: does ‘citizens by birth’ = “natural born Citizen” or = “born a citizen”, the suggestion of Alexander Hamilton? “Natural born Citizen” = ‘citizen by birth alone’ to two U.S. citizens, the original genesis suggestion of John Jay. Remember that “born a citizen” was rejected and “natural born Citizen” was adopted by the convention delegates for Article II and eligibility to be president. For that reason, Prof. Jacobson’s endorsement of Rubio, Jindal, Cruz is not supported by Article II and specifically the word ‘born’.

A friendly hat tip to Professor William Jacobson who is mildly persuasive but definitely not convincing in his conclusion of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” because each was born a citizen of the U.S. by being born on U.S. soil or foreign soil to either one or zero U.S. citizens, implying, but being very, very, very unpersuasive that ‘citizens by birth’ = a “natural born Citizen” as John Jay wrote in his July 25, 1787 note to Washington.

In other words, Professor Jacobson is tacitly implying three things. 1) Original birther John Jay in 1787 really intended the 2008 neobirther theory of dual citizenship when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. Since dual citizenship is only possible by being born to parents with mixed citizenship who are either married or not married to each other, the neobirther theory allows 2) birth on either U.S. soil or foreign soil to two or one or zero parents who either may or may not be married to each other before a child is born. That implicit 2000s neobirther theory allows the ideologically driven conclusion 3) that in 1787 John Jay did not really intend for the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” to imply only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone, only on U.S. soil, only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other only before a child is born.

Hmmm. If Prof. Jacobson and other living constitutionism neobirthers of any political affiliation do not agree that only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen married parents was not living originalism John Jay's only original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in 1787, well, how do living constitutionism neobirthers ‘know’ that John Jay did not imply only singular U.S. citizenship?

Hmmm. Maybe ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers should consider and adduce John Jay's 1787 original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” to try to defend their assertion that John Jay did not intend only singular U.S. citizenship.

Oh, no, they can’t go there, that’s a thought no-go-zone.

Maybe Prof. Jacobson and other neobirthers should consider the union but not the fusion of natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) in “natural born Citizen” (‘natural born’ = natural law, ‘Citizen’ = positive law). There is a union but not a fusion and a distinction but not a separation of words which clarifies the perpetual union of natural law and positive law, the natural law ‘natural born’ reality of a born child which informs and protects the positive law ‘Citizen’ status of the child. ‘Natural born’ and ‘Citizen’ are to be perpetually united but not to be fused, to be perpetually distinct but not to be separated.

- 101 -

Article V and Legal Insurrection

Legal Insurrection, the title of Prof. Jacobson’s blog, is the epitome of the explicit purpose of an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an amendment to clarify, for eligibility to be president, Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion of “born a citizen” and John Jay’s suggestion to his friend George Washington of “natural born Citizen”.

American Heritage Dictionary

• insurrection The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government

• insurgence n. The action or an instance of rebellion; an insurrection

• insurgency n. 1. Th quality or circumstance of being rebellious. 2. An instance of rebellion

• insurgent adj. 1. Rising in revolt against established authority, especially a government. 2. Rebelling against the leadership of a political party. ⁘ n. One who is insurgent. – insurgently

• insurrection n. The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government –insurrectionary adj. & n. –insurrectionism n. –insurrectionist n

On his website Professor Jacobson says, “Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law.”

Yep, a “legal insurrection … permitted by law” is the epitome of a “permitted by law” convention of states, of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ as written in Article V.

Yep, a “legal insurrection … permitted by law” is exactly what the framers and ratifiers originally intended as the constitutional way to nullify federal usurpation beyond the powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-18.

Yep, a “legal insurrection … permitted by law” is exactly what the framers and ratifiers originally intended as the constitutional way to clarify what and who is a “natural born Citizen” with eligibility to be president.

Yep,, a “legal insurrection … permitted by law” is the best ‘legal’ way to preserve the original genesis implicit intent of the perpetual Union for the posterity of We the People (not the posterity of WE the Aliens, legal or illegal), and is the best ‘legal’ way to preserve the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president.

As with the Democrat neobirthers, the Republican ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers never try to defend the absurd and incoherent proposition that an Article II “natural born Citizen” also applies to all children born on U.S. or foreign soil to one or zero U.S. citizens. The living constitutionism neobirthers never assert that John Jay implied ‘also … all … or … or’ in his note to George Washington and that Washington agreed with Jay about ‘also … all … or … or’. Why? Because Article II is a thought no-go-zone for living constitutionism neobirthers who do not want to adduce the natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) aspects of “natural born Citizen” (‘natural born’ = natural law; ‘Citizen’ = positive law).

The ‘union but not fusion’ of natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people), and the ‘distinction but not separation’ of natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) reveals that natural law (law of nature) obviously precedes and informs the positive law (law of people) of a society which in turn guides and protects the proper and natural order application of the positive law which is written and codified by people.

- 102 -

Positive Law Adopted “natural born Citizen”

Positive Law LGBTQ+ “Trans” Citizen

Why is it true that an Article II “natural born Citizen” child only born on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen parents can not lose “natural born Citizen” status by “trans” forming ideologically with or without physical surgery, or by being adopted, a positive law (law of people) word, by either one or two U.S. citizens or either one or two foreign born citizens who have become U.S. citizens by naturalization?

Why? Well, because a ‘legal’ “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president is determined by nature, by ‘natural law’, by birth alone, not ‘positive law’ words. ‘Legal’ positive law citizenship for eligibility to be president follows ‘legal’ natural law birth.

Natural law birth (being / existence) precedes positive law citizenship (eligibility).

That natural law reason is why “natural born Citizen” status is not lost by adoption or “trans” forming.

Citizenship status is not lost by 1) adoption by one or two U.S. citizens or 2) adoption by one or two foreign born parents who have naturalized before or after adoption of a “natural born Citizen” child.

Natural law is why “natural born Citizen” status will not ever be given or devolve on a foreign born person who is adopted by either one or two U.S. citizens.

Also, although a “trans” person born with singular U.S. citizenship is always eligible to be president at age 35, a law of nature can’t be changed by mutable positive law “trans” ideology. A mutable law of people will destroy a society when it is contrary to the immutable law of nature.

You know, immutable natural law reproduction is the only way for society to continue to exist and write both rational and irrational mutable positive law.

LGBTQ and Who/What is a ‘cisgender’?

L = Lesbian – homosexual female.

G = Gay – homosexual male.

B = Bisexual – both homosexual and heterosexual activity.

T = Transgender – a new kind of homo or hetero.

Q = Queer or Question – homosexual male and female.

See OK2BME.ca, What Does LGBTQ+ Mean

“People often use LGBTQ+ to mean all of the communities included in the ‘LGBTTTQQIAA ’”.

→ https://ok2bme.ca/resources/kids-teens/what-does-lgbtq-mean

Here are some words defined at the bottom of the same OK2BME.ca page:

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual, Two-Spirit, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual, Ally

L: Lesbian

G: Gay

B: Bisexual

T: Transgender

T: Transsexual

T: Two-Spirit

Q: Queer

Q: Questioning

I: Intersex

A: Asexual

A: Ally

Pan-sexual [‘pan’ = ‘all’ sexes]

A-gender [‘A’ = ‘no’ gender]

Gender Queer [‘Queer’ = ‘different’ genders = descriptive, not a pejorative]

Bi-gender [‘bi’ = ‘two’ or ‘both’ genders]

Gender Variant [‘variant’ = ‘more’ genders]

Pan-gender [‘pan’ = all’ genders]

- 103 -

The True Meaning of the Word ‘cisgender’

by Sunnivie Brydum on Advocate.com, July 31, 2015

→ https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2015/07/31/true-meaning-word-cisgender

“The term is typically credited to biologist Dana Leland Defosse, who used ‘cisgender’ in 1994,” explains Rawson. “like most subcultural terms, I would guess that it was being used informally with increasing frequency, but the print literature we have available is slightly behind in representing that. “From an epistemological standpoint, the word is essentially a straightforward antonym of “transgender.” Both words share Latin roots, with “trans” meaning “across, beyond, or on the other side of” and “cis” meaning “on this side of.” Add the suffix “gender” onto either word, and both terms emerge as strictly descriptive adjectives. “It’s not meant to be dismissive, but rather descriptive, Rawson says”.

For ‘legal’ eligibility to be president, here is a birth vs. adoption example of ‘legal’ natural law (law of nature) preceding, informing, guiding application of ‘legal’ positive law (law of people).

A ‘cisgender’ is a heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual, males or females, who accept and do not deny the obvious law of ‘nature’ – their birth biology. As mentioned before, a ‘legal’ “natural born Citizen” eligible to be president is determined by ‘natural law’ birth, not ‘positive law’ words. It does not matter yet in the second decade of the 2000s if adoptive parents are exclusively hetero(other)-sexual or exclusively homo(same)-sexual ‘cis-gender’ or ‘trans-gender’, or are inclusive bi(both)-sexual ‘cis’ or ‘trans’. Are you confused yet? At this point a ‘trans(across)-sexual’ adoption is not on the societal radar yet for making America (cough, cough, sip of water...) “a more perfect Union”, but give the Article I, Article II, Article III branches of the federation and the state legislatures and courts time to get ‘woke’ and correct the oh so terrible ancient error of exclusion. However, since 1787, the ‘legal’ natural law (law of nature) ‘natural born’ status and the ‘legal’ positive law (law of people) ‘Citizen’ status of a “natural born Citizen” takes precedence over the ‘legal’ positive law (law of people) adoption because natural law (law of nature) birth has a ‘legal’ aspect which is natural which is not given ‘legal’ status by positive law (law of people) words.

So, for that natural law birth ‘legal’ reason, ‘legal’ birth is not to be annulled and made void by positive law ‘legal’ adoption or ‘legal’ death of parents recorded in a ‘legal’ death certificate. The perpetuity of the natural law words ‘natural born’ protects the perpetuity of the positive law ‘Citizen’ status. The Article II word ‘Citizen’ identifies positive law that is ‘legally’ derived from two U.S. citizens married to each other. The ‘unity of citizenship’ of the parents results in the ‘continuity of citizenship’ of the child. The ‘legal’ positive law citizenship of the U.S. citizen child does not ‘legally’ protect the ‘legal’ natural law birth of a child. This is not coherent. It is the natural law U.S. ‘natural born’ status of a child born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married to each other which protects the positive law ‘Citizen’ status of a child..

Unless a positive law (law of people) Article V amendment removes the natural law (law of nature) authority of “natural born Citizen” status for eligibility to be president for all citizens, adopted children retain their “natural born Citizen” status for life, and it does not matter if both U.S. citizen married parents die before or after a child is adopted. Of course, it is assumed that ‘legal’ “natural born Citizen” status is verified before adoption. If ‘legal’ ‘citizen’ or “natural born Citizen” status is renounced, a person can repatriate as a ‘citizen’ only with a naturalization oath. A person can only repatriate as a ‘citizen’ because “natural born Citizen” status is possible only by birth alone, not by naturalization oath. That makes sense, right?

It is obvious that John Jay was implying only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and he was not implying what Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Ph.D. mathematician, and what William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor and others are implying, which is dual citizenship. The implications of living constitutionism neobirthers can be itemized in two parts, with a nascent third part (a nascent penumbra with emanations) waiting to be brought onto the stage of the arena of ideas to make foreign born adopted children eligible to be president:

#1) Whether born on U.S. or foreign soil, one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for eligibility to be president.

#2) Two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for eligibility.

#3) Still in the nascent stage of being hatched is the idea that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to grandfather into presidential eligibility all foreign born children adopted by U.S. citizens, married or not married, heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, cisgender, whatever ‘trans’ or ‘cis’ will refer to in the future. And, however ‘trans’ will be defined by the ‘woke’ deep thinkers of the future, the ‘woke’ and self-appointed leaders of the 2000s will definitely have a ‘new word order’ on their hands.

- 104 -

All three implications are incoherent without the ‘legal’ unity of citizenship that is maintained with the continuity of citizenship that can, as John Jay wrote and implied in 1787, only, by birth alone, ‘devolve’ on a child from two heterosexual U.S. citizens ‘legally’ married only to each other. No wonder living constitutionism neobirthers (Ph.D. mathematicians and law professors) are confused about John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for writing the original genesis word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his 1787 note to George Washington. They never consider to adduce living originalist John Jay's 1787 original genesis perspective. 2000s neobirthers claim that there has been uncertainty since September 17, 1787 when Article II was adopted at the convention, and so they are not really sure what ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” really meant on July 25, 1787 when John Jay suggested the words to George Washington, but, and it is amazing, they are 100% sure that Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen” and they are also sure that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris are eligible to be president.

Neobirthers seem to think that “natural born Citizen” by birth alone means the same thing as ‘natural born’ or ‘natural citizen’ or ‘born a citizen’ or ‘a born citizen’ or ‘citizen at birth’ or simply ‘citizen’.

Another Essay I posted on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen Blog

Mario, you posted a comment to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka Ph.D mathematician, on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the blog of make believe about open borders immigration being good for the GOP and a free America, and how the positive law about citizenship defines natural law and natural born Citizenship — but for some reason never adduced is the natural law foundation of positive law, — e.g., natural law soil and natural law birth on that U.S. soil precedes U.S. positive law citizenship.

As a mathematician Kevin must have a logical reason to promote the proposition that parents with two different citizenships can produce a child with dual citizenship that can somehow, ipso facto, fulfill John Jay's original genesis implicit intent of a child born with singular U.S. citizenship. The mantra of the Obama birth narrative neobirthers, the ‘Obama is a natural born citizen’ cadre, is that, for eligibility to be president, natural birth and dual citizenship is of equal relevance to natural birth and singular U.S. citizenship. Why? 'Cause he was born naturally (well, of course, open right palm to the forehead), and besides, Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent (John Jay spins in his grave every time the ‘one U.S. citizen’ theory is uttered by the neobirthers). Could PhD mathematician Kevin's logical reason be as simple as cadre, paid or unpaid, that he would spend years to ‘try’ to debate you to defend the Obama birth narrative of one U.S. citizen parent and dual citizenship with neobirther intent to ultimately promote the Obama greater agenda of “transforming the United States of America” into a community organizer's (inter)national ‘commune’?

Kevin, while he is probably a “natural born Citizen” himself, probably born on U.S. soil, probably born to two U.S. citizens who were probably married only to each other probably before he was born, he promotes, without historical foundation, the proposition that to be eligible to be POTUS only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child an Article II “natural born Citizen”, and he promotes this view because he and other proponents of ‘birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen married or unmarried parents is good 'nuf for POTUS eligibility’ such as William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor believe that a child who is an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment positive law ‘citizen’ is ipso facto sufficient to fulfill John Jay's 1787 natural law / positive law understanding of what “natural born Citizen” meant in 1787. That was three years before the 1790 Naturalization Act used the words “natural born Citizen” and eight years before the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the words “natural born Citizen” and replaced the three word unit with the single word ‘citizen’ so that the 1795 Naturalization Act (and 100% of all subsequent naturalization acts of Congress, all positive law) would conform to the natural law part of Article II, ‘natural born’, which gives natural law credibility to the positive law ‘Citizen’. The third Congress corrected its error as understood in 1795 that a naturalization act, a positive law, can not ‘make’ a person eligible to be POTUS. The two natural law parents produce a natural law child, and the same two natural law parents who are positive law U.S. citizens produce a positive law singular citizen, not a positive law dual citizen. ‘Born’ in “natural born Citizen” can only refer to singular U.S. citizenship, not dual.

- 105 -

A hypothetical scenario, an alternative way of looking at what the Congress did in 1795, eight years after John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, shows the irrefutable true original genesis implicit intent of John Jay in 1787. If Jay had originally intended that “natural born Citizen” did not mean only birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, but could mean birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents as the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly said about foreign birth to U.S. citizen parents (plural), that would have meant that the third Congress changed Jay's original genesis implicit intent about birth could be on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents (plural) with the 1795 Naturalization Act. However, the implication of the 1795 Naturalization Act of the third Congress is that “natural born Citizen” status was reserved only for children born only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen parents (plural).

Of course, that hypothetical scenario about the third Congress changing John Jay's original genesis implicit intent for “natural born Citizen” is not what happened. However, even though it is not what happened, the Obama neobirthers could still obfuscate about it. So, what is it that has stopped Democratic and Republican neobirthers from obfuscating about the 1787 original genesis implicit meaning of John Jay and asserting with 2000s neobirther certainty that what Jay really meant was birth on either U.S. or foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents? There are three things neobirthers would need to clarify.

1) They would have to promote the proposition that in 1790, three years after 1787, in Pres. Washington's first term, the first Congress changed John Jay's original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” from meaning birth only on U.S. soil to birth on either U.S. or foreign soil.

2) They would have to promote the proposition that in 1795, eight years after 1787, in Pres. Washington's second term, the third Congress changed John Jay's original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” from meaning birth on either U.S. or foreign soil, to birth only on U.S. soil.

3) They would have to admit that, yes, in 1787, Jay did originally mean only birth to two U.S. citizens married only to each other (plural) as explicitly written in both the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts.

For some reason the ‘Obama is a natural born citizen’ neobirthers shy away from the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ (positive law) language which tacitly affirms the 1787 Article II original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship, and instead they hover around the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (positive law) language when they're not hovering around the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ (positive law) language. They don't seem to understand that the words ‘natural born’ are natural law language and not positive law language, and ‘citizen’ is a positive law word, not a natural law word.

The three word term of art, “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) in the 1790 Naturalization Act, is positive law in a naturalization statute. It was the first and only time Congress inaccurately used the phrase in a statute. It was repealed and replaced in the 1795 Naturalization Act with the word ‘citizen’ (lower case ‘c’). This is an example of how positive law can not ‘make’ (‘create’) natural law, and conversely, an example of how natural law (law of nature) defines, informs, clarifies, guides, and protects the original intent for ‘making’ positive law (law of people). In Article II ‘natural born’ = natural law, and ‘Citizen’ = positive law. By natural law necessity, positive law ‘follows’ and is guided by natural law, not vice versa.

An 1868 Fourteenth Amendment positive law ‘citizen’ can not be made (‘created’) by a positive law constitutional amendment, or a positive law congressional statute, or a positive law Supreme Court ‘opinion’ into a 1787 Article II natural law “natural born Citizen” child who, because of being ‘natural born’ only on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizens married only to each other, is eligible to be president. Yeah, that’s true.

Positive law dual citizenship cannot produce a positive law citizen with only singular U.S. citizenship in fulfillment of John Jay's common sense original genesis implicit reason for underlining the natural law word ‘born’ in the natural law / positive law term of art “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington who agreed with Jay on his original genesis implicit intent. Neither Jay, Washington or the 1787 convention delegates and the state ratifiers could agree with the neobirthers of 2000s America, the Obama neobirthers, the Cruz neobirthers, the Rubio neobirthers, the Haley neobirthers, the Jindal neobirthers, or any future ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers, e.g., the Harris neobirthers, who may promote persons born with only one or zero U.S. citizen parents, whether born on or off U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil.

- 106 -

The soil is ‘natural law’ soil because by natural law conquest the soil is what it is by the law of nature, and natural law (nature) is not changed by conquest. The soil is simply, well, soil, it is not ‘made’ (‘created’) soil by positive law after conquest. In other words, to get an affirmative tip of the hat from the deists and atheists who do not believe there is a God who created the soil, let us simply agree that soil is 100% ‘natural made’ (‘created’) and is defined by natural law, not man ‘made’ into soil which is defined by positive law. The soil is a natural law material substance independent of whether or not a natural law birth happens on the natural law soil. The soil, being natural law material, is not a positive law idea or creation. Natural law (nature) can not be changed by a positive law (a codified idea), which is simply a declaration in a congressional statute, a judicial opinion, or an amendment to the constitution of the tripartite federation which exists as a federation because of the positive law articulated by the natural law ‘entity’ known as We the People.

• New York businessman Donald J. Trump had two (natural law) U.S. citizen (positive law) parents (natural law) at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

• Texas Sen. Ted Cruz had only one (natural law) U.S. citizen (positive law) parent (natural law) at his birth (natural law) outside of U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil/Canada (natural law).

• Florida Senator Marco Rubio had zero (natural law) U.S. citizen (positive law) parents (natural law) at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

• South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley had zero (natural law) U.S. citizen (positive law) parents (natural law) at her birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

• Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal had zero (natural law) U.S. citizen (positive law) parents (natural law) at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

• California Senator Kamala Harris had zero (natural law) U.S. citizen (positive law) parents (natural law) at her birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

Mario, you, I and other Article II ‘born only on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizen parents’ John Jay original genesis and original intent birthers who have posted here on your blog probably never will agree with the neobirther proposition that birth on either U.S. or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents was John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president. Conversely, the ‘born on either U.S. or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility’ neobirthers will never agree, for political and “transform the United States of America” agenda reasons, that John Jay's only common sense original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” was only singular U.S. citizenship, and only birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction came later), and only birth to two U.S. citizen parents. How could the neobirthers say otherwise? Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent at birth on U.S. soil, or so he and the neobirthers say. They only say so 'cause Obama says so. So, who can believe the same guy who says, when something bad happens in his administration, that he didn't learn about it until he heard it on the news like everybody else did. Is that believable?

Time to Change the Conversation and Move to Agreement

So, how do we change the conversation and move on to agreement about a solution to clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ and the perpetual ‘union’ of ‘natural born’ and ‘Citizen’ in Article II?

Concerning eligibility to be president in clause 5, what does it mean to ‘unite’ the natural law (law of nature) words ‘natural born’ and the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ as John Jay did in his note to George Washington? Did John Jay mean to imply that ‘born’ means only dual citizenship or only singular U.S. citizenship? Which implication expresses common law common sense? What is your preference? Mine is that Jay was implying that a “natural born Citizen” has only singular citizenship and is the only U.S. ‘citizen’ perpetually eligible to be president.

It seems to me that it is time to move on from what we in 2000s America think ‘natural born subject’ meant to Coke, the Calvin's Case in the 1600s, Blackstone, Tucker, Vattel in the 1700s, etc., and also what “natural born Citizen” meant to John Jay, George Washington, the framers and ratifiers since 1787, etc., and Acts of Congress, and Supreme Court opinions in the 1800s, 1900s, 2000s. It is time to agree about what all of We the People think “natural born Citizen” means today, not what ‘born’ implied in 1787 but what we, pro-singular citizenship and pro-dual citizenship, after dialogue, debate and agreement, believe what ‘born’ and “natural born Citizen” mean to us today, generation to generation, election to election, president to president.

- 107 -

Should ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” mean to us today in 2000s America what ‘born’ meant to living originalism, living originalist, and first original genesis birther John Jay in 1787? Should ‘born’ mean only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, or should ‘born’ mean today what living constitutionism neobirthers say it has meant since 1787, dual citizenship at birth to two or one or, since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court “fiat” (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’, to zero U.S. citizens, married or unmarried? Which meaning, singular or dual, of “natural born Citizen” will best preserve the ‘Union’ for the posterity of We the People, not the posterity of they the aliens?

A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of States

Maybe We the People should take the clarification of the meaning of “natural born Citizen” out of the hands of the See no evil Hear no evil Speak no evil Congress and Supreme Court about presidential eligibility and bring them to heel along with the U.S. progressive and globalist lap-dog media who also, either knowingly or not, endorse the living constitutionism of the neobirthers and ridicule, again, either knowingly or not, the living originalism of John Jay and original genesis birthers. They all should be brought to heel through our state Legislatures with an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an amendment. The purpose of Article V is for the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments, not to have another constitutional convention. The Legislatures of the ‘several States’ convening under Article V authority to propose amendments is derisively ridiculed as a ‘con-con’ (constitution con) but the bicameral Congress convening to propose amendments is not derisively ridiculed as a ‘con-con’. No. Neither the bicameral Congress nor the ‘several States’ proposing an amendment is an Article V con-con. Misrepresenting the Article V authority of both the U.S. Congress and the Legislatures of the ‘several states’ to simply ‘propose’ amendments is the ‘con’.

We can let the ‘Obama is a natural born Citizen’ neobirthers and the “transform the United States of America” cadre claim victory after victory in the court of public opinion and in the state and federal courts that did not deal with the merits of presidential eligibility, while John Jay original genesis birthers can lose every battle in the law courts and the court of public opinion and still win the bigger war in the arena of ideas with an Article V amendment to clarify this implication of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for our posterity (not illegal or legal alien ‘posterity’).

After loss after loss in the court of public opinion we can eventually claim a pyrrhic victory with an Article V convention of state Legislatures to propose an amendment to clarify what we all want ‘born’ to imply, suggest, mean. We who are ‘born on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizens’ John Jay original genesis birthers and they who are ‘born on foreign soil to either two or one U.S. citizen parents (or born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens) is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility’ neobirthers, we want the same thing. We all want “natural born Citizen” to mean something definite to help us assess and vet future presidential candidates who will not be able to obfuscate about eligibility to be U.S. president. The ‘birth on U.S. or foreign soil to two or one U.S. citizen parent is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility’ neobirthers can win every battle in the lower courts and in the uninformed court of public opinion, but they will lose the ideological long war in the court of informed public opinion with an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify the perpetual meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president.

For those who are not sure what an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ is, read more at Convention of States: → https://ConventionOfStates.com. At this point the federation congress and the federation court system is of no help in clarifying the meaning of “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be federation president. See The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? by Daniel P. Tokaji, published in 2008: “Conclusion: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates' eligibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter.”

→ http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-justiciability-of-eligibility-may-courts-decide-who-can-be-president

In an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment We the People of 2000s America can clarify what we want the meaning of “natural born Citizen” to be, living originalism or living constitutionism, and which definition we prefer for our own posterity (not for illegal or legal alien ‘posterity’) for our own ‘posterity’ for eligibility to be president, only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship.

- 108 -

What President Lincoln Said about the Perpetual ‘Union’

Are there any who do not want clarity about Article II Section 1 clause 5 and what “natural born Citizen” could, should or will mean in 2000s America? If there are any who do not want clarity, why not? Do they want to ‘transform’ and to ‘break’ the ‘Union’ of America? If so, they are an enemy of the state; an enemy of the perpetual ‘Union’ of America; an enemy of President Lincoln who was for the perpetual ‘Union’ of 1861-1865 against the civil war ‘transformers’. President Lincoln would have fought to defeat the third phase of 1800s reconstruction transformers who wanted to remain separate and resisted being equal for decades after the first wave of negro Republican politicians who won House seats were removed from office after they started losing elections.

President Lincoln would have been against the socialist ‘Philip Drew, Administrator’ Woodrow Wilson era and the Franklin Delano Roosevelt New Deal era, both presidents being living constitutionism transformers whose political progeny on the state and federal courts who still don't believe that living originalism is applicable in constitutional construction. For that ideological presupposition the neobirthers say that living originalism and original intent cannot inform judicial opinion.

President Lincoln would have been against the “...we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America” transformers who promote living constitutionism and who want to change the Constitution from a charter of negative liberties into a charter of positive liberties, to, as President Lincoln said of the perpetual ‘Union’, to “break it, so to speak”.

Visit Bartleby.com (→ http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html – paragraphs 12 to 16) to read what President Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who would try to ‘break’ the Union, and what he said about the age of the ‘union/Union’ and the Constitution.

In Lincoln’s first inaugural in 1861, he traced the origin of the United States back to the 1774 Articles of Association, the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1778 Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States, and clarifies the original intent of a “more perfect Union” for perpetual existence under the 1787 U.S. Constitution.

…general principles the Union is perpetual

confirmed by the history of the Union itself

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 paragraph #13 President Lincoln said, “One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

In paragraph #14 President Lincoln said, “The Union is much older than the Constitution”.

Implicit in the two sentences together is the suggestion that, not only is the perpetual ‘Union’ much older than the 1787 U.S. Constitution, it is also much older than Article II, and much older than the words “natural born Citizen” with the implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship, which is how it was understood in 1787. However, the ‘Union’ is not older than the natural law (law of nature) which is the foundation of positive law (law of people). Natural law protects, informs, guides, and is the teacher directing construction of a positive law (law of people) constitution which is intended to protect the natural law (law of nature) foundations of society. The original genesis implicit intent of the natural law / positive law words “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility have only one implicit meaning, only birth of a child on the soil claimed by both U.S. citizen parents (plural), married only to each other before the child is born. This was applied only in Article II to only the chief executive of the new federation.

- 109 -

While the natural law / positive law aspects of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president apply only to the executive branch of the federation and not to the states who are the creator (singular) of the constitution which codified the creation of the federation, natural law / positive law does apply to the states with their own executive officer, the governor. The states have the natural law right to determine their own sovereign future, as they did in 1787 with the construction of the federation with it’s own constitution with seven original articles. It was formed to preserve for the ‘several States’ of that time their perpetual ‘Union’, and to secure for themselves immediately and for their own posterity the perpetual “more perfect Union’ from all enemies, foreign and domestic, who would try to “violate it — break it, so to speak” and ‘transform’ the perpetual ‘Union’ by transforming the constitution from a charter of “negative liberties” into a charter of “positive liberties”.

Illinois State Senator Barack Obama (2001): “The Constitution is a Charter of Negative Liberties”

→ 1min. 45 sec.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs

→ 4min. 17 sec.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM

Although I do not know everything about everything to know everything about any one subject, one thing I do know is that, while there are four seminal birth documents of the ‘union/Union’ which President Lincoln identified in his 1861 first inaugural speech, only one document, the Constitution, is being ridiculed today as a nuisance and restrictive (i.e., ‘exclusive’) because it “… is a charter of negative liberties” (not positive liberties). Believe it because Illinois State Senator Barack Obama said so in 2001. Listen as Illinois State Senator Barack Obama expresses his view in a 2001 public radio interview about the distribution of wealth and his objections to the ‘negative liberties’ of the U.S. Constitution. What he meant is ‘negative’ liberties = what state and federal governments can not do ‘to’ you (‘positive’ liberties = what state and federal governments must do ‘for’ you).

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf”.

The negative liberties restrictions of the Constitution as articulated by Illinois State Senator BHObama are a nuisance to promoters of living constitutionism, as Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch refers to those who do not accept the originalism of the Constitution, because with negative liberty language which limits what the Federal government is not allowed to do ‘to’ citizens, the negative liberty language impedes the societal good which promoters of living constitutionism believe can be accomplished faster with the positive liberties (to do for you) expansion of the Federal government power against the power of the states and the people as identified in the 9th and 10th amendments.

With 18th century originalism intent the original birthers, the original authors, restricted the new tripartite federation with negative liberty language for the good of the 1787 We the People who understood original intent, and ultimately into perpetuity, for the good of We the Posterity who also understand the original intent of the original words written by the original authors.

What promoters of living constitutionism (progressives, new world order internationalists) want is positive liberty language that says what the tripartite federation must do for and to citizens by increasing federal power against the 9th and 10th Amendments authority of the states and the people who ‘created’ the federation government. Uniting the word ‘created’ with the word ‘federation’ reveals the positive law (law of people) which is possible only because of the natural law (law of nature) existence of We the People at the positive law (law of people) constitutional convention who ‘spoke’ the federation into existence and then ‘codified’ their thoughts and original genesis intent by writing down on paper for their posterity what their original genesis intent was for the federation from 1787 into perpetuity, generation to generation, election to election, president to president.

- 110 -

In other words, the physical existence of We the People made it possible to create our creature, the tripartite federation. The natural law of physical existence, the physical existence of We the People, preceded the existence of the positive law federation which was spoken into existence by We the People. The natural law preceded the positive law. Natural law precedes positive law. Nature law is the foundation of positive thought law – positive thought law which comes from the natural thoughts of people who exist before a positive thought law can exist.

To the living constitutionism advocates who propose positive liberty and who oppose living originalism and negative liberty the U.S. Constitution is an outdated document. Simply stated, that is the positive liberty v. negative liberty debate. The living originalism negative liberty v. living constitutionism positive liberty debate is nothing new, only the way to describe the political and social argument is new.

Here are two pertinent liberty questions.

#1) Assuming John Jay was a living originalism advocate in 1787 and the first original genesis birther, should Jay be considered a positive liberty advocate or a negative liberty advocate?

#2) Assuming John Jay was a living constitutionism advocate in 1787 and the first original genesis birther, should Jay be considered a positive liberty advocate, or a negative liberty advocate?

Those are two VERY GOOD questions. The answer to #1 is Jay would be considered a negative liberty advocate; the answer to #2 is Jay would be considered a positive liberty advocate.

When original genesis birther John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” regarding command of the army (and, by extrapolation of implicit intent, eligibility to be president) he was expressing agreement with the exclusivist negative liberty original genesis implicit intent of the new constitution, and, ultimately, the implicit intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5 for eligibility to be president by protecting the new federation from foreign influence. Because of the common law moral code of 1787 America John Jay, in underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, he was obviously not expressing approval of an inclusivist positive liberty Constitution that would, in another practical example, require the federation to promote transgenderism or identity politics or inclusive bisexuality vs. exclusive heterosexuality or inclusive homosexuality vs. exclusive heterosexuality or marxist critical theory inspired by the Marxist Frankfurt School or critical [race] theory or gender transition medical treatment and hormone therapy paid for by the We the Posterity of We the People.

Although Illinois State Senator Obama did not use the charter of positive liberties phrase in his 2001 radio interview, after listening to the audio of the above quote, people will understand the positive liberties reason why single U.S. citizen parent and dual citizenship child Barack Obama, as President, nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, the reason as found in the National Review Online article by Ed Whelan about the longer Wall Street Journal article by Jess Bravin. In the two articles quoted briefly below they quote Elena Kagan when she was Supreme Court Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall’s clerk in 1987. She advised Justice Marshall to hear a certiorari appeal only if he had four other justices on his side because the issue required looking at re-interpreting the Constitution which she identified correctly as a ‘charter of negative rather than positive liberties’.

Kagan: Constitution as Charter of “Positive Liberties”

by Ed Whelan on May 17, 2010, NationalReview.com

→ http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/55696/kagan-constitution-charter-positive-liberties/ed-whelan

“Kagan wrote: ‘I only worry that a majority of this [Supreme] court will agree with Judge Posner that ‘the Constitution is a charter of negative rather than positive liberties’ and will thereby preclude the approach of the Third and Fourth circuits.’ ”

Kagan Backed Broad Interpretation of 14th Amendment

by Jess Bravin May 16, 2010—WSJ.com

→ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703745904575248620872377444.html

“In a September 1987 memo to Justice Marshall, Ms. Kagan observed that the issue was important, and that lower courts had split on whether state officials, who can be sued for wrongful acts, also could be sued for wrongfully failing to act. […]”

Kagan was responding to Judge Posner: “ ‘The state does not have a duty enforceable by the federal courts to maintain a police force or a fire department, or to protect children from their parents,’ Judge Posner wrote.”

- 111 -

It is Time to Move On to How “natural born Citizen” Can be Clarified For the Future

Concerning eligibility to be president, what do we citizens in 21st century America think “natural born Citizen” implicitly means? How do we in 21st century America resolve the confusion about the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and how it is to be understood today?

Concerning eligibility to be president, one way is to move on with common sense beyond the questions about what “natural born Citizen” meant in 1787 to John Jay, to George Washington who agreed with Jay’s reason for underlining the word ‘born’, to the framers who, without private or public debate (there is no published or unpublished record of debate), agreed with Jay and Washington, and ultimately to the ratifiers of the thirteen states who agreed with the framers. Early confusion about the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” caused by the 1790 Naturalization Act of the 1st Congress was rectified by the 3rd Congress which repealed “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) and replaced the three words with the single word ‘citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act.

Concerning eligibility to be president, some of the questions itemized in the following pages are included for continuity of thought to show the weak reasoning of some living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers who promote the theory that ‘birth on U.S. or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf for presidential eligibility’ ’cause we said so. Concerning eligibility to be president, an example of the language used is what Prof. William Jacobson, Esq. wrote on his blog, “There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a natural born Citizen as that term can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth”.

→ http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz

Concerning eligibility to be president, is Prof. Jacobson correct? Is his definition of citizens by birth the meaning that we want to be affirmatively decided by an Article V convention, or decided by Congressional statute, or decided by Supreme Court opinion? The nebulous citizens by birth does not have original birther John Jay's original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, but the nebulous citizens by birth does allow for the living constitutionism implicit neobirther theory of dual citizenship by birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizens married or not married only to each other.

Concerning eligibility to be president, which of the following questions deals best with the living constitutionism implicit nebulousness of citizens by birth of the ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers who promote the theory that ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implies dual citizenship?

Concerning eligibility to be president, which of the following questions deals best with the living originalism of original birther John Jay who promoted the ‘legal basis of marriage of two U.S. citizens and the ‘legal’ 1787 common law understanding that the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implies 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?

Right of Soil (Place) · Jus Soli

Right of Blood (Parents) · Jus Sanguinis

4 Questions about U.S. Soil

Q 1) Should “natural born Citizen” only apply, for eligibility to be president, to a ‘citizen’ with only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil to only two U.S. citizens? [x] Yes [ ] No

There have been a total of 45 U.S. Presidents so far from George Washington to Donald Trump, and for 43 of them there has been no doubt that all 43 have met the presidential eligibility requirement. All 43 have only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship. The first 9 and the 12^th (ten) were grandfathered into presidential eligibility. Eight presidents were born before the “… or a Citizen of...” naturalization date of July 4, 1776 and the war for independence from Great Britain, and two were born after 1776 but before 1787. Thirty-five presidents have had only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen parents only married to each other before the birth of a child.

- 112 -

Q 2) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to either birth on U.S. soil (and jurisdictions) or to birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent? [ ] Yes [x] No

The two U.S. Presidents who were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, and were born to one U.S. citizen parent are #21 Chester Alan Arthur and #44 Barack Hussein Obama. In 2016 the one presidential candidate who was born on foreign soil (Canada, not under U.S. jurisdiction) to one U.S. citizen parent was my Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz whom I voted for to be a federal senator but not to be president.

Q 3) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to birth on U.S. soil (jurisdictions) to zero U.S. citizen parents? [ ] Yes [x] No

Florida Senator Marco Rubio, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley currently (December 2014) are three Republican potential candidates for president who were born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizens because they did not naturalize before their children were born.

Q 4) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to birth on U.S. soil (and jurisdictions) to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents? [ ] Yes [x] No

The point in 4 is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens, but always include the number ‘two’ with ‘or one or zero U.S. citizen parents’.

4 Questions about Foreign Soil

Q 1) Should “natural born Citizen” only apply, for eligibility to be president, to birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens? [ ] Yes [x] No

Birth on foreign soil to U.S. citizens, plural, was included in the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) language, but the three words were repealed by the single 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word. Since 1795 the “natural born citizen” language (lower case ‘c’) has never been included in any immigration or naturalization statutes of the U.S. Congress. Also, just as significant as an Act of Congress, both ‘citizen’ and “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) have not been ‘decided’ by the Supreme Court.

Q 2) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent? [ ] Yes [x] No

My Texas Senator Ted Cruz currently (as of December 2014) is one Republican potential candidate for president who was not born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil. He was born on the foreign soil of Alberta, Canada to one U.S. citizen parent who was married to Sen. Cruz's Cuban citizen father before Sen. Cruz was born. Because Sen. Cruz's father had not naturalized before Sen. Cruz's birth, Sen. Cruz's triple citizen status is defined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)].

→ http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html

See also ‘Citizenship Through Parents’ at USCIS.gov

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

Q 3) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents? [ ] Yes [x] No

Since it is common sense obvious that ‘zero’ means that a person born on foreign soil to ‘zero’ U.S. citizenship parents is not eligible to be president, what was the 1898 Supreme Court’s ‘legal’ basis for the United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision to issue a fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ that a child born on U.S. soil to two married parents who have ‘zero’ U.S. citizenship (not naturalize before his birth), that the child ‘is’ a U.S. ‘citizen’ and so ‘is’ eligible to vote for state or federal officials (including for president), and also, can you believe it (!!!???), ‘is’ eligible, yes, ‘is’ eligible to be president just because the child is born on U.S. soil to ‘zero’ U.S. citizenship parents? What? Really? Yeah, right! Really? Yeah. That’s why the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about the law, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘law’ about who is a ‘citizen’, should be revisited by the current Supreme Court and overturned to STOP!!! ‘birthright citizenship’ for children born on U.S. soil to only one or zero U.S. citizens or alien parents, married or not married only to each other!

- 113 -

Q 4) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to birth on foreign soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents? [ ] Yes [x] No

The point in 4 is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens, but always include the number ‘two’ with ‘or one or zero U.S. citizen parents’.

4 Questions about 1st Generation Children of Naturalized Parents

Q 1) Should “natural born Citizen” continue to only apply, for eligibility to be president, to children born in the 1st generation to two naturalized U.S. citizens or start with the 2nd generation of U.S. citizen children who have only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone to the 1st generation of two U.S. citizen parents who also have singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone to two naturalized U.S. citizen parents? [x] Yes [x] Maybe [ ] No

The 1787 framers and ratifiers were obvious in denying “natural born Citizen” status be ‘given’ to positive law (law of people) naturalized citizens. Also obviously implicit in the word ‘born’ since 1787 is that the 2nd generation which follows the naturalized persons (grandparents) would also be eligible to be president since the 2nd generation would have only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizens married only to each other.

Q 2) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to 1st generation children born to married parents when only one parent is a naturalized U.S. citizen? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q 3) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to 1st generation children born with zero naturalized U.S. citizen married parents? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q 4) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to 1st generation children born to either two or one or zero naturalized U.S. citizens? [ ] Yes [x] No

The point in 4 is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens, but always include the number ‘two’ with ‘or one or zero U.S. citizen parents’.

4 Questions about 2nd Generation Children of Naturalized Grandparents

Q 1) Should “natural born Citizen” be updated to only apply, for eligibility to be president, to 2nd generation children who have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens who also have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two married parents who may be naturalized U.S. citizens? [x] Yes [x] Maybe [ ] No

The 2nd generation minimum for eligibility to be president is more exclusive than eligibility for 1st generation children. The exclusivity is implicit in the Article II language – except, born, or, Citizen, time, adoption, eligible, attained, been, within, and John Jay’s note to George Washington – hint, check, not, given, devolve, born.

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”.

Part 1: Birth, Time

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;

Part 2: Age, Residence, Soil

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.

- 114 -

John Jay’s Suggestion

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable 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 devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

Just as immigrants since 1787 who naturalized as U.S. citizens were excluded from eligibility to be president for national security reasons, implicit in a 2nd generation minimum for eligibility to be president is that the 1st generation children of one or two naturalized parents may also be excluded from presidential eligibility for national security reasons as long as international terrorism is pursued by political ‘strugglers’ of the world who ‘unite’ to struggle. 1) Marxist commune workers of the world – unite – and raise the clenched fist and get down for the ‘struggle’ at the same time that the 2) Nazis of the world – unite – and raise the right arm and stay true to ‘mein kamph (my struggle)’ at the same time that 3) Muslims of the world ummah – unite – and join the ‘jihad / struggle’ for world domination. It is interesting that atheistic and theistic ideologies seem to be singing from the same songbook at the same time and are insisting on forcing on world citizens a political / religious ‘struggle’ ideology against people who will not submit to submission.

Q 2) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to children born to 2nd generation children who are born to one naturalized U.S. citizen? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q 3) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to children born to 2nd generation children who are born to zero naturalized U.S. citizens? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q 4) Should “natural born Citizen” also apply, for eligibility to be president, to children born to 2nd generation children born to either two or one or zero naturalized citizens? [ ] Yes [x] No

The point in 4 is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens, but always include the number ‘two’ with ‘or one or zero U.S. citizen parents’.

Grandfather Them All?

Q 1) Should Barack Hussein Obama be retroactively grandfathered into eligibility to be president by a Congressional statute, a positive law (law of people), before he leaves office, that would apply only to him, even though he admitted that he had only one U.S. citizen parent? [ ]Yes [x]No

Some may ask why not retroactively grandfather President Obama as an “… or a Citizen of ...” with a special Naturalization Act that would apply to only one person in American history?

Some may respond that it is not possible for a president to be retroactively grandfathered by Congress into presidential eligibility since presidential eligibility is an Article V constitutional amendment issue and the U.S. Congress cannot change Article II with an Article I Act of Congress. However, the U.S. Congress and We the Posterity in the ‘several States’ can change Article I and Article II with Article V thanks to We the People who included Article V in the U.S. Constitution for the benefit of only their own ‘Posterity’, not alien posterity.

Some may say a naturalization act was passed by the first Congress in President Washington's first term when Congress added the “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) language in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a statute, a positive law (law of people) for children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens (plural), and then the third Congress did it again by statute when it repealed the “natural born citizen” language in Washington's second term and changed “natural born citizen” to ‘citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act, a statute, a positive law (law of people) for children born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens (plural).

Some may say the U.S. Congress cannot change an Article with an Act of Congress because any Article can only be changed by amendment as articulated in Article V. The delegates to the 1787 constitutional convention inserted the “… or a Citizen of ...” language into Article II before the Article I Congress existed. An Act of Congress did not add “natural born Citizen” and “… or a Citizen of ...” to the Constitution because Congress did not exist on September 17, 1787, the day that the entire language of the Constitution was adopted by the convention delegates and then sent to the states for ratification.

- 115 -

Some may say, sure, President Obama is a U.S. citizen with dual citizenship, and retroactively grandfathering him by positive law into “... or a Citizen of ...” status does not require amending Article I,

However, grandfathering President Obama with positive law (law of people) can not ‘give’ him what can be acquired only by natural law (law of nature), possible only by birth alone, only singular U.S. citizenship.

Some may say that history is important to know and understand. An Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose one or more amendments to the Constitution could be a time of education for the American electorate to learn about their civic duty to understand their Constitution. In 1787 there was no natural law prohibiting a positive law constitution with proactive application for the first nine and the twelfth future “… or a Citizen of ...” presidents of the new union: 1) G. Washington, 2) J. Adams, 3) T. Jefferson, 4) J. Madison, 5) J. Monroe, 6) J. Q. Adams, 7) A. Jackson, 8) M. Van Buren, 9) W. H. Harrison, 12) Z. Taylor.

Proactive action similar to that of the 1787 framers of the constitution can be done again. Today there is also no natural law prohibiting a positive law amendment to clarify Article II Section 1 clause 5 with proactive effect for a very limited number of future presidential elections. For example, only for the next three future ‘citizen’ presidential candidates who know that they do not qualify as a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship.

Democrat or Republican “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers will probably not want an amendment to clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ because then they would not be able to game the system of electing, not a “natural born Citizen” with singular U.S. citizenship by being born with only two U.S. citizen parents, but a future ‘citizen’ president who may have dual citizenship by being born with only one U.S. citizen parent, whether born on U.S. soil or foreign soil such as Canada, or Mexico, or wherever around the world.

To Obama “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers, maintaining the Obama birth narrative that, for eligibility to be president, only one U.S. citizen parent and having dual citizenship is more important to them for future expansion of the ‘(inter)national commune’ transformation which will be possible under future administrations who will strengthen the living constitutionism of the collectivist ‘positive liberties’ agenda.

A ‘positive liberties’ agenda is more important to living constitutionism neobirthers than the perpetual national defense of the American people and their individual property rights and all of their individual liberties originally intended to be perpetually protected by the 1787 charter of ‘negative liberties’ written “… to form a more perfect Union” for their own descendants, their own Posterity. The living constitutionism neobirthers do not care that the U.S. Constitution was not written to transform “… the more perfect Union” by transforming the Constitution into a charter of ‘positive liberties’ with the intention of expanding the collectivist commune.

Q 2) Should ‘citizens’ be grandfathered proactively with an amendment of limited time similar to “… or a Citizen of ...” into future eligibility to be president just as the first nine and the twelfth “… or a Citizen of ...” presidents were grandfathered into presidential eligibility until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the 1800s? [x]Yes [ ]No

Here is the reason why some people say ‘yes’ to proactively grandfathering a ‘citizen’ into presidential eligibility for a limited time.

The 1787 “... or a Citizen of ...” patriots grandfathered themselves into presidential eligibility in Article II because they participated in and were loyal to the successful resolution of the revolution and the war for independence from Great Britain from July 4, 1776 to November 30, 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed ending the war. As each was an “... or a Citizen of ...” from the naturalization start date of 1776, the “... or a Citizen of ...” patriots wrote the words that grandfathered themselves as ‘citizens’ into Article II for their own presidential eligibility until, as they obviously knew, until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” patriot died sometime in the 1800s.

- 116 -

We the Posterity of We the People can do something proactively again in the 2000s by amending the constitution for the benefit of our own ‘citizens’ before the next national election cycle in 20_?_? (2016? 2020? 2024? 2028? 2032? 2036? 2040? 2044? 2048? 2052?, etc., or whatever the date will be in the future) to cut the “natural born Citizen” Gordian knot of confusion. Amending the constitution to allow for three federal presidential election cycles of four years each to current ‘citizens’ who are not “natural born Citizens” with only singular U.S. citizenship to be grandfathered into eligibility to be president will give We the People time and incentive to learn our civic duty to protect our We the People government from future usurpers of the oval office so that a ‘citizen’ of the future who is not a “natural born Citizen” is never again elected president because they will not have only singular U.S. citizenship which is only possible by birth alone. An educated electorate will definitely resolve the confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ and why living originalist John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Personally, I like this idea of an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose an amendment (a positive law / law of people word) to proactively grandfather (a positive law / law of people word) into presidential eligibility the American patriot who may be a ‘citizen’ (a positive law / law of people word) and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because I really like my Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio (amnesty aside for now), as well as Gov. Nikki Haley and Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Q 3) Should the third presidential election cycle be the last election cycle for ‘citizens’ grandfathered into eligibility to be president? [x]Yes [ ]No

Q 4) Should eligibility to be president by a ‘citizen’ be limited to only those who announce their candidacy for president before the first ‘grandfathered’ election cycle occurs? [x]Yes [ ]No

Only ‘citizens’ who announce their candidacy for president before the first national election will be eligible to run for the U.S. presidency in the second and third election cycles as grandfathered ‘citizens’. Of course, anybody who is a verifiable “natural born Citizen” is always eligible to run for the U.S. presidency and will never be limited by an amendment to limit the election cycles for ‘citizens’ who have been grandfathered into eligibility to be president.

Heterosexual and Homosexual Adoption of U.S. and Foreign Born Children

Some people say that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to grandfather into presidential eligibility the U.S. born or foreign born adopted children of either two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents.

U.S. Born Children

Q 1) Should/can eligibility to be president be open to children born on U.S. soil (or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil) who have been legally verified as having been born to two U.S. citizen parents, then adopted by either one or two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are either heterosexual or homosexual? [x] Yes [ ] No

The purpose is to maintain, for eligibility to be president, the natural law (law of nature) and positive law (law of people) ‘unity of citizenship’ of two U.S. citizens and the ‘continuity of citizenship’ of a child with singular U.S. citizenship. The purpose is to confirm heterosexualism and “natural born Citizen” by birth alone to two heterosexual citizens married only to each other, not approval or disapproval of positive law (law of people) bisexualism or homosexualism or LGBTQ+ism, all of which are contrary to natural law (law of nature) because ‘nature’ — ‘natural law’ / ‘law of nature’ — is not a matter of ‘choice’ as expressed in ‘positive law’ / ‘law of people’, either the choice expressed by a group called a congress of people or the choice expressed by one individual.

The common law in 1787 America concerning ‘unity’ and ‘continuity’ of U.S. citizenship was understood as U.S. citizenship being derived from the U.S. citizen male. When a U.S. citizen female or a foreign born female ‘legally married a U.S. citizen male, the U.S. citizenship of the male became the U.S. citizenship of the female, in essence naturalization by marriage. The ‘unity of citizenship’ of both parents was passed by birth alone to their child, and the ‘continuity of citizenship’ resulted in singular U.S. citizenship of the ‘legally’ married U.S. citizens being passed on to their child — by birth alone.

The point is the protection of the verified Article II “natural born Citizen” ( natural law ‘born’ and positive law ‘Citizen’) status of the adopted child. Verification should require 1) birth to two heterosexual ‘legal’ citizens, two original birth parents married only to each other before a child is born, and 2) singular U.S. citizenship derived from the same two U.S. citizen parents. The ‘legal’ unity / continuity of citizenship and the ‘natural born’ status derived from two heterosexual parents ‘legally’ married only to each other before a child is born is the natural law (law of nature) protector of the positive law (law of people) ‘Citizen’ status that will be retained whether or not the adoptive parents are heterosexual or homosexual and whether or not they are married to each other since the Article II “natural born Citizen” status of the adopted child has already been verified for presidential eligibility purposes as 1) birth on U.S. soil / jurisdiction to 2) two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

- 117 -

Q 2) Should/can eligibility to be president be open to children who have been verified to have singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens then the children are adopted by one U.S. citizen who is either a heterosexual male or female or a homosexual male or female? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q 3) Should/can eligibility to be president be open to children who have been verified to have singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens then the children are adopted by one person who is not a U.S. citizen, heterosexual or homosexual? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q 4) Should/can eligibility to be president be open to children who have been verified to have singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens then the children are adopted by either two or one or zero U.S. citizens, heterosexual or homosexual? [x] Yes [ ] No

Foreign Born Children

Q #1) Should/can eligibility to be president also be open to foreign born children adopted by two U.S. citizens who are heterosexual or homosexual? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q #2) Should/can eligibility to be president also be open to foreign born children adopted by one U.S. citizen who is heterosexual or homosexual? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q #3) Should/can eligibility to be president also be open to foreign born children adopted by zero U.S. citizens who are heterosexual or homosexual? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q #4) Should/can eligibility to be president also be open to foreign born children adopted by either two or one or zero U.S. citizens who are heterosexual or homosexual? [ ] Yes [x] No

The point in #4 is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens, but always include the number ‘two’ with ‘or one or zero U.S. citizen parents’.

How to Codify: Hard to Nullify vs. Easy to Nullify

How should an Article V amendment codify the perpetual original genesis and implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” in 21st century America?

Q 1) Should/can our 21st century definition of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president be codified only with an Article V amendment that can only be nullified by being repeal if ratified by 38 of the ‘several States’ (75%), and which can not be nullified or affected by a positive law statute passed by the bicameral Congress or by a positive law (law of people) ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q 2) Should our 21st century definition of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president also be codified with a statute by one Congress which can be nullified and repealed by the next Congress and also nullified by a Supreme Court ‘opinion’ and nullified with an Article V amendment? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q 3) Should our 21st century definition of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president also be codified with a Supreme Court ‘opinion’ which can be nullified and overturned by another Supreme Court ‘opinion’ and with an Article V amendment? [ ] Yes [x] No

Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose Amendments

Q 1) Should/can an Article V amendment be the U.S. Congress solution to end the confusion surrounding the living originalism and original genesis implicit meaning of the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? [x] Yes [ ] No

An amendment must be adopted by two thirds (67% / 34) of the House and also the Senate and ratified by three-quarters (75% / 38) of the states, and then must be implemented by Congress.

Q 2) Should/can an Article V amendment be the U.S. Congress solution to clarify “natural born Citizen” and the distinction between natural law (law of nature) birth in the words ‘natural born’ and positive law (law of people) citizenship in the word ‘Citizen’? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q 3) Should/can an Article V amendment be the U.S. Congress solution to end the confusion about the original genesis and the implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, and to clarify that ‘natural born’ (two natural law words) and ‘Citizen’ (a positive law word) are a reference to only singular U.S. citizenship because it is only possible by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other? [x] Yes [ ] No

- 118 -

This Article V ‘yes’ would be contrary to how the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language was interpreted thirty years later by the 1898 Supreme Court in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ which said that a child born on U.S. soil was a U.S. ‘citizen’ even if born to two parents who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their child was born. That ‘citizen’ opinion of the 1898 Supreme Court which the Court asserted was based on the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language has been used by living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers to assert that dual citizenship is ‘in the Constitution’ so dual citizenship is a-ok for eligibility to be president. In other words, dual citizenship is the alleged ‘legal’ reason which neobirthers use to assert with a straight face that ‘plop’ onto U.S. soil and ‘drop’ a new born baby with birthright citizenship is in the constitution. Yep, that's what they assert with a straight face.

Q 4) Should/can an Article V amendment be the U.S. Congress solution to end the confusion about the original genesis and implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, and to clarify that ‘natural born’ and ‘Citizen’ are a reference to either singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship by birth alone to either two U.S. citizens, married or not married only to each other, or one U.S. citizen, married or not married to the foreign born parent, or zero U.S. citizens, married or not married to each other? [ ] Yes [x] No

The point in 4 is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens, but always include the number ‘two’ with ‘or one or zero U.S. citizen parents’.

Article V Convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to Propose Amendments

Q 1) Should/can an Article V amendment be the ‘several States’ solution to end the confusion surrounding the original genesis and implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? [x] Yes [ ] No

Yes, because only an Article V amendment to the Constitution by the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ can resolve the confusion about the original genesis and implicit singular U.S. citizenship meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

Q 2) Should/can an Article V amendment be the ‘several States’ solution to end the confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit singular U.S. citizenship meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president in contrast to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language as interpreted by the 1898 ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q 3) Should/can the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ use Article V to propose an amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law (law of nature) birth (‘born’) and positive law (law of people) citizenship (‘Citizen’) for eligibility to be president? [x] Yes [ ] No

Yes, we can. “Si, se puede” (‘see, se pweth eh’ means ‘yes it's possible’ or ‘yes we can’). We the Posterity of We the People of the ‘several States’ can do what Article V authorizes both the bicameral Congress and the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to do because the ‘several States’ included themselves in Article V before there was a bicameral Congress or a Supreme Court. The inclusion of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ into the U.S. Constitution in Article V implies that We the Posterity of We the People who authored, adopted, and ratified the document will not EVER be nullified by any branch (Article I, Article II, Article III) of the tripartite federation which did not exist and was not an entity able to participate in the compact between the ‘several States’ in 1787, by the states first and the three branches of the federation second, the order of historical existence and appearance on the world stage.

Let’s repeat it for emphasis.

The inclusion of the words ‘Legislatures’ and ‘several States’ into Article V by the delegates of the ‘several States’, the original birthers who authored and adopted the Constitution, also can not be nullified by either the U.S. Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court against the wishes of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ even if the Congress and the Court wanted to. Why? Well, who is in charge here, the creator or the creature ‘created’ by ex nihilo fiat by the only creator possible, the already living We the People? The ‘several States’ existed before the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court were ‘created’ by positive law (law of people) to protect the “more perfect Union” of We the People of 1787 for We the Posterity of the 1700s to 2000s… and beyond.

- 119 -

Statute by U.S. Congress

Q 1) Is the solution to the confusion about the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president a nebulous ‘what does THAT mean’ statute, a positive law (law of people) by Congress, which can be nullified and replaced with another statute and also by an Article V amendment? [ ] Yes [x] No

Only an Article V amendment can permanently resolve the confusion about only singular U. S citizenship, the only original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

Q 2) Should the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and confusion about eligibility to be president be resolved with a statute of Congress, a positive law (law of people)? [ ] Yes [x] No

Only an Article V amendment can permanently resolve the confusion about only singular U. S citizenship, the only original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

Q 3) Can a statute of Congress ‘clarify’ the natural law (law of nature) implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? [x] Yes [ ] No

Yes, a statute of Congress can ‘clarify’ the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ but a ‘statute’, which is a positive law (law of people) word, would not be as secure and as perpetual as an Article V amendment because amendments to the constitution are deliberately harder to change than is a statute.

Q 4) Can a statute of Congress ‘clarify’ a positive law (law of people) ‘citizen’ with dual U.S. and foreign citizenship into citizenship with eligibility to be president? [ ] Yes [x] No

Only an amendment can permanently resolve the confusion about the original genesis and implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, a 1787 reference to only singular U.S. citizen and eligibility to be president, not a reference to dual citizenship.

‘Opinion’ about the ‘law’ by the U.S. Supreme Court

Q 1) Is the solution to the confusion about the original genesis and implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president a nebulous ‘what does THAT mean’ ‘opinion’ by the Supreme Court that can be nullified and overturned by the next Court and even, yes, also, an Article V amendment? [ ] Yes [x] No

Only an amendment can permanently resolve the confusion about the original genesis and implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

Q 2) Can the confusion about the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president be resolved with a Supreme Court ‘opinion’? [ ] Yes [x] No

A Supreme Court ‘opinion’ can be overturned with another Supreme Court ‘opinion’. Only an amendment can resolve the confusion about the original genesis and implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

Q 3) Can a Supreme Court ‘opinion’ clarify natural law (law of nature) birth for eligibility to be president? [x] Yes [x] No

Yes and No. A nine person Supreme Court ‘opinion’ can ‘clarify’ natural law (law of nature), but a nine person ‘opinion’ can also add to the confusion if there is confusion by the expositors of the nine ‘opinions’ about the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘natural born’ (two natural law / law of nature words) and the explicit meaning of ‘Citizen’ (a positive law / law of people word).

Q 4) Can an ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court ‘clarify’ that a ‘citizen’ who was born with dual citizenship is eligible to be president? [ ] Yes [x] No

Only an amendment can permanently resolve the confusion and ‘clarify’ that only singular U. S citizenship is the ONLY implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”.

So, which implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” should be codified by the bicameral legislature called the U.S. Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ with an Article V amendment to the Constitution?

- 120 -

1. 4 Questions about U.S. Soil

2. 4 Questions about Foreign Soil

3. 4 Questions about 1st Generation Children of Naturalized Parents

4. 4 Questions about 2nd Generation Children of Naturalized Grandparents

5. Grandfather Them All

6. U.S. Born Children

7. Foreign Born Children

8. How to Codify: Hard to Nullify vs. Easy to Nullify

9. Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose Amendments

10. Article V Convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to Propose Amendments

11. Statute by U.S. Congress

12. ‘Opinion’ about the ‘law’ by the U.S. Supreme Court

Which method of codification for eligibility to be president will We the People think will have the best chance of resisting and defeating subversion and usurpation of the presidency of the United States?

Which method of codification for eligibility to be president will be the safest long term solution to promote national security and national tranquility for the “natural born Citizen” posterity of We the People?

Which is the only original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”: only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship?

Article V

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate”.

Article V Part 1

1. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,

2. shall propose Amendments to this Constitution,

3. or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,

4. shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

5. which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,

6. when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

7. or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,

8. as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

Article V Part 2

1. Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the

2. Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any

3. Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section

4. of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall

5. be deprived of its’ equal Suffrage in the Senate.

- 121 -

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

We now consider a possible amendment which can be proposed by either the Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ by authority of Article V to clarify whether eligibility to be president should continue to begin with 1st generation children of naturalized citizens as implied in Article II or eligibility should begin with 2nd generation grandchildren of naturalized citizens. In other words, eligibility should begin with “natural born Citizen” grandchildren of naturalized grandparents. A convention would encourage grassroots participation with a variety of opinions with the final proposal being an amendment with language that would clarify, for eligibility to be president, that the words ‘natural born’ (two law of nature words) and ‘Citizen’ (a law of people word) in “natural born Citizen” are referring to only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship.

Possible Article V Amendment Suggestions

Only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president. The seven requirements are

1 Only singular U.S. citizenship

2 Only by birth alone

3 Only on U.S. soil

4 Only two U.S. citizens

5 Only married

6 Only to each other

7 Only before a child is born

It is time for We the People who control the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to change the conversation about what John Jay implied when he underlined ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. Who is in charge of the conversation, the creature or the creator, the tripartite federation, THE GOVERNMENT, or the Legislatures of We the People of the ‘several States’? Who is in charge, fellow citizens with limited authority who say ‘we are from the government and we're here to help you’ or We the People who brought the ‘federation government’ into existence? We the People of the ‘several States’ are the ‘creator’ (singular) of the two ‘creatures’ which were created in 1787, the U.S. Constitution, the written “… supreme Law of the Land”, the ‘creature’ that was created first and also the ‘creature’ that was created second, the tripartite federation government, the Article I Legislature, Article II Executive, Article III Judiciary. So, maybe it is time to clarify once and for all time who is eligible to be president by coming to a common understanding of what John Jay implicitly intended when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington with which Washington agreed and which was inserted into Article II? Did John Jay imply either only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship?

The first entity in Article V designated and authorized to propose amendments to the Constitution is the bicameral Congress. However, it seems that the Congress is part of the problem in the attempt by enemies of We the People, enemies of the state who want dissolution of the federation. The bicameral Congress doesn't seem to be aware, or, if they are aware, do not care that their authority under Article V to amend the Constitution to protect living originalism is being usurped by promoters of living constitutionism.

How do they try to usurp? They ignore the amendment process and prefer to go around the ‘charter of negative liberties’ Constitution by trying to get Supreme Court decisions which in effect transform the Constitution from a ‘charter of negative liberties’ (what the government is not allowed to do ‘to’ you, me, we, the citizen) into a “charter of positive liberties” (what the government is allowed to do ‘to’ you, me, we, the citizen). Consider how COVID-19 has been used as a ‘positive liberty’ tool which is used by the current administrators of our government to threaten We the People and businesses with regulations if employers do not require employees to get vaccine passports or the employees will lose their jobs. That is an excellent 2000s example of going around the ‘charter of negative liberties’ Constitution and ‘transforming’ the Constitution into a ‘charter of positive liberties’ without an amendment. The Article II executive branch can threaten corporations with a 'cause I said so’ ‘executive order’, and a ‘charter of positive liberties’ can be expressed with an Article III judicial branch ‘opinion’ and with an Article I legislative branch ‘statute’.

So, maybe it's an idea whose time has come to have an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ instead of waiting, waiting, waiting for the bicameral Congress to convene to do something to counter those who assert that the Constitution means what living constitutionism neobirthers today say it means for eligibility to be president (dual citizenship) and not what living originalism and original genesis birthers assert “natural born Citizen” meant for eligibility to be president in 1787 and perpetually (only singular U.S. citizenship).

- 122 -

My choice for the best way to prevent confusion which allows usurpation of the executive office of the federation is Article V and a “… Convention for proposing amendments ...” which authorizes either the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments to the Constitution. We the People of the ‘several States’ were in 1787 the creator of the written constitution, their first ‘creature’, which they used to ‘create’ their second ‘creature’, the tripartite federation, the ‘government’ which represents the will, the interests of We the People, not the ‘will’, not the ‘interests’ of the elected or appointed administrators of our federation government. In America the federation government is not the enemy of We the People for the same reason that the state government is not the enemy of the citizens of a state. The ‘enemy’ is some of the administrators of the federal and state governments and some of the personnel who are appointed to federal and state offices, legislative, executive, and judicial.

The language of Article V is explicit, it authorizes the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to convene to propose amendments. We the People of the ‘several States’ are the ‘creator’ and for that natural law (law of nature) reason We the People are sovereign and superior to both ‘creatures’ which were ‘created’, first the constitution and second, within the constitution, the tripartite federation. With the written text of the Constitution We the People are sovereign and superior to our creation, our ‘creature’, the tripartite federation, Article I Legislature, Article II Executive, Article III Judiciary.

Sample Titles and Language for Possible Amendments

In the following pages are sample titles and language for a possible amendment to clarify who in the future will be eligible to be president, starting with, for example, Amendment XXX or whatever the amendment number will be when proposed by the Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ and ratified by three-quarters of the states (75% / 38). The text includes language to grandfather into presidential eligibility future potential candidates for a cycle of three elections who may not be a “natural born Citizen” but only a ‘citizen’, a grandfathering action similar to “… or a Citizen of …” in Article II which was understood in 1787 to last only until the last ‘or’ died sometime in the middle to late 1800s.

Along with the ignorance of the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” by the majority of elected “… civil Officers of the United States” (Article II Section 4 words 7-12), the ‘citizen’ candidates for president may not know that they are not “… eligible to the Office of President ...” because they do not know that they are not a “natural born Citizen” with only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born. When they and other ‘citizens’ read this tabletalk conversation they definitely will know if they are eligible to be president or not.

Because of the decades old ignorance of the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ and the explicit meaning of ‘Citizen’ in “natural born Citizen”, some ‘citizen’ candidates for U.S. president may not know that they are not “… eligible to the Office of President ...” because, for example, they may have been, like my Texas Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada (foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction by agreement with the host country) with only one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign born parent who were married only to each other, or they may have been, like Florida Senator Marco Rubio and South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, born on U.S. soil to two married parents who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their children were born on U.S. soil. When they and other ‘citizens’ read this tabletalk conversation they definitely will know if they are or are not eligible to be president.

Possible Article II Draft Amendment #1

A Child Born to Two U.S. Born Citizen Married Parents

A Child Born to Two U.S. Naturalized Citizen Married Parents

Next, after the 1787 original Article II presidential eligibility clause, is an example of a possible amendment to clarify what a “natural born Citizen” is and who is eligible to be president.

U.S. Constitution 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”.

- 123 -

Possible Amendment to Clarify the Original Genesis Intent of “natural born Citizen”

To be eligible to be president of the United States a person must be a natural born Citizen with 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; before or after announcing candidacy a person must attain to age thirty-five years and reside fourteen consecutive years within the United States with residence starting before or after age thirty-five and ending before or after age thirty-five.

That is an example of language in a possible amendment to clarify eligibility to be president for first generation children who are U.S. citizens by birth alone by either (1) birth to U.S. born citizens or (2) birth to U.S. naturalized citizens or (3) birth to a U.S. born citizen married to a U.S. naturalized citizen.

To be eligible to be president of the United States a person must be a natural born Citizen with

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;

Before or after announcing candidacy

1. a person must attain to age thirty-five years

2. and reside fourteen consecutive years

3. within the United States

4. before or after age thirty-five;

5. or starting before age thirty-five

6. and ending after age thirty-five.

(1) First generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” children who are born with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. born citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

(2) First generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” children who are born with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. naturalized citizens married only to each other before a child is born.

(3) First generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” children who are born with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to a U.S. born citizen married to a U.S. naturalized citizen married only to each other before a child is born.

Why not clarify the immutable words “… except a natural born Citizen ...”, and “… or a Citizen of ...” in Article II?

Why not replace confusing words and punctuation in Article II with words as written in the Amendment XXX (or whatever the number will be in the future) example?

Why not clarify the three Article II immutable permanent original genesis words “natural born Citizen” and the three immutable temporary words “... or a Citizen ...”?

By clarifying the Article II original genesis implications of the words ‘except’ and ‘born’ and ‘or a Citizen’ the eligibility of a child born to two U.S. ‘born’ citizen parents, or a child born to one U.S. ‘born’ citizen married to a U.S. “naturalized” citizen, or a child born to two U.S. ‘naturalized’ citizens, the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ will also be clarified.

- 124 -

Just As · So Also

The immutable reason to retain and clarify “… or a Citizen of ...” in the discussion about clarifying the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is related to the 1787 original reason the original birthers inserted the ‘or’ word in Article II. The implication of “… or a Citizen of …” reminds living originalists today in 2000s America that the original birthers of 1787 were distinguishing between persons who were British ‘subjects’ and so not eligible to be president until they were naturalized by being grandfathered into eligibility on September 17, 1787 as an “… or a Citizen of ...” the United States. The implication of the Article II words “… except … or ...” in 1787 is this: just as people who were born before July 4, 1776 and people who were born after July 4, 1776 and before September 17, 1787 were all considered (= law of people word) to have only singular U.S. citizenship only by Article II naturalization alone until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s, so also are persons who are born after September 17, 1787 considered to have only singular U.S. citizenship because they are citizens only by birth alone. That is why people born with only singular U.S. citizenship are eligible to be president. For that ‘just as / so also’ reason dual citizenship is not coherent and is contrary to original genesis. Only singular, not dual.

Possible Article II Draft Amendment #2

A Child Born to Two U.S. Born Married Citizens

A Child Born to Two U.S. Naturalized Married Citizens

Draft Amendment #2 concerns 2nd generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren) born to two 1st generation U.S. citizens married only to each other born to two U.S. naturalized citizens (or mixed, one born and one naturalized) married only to each other.

These words reflect a friendly reminder to readers that, if they would like for their future children to be eligible to be president of the United States, U.S. citizenship of both heterosexual persons and marriage only to each other before children are born to them automatically ‘devolves’ (as John Jay wrote in his note to George Washington) only singular U.S. citizenship on their children by birth alone.

The Differences

The two draft amendments differ in which generation is permitted to be eligible to be president. Should eligibility to be president skip the 1st generation “natural born Citizen” children and begin with the 2nd generation “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren)? Allowing only 2nd generation “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren) to be eligible to be president is similar to what the 1787 original birthers did when they deliberately permitted, for eligibility to be president, only 1st generation children born with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. born citizens or two naturalized citizens, or, as mentioned before, a mix of parents, a born citizen married to a naturalized citizen. In other words, U.S. naturalized citizens were permitted to vote but were deliberately excluded from eligibility to be president. To protect 2000s America from enemies foreign and domestic in this digital age maybe We the Posterity should permit only 2nd generation ‘born’ citizens to be eligible to be president and deliberately exclude 1st generation ‘born’ ‘citizens’ from eligibility to be president just as 1787 naturalized citizens were permitted to vote but were excluded from eligibility to be president.

If atheistic political powers (nazi, marxist, communist) and theistic political powers (Muslim islamist) intent on dominating the entire world were an issue in 1787 America as it is today in the 2000s, it is probable that the 1787 original birthers would have written Article II Section 1 clause 5 to deliberately exclude 1st generation children of U.S. naturalized parents and explicitly written in the text that only 2nd generation “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren) of U.S. naturalized grandparents would be eligible to be president to counter generation jihad (‘struggle’). The original birthers of 1787 could have written Article II to prohibit 1st generation children from being eligible to be president if marxism and naziism and islamism or any form of anti-america-ism (anti-liberty-ism) had been global societal threats in 1787. For example, if the political-theist Muslim religion of peace (‘peace’ without opposition – submit or – whack) had been a global issue in 1787. In other words, to restrict eligibility to be president in 1787 would have been a national security issue, not a political ideology issue or a political-religious ideology issue.

- 125 -

Draft Amendment #1

The draft amendment #1 is about 1st generation natural born citizen children being eligible to be president only when they are born to two U.S. naturalized citizens, not born to one or zero U.S. naturalized citizens. It allows eligibility to be president to start with the 1st generation, a result which is in accord with the tacit implication of John Jay’s word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Just as – so also. Just as the Article II word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” was accurately understood in 1787 as applying to and starting with the 1st generation of the naturalized citizens, then so also Article II can be amended in the 2000s to clarify that the word ‘born’ can be applied to and to start with only the 2nd generation “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren) for eligibility to be president without the need of adding qualifying language as to what ‘born’ implicitly means. For example, for eligibility to be president after the 2nd generation amendment is ratified, explicit time limit language could be added to allow only 15 four year terms (= 60 years, for example 2020 to 2080, or 2024 to 2084, etc.) until the 2nd generation restriction is terminated. Also, language could be added with an implicit time limit such as “… or a Citizen of ...” had in 1787 which was understood at the time to imply that an “… or a Citizen of ...” would be eligible to be president until the last “… or a Citizen of ...” died, which turned out to be sometime in the middle to late 1800s, a possible 60 year time frame of 15 four year terms from 1787 to 1847.

Draft Amendment #2

The draft amendment #2 skips 1st generation “natural born Citizen” children and permits 2nd generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren) to be eligible to be president when they are born to two 1st generation U.S. citizens who were born to two naturalized U.S. citizens. With this amendment the grandchild of two U.S. naturalized citizens and the child of two U.S. born citizens are eligible to be president until the last 2nd generation restriction is terminated, in this example, after the last day of year 60 ends at 12 midnight on December 31, 2080 or 2084 or 2088 or etc.

A Natural Law (Law of Nature) Reason

There was not a “natural born Citizen” born the day after the Constitution was adopted in 1787 who was old enough to be president, and there was not a natural law (law of nature) reason prohibiting the limiting of eligibility to be president to a “natural born Citizen” or an “… or a Citizen of ...”. Remember that the original birthers were aware that the last “… or a Citizen of ...” would die sometime in the middle to late 1800s, so, although a time limit was not explicitly written into Article II, a time limit was implied with the single word ‘or’. Also, what applied to a 1787 1st generation child of two “… or a Citizen of ...” parents also applied to the 1787 1st generation children of two naturalized U.S. citizens — the 1787 1st generation children would be eligible to be president, and the naturalized citizens would only be eligible to vote.

The Legislatures of the ‘several States’ can ‘frame’ the presidential eligibility requirement of Article II to limit it to only the 2nd generations, if we want to, just as the original ‘framers’ of the constitution, the original genesis birthers did in 1787 when they did not permit naturalized U.S. citizens from being eligible to be president and permitted eligibility to be president to start with the 1st generation children of only two naturalized citizens. Also, concerning eligibility to be president, just as there was not natural law (law of nature) prohibiting “natural born Citizen” from being exclusive and restrictive in 1787 and applicable only to the children of the 1st generation of naturalized married parents, and, of course, applicable to all following generations born to two U.S. citizens, so also in the 2000s there is still not natural law (law of nature) prohibiting an amendment to say that “natural born Citizen” is to be exclusive and restrictive and applying to either 2nd generation children who are born to U.S. grandparents who are naturalized citizens by oath alone, or to 1st generation children born to parents who are U.S. citizens by birth alone.

The amendment to Article II should include language grandfathering into presidential eligibility only current (at the time of the amendment process starts) ‘citizens’ who announce their ‘citizen’ status candidacy before the first national election cycle (example – November, 2024, 2028, 2032, etc., whichever national election cycle date is finally selected as the first election cycle during the amendment process). By identifying themselves as only a ‘citizen’ they will qualify to announce their ‘citizen’ status candidacy only one more time for only the next national election cycle 8 years after the first date when they announced. This means that, if a person loses to a person of their own party who is elected for a second 4 year term, they will have one more opportunity to announce for the second time their own candidacy again as only a ‘citizen’.

- 126 -

Since a John Jay original genesis “natural born Citizen” will not need to be grandfathered into presidential eligibility, the amendment to Article II should include them with language that indicates that since they already have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents before the amendment, they will not be limited and will be eligible in all national election cycles in the future. The amendment should clearly state that any “natural born Citizen” will always be eligible to be president before and after the last pre-amendment “natural born Citizen” dies sometime in the late 21st century or possible in the early 22nd century. Of course, all persons born after this amendment with only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone on U.S. soil, and with the other Article II Section 1 clause 5 requirements, will always be eligible to be president.

Andrew McCarthy, ‘Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment’ (p. 24)

“It is not the purpose of the federal courts to resolve national controversies. They were created to resolve individual injuries but given no power to enforce their judgments. … In fact, the law of 'standing,' which addresses what grievances litigants may bring before courts, teaches that the more a controversy affects the body politic rather than the individual citizen, the less appropriate it is for judicial resolution. It is for just such controversies that we have political rights”.

The limits of the federal court system is why an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ is needed to correct the confusion of the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president. If living originalism birthers can not trust the New Deal influenced living constitutionism Supreme Courts and Congresses to do the right thing when interpreting the Constitution, would Democrat and Republican and Independent neobirthers of the future trust Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz, or Supreme Court Chief Justice Ted Cruz, or trust the Supreme Court if five or six Justices were appointed by President Rafael Edward ‘Ted’ Cruz? No? Yes? Huh, no comment?

The hypothetical with Senator Ted Cruz is why America needs a grassroots Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments to keep the writing of and codifying of John Jay's original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president as referring to only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to two U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born on U.S. soil, and keeping the definition of ‘born’ out of the fumbling hands of the federation, the federal government legislators and jurists, and keep control of the definition of ‘born’ in the hands of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ of We the People as was authorized in 1787 in Article V.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch in his book tour for his 2019 book, ‘A Republic, If You Can Keep It’, has several comments about living originalism vs. living constitutionism in Supreme Court opinions. An example, is Dred Scott v. Sanders in 1857. In this conversation I use ‘living originalism’ to counter the ‘living constitutionism’ and eisegesis of 2000s neobirthers who want to give new meanings to 1787 words instead of using the Article V amendment process to change the original ‘living’ intent of the original words.

Examples of a Possible Draft Amendment XXX to Clarify “natural born Citizen”

Next are possible draft amendments (#XXX or whatever the number will be when ratified) for 1st generation children and 2nd generation grandchildren with language to remove the ambiguity about the eternal relevance of John Jay's perpetual original genesis implicit reason ( only singular U.S. citizenship) for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. and to clarify that ‘born’ implies that the only U.S. ‘citizen’ who, because of being ‘natural born’ only on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other, is the only ‘citizen’ eligible to be president since the last 1787 Article II “… or a Citizen of ...” died in the 1800s.

The two draft amendments permit (1) only 1st generation “natural born Citizen” children to be eligible to be president who are born to either two U.S. born citizens or born to two U.S. naturalized citizens. That is followed with a suggestion for a possible update to “natural born Citizen” in Article II to permit (2) only 2nd generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” grandchildren to be eligible to be president who are born to U.S. born citizens born to U.S. naturalized citizens.

- 127 -

Article II Draft Amendment #1

1st generation children born to either U.S. born citizens or U.S. naturalized citizens

Section 1

To be eligible to the Office of President a person must be a natural born Citizen by birth alone in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married only to each other who are both U.S. citizens by birth on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction, or who are both naturalized U.S. citizens, or of mixed citizenship, one parent a U.S. citizen by natural birth and one parent a U.S. citizen by naturalization oath.

Section 2

To be eligible to the Office of President a person must reside in the United States for fourteen consecutive years and attain to the age of thirty-five, either before or after residence of fourteen years; the fourteen year residence must be only in the United States, not in U.S. jurisdictions on foreign soil.

A person who has attained to the age of thirty-five before ratification of this amendment and is not a U.S. natural born Citizen shall be eligible to apply to be president only for the three national elections following ratification of this amendment if they are already a U.S. citizen by naturalization at the time of ratification of this amendment, or a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizens at the time of ratification of this amendment, or a U.S. citizen by birth on foreign soil to two or one U.S. citizens at the time of ratification of this amendment.

Section 3

Verification for eligibility to the Office of President must include an original paper certificate of live birth or a certified duplicate paper copy of a certificate of live birth with date of birth only on U.S. soil or jurisdiction on foreign soil which has name and location of birth place, original names of both natural birth parents with their U.S. or foreign citizenship status and their birth or naturalization source of citizenship.

Verification must be made available by the presidential candidate to the American people, all federal Representatives, all federal Senators, all federal Electoral College Electors, and must be available and published by the candidate on all national media, internet, print, radio, television, the candidate's website, and using any method of communication that may be invented at any time in the future after ratification of this amendment.

Next is a possible amendment for 2nd generation U.S. “natural born Citizen” children (grandchildren) born to 1st generation U.S. born citizens who were born to U.S. naturalized U.S. citizens.

Article II Draft Amendment #2

2nd generation children born to U.S. born citizens or U.S. naturalized citizens

Section 1

To be eligible to the Office of President a person must be a natural born Citizen by birth alone in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil to 1st generation U.S. born citizens married only to each other who are both U.S. citizens by birth on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction who were born to U.S. naturalized U.S. citizens married only to each other.

Section 2

To be eligible to the Office of President a person must reside in the United States for fourteen consecutive years and attain to the age of thirty-five, either before or after residence of fourteen years; the fourteen year residence must be only in the United States, not in U.S. jurisdictions on foreign soil.

A person who has attained to the age of thirty-five before ratification of this amendment and is not a U.S. natural born Citizen shall be eligible to apply to be president only for the three national elections following ratification of this amendment if they are already a U.S. citizen by naturalization at the time of ratification of this amendment, or a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizens at the time of ratification of this amendment, or a U.S. citizen by birth on foreign soil to two or one U.S. citizens at the time of ratification of this amendment.

- 128 -

Section 3

Verification for eligibility to the Office of President must include an original paper certificate of live birth or a certified duplicate paper copy of a certificate of live birth with date of birth only on U.S. soil or jurisdiction on foreign soil which has name and location of birth place, original names of both natural birth parents with their U.S. or foreign citizenship status and their birth or naturalization source of citizenship.

Verification must be made available by the presidential candidate to the American people, all federal Representatives, all federal Senators, all federal Electoral College Electors, and must be available and published by the candidate on all national media, internet, print, radio, television, the candidate's website, and using any method of communication that may be invented at any time in the future after ratification of this amendment.

2nd Generation Eligibility to be President is A Put America First Idea Whose Time Has Come

With the rise of political and religious anti-America sentiments by atheist and theist entities who promote new world order ideas such as the marxist globalist and internationalist ‘commune’ (collective) and the islamist world ‘ummah’ (territory), maybe designating the 2nd generation grandchild of naturalized grandparents as the 21st century requirement for eligibility to be president is an idea whose time has come. Extending eligibility to be president by one generation is not prohibited by natural law (law of nature) or positive law (law of people). Using positive law (law of people) to pass by the 1st generation born to naturalized parents does not deny the foundation of natural law (law of nature): birth precedes citizenship and eligibility to be president. For example, birth as a ‘natural born subject’ of England preceded the positive law (law of people) of “… or a Citizen of ...” which applied to first U.S. president George Washington who was born on the ‘foreign’ soil of British America. Washington's being a ‘subject’ of a foreign power by birth alone (law of nature) preceded his U.S. citizenship by naturalization alone (law of people) and being grandfathered into presidential eligibility. What made Washington eligible was the positive law (law of people) language of “… or a Citizen of ...” in Article II. The temporary “… or a Citizen of ...” language did not deny the primacy of the permanent “natural born Citizen” original genesis language in the same sentence.

Just as the 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” positive law (law of people) did not deny “natural born Citizen”, so also using a positive law (law of people) amendment to the Constitution to bypass the 1st generation children of naturalized citizens and allowing only the 2nd generation grandchildren of naturalized grandparents to be eligible to be president does not deny natural law (law of nature): birth precedes citizenship and eligibility to be president. Starting eligibility to be president with the 2nd generation simply passes by the 1st generation. In other words, negating a positive law with a positive law does not violate natural law. Right?

If the original birthers at the 1787 constitutional convention had found it necessary to contend with two supremacist world domination ideologies maybe, to protect the vote in federal elections and eligibility to be president, maybe they would have passed by the 1st generation children of naturalized parents. The two supremacist ideologies are 1) the Marxist ‘commune’ ideology of the nascent internationalists of the 1860s (what we in 2000s America identify with the ‘globalist’ name), and 2) the Muslim ‘ummah’ ideology and cultural jihad. The original genesis birthers could have limited eligibility to be president to the 2nd generation for a national security reason: to counter the ‘cultural jihad’ of naturalization with the intention of using the Constitution to shariaize America with 1st generation children of naturalized parents. A positive law (law of people) limiting eligibility to be president to the 2nd generation grandchildren of naturalized grandparents simply delays the cultural jihad of Marxists (cultural marxism, critical theory, critical race theory, etc.) and the cultural jihad of Muslims (cultural jihad, convert, submit, or die… whack...) for only one generation. A positive law (law of people) permitting the vote and eligibility to be president to only 2nd generation grandchildren does not deny the foundation of “natural born Citizen” and only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone.

John Jay was prescient about the “Command in chief” being reserved only for a “natural born Citizen”. The perpetual ‘Union’ of America is being threatened by political and religious enemies of the ‘Union’ from outside and inside our nation and at the heart and highest levels of the federation. Maybe the time has come to clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president as implying only singular U.S. citizenship for We the People in the 2000s and beyond to preserve our perpetual ‘Union’ for our own posterity, not the posterity of legal or illegal aliens.

- 129 -

Which implicit meaning will the John Jay original genesis and living originalism birthers think the American people will choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people, and what the original genesis and perpetual meaning of “natural born Citizen” continues to mean in 2000s America? Singular? Dual?

Which implicit meaning will ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ neobirthers who promote living constitutionism theory (myth) think the American people will choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people (‘either birth on U.S. or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf for eligibility to be president’). What should “natural born Citizen” continue to mean today? Singular? Dual?

The question today about living originalism and living constitutionism is not what do the American people think that “natural born Citizen” meant in the past to John Jay and others in 1787 or what it means today, but what do We the People in 2000s America want “natural born Citizen” to mean in the future, generation to generation, for their own “natural born Citizen” posterity? Singular? Dual?

Time to Change the Conversation

Time to Choose Original Genesis Original Intent

I posted part of this essay December 28, 2014 on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog.

→ http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16

I posted the obvious questions and answers about John Jay on my blogger page and thought I would take the opportunity to say to Mario Apuzzo that his coherent expositions about “natural born Citizen” have been an inspiration to me to look deeply into the original intent of “natural born Citizen” as John Jay might have originally expected it to be understood by the founders, framers, ratifiers, and of course, We the Posterity of the 1787 We the People who united to form a more perfect Union.

Mario is very knowledgeable about the history surrounding “natural born Citizen” in Article II and I have been content to digest his clear and coherent analysis of “natural born Citizen” as John Jay may have explained his original genesis implicit meaning if he had been asked, meaning only birth in the nation of citizen parents, and Mario’s expositions of various authors such as Coke, Calvin's Case, Blackstone, St. George Tucker, Emer de Vattel, etc., naturalization acts of congress such as the 1790 and 1795 Acts, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, etc., and Supreme Court cases such as Minor vs. Happersett in 1875 and United States vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, etc. Eventually I found myself looking at the ‘common sense’ and ‘original genesis intent’ aspect of the “natural born Citizen” eligibility phrase as John Jay may have originally intended and explained it when it became apparent to me that the ‘living constitutionism’ new meaning neobirthers defending the Obama birth narrative theory of dual citizenship by being born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent never considered to adduce John Jay to support their theory that one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to be eligible to be president. I think the obvious questions about John Jay are a convenient way to explain why I think that John Jay's common sense original genesis implicit meaning of only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president is the Sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot of confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” which Jay underlined in his brief note to George Washington.

The ‘Gordian knot’ story is about Alexander the Great being told that the next ruler of Asia would be the person who untied the intricate knot tied by King Gordian of Phrygia, so Alexander cut it with his sword – whack. Simple. Well, to ‘cut’ through the confusion about the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” is as simple as cutting a knot with a sharp sword. That is why I think that original birther John Jay's common sense original genesis reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president has only one original genesis implicit meaning, not two, only one – only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone, and only singular is equivalent to the Sword of Alexander to simply ‘cut’ the ‘what does natural born Citizen really mean’ Gordian knot.

Which of the following two statements will ‘cut’ the Gordian knot of confusion and which ‘cut’ will add to the confusion about the meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president?

1) For eligibility to be president, the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implicitly means only singular U.S. citizenship or it does not.

2) For eligibility to be president, the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” implicitly means dual citizenship or it does not.

- 130 -

The essay that I posted on Mario's blog and this essay is my way of changing my conversation from the ethereal that is disputable about past history and authors who wrote about citizenship. The point is to focus on the current reality that something has to change in America to wake up the American people from their American history lethargy, and when they are awake to start a conversation to reach agreement about the national federation and who in the future will be allowed to occupy the federal executive oval office which was created (generated) by We the People who are the original creator (singular) of the original Legislatures of the original ‘several States’ addressed in Article V of the new Constitution. The “People” are the natural law genesis, the creator of the ‘several States’ with legislatures which eventually created our tripartite federation.

An Article V convention of Legislatures of the ‘several States’ is the best constitutional way to ‘nullify’ the actions of any branch of the federation (Article I Legislature, Article II Executive, Article III Judiciary) that ignores the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”. The exact authority phrase in Article V is “... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, …”. For people who don't know, Article V does not authorize a constitutional convention to rewrite the constitution (derisively called a “con con” by opponents of an Article V convention by the Legislatures of the “several States” to propose amendments). Article V explicitly authorizes a ‘legal’ convention by either the U.S. Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to simply propose amendments. Period. An Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ does not have authority to rewrite the constitution just as an Article V convention of the bicameral Congress (House and Senate) to propose an amendment does not have authority to rewrite the constitution. An amendment ‘amends’, it does not ‘rewrite’. The U.S. Congress is only authorized to convene to conduct the people’s business which includes, sometimes, to propose amendments. To ‘convene’ to propose is also what the 1787 Article V authorizes the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to do. Nothing more, nothing less – convene and propose. Then, after a proposed amendment is adopted by “… two thirds of the several States ...” the ‘proposed’ amendment is sent to the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ for ratification. The amendment proposed by the “… Legislatures of two thirds of the several States ...” is part of the Constitution “… when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States”, and the House and Senate have ‘zero’ input into the process from start to finish about language and intent… ‘zero’. Simple, right?

However, consider the four things which would need to be done for a “con-con” to happen.

A “con-con” could only happen if 1) all 34 (two thirds) of the Legislatures (elected members) of the “several States” publicly conspired to rewrite the Constitution, and then 2) all 38 (three fourths) of the Legislatures (elected members) of the “several States” would have to agree with the public conspiracy to rewrite the Constitution, and then 3) all of the members of the bicameral U.S. Congress would have to agree with the conspiracy of the Legislatures of the “several States” to rewrite the Constitution and 4) propose that the new Constitution be either, “… ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ….”

Do the opponents of an Article V convention by the Legislatures of the “several States” really not trust their “Posterity” fellow citizens (elected) to the point that they really believe that they would go along with a conspiracy to rewrite the entire Constitution instead of only convening to propose amendments? No, the original birthers probably would have trusted their “Posterity” fellow citizens (elected) to not agree with a “con con” conspiracy to rewrite the Constitution under the cover of convening to only propose amendments. Right? How do we know this today in 2000s America? Well, because the original birthers wrote themselves and their “Posterity” into the new constitution in Article V. Right?

- 131 -

Time to Choose Singular U.S. Citizenship or Dual Citizenship for Eligibility to be President

For an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to amend Article II Section 1 clause 5 and clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, it will be a choice between either 1) only singular U.S. citizenship which is possible only by birth alone on the U.S. soil of the nation claimed by the two U.S. citizens who are only married to each other before a child is born, or 2) birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen or birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens who may or may not be married to each other before a child is born.

Which implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president do the American people think would definitely promote national security and the perpetual ‘Union’ of America? Singular? Dual?

Which implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president do the American people think would definitely not promote national security and the perpetual ‘Union’ of America? Singular? Dual?

It can be done with an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose amendments just like the House and Senate do when they convene under the authority of Article I to propose legislation and sometimes to propose amendments under the authority of We the People as written in the text of Article V by the original birthers. When the House and Senate convene to propose Article V amendments to the constitution, they do not convene a constitutional convention (not a ‘con con’) to rewrite the constitution. The Congress does what Article V gives them authority to do, convene and propose amendments to the constitution to be sent to the states for ratification or rejection. Period. That is also what an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ does. The Legislatures of the ‘several States’ also can convene to propose amendments to the constitution to be ratified or rejected by the states. Period. An Article V amendment is the constitutional way for We the People of the ‘several States’ to nullify abuses perpetrated by our child, the tripartite federation government, and is the best and ultimate way to protect the U.S. Constitution and, for eligibility to be president, to perpetually preserve the singular U.S. citizenship original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” for our perpetual ‘Union’ for our own United States posterity, not the posterity of the world.

Five Amendments

13^th Slavery · 14^th Citizenship · 15^th Only Men Voting · 19^th All Women Voting · 26^th Voting Age

1) 1865 13^th Amendment, abolished race slavery, proposed January 31, 1865, ratified December 6, 1865.

2) 1868 14^th Amendment, citizenship for persons only born in the U.S. , proposed June 13, 1866, ratified July 9, 1868; a requirement, imposed on the confederated states for re-entry to the Union.

3) 1870 15^th Amendment, vote for males of all races, proposed February 26, 1869, ratified February 3, 1870.

4) 1920 19^th Amendment, vote for women regardless of race, proposed June 4, 1919, ratified August 18, 1920.

5) 1971 26^th Amendment, vote for eighteen-year-olds, proposed March 23, 1971, ratified July 1, 1971.

Amendment XIII

Race Slavery Abolished

Proposed January 31, 1865 · Ratified December 6, 1865

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV

U.S. Citizenship for Persons Born or Naturalized

Proposed June 13, 1866 · Ratified July 9, 1868

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- 132 -

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [Section 2 was partially modified by Amendment XIX, woman's suffrage and the right of both sexes to vote, proposed June 4, 1919, ratified August 18, 1920, and modified by Amendment XXVI, §1 (the symbol § = ‘section’), right of eighteen-year-olds to vote, proposed March 23, 1971, ratified July 1, 1971].

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Possible Amendment Language to Clarify

Article II ‘natural born Citizen’ and

Amendment 14 ‘born or naturalized … are citizens’

Natural Law Original Genesis born

Positive Law Original Intent Citizen and citizen

Section 1

A person born in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil with two U.S. citizen parents married only to each other before a child is born is a natural born Citizen, is a citizen of the State in which they reside, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is eligible to the Office of President of the United States.

Section 2

A person born in the United States or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil with only one U.S. citizen parent is a citizen of the State in which they reside, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is not eligible to the Office of President of the United States.

Section 3

A person naturalized by Act of Congress is a citizen of the State in which they reside, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is not eligible to the Office of President of the United States.

- 133 -

Section 4

A person born in the United States with zero U.S. citizen parents is not a citizen of that State, is not a citizen of the United States, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is not eligible for federal or State assistance or money, is eligible for private assistance or money for three months, is not eligible to vote in federal or state elections, is not eligible to the Office of President of the United State.

Section 5

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

The Right to Vote for Male U.S. Citizens of all Races

Proposed February 26, 1869 · Ratified February 3, 1870

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX

Right to Vote for Male and Female U.S. Citizens of all Races

Proposed June 4, 1919 · ratified August 18, 1920

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI

Right to Vote for Citizens Eighteen Years of Age

Proposed March 23, 1971 · Ratified July 1, 1971

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Compare the Language of the Constitution and an Act of Congress

1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5

Part A 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;

Part B 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.

1868 Amendment XIV Section 1

Part A All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Part B No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Part C nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- 134 -

INA: ACT 301 Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: [notice not ‘by’ birth alone]

(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….

Read more at USCIS.gov 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

Are singular and dual two possible ‘original genesis’ citizenships intended in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment words “All persons born or naturalized...are citizens”?

1) Singular U.S. citizenship for “… born or naturalized … are citizens” since 1868.

vs.

2) Dual citizenship for “… born or naturalized … are citizens” since 1868.

Which citizenship was intended for the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment by the Congress, only singular or dual?

Which citizenship corresponds with John Jay's ‘original genesis’ implicit intent in 1787 for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, only singular or dual?

Which citizenship was intended by the convention delegates in 1787 in Article II, only singular or dual?

Some living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers assert that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment original intent of the word ‘born’ in “All persons born … are citizens ...” was not clear for 30 years until the ‘opinion’ of the 1898 Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The neobirthers assert that the Court's holding means that Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was ‘considered’ (a law of people word) by the Supreme Court to be a ‘citizen’ at birth even though both of his parents were not naturalized U.S. citizens, and that his parents not being naturalized before his birth on U.S. soil means that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language can be construed as implying that ‘born’ means either birth to one or two U.S. citizens, or birth to zero or one or two alien parents. This means two things for eligibility to be president: 1) dual U.S. citizenship and foreign citizenship at birth only on U.S. soil to either one or zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other at the time of a child's birth, or 2) dual citizenship at birth only on U.S. soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizens married or not married to each other.

The point in 2) dual is the word ‘or’. Included in ‘either’ and ‘or’ is the number ‘two’ because the living constitutionism neobirthers who promote dual citizenship for eligibility to be president never, ever argue against birth only on U.S. soil to ‘two’ U.S. citizens married only to each other, but always include ‘two’ along with or one or zero U.S. citizens.

However, the neobirthers have a dilemma when they assert that dual citizenship is possible with one or zero U.S. citizens and with two or one or zero foreign born parents who have not naturalized as U.S. citizens. But the dilemma is never addressed by living constitutionism neobirthers who simply assert with no historical foundation by amendment, statute or judicial ‘opinion’ about a ‘law’ which says that dual citizenship fulfills the original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” in Article II. They assert it simply because every child born on U.S. soil is obviously natural born and the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly states that they are ‘citizens’ of the United States. So that is what living constitutionism neobirthers mean, ipso facto, voila, poof, puff of smoke, and after the smoke clears it is obvious to neobirthers that an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ is a “natural born Citizen” and is also (‘also’???) eligible to vote and also (‘also’???) eligible to be president. That is what Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal asserted about themselves when they referred to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment and their eligibility to be president even though they were born on U.S. soil to two parents who were not naturalized U.S. citizens before their children were born on U.S. soil.

- 135 -

That is how easy it is to be a “natural born Citizen” according to living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers. Inclusive dual citizenship is better than exclusive singular U.S. citizenship to be eligible to be president. Why? 'Cause the neobirthers say so. That's why. Period. However, the living constitutionism neobirthers have a dilemma. The Supreme Court held in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen even though he was born on U.S. soil to two married parents who were both not naturalized as U.S. citizens before he was born, so the neobirther conclusion is that all children are U.S. citizens if they are born on U.S. soil to two or one or zero married or not married parents who are not U.S. citizens, and all children born on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen married parents are ‘citizens’ with dual citizenship. However, that ‘dual’ citizenship with eligibility to be president assertion of the 2000s Democrat and Republic neobirthers is not what the 1898 Supreme Court said that ‘citizen’ meant in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and so, of course, was not addressed in their fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ that Wong Kim Ark was only a ‘citizen’, not a “natural born Citizen”.

The living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” neobirther new meaning is contrary to the original genesis implicit intent of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ language. It is incoherent to suggest that ‘citizens’ was a reference to both singular U.S. citizenship and dual citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment ‘citizen’ word refers to only singular U.S. citizenship, not singular and/or dual. It is incoherent for “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers to say, suggest, imply that Wong Kim Ark, who had zero U.S. citizen parents, did not have dual citizenship, U.S. and Chinese. Right? So, why did the 1898 Supreme Court say that he was a U.S. citizen simply because he was born on U.S. soil? That’s nuts. The 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ about citizenship was the beginning of the nonsense of ‘birthright citizenship’ and why aliens come to America to ‘plop-n-drop’ their ‘anchor baby’ on U.S. soil. That’s nuts too. Hey, U.S. Congress and U.S. Supreme Court, that’s nuts. Wake up! Wong Kim Ark was not eligible to vote or to be president in 1898 America simply because he was born on U.S. soil. Why? Well, think about it, think it through. Simply because he was not born a U.S. ‘citizen’ or a “natural born Citizen”. The U.S. Supreme Court simply naturalized Wong Kim Ark by ‘opinion’, by fiat – they said so – period – and the result is the idiocy of legal and illegal aliens coming to America to ‘plop-n-drop’ their ‘anchor baby’ who is, since 1898, considered to be a U.S. ‘citizen’ with ‘birthright citizenship’. The 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ‘opinion’ is wrong and needs to be revisited and overturned by the current Court, or corrected with an Article V amendment proposed by either the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ which should state explicitly that birth on U.S. soil with zero U.S. citizen parents does not mean that a child has dual citizenship with eligibility to vote in federal elections and eligibility to be federal president.

Persons born on U.S. soil to either one or zero U.S. citizens are not eligible to be president. The living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers assert with a serious face that the 1952 (and updates) INA: ACT 301 – Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] ‘citizen’ language means that birth on foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizens, married or not married to each other at the time of a child's birth, they assert that this fulfills the 1787 “natural born Citizen” requirement simply because every child is ‘natural born’ to either one or two U.S. citizens. See how easy it is to be for dual citizenship? See how easy it is to be confused about the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president? It's common sense. Why? Well, 'cause everyone is ‘born’. Right? Well, yes, and no.

First, the ‘citizen’ language of INA: ACT 301 is not suggesting that ‘at birth’ is implying that a child born on U.S. soil to either one or zero U.S. citizens is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. Right? Why? Well, because ‘by birth’ does not = ‘at birth’.

Second, the ‘citizen’ language of INA: ACT 301 is not suggesting that ‘at birth’ is implying that a child born on foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizens is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. Right? Why? Well, because ‘by birth’ does not = ‘at birth’.

Maybe living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers can cite the source(s) which say that a 1787 Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone is the same thing as an 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 ‘citizen’ ‘at birth’, or a 1952 INA: ACT 301 ‘citizen’ ‘at birth’. “Natural born Citizen” neobirthers also need to cite the source(s) which clarify that in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment the word ‘born’ implies dual citizenship ‘at birth’ on U.S. soil while ‘naturalized’ in the same sentence (and separated from ‘born’ by the word ‘or’) implies only singular U.S. citizenship, and that both words, ‘born’ (implying birth with only one U.S. citizen) and ‘naturalized’ (implying, since 1898, birth with zero or one U.S. citizen), both imply eligibility to be president since 1898. Huh??? What???

- 136 -

Maybe the living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers can cite the source(s) which say that the ‘citizen’ naturalization language in INA: ACT 301 (specifically clauses (a) and (g) which mention a child born to only one U.S. citizen) refers to a ‘citizen’ who ‘at birth’ has one U.S. citizen parent and for that reason is eligible to be president. The obvious neobirther implication is that the two explicit ‘at birth’ words in INA. ACT 301 mean exactly the same thing as the implicit by birth alone in Article II, and for that reason is associated with by birth alone to two U.S. citizens, and this automatically makes the child a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be president. So, according to neobirthers, both ‘at birth’ and ‘by birth’ mean by birth alone, and both the explicit INA: ACT 301 ‘at birth’ to one U.S. citizen and the implicit Article II ‘by birth’ to two U.S. citizens mean the same thing, the child born to either one or two U.S. citizens is eligible to be president.

Notice the explicit ‘citizen’ language in INA: ACT 301 that ‘at Birth’ the child is a ‘citizen’. The INA: ACT 301 language does not explicitly state nor implicitly suggest that ‘at Birth’ the child is a “natural born Citizen”. The ‘citizens … at Birth’ are INA. ACT 301 ‘citizens’ ‘at birth’ but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” by birth alone since an Article II “natural born Citizen” does not need the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment ‘at birth’ positive law (law of people) language or the 1952 INA: ACT 301 ‘at birth’ language to be by birth alone a “natural born Citizen” and the only ‘citizen’ eligible to be president.

Here is a quick look at the differences and similarities of the implications of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 words “… born or naturalized ...” and the 1787 Article II words “natural born Citizen”.

The original genesis presupposition of this table talk conversation about the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II is that when John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend and former revolutionary war general of the American army George Washington, Jay intended for these words, “… the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen ...”, to have only one implicit intent, not two implications. only one implication is obvious coherent common sense. Right? The repetition of the word ‘implication’ is intentional, to bring focus to the word ‘born’. John Jay underlining the word ‘born’ could only imply that eligibility to be president is obviously only ‘by birth’ somewhere on earth, of course, and ‘by birth’ in 1787 America for eligibility to be president could obviously only imply by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens, not ‘at and / or by birth’ to two or one or zero U.S. citizens on either U.S. soil or foreign soil, and obviously not to either U.S. citizens or foreign citizens. That is all obvious, right?

The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “… born … are citizens ...” language (since the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ of 9 men, not the ‘opinion’ of millions of We the People with an amendment) was not written with the intention that in the future the word ‘citizen’ in the amendment could, would, should be understood as suggesting that ‘at birth’ could be understood as implying that a child born on U.S. soil to either zero or one U.S. citizen is a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone simply because a child is ‘born’ somewhere on earth to at least one U.S. citizen. Both ‘one’, an arbitrary number (as is ‘zero’), and ‘United States citizen’, three words of specific designation, are positive law (law of people) numbers and words in contrast to the two words ‘natural born’ which are words of specificity which can only be accomplished by the physical natural law (law of nature) ‘union’ of two human persons.

The 1868 Fourteenth Amendment natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’ associated with the positive law (law of people) words “naturalized … citizens” are obviously referring to who is a U.S. ‘citizen’ and implying eligibility to vote in federal elections, not referring to who is a U.S. “natural born Citizen” and not implying eligibility to vote and eligibility to be president.

The 1952 (and updates) INA: ACT 301 ‘citizen’ language, which governs the presidential eligibility of my Texas Senator Ted Cruz, is not suggesting that a child born on U.S. soil to either one or zero U.S. citizens, or born on foreign soil to either one or two U.S. citizens is, by being designated a ‘citizen’ ‘at birth’, the same as a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. That is so obvious, right?

“All persons born or naturalized … are citizens”

The first sentence of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 has this explicit language, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens ...”. The question is what were ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ and ‘citizens’ intended to imply in 1868?

1) In 1868 did ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ both imply only singular U.S. citizenship? [x] yes [ ] no

2) In 1868 did ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ both imply only singular U.S. citizenship for persons who were ‘born or naturalized’ as ‘citizens’ only in the year 1868? [ ] yes [x] no.

3) In 1868 did ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ both imply dual U.S. and foreign citizenship? [ ] yes [x] no.

4) In 1868 did ‘born’ imply both the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment singular U.S. citizenship and the 1898 Supreme Court U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark dual citizenship ‘opinion’ by fiat that a person born on U.S. soil to married parents who are not naturalized U.S. citizens is a U.S. citizen? [ ] yes [x] no.

- 137 -

Those four questions clarify the essence of the debate about the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in Article II as understood by the constitutional convention delegates in 1787, ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment as understood by the U.S. Congress who knew the singular original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ which naturalized Wong Kim Ark by fiat and determined that his citizenship status was valid even though he was born on U.S. soil to alien parents. The Supreme Court’s naturalization by fiat of Wong Kim Ark after his birth on U.S. soil to legal aliens was as incoherent and makes as much nonsense as if the Supreme Court had naturalized by fiat his parents first and then naturalized Wong Kim Ark by fiat second.

Why did the United States Attorney argue before the Supreme Court the U.S. legal position that Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen? From 1787 to 1868, and for 30 years before the 1898 Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, ‘born’ did not imply dual citizenship or even singular U.S. citizenship for persons born on U.S. soil to aliens, married or not married to each other. In the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “born or naturalized” obviously did not imply dual citizenship for the free slaves before they were freed (right), and it definitely did not imply dual citizenship for naturalized free slaves after slavery was abolished (right) since they were now free citizens of only one nation, the United States of America after the civil war. Right? Well, uh, yeah, right.

The cherry on top is that “… or naturalized ...” in the Fourteenth Amendment did not imply that a future Supreme Court ‘opinion’ could, would, should naturalize by fiat. Right? Why? Well, because the authors of the amendment knew that only they, the Article I U.S. Congress, had responsibility for writing laws controlling immigration and naturalization, not the Article III U.S. Supreme Court. The United States argument to the Court was correct when it argued that Wong Kim Ark was not a U.S. citizen and the 1898 United States Supreme Court ‘opinion’ was wrong when it naturalized an alien.

You see it, right? Bingo...a ha... yes, now I see the essence of the issue of the ‘born’ ‘issue’ in relation to the ‘naturalized’ issue. Yes, the ‘issue’ pun is intended. The words “born or naturalized ... are citizens” in the Fourteenth Amendment imply only singular U.S. citizenship for the naturalized slaves freed by the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment (abolition of slavery). After the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (“born or naturalized ... are citizens”), the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment (vote is gender exclusive) gave only males of all races the right to vote in federal elections. The 1920 Nineteenth Amendment (vote is gender inclusive) gave the right to vote to all females in federal elections.

Since the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court the words “born or naturalized ... are citizens” in the Fourteenth Amendment have been (mis)construed by living constitutionism new meaning neobirthers to imply born with dual citizenship ‘at birth’ with eligibility to vote and also eligibility to be president (Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal, and Sen. Rubio). The neobirthers also assert with unsourced definiteness that ‘born’ in the Fourteenth Amendment can not imply that an Article II “natural born Citizen” must have only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone for eligibility to be president. They ‘know’ that for sure. They ‘know’ that dual citizenship is the original genesis implicit meaning of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, and they ‘know’ that only singular U.S. citizenship is not implied in the word ‘born’. They know that for sure. Yeah.

Extraneous to the 1868 “born or naturalized” language but relevant today in the 2000s is the naturalized ‘citizen’ who acquires only singular U.S. citizenship by oath alone, not by Supreme Court fiat which results in ‘birthright citizenship’ for ‘plop & drop’ babies, that is, to children born on U.S. soil to illegal or legal aliens. In other words, naturalized U.S. citizens do not acquire either only singular or dual citizenship by ‘oath’, right? Right, only singular. That is obvious, right?

- 138 -

Not a blazing hot issue today in the 2000s is the original intent of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens ...” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. Original genesis birthers say that the 1868 language implies only singular U.S. citizenship for the naturalized free slaves of that time with the understanding that the “born or naturalized” language would apply to future ‘citizens’ who would be ‘born or naturalized’ because the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would not allow without public debate dual citizenship from any nation for the naturalized free slaves in America who were born in the United States after the civil war. That makes sense, right? Naturalized U.S. citizens do not acquire dual U.S. and foreign citizenship by oath. Right? That common sense reason is why the “born or naturalized ... are citizens” words in the Fourteenth Amendment imply only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone and by oath alone and both words, “born” and “naturalized”, do not imply dual citizenship. That makes sense, right?

You see it now, right? Bingo...a ha... yes, now I see the essence of the issue of the born ‘issue’ in relation to the naturalized issue. Yes, the ‘issue’ pun is intended.

However, the 1868 original intent could be a BIG issue today in the 2000s if the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ‘opinion’ that the Fourteenth Amendment language of “All persons born ... are citizens ...” is no longer accepted as implying dual citizenship ‘at birth’ to either one or zero U.S. citizens, and if that silly dual implicit meaning is overturned by a future Supreme Court, or if the 1898 Supreme Court decision which encourages ‘birthright citizenship’ to ‘plop & drop’ babies of legal or illegal parents is eliminated with an Article V amendment, that would mean that the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (if ‘born’ is applied to birth to one or two U.S. citizen parents) would imply only singular U.S. citizenship again as was intended in 1868, not dual citizenship.

If the Supreme Court in 1898 had understood the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 words “All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens ...” as implying only singular U.S. citizenship in conformity with 1868, that would mean both Fourteenth Amendment words, ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’ would be understood as expressing only singular U.S. citizenship. However, “if … Court … understood” is not what happened. Instead, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment word ‘born’ has been (mis)construed since 1898 as having the dubious implication of dual citizenship. Since 1898 the uncontroversial Fourteenth Amendment word ‘naturalized’ has had the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment implication of only singular U.S. citizenship. It is not coherent for the Fourteenth Amendment word ‘born’ to have the implication of dual citizenship and the word ‘naturalized’ to have the implication of only singular U.S. citizenship. What is coherent is that both words, ‘born’ and ‘naturalized’, had the common sense and only implication possible, only singular U.S. citizenship in 1868, not only for the 1865 naturalized free slaves but all future children born on U.S. soil to only U.S. citizens by birth alone (Article II) and at birth (Article I) and U.S. citizens naturalized by oath and with raised hand (Article I), not naturalized by fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ (Article III).

It is not coherent to say that the words “… born or naturalized ...” were implying application to future so-called ‘birthright citizenship’ for ‘plop and drop anchor babies’ whose legal or illegal alien parents would be encouraged by future neobirthers to have their children born on U.S. soil. Citizenship ‘at birth’ on U.S. soil for babies of legal or illegal aliens is not what ‘posterity’ means in the We the People … Posterity preamble in the Constitution, and is an excellent example of living constitutionism silliness.

To be naturalized means to make the verbal oath to renounce foreign citizenship and titles. A new U.S. citizen ‘by oath’ has only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship. Right? That means that the uninformed assertion that both the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship implication of ‘born’ and the 1898 dual citizenship meaning of ‘born’ are incoherent and are not compatible. The phenomenon of the ‘birthright citizenship’ for ‘plop & drop anchor baby’ citizenship inspired by the 1898 Wong Kim Ark ‘opinion’ of the Supreme Court was definitely not the original intent of the original framers of the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment and authors of the words “born or naturalized … are citizens ...” in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment Section 1.

If living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers insist that ‘birthright citizenship’ for ‘plop and drop anchor babies’ citizenship with dual citizenship was the original intent of the original framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, they need to cite the sources, plural (well, ok, at least one), for the assertion that the original intent of the framers was to include dual citizenship for children of alien parents who ‘break and enter’ the front door, the back door, and the windows, so to speak, of our nation, to ‘plop & drop’ on our ‘home soil’, our nation, in our hospital rooms their dual citizenship birthright citizenship anchor babies with the expectation encouraged by the U.S. Congress immigration foolishness that the American tax payers will provide welfare for their dual citizenship children.

An Article V amendment should be proposed to codify the Fourteenth Amendment word ‘born’ in “All persons born or naturalized … are citizens ...” with language to stop birthright citizenship for anchor babies. In other words, STOP citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizenship parents, aka ‘aliens’, legal or illegal.

- 139 -

ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship vs. Dual Citizenship

In 2015 I posted an analysis essay similar to this one about the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 on Mario Apuzzo's blog: → https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

1865 Free – 1868 Citizen – 1870 Vote

After reviewing my previous post on Mario's blog about the 1868 original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment words “All persons born or naturalized … are citizens ...” I noticed that I had not connected the word ‘born’ with the word ‘naturalized’ as clearly as I should have to show that both words had only one ‘genesis’ intent and only one ‘statute’ intent in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, which was and still is only singular U.S. citizenship of only one nation, and it does not matter to the original intent of the 1868 amendment what the 1898 Supreme Court misconstrued.

As I mentioned on a previous post on Mario's Natural Born Citizen blog, after reading Mario's post I read Kevin's (Dr. Conspiracy) deep, deep, oh so intellectually deep, racism comment on his blog (http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2015/03/slander) about Dr. Conspiracy's connection of racism with common sense original genesis birthers who question Obama's deep, deep, oh so intellectually deep defense of his eligibility to be president, which is similar to this hypothetical but accurate characterization: I-I-I was born on U.S. soil – oh yes I was – and I had only one U.S. citizen parent – oh yes, I did – and one is good 'nuf to be eligible to be president – I won twice – you lost twice – and remember when I said 'we are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America' – elections have consequences.

So, here are a few simple questions for the “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers and racism experts (and ‘proper subset’ experts) Kevin/Masters mathematician and Kevin/PhD mathematician about the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 which has the explicit language, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens”.

What did “… born or naturalized ...” in the Fourteenth Amendment mean to the original framers of the words? Did it mean only singular or dual?

What did “… born or naturalized ...” mean to the free former slaves living in 1868 only three years after Republican President Abraham Lincoln set them free from ‘slavery’ and ‘involuntary servitude’ in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment? Did the naturalized free former slaves think in 1868 that they had only singular U.S. citizenship, or, obviously absurd and incoherent, did they think that they had both U.S. and foreign citizenship? Both singular and dual citizenship?

Do you see how absurd and incoherent ‘and’ is when ‘and’ is applied to the naturalized free former slaves? That is how absurd and incoherent it is to apply dual citizenship to an Article II U.S. “natural born Citizen”.

Singular Citizenship or Dual Citizenship?

Q1 Did “born or naturalized” imply only singular U.S. citizenship to the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment slaves set free with the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q2 Did “born or naturalized” imply only dual citizenship to the Fourteenth Amendment slaves set free with the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q3 Did “born or naturalized” imply both 1868 singular U.S. citizenship and also 1898 dual U.S. and foreign citizenship to the Fourteenth Amendment slaves set free with the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment? [ ] Yes [x] No

Q4 Did the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment freed slaves have only singular U.S. citizenship as new free ‘citizens’ of only one nation? [x] Yes [ ] No

Q5 Did the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment freed slaves have only dual citizenship as new free ‘citizens’ of only one nation? [ ] Yes [x] No – Some things are just sooooo obvious, right?

Q6 Did the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment freed slaves have both singular U.S. citizenship and dual citizenship as new ‘citizens’ of only one nation? [ ] Yes [x] No – only singular U.S. citizenship as new ‘citizens’ of only one nation. The authors of the language of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment were common sense thinkers, not schizophrenic and incoherent to knowingly intend or unknowingly imply dual citizenship.

Q7 Do “natural born Citizen” original genesis birthers and new meaning neobirthers think that the 1865 free former ‘slaves’ and the 1868 naturalized ‘citizens’ would consider themselves to be ‘citizens’ of only one nation or ‘citizens’ of two nations? Of course, ‘citizens’ of one nation, of course. The answer is definitely not ‘one … or ... two’ nations. Why? Well, because ‘or’ is incoherent. That is obvious common sense, right?

- 140 -

The members of the Negroid race brought to America before 1868 and those born in America since 1868 could only have been thought of by the Fourteenth Amendment authors in 1868 as ‘citizens’ of and with allegiance to only one nation with only singular U.S. citizenship. Right? Not ‘citizens’ of and with allegiance to two nations. That is obvious, right? It is incoherent to assert that the 1868 authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were thinking of dual citizenship for the free members of the Negroid race of that time in 1868 or for anybody in the future of any race (Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid) who would come into our country legally or illegally. Also, the 1868 authors of the Fourteenth Amendment were definitely not thinking of freed slaves as ‘citizens’ of two nations with dual citizenship in anticipation of future birthright citizenship anchor babies being applauded 30 years later by the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which (mis)construed the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “… born or naturalized … are citizens ...” language as meaning that ‘anchor baby’ Wong Kim Ark was a ‘citizen’ simply because he was ‘natural born’ on U.S. soil even though both of his parents had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before he was born.

What did “born or naturalized” mean in 1868 to the original framers and the original freed slaves who were set free three years earlier with the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment? Did ‘born’ mean only singular U.S. citizenship as ‘citizens’ of only one nation, or dual citizenship of two nations? That is the essence of the “… born or naturalized … are citizens ...” debate about the 1868 original intent of “born or naturalized ... are citizens” in the Fourteenth Amendment. To be ‘naturalized’ has always meant to have only singular U.S. citizenship, which is what the freed slaves finally had when they were ‘naturalized’ into U.S. citizenship by amendment in 1868. Seven years later in 1875 the Supreme Court in the Minor v. Happersett decision stayed close to the 1868 original genesis implicit intent of singular U.S. citizenship for the word ‘born’ in the Fourteenth Amendment. A different Supreme Court in 1898, twenty-three years after 1875 and thirty years after 1868, became incoherent in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision when it strayed from the 1868 original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ and strayed from the intent of naturalization by amendment.

Article I naturalization by Article V amendment is constitutional, but naturalization by Article III Supreme Court ‘opinion’ (by fiat) is not constitutional. That is why the ‘opinion’ of the Court must be overturned by the Court, or repealed with an Article V amendment, initiated by either the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’.

As understood by living constitutionism neobirthers today the 1898 Court ‘opinion’ in essence included Wong Kim Ark as one of the “born or naturalized ... are citizens” of the Fourteenth Amendment, making Wong Kim Ark an ‘anchor baby’ with the ‘birthright citizenship’ right to vote even though he was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, instead of defining him as an alien because he was born to two legal alien parents. That incoherent decision of the 1898 Supreme Court which gave so called ‘birthright citizenship’ and the right to vote to all ‘anchor babies’ can be overturned by another Court, or, for perpetual stability, by an Article V amendment.

Legal Basis for Birthright Citizenship

Did “born or naturalized … are citizens ...” in 1868 implicitly mean only singular U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship for the American members of the Negroid race after they were set free with a positive law (law of people)? Was it only singular? Yes, of course. Was it dual? No, of course not. Common sense, right? After the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment (freedom), followed by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment (citizenship), were the freed slaves considered to be citizens of only one nation or citizens of two nations with only singular U.S. citizenship? The question is relevant because “… citizens of two nations with only singular U.S. citizenship ...” is obviously nuts (and double nuts when applied to eligibility to be president). Right? Common sense suggests that the freed slaves saw themselves as they were viewed by the authors of the 1868 amendment, as having only singular U.S. citizenship. Why? Because they were naturalized (grandfathered) as U.S. citizens by the amendment proposed by the 1868 Congress of America alone, not America and unnamed African nations. The freed slaves were citizens of only one nation and had only singular U.S. citizenship, not dual citizenship.

- 141 -

So, what was the ‘legal’ basis found by the 1898 Court in the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment for the 1898 Supreme Court ‘opinion’ 30 years later which naturalized Wong Kim Ark retroactively by fiat as a U.S. citizen ‘at birth’ ( not by birth)? What was the ‘legal’ basis since Wong Kim Ark was not recognized for 30 years by the United States government to be naturalized at birth by either the Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization act of Congress? How do we ‘know’ today that Wong Kim Ark was not considered by the United States attorney to be a ‘citizen’ of the United States? The United States took Wong Kim Ark to court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark because the U.S. legal position was that he should not be allowed back into the United States after visiting China. Why? Well, because he was not a ‘citizen’ at birth on U.S. soil. He was born to Chinese parents who were not U.S. citizens because they both had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before his birth. Birth to U.S. citizens married only to each other before the birth of a child was the only way for singular U.S. citizenship to ‘devolve’ on a child. Also, dual citizenship and eligibility to be president were not even an issue at that time. A child born on U.S. soil to alien parents was also considered to be an alien. This was the common law understanding since 1787, and for the 30 years from 1868 to 1898. If the ‘alien … alien’ connection was not the common law understanding of the U.S. government for 30 years, living constitutionism neobirthers need to bring forward for our consideration the source(s) clarifying what the common law understanding of ‘alien … alien’ and citizenship was for 30 years before 1898? That makes sense, right?

What did “born or naturalized ... are citizens ...” implicitly mean in 1868? That’s a good question, right? The 1898 Supreme Court made a terrible mistake which has resulted in the incoherent nonsense of ‘birthright citizenship’. That is why the 1898 Supreme Court fiat (‘because we said so’) ‘opinion’ which has resulted in ‘birthright citizenship’ should be revisited and overturned by the Supreme Court or by an Article V amendment to correct the error. After 1868 the freed slaves of 1865 were ‘citizens’ of only one nation with only singular U.S. citizenship. Dual citizenship would have been incoherent in 1868, and it was incoherent 30 years later when the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court lost coherent connection with the original genesis implicit intent of the original framers of the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 and the word ‘born’ in the first three words of the first sentence, “All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens”. So, the word ‘born’ in 1868 implicitly meant only singular U.S. citizenship for 30 years for the freed slaves by the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment, the abolition of slavery amendment, which was followed by the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, the “born or naturalized ... are citizens” amendment, followed by the 1870 Fifteenth Amendment, the voting amendment which gave the freed male slaves the right to vote as citizens of only one nation, the United States.

Hmm, I wonder, do ANY living constitutionism “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers have deep, deep, oh so deep thoughts about Republican President Abraham Lincoln and his 1865 Thirteenth Amendment success in freeing the slaves to become free ‘citizens’ of only one nation (not two), which was followed to the benefit of the freed slaves with only singular U.S. citizenship three years later in 1868 with the Fourteenth Amendment? That being said, living originalism “natural born Citizen” original genesis birthers are waiting for a coherent and common sense reply from “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirthers to the question mentioned previously, what did “born or naturalized ... are citizens ...” implicitly mean in 1868 and perpetually if not only singular U.S. citizenship for persons born on U.S. soil or naturalized on U.S. soil?

Remember that a child born on U.S. soil or foreign soil to a U.S. citizen male was considered to be a U.S. citizen with singular citizenship but not eligible to be president if the male was not married to the U.S. citizen female or to the alien female. If the male was an alien and the female was a U.S. citizen, the child was considered to be an alien because the male was an alien, and it did not matter if the male and female (U.S. citizen or alien) were married or not married. That was the common law understanding of naturalization by marriage from the 1700s until the 1900s, from 1787 until the Cable Act of 1922.

Article V and Nullification

Next are a few comments to a fellow commentator whom I will call “X” which I posted on my blog on December 30, 2014 and on Mario Apuzzo’s Natural Born Citizen blog on December 30, 2014 at 11:00 PM

→ https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16

- 142 -

“X”, on December 30, 2014 at 12:08 AM you certainly made some cogent points, but something is missing in the solution. That something has to do with the time frame for doing all the good things that you wrote should be done, and the hit-or-miss element of getting the ‘we need’ items done in an organized and timely manner. Here is a brief sample:

“A more effective remedy is to push for nullification...”

“All we need is for one state – or even ...”

“So, while we flood the offices of ...”

“... we need to flood the precinct meetings of …”

“... push the Constitution as the primary agenda ...”

“... elect people who are dedicated ...”

“... elect Sheriffs with backbones ...”

“... we need to demand that they completely rebuild their staffs ...”

“... a great idea if we could limit the time that anyone can spend in paid public service …”

“We the People have the right to remove those who have violated their oaths of office by several means, often referred to as the ‘four boxes’: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. ... .”

What is missing from the ‘four boxes’ that are itemized? Box Five: The Article V authority of We the People to take direct action is what is missing. The constitutional ‘nullification’ authority of an Article V convention of either the U.S. Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to ‘convene’ to ‘propose’ amendments whenever the Legislatures want to do so. The framers included themselves and their posterity in Article V for a good natural law (law of nature) right of self defense ‘nullification’ reason, and the ratifiers from the thirteen states (John Jay was a ratifier from New York) obviously agreed with the framers.

An Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to propose one or multiple amendments, such as was done in 1791 with ratification of the 12 amendments which was whittled down to 10 amendments, including the 2nd, is the constitutional way to ‘nullify’ the errors of any federal administrator of OUR federation government. The time frame could be shorter in fulfillment than the ‘we need’ items listed above, or it could take longer than it should if nullification proponents that I have heard on YouTube, whose passion is appreciated as true American patriotism, continue to mislabel Article V proponents such as Mike Farris and Mark Levin as devil's disciples, and mislabel an Article V convention to ‘propose’ amendments as a ‘constitutional convention’, which is itself a ‘con-con’ con. See an example of a “con-con con” here:

→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ay8Niu7ndM (March 17, 2014)

Article V gives authority to convene to propose amendments to two entities of We the People (the U.S. Congress and the Legislatures of the ‘several States’) who wrote themselves into the Constitution in Article V because, obviously, the people and the ‘several States’ predate and are the creator of the creature, the constitution which is the positive law (law of people) which gave life to the positive law (law of people) federation. The framers of the constitution chose to make it possible for the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to use their Article V authority to enhance the constitution or to ‘nullify’ any future errors of their creature, the three branch federation. Here are three examples: (1) the bicameral congress: the 1790 Naturalization Act error corrected in 1795; (2) the executive: the ‘25th Amendment’ enhancement; (3) the court: the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark ‘citizen’ error and naturalization by fiat (‘cause we said so’) ‘opinion’ error. If the U.S. Congress can convene to propose amendments which are accepted by two thirds of both houses to be sent to the states to be ratified by three fourths of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’, well, then, as written in Article V, so can two thirds of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ convene to propose amendments which will also be ratified by three fourths of the ‘several States’. That’s simple to understand and express, right?

James Madison's and Thomas Jefferson's articulation of positive law (law of people) ‘nullification’ by the ‘several States’ to counter possible future federal government errors is not contrary to the idea that the ‘right’ of ‘nullification’ is the natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ of the ‘several States’ to protect their interests as states. Since the natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ of ‘nullification’ precedes the positive law (law of people) text of a constitution, the ‘right’ of ‘nullification’ is obviously not a ‘right’ which needs to be codified nor can be codified by the text of a constitution. Right?

- 143 -

Now, I'm going to reiterate for emphasis: That simply means that it is a natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ of a free state and a free citizen or alien to defend against the tyranny of a mob on the street or a nation invading, to practice natural law (law of nature) self defense. In other words, self-defense by ‘nullification’ is a natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ that precedes the second amendment right of self defense which was codified in text even though it was a natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ that did not need a positive law (law of people) for it to already ‘exist’ as a natural law (law of nature) ‘right’. Right? Right. Also, because the natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ of ‘nullification’ precedes the positive law (law of people) text of a constitution, the framers inserted into Article V and the ratifiers of the ‘several States’ ratified their own natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ of ‘nullification’ to protect the natural law (law of nature) ‘right’ of their own natural law posterity, We the People of the ‘several States’.

The Text of Article V

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of it’s equal Suffrage in the Senate”.

Article V Part 1 Amplified

1) The Congress, [the bicameral elected citizens from the ‘several States’]

2) whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, [‘whenever...deem’ = any time any reason]

3) shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, [bicameral talk about solutions]

4) or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, [‘or’ the states]

5) [the bicameral Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,

6) which, in either Case, [either both Houses or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’]

7) shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, [‘valid’ = proposed amendment is accepted]

8) as Part of this Constitution, [‘Part of’ = done deal]

9) when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, [75% state legislatures agree]

10) or [an alternative] by Conventions in three fourths thereof [“or” 75% states conventions agree],

11) as the one or the other [an alternative offered]

12) Mode of Ratification may be proposed [how is suggested]

13) by the Congress: [federal bicameral elected citizens]

The point for the amplification of Part 1 is to emphasize the original intent of Article V. When can We the People who are not in the bicameral elected Congress use Article V? Well, ‘whenever’ = ‘for any reason’ the bicameral Congress or the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ may want to convene to simply ‘propose’ an amendment, not to rewrite the entire Constitution as the ‘con con’ argument goes – but simply ‘propose’ an amendment. The ‘any reason’ could be to restrict distribution of alcohol, or to repeal the restriction of alcohol 14 years, 10 months and 20 days later. The ‘legal’ authority to collect taxes on income, the purpose of the 16th Amendment, fulfilled the 2nd plank of the communist manifesto, a heavy progressive tax on income (→ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto), and it is still the cash cow since ratification in the Woodrow Wilson administration on February 3, 1913 (It will be 110 years in February 2023). A ‘progressive tax’ is also known as a graduated income tax (the more money you make the more money they take = the more money you make the more percentage of your money the federation will take) unless the 16th Amendment is repealed; it taxes income before savings from gross income can accumulate. (What is the difference between taxes on income and tariffs on imports? With tariffs on imports people have less money after they buy. With taxes on income people have less money before they buy.)

- 144 -

It looks like Congress controlling the alcohol consumption of the ‘several States’ with the 1919 18th Amendment was just as important to the 1919 amendment authors and the states' ratifiers as was controlling the income of the ‘several States’ with the 1913 16th Amendment was to those in Congress who proposed and ratified it. However, it took less than 15 years (14 years, 10 months and 20 days) for another Congress to get thirsty and the states' ratifiers to also get thirsty and so they decided ('cause they listened to the will of We the People – of course, yeah, right!) quickly and on December 5, 1933 the 21st Amendment was ratified and it repealed prohibition of alcohol – in time for Christmas.

It took less than 15 years for the administrators of the federation government to get thirsty for ‘legal’ alcohol, 'cause they listened to the people, of course. In contrast to almost 15 years to repeal prohibition of alcohol (in 2023 it will be 110 years after 1913) the administrators of the federation government are still thirsty for other people’s ‘income tax’ money, and the ‘administrators’ of our federal government do not care that ‘workers’ – We the People – do not want a graduated income tax which taxes the gross before savings can accumulate, and that the ‘workers’ – We the People – want the 1913 16th Amendment repealed. So, when will We the People care enough to make them care?

The 1913 17th Amendment (ratified April 8, 1913) repealed the original 1787 Article I Section 3 clause 1 language which said that the two senators for each state were to be ‘chosen’ by the state Legislatures (on June 2023 it will be 110 years since 1913). It is time to go back to the original intent of the 1787 framers who adopted the original text and repeal the 1913 17th Amendment. It is time to return authority back to the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to choose their own two federal senators so that they can be called to heel and reprimanded when they vote counter to the interests of their home state legislatures. To represent the “interests of their home state legislatures” was the original intent for the states to send their ‘chosen’ senators to the government.

The 1787 federal representatives and senators of the ‘several States’ were not given authority to represent the interests of the federation government to the people who elected them or to the Legislatures of the ‘several States’. It's the other way around. The ‘original intent’ of Article I Section 2 and 3 was for the ‘elected’ members of the U.S. House and the ‘chosen’ members of the U.S. Senate to represent the interests of their ‘several States’ in and to the government to protect the interests of the Legislatures/people of their ‘several States’.

Resisting the ‘negative liberties’ intent of the U.S. Constitution to protect the interests of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ is what the internationalist neoglobalists in and out of state or federal office rebel against and resist every chance they get. They say, for example, that they are for ‘peace’ and ‘freedom’, but what they really mean is ‘peace’ without opposition so that they can have the ‘freedom’ to do what they want as expressed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she said with a straight face that the bicameral Congress must pass a bill so that We the People can find out what is in the bill.

We the People must ‘resist’ the resistance of the internationalist neoglobalists until they ‘submit’ to the will of the ‘free’, not the will of the ‘submissive’ who are the ones submitting to the internationalist globalists who are really the ones trying to “… put you all back in chains ...” (as 2020 presidential candidate Joe ‘O’Biden said) in submission to the internationalist globalists who are promoting a ‘Bring Back Better’ great reset and quietly promoting submission to a new world order.

Yes, ‘internationalist globalists’ and the ‘submit’ words are intentionally repeated for emphasis for this reason. The ‘free’ must resist the ‘submissive’. Resist those who are ‘submissive’ to the internationalist globalists because to ‘Bring Back Better’ can only happen after the destruction of what was there already. In other words, deconstruct to reconstruct ‘better’, remove to rebuild ‘better’. That is what ‘back’ means to internationalist globalists, but not to We the People.

Four Seminal Documents of the ‘union / Union’ of America

1) Articles of Association adopted 1774

2) Declaration of Independence adopted 1776

3) Articles of Confederation adopted 1778

4) U.S. Constitution adopted 1787

- 145 -

The three words “natural born Citizen” are known as a ‘term of art’. From the Articles of Association to the U.S. Constitution, it took thirteen years (1774-1787) for the ‘term of art’ to be coined and find it’s way into the last of the documents influential in the ‘union’ of the thirteen colonies into the singular ‘Union’.

Article II Section 1 clause 5 is where the permanent words “No person except a natural born Citizen” and the temporary words “… or a Citizen of ...” are found in the same sentence separated with a comma, followed by the words “… at the time of the Adoption …”. That ‘or’ distinction in the same sentence helps us in the 2000s to ‘know’ who alone is “… eligible to the Office of President …” after the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died sometime in the middle to late 1800s, and we can ‘know’ who is eligible from generation to generation, election to election, president to president. If the four seminal birth documents of the ‘union / Union’ do not have perpetual original genesis intent then they are not seminal or perpetual.

What President Abraham Lincoln said About the ‘Union’ In His 1861 Inaugural Address

President Abraham Lincoln four times mentioned the origin of the ‘Union’ in his 1861 first inaugural speech. What the ‘Union’ meant to President Lincoln in the 1800s remains the meaning in the 2000s. Nine paragraphs of President Lincoln’s 1861 first inaugural address follow this introduction.

Natural law does not lie. Natural law can not lie. Natural law is truthful (full of truth) objective law. Natural law – ‘nature’ -- is not dependent on what people subjectively think, hope, wish, say, do, and ‘nature’ is not dependent on positive law passed by humans with their subjective opinions in their legislatures.

Positive law is subjective law can be applied contrary to original intent. Positive law can be repealed. Positive law is dependent on what people subjectively think, hope, wish, say, do. Positive law is dependent on objective natural law giving objective credibility, objective foundation, to subjective positive law.

Selected Paragraphs from President Lincoln’s 1861 First Inaugural Speech

Fellow Citizens of the United States

Paragraph 1

“In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of his office”.

Paragraph 11

“I take the official oath to-day, with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws, by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest, that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

Paragraph 12

“It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens, have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils; and, generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope for precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

Paragraph 13

“I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever—it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

- 146 -

Paragraph 14

“Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to be lawfully rescinded?

Paragraph 15

“Descending from these general principles the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. 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”.

Paragraph 15 Itemized

1. Descending from these general principles the Union is perpetual

2. confirmed by the history of the Union itself

3. The Union is much older than the Constitution

4. It was formed, in fact

5. by the Articles of Association in 1774.

6. It was matured and continued by

7. the Declaration of Independence in 1776

8. It was further matured

9. and the faith of all the then thirteen States

10. expressly plighted and engaged

11. that it should be perpetual

12. by the Articles of Confederation in 1777

13. And finally, in 1787

14. one of the declared objects

15. for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was

16. to form a more perfect Union

Paragraph 16

“But if the destruction of the Union, by one or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

Paragraph 17

“It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union,—that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

Paragraph 18

“I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend, and maintain itself.”

What 16th U.S. President Abraham Lincoln said about the ‘Union’ in 1861 in his first inaugural address reveals that original birther John Jay’s original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” regarding eligibility to be president was not the seminal reason for forming the ‘Union’. The original explicit intent of the framers was “to form a more perfect Union”. A ‘more perfect Union’ is the foundation, the seminal presupposition, the ‘original genesis’ presupposition for the birth of the ‘Union’ of the several States. The ‘Union’ was intended for themselves and their own ‘Posterity’ as explicitly mentioned in the preamble: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Posterity = objective natural law (objective law of nature). ‘Posterity’ is the natural law (law of nature) result of a physical ‘union’ of two heterosexual persons of different genders which can only be accomplished according to objective natural law, not subjective positive law. Right?

- 147 -

Primary Documents in American History

→ http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

American Memory Historical Collections: A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation

→ http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lawhome.html

Journals of the Continental Congress

→ http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html

Important milestones related to the Articles of Confederation

June 11, 1776

The Continental Congress resolved “that a committee be appointed to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies.”

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=005/lljc005.db&recNum=15

June 12, 1776

The committee members were appointed “to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies.”

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=005/lljc005.db&recNum=17

July 12, 1776

The first draft of the Articles of Confederation was presented to the Continental Congress.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=005/lljc005.db&recNum=130

November 15, 1777

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=009/lljc009.db&recNum=154

November 17, 1777

The Articles of Confederation were submitted to the states with a request for immediate action.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=009/lljc009.db&recNum=179

June 26, 1778

The Articles of Confederation were ordered to be engrossed.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=011/lljc011.db&recNum=244

June 27, 1778

The first engrossed copy was found to be incorrect, and a second engrossed copy was ordered.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=011/lljc011.db&recNum=248

July 9, 1778

The second engrossed copy of the Articles was signed and ratified by the delegates from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=011/lljc011.db&recNum=263

July 21, 1778

North Carolina delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=011/lljc011.db&recNum=295

July 24, 1778

Georgia delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=011/lljc011.db&recNum=302

November 26, 1778

New Jersey delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=012/lljc012.db&recNum=305

May 5, 1779

Delaware delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=014/lljc014.db&recNum=49

March 1, 1781

Maryland delegates signed the ratification of the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=019/lljc019.db&recNum=224

February 21, 1787

Congress approved a convention in Philadelphia to revise the Articles of Confederation.

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lljc&fileName=032/lljc032.db&recNum=80

- 148 -

The 1774 Articles of Association: The First Seminal Document of the ‘union’

(Proposed October 20, 1774 · Effective December 1, 1774)

The Continental Congress of the ‘union’

In 1774 the 13 American colonies united as a government entity called the first Continental Congress to defend themselves against the Coercive Acts imposed by the British government because the colonies were resisting the new taxes. In 1775 the second Continental Congress convened after the war for independence (1775-1783) from Great Britain began.

On September 5, 1774 the Articles of Association were signed and “… deputed [the Association] to represent them [13 colonies] in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774. To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten…his majesty's subjects, in North-America,….” 87 years later (“four score and seven years ago”) on March 4, 1861, in his first inaugural speech, President Abraham Lincoln said the 1774 Articles of Association sent to King George III to redress grievances against the British Parliament could be considered to be the birth of the Union – “The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774”.

The First Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from the colonies that met on September 5, 1774 at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Articles of Association document was written in response to the British Intolerable Acts. The purpose was to implement a trade boycott against Great Britain to protest ‘taxation without representation’ sentiments which prompted the Sons of Liberty to throw British tea into Boston Harbor in the 1773 ‘Boston Tea Party’.

The Articles of Association document was signed October 20, 1774 by Peyton Randolph, the first President of the first Continental Congress of the 13 colonies in British America. The first Continental Congress called for a second congress in 1775 if their 1774 petition was unsuccessful in halting enforcement of the British Intolerable Acts. Their first appeal had no effect, so the second Continental Congress was convened in 1775 to organize the defense of the colonies.

Articles of Association

[1] We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of Newcastle, Kent and Sussex on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774, avowing our allegiance to his majesty, our affection and regard for our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain and elsewhere, affected with the deepest anxiety, and most alarming apprehensions, at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty’s American subjects are oppressed; and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for enslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British Empire. In prosecution of which system, various acts of parliament have been passed, for raising a revenue in America, for depriving the American subjects, in many instances, of the constitutional trial by jury, exposing their lives to danger, by directing a new and illegal trial beyond the seas, for crimes alleged to have been committed in America: And in prosecution of the same system, several late, cruel, and oppressive acts have been passed, respecting the town of Boston and the Massachusetts-Bay, and also an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.

- 149 -

[2] To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten destruction to the lives, liberty, and property of his majesty’s subjects, in North-America, we are of opinion, that a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual, and peaceable measure: And, therefore, we do, for ourselves, and the inhabitants of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honour and love of our country, as follows:

[3] That from and after the first day of December next, we will not import, into British America, from Great-Britain or Ireland, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, or from any other place, any such goods, wares, or merchandise, as shall have been exported from Great-Britain or Ireland; nor will we, after that day, import any East-India tea from any part of the world; nor any molasses, syrups, paneles, coffee, or pimento, from the British plantations or from Dominica; nor wines from Madeira, or the Western Islands; nor foreign indigo.

[4] We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it.

[5] As a non-consumption agreement, strictly adhered to, will be an effectual security for the observation of the non-importation, we, as above, solemnly agree and associate, that from this day, we will not purchase or use any tea, imported on account of the East-India company, or any on which a duty bath been or shall be paid; and from and after the first day of March next, we will not purchase or use any East-India tea whatever; nor will we, nor shall any person for or under us, purchase or use any of those goods, wares, or merchandise, we have agreed not to import, which we shall know, or have cause to suspect, were imported after the first day of December, except such as come under the rules and directions of the tenth article hereafter mentioned.

[6] The earnest desire we have not to injure our fellow-subjects in Great-Britain, Ireland, or the West-Indies, induces us to suspend a non-exportation, until the tenth day of September, 1775; at which time, if the said acts and parts of acts of the British parliament herein after mentioned, ate not repealed, we will not directly or indirectly, export any merchandise or commodity whatsoever to Great-Britain, Ireland, or the West-Indies, except rice to Europe.

[7] Such as are merchants, and use the British and Irish trade, will give orders, as soon as possible, to their factors, agents and correspondents, in Great-Britain and Ireland, not to ship any goods to them, on any pretence whatsoever, as they cannot be received in America; and if any merchant, residing in Great-Britain or Ireland, shall directly or indirectly ship any goods, wares or merchandize, for America, in order to break the said non-importation agreement, or in any manner contravene the same, on such unworthy conduct being well attested, it ought to be made public; and, on the same being so done, we will not, from thenceforth, have any commercial connexion with such merchant.

[8] That such as are owners of vessels will give positive orders to their captains, or masters, not to receive on board their vessels any goods prohibited by the said non-importation agreement, on pain of immediate dismission from their service.

[9] We will use our utmost endeavours to improve the breed of sheep, and increase their number to the greatest extent; and to that end, we will kill them as seldom as may be, especially those of the most profitable kind; nor will we export any to the West-Indies or elsewhere; and those of us, who are or may become overstocked with, or can conveniently spare any sheep, will dispose of them to our neighbours, especially to the poorer sort, on moderate terms.

- 150 -

[10] We will, in our several stations, encourage frugality, economy, and industry, and promote agriculture, arts and the manufactures of this country, especially that of wool; and will discountenance and discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse-racing, and all kinds of games, cock fighting, exhibitions of shews, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments; and on the death of any relation or friend, none of us, or any of our families will go into any further mourning-dress, than a black crepe or ribbon on the arm or hat, for gentlemen, and a black ribbon and necklace for ladies, and we will discontinue the giving of gloves and scarves at funerals.

[11] Such as are venders of goods or merchandize will not take advantage of the scarcity of goods, that may be occasioned by this association, but will sell the same at the rates we have been respectively accustomed to do, for twelve months last past. -And if any vender of goods or merchandise shall sell such goods on higher terms, or shall, in any manner, or by any device whatsoever, violate or depart from this agreement, no person ought, nor will any of us deal with any such person, or his or her factor or agent, at any time thereafter, for any commodity whatever.

[12] In case any merchant, trader, or other person, shall import any goods or merchandize, after the first day of December, and before the first day of February next, the same ought forthwith, at the election of the owner, to be either re-shipped or delivered up to the committee of the country or town, wherein they shall be imported, to be stored at the risque of the importer, until the non-importation agreement shall cease, or be sold under the direction of the committee aforesaid; and in the last-mentioned case, the owner or owners of such goods shall be reimbursed out of the sales, the first cost and charges, the profit, if any, to be applied towards relieving and employing such poor inhabitants of the town of Boston, as are immediate sufferers by the Boston port-bill; and a particular account of all goods so returned, stored, or sold, to be inserted in the public papers; and if any goods or merchandizes shall be imported after the said first day of February, the same ought forthwith to be sent back again, without breaking any of the packages thereof.

[13] That a committee be chosen in every county, city, and town, by those who are qualified to vote for representatives in the legislature, whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching this association; and when it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of a majority of any such committee, that any person within the limits of their appointment has violated this association, that such majority do forthwith cause the truth of the case to be published in the gazette; to the end, that all such foes to the rights of British-America may be publicly known, and universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all dealings with him or her.

[14] That the committee of correspondence, in the respective colonies, do frequently inspect the entries of their customhouses, and inform each other, from time to time, of the true state thereof, and of every other material circumstance that may occur relative to this association.

[15] That all manufactures of this country be sold at reasonable prices, so- that no undue advantage be taken of a future scarcity of goods.

[16] And we do further agree and resolve that we will have no trade, commerce, dealings or intercourse whatsoever, with any colony or province, in North-America, which shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate this association, but will hold them as unworthy of the rights of freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of their country.

[17] And we do solemnly bind ourselves and our constituents, under the ties aforesaid, to adhere to this association, until such parts of the several acts of parliament passed since the close of the last war, as impose or continue duties on tea, wine, molasses, syrups paneles, coffee, sugar, pimento, indigo, foreign paper, glass, and painters’ colours, imported into America, and extend the powers of the admiralty courts beyond their ancient limits, deprive the American subject of trial by jury, authorize the judge’s certificate to indemnify the prosecutor from damages, that he might otherwise be liable to from a trial by his peers, require oppressive security from a claimant of ships or goods seized, before he shall be allowed to defend his property, are repealed.-And until that part of the act of the 12 G. 3. ch. 24, entitled “An act for the better securing his majesty’s dock-yards magazines, ships, ammunition, and stores,” by which any persons charged with committing any of the offenses therein described, in America, may be tried in any shire or county within the realm, is repealed-and until the four acts, passed the last session of parliament, viz. that for stopping the port and blocking up the harbour of Boston-that for altering the charter and government of the Massachusetts-Bay-and that which is entitled “An act for the better administration of justice, &c.”-and that “for extending the limits of Quebec, &c.” are repealed. And we recommend it to the provincial conventions, and to the committees in the respective colonies, to establish such farther regulations as they may think proper, for carrying into execution this association.

[18] The foregoing association being determined upon by the Congress, was ordered to be subscribed by the several members thereof; and thereupon, we have hereunto set our respective names accordingly.

IN CONGRESS, PHILADELPHIA, October 20, 1774.

Signed, PEYTON RANDOLPH, President.

- 151 -

Articles of Association Member States

President of Congress Peyton Randolph New Hampshire John Sullivan Nathaniel Folsom Massachusetts Bay Thomas Cushing Samuel Adams John Adams Robert Treat Paine Rhode-Island Stephen Hopkins Samuel Ward Connecticut Eliphalet Dyer Roger Sherman Silas Deane New-York Isaac Low John Alsop John Jay James Duane Philip Livingston William Floyd Henry Wisner Simon Boerman

New-Jersey James Kinsey William Livingston Stephen Crane Richard Smith John De Hart Pennsylvania Joseph Galloway John Dickinson Charles Humphreys Thomas Mifflin Edward Biddle John Morton George Ross The Lower Counties Caesar Rodney Thomas McKean George Read Maryland Matthew Tilghman Thomas Johnson, Junior William Paca Samuel Chase

Virginia Richard Henry Lee George Washington Patrick Henry, Junr. Richard Bland Benjamin Harrison Edmond Pendleton North-Carolina William Hooper Joseph Hewes Richard Caswell South-Carolina Henry Middleton Thomas Lynch Christopher Gadsden John Rutledge Edward Rutledge

- 152 -

Declaration of Independence: The Second Seminal Document of the ‘union’ 

- 153 -

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson

The final draft of the Declaration of Independence adopted on July 4, 1776 for distribution by the second Continental Congress identifies the new name of the “union” in the last paragraph:

… the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, in GENERAL CONGRESS Assembled

… these United Colonies are,

… FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES.

During June 12-27, 1776, while the Declaration of Independence was being finalized, the British military was heading for New York Harbor.

On July 4, 1776, the final draft was edited and adopted by the Continental Congress.

On July 19, 1776, the formal engrossed (officially inscribed) copy of the Declaration of Independence was prepared for the Continental Congress delegates to sign.

On August 2, 1776, the final draft was presented to Continental Congress President John Hancock to be signed by the delegates.

Before the delegates to the convention had signed the document declaring their mutual intent committing themselves and their constituents to the struggle for independence, British soldiers had already landed on Staten Island with thousands of armed men and taken control of New York City.

- 154 -

Presenting the Declaration of Independence, by John Trumbull

Presenting the Declaration of Independence, set in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, depicts John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, the five declaration drafting committee members, presenting the document to Continental Congress President John Hancock on June 28, 1776.

Presenting the Declaration of Independence, on the back of the U.S. $2 bill

- 155 -

In Congress, at the Independence Hall, Philadelphia, July 4, 1776

- 156 -

Declaration of Independence Broadside (flyer) by John Dunlap

The John Dunlap broadside, printed on July 4, 1776 at the direction of John Hancock, the first President of the second Continental Congress under the 1774 Articles of Association, was the first printed version of the Declaration of Independence before it was engrossed (officially inscribed), and signed by the delegates. John Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides of the Declaration. Twenty-four copies are known to exist. One was the personal copy of George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army.

- 157 -

Declaration of Independence Broadside (flyer) by Mary Katharine Goddard

On July 19, 1776 the Continental Congress ordered the Declaration of Independence to be engrossed on parchment and signed by the delegates to the constitutional convention. Five and one half months after the Continental Congress commissioned John Dunlap on July 4, 1776 to print his broadsides of the Declaration of Independence with the original title that did not have the number of states, the Congress commissioned Mary Katharine Goddard on January 18, 1777 to print more broadsides, but engrossed with the signatures of the delegates. Her flyer was the first to be authorized by the Continental Congress which revealed to the people who the delegates were who signed the Declaration of Independence.

- 158 -

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

A Declaration

by the Representatives of the

United States of America

in General Congress Assembled

By January, 18, 1777 the thirteenth state accepted the Declaration of Independence,

so the Continental Congress changed the title:

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776

The Unanimous

DECLARATION

of the

Thirteen United States of America

[1] When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[2] We hold these truths to be self-evident:

[3] That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

[4] He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

[5] He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

[6] He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

[7] He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

[8] He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

[9] He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

- 159 -

[10] He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

[11] He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

[12] He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

[13] He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

[14] He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

[15] He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

[16] He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

[17] For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

[18] For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

[19] For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

[20] For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

[21] For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

[22] For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

[23] For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

[24] For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

[25] For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

[26] He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

[27] He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

[28] He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

[29] He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

[30] He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

[31] In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

[32] Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

[33] We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

[Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President]

NOTE – Mr. Ferdinand Jefferson, Keeper of the Rolls in the Department of State, at Washington, says:

“The names of the signers are spelt above as in the facsimile of the original, but the punctuation of them is not always the same; neither do the names of the States appear in the facsimile of the original. The names of the signers of each State are grouped together in the facsimile of the original, except the name of Matthew Thornton, which follows that of Oliver Wolcott.” – Revised Statutes of the United States, 2d edition, 1878, p. 6.

- 160 -

Declaration of Independence Member States

New Hampshire Josiah Bartlett Wm. Whipple Matthew Thornton Massachusetts Bay Saml. Adams John Adams Robt. Trent Paine Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island Step. Hopkins William Ellery Connecticut Roger Sherman Sam’el Huntington Wm. Williams Oliver Wolcott New York Wm. Floyd Phil. Livingston Frans. Lewis Lewis Morris

New Jersey Richd. Stockton Jno. Witherspoon Frans. Hopkinson John Hart Abra. Clark Pennsylvania Robt. Morris Benjamin Rush Benja. Franklin John Morton Geo. Clymer Jas. Smith Geo. Taylor James Wilson Geo. Ross Delaware Caesar Rodney Geo. Read Tho. M’kean Maryland Samuel Chase Wm. Paca Thos. Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Th. Jefferson Banja. Harrison Ths. Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton North Carolina Wm. Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn South Carolina Edward Rutledge Thos. Hayward Junr. Thomas Lynch, Junr. Arthur Middleton Georgia Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall Geo. Walton

Key Words from the Declaration of Independence

Some key words from the Declaration of Independence indicate the ‘We are already free people and we are letting you know we are already free people’ mindset of founders Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and the rest of, as Virginian Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘our people’, ‘our fellow Citizens’, ‘a free people’ of the ‘united Colonies’.

- 161 -

1. these Colonies

2. the State

3. these States

4. our people

5. our legislatures

6. the Civil Power

7. our constitution

8. our laws

9. our Trade

10. our Consent

11. our Charters

12. our own Legislatures

13. our fellow Citizens…taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against

14. their Country

15. our frontiers

16. We have Petitioned for Redress [from]…a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of

17. a free people

18. We…the Representatives

19. of the United States of America

20. the Name…by Authority of the

21. good People of these Colonies

22. in General Congress, Assembled

23. united Colonies

24. FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES

25. INDEPENDENT STATES

The 1777 Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States:

The Third Seminal Document of the ‘union’

→ http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=127

The Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation as the first constitution of the ‘union’ on November 15, 1777. However, ratification of the Articles of Confederation by all thirteen colonies/states did not occur until March 1, 1781. The Articles created a loose confederation of sovereign states and a weak central government, leaving most of the power with the state governments. The need for a stronger federal government soon became apparent and eventually led to the constitution convention in 1787. The U.S. Constitution, adopted on September 17, 1787, replaced the Articles of Confederation on March 4, 1789 when the last state ratified the Constitution.

The first Continental Congress met in 1774 to coordinate relations with Great Britain, to petition George III to intervene with Parliament. Additional petitions to the king to intervene with parliament resulted in the congress of the states being declared traitors in 1775 and the states to be in rebellion. The second Continental Congress responded July 2 and 4, 1776 by formally declaring independence as the United States of America.

The war of independence between the thirteen colonies in British North America and Great Britain started April 19, 1775 with the battles of Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts Bay, and lasted eight years, from 1775 to 1783. The first battle was in Lexington on April 19, 1775, and the last battle was in Yorktown on October 19, 1781. The war for independence formally ended November 30, 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

The second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775 in Philadelphia with John Hancock chosen as President of the Congress on May 24, 1775 soon after warfare began. The second Continental Congress managed the colonial war effort, adopting a declaration of independence on July 4th, 1776. By raising armies, directing strategy, appointing diplomats, and making formal treaties, the Continental Congress was the de facto national government of the colonies which became the United States.

The 1777 Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union was the first constitution of the ‘Union’ after the 1774 Articles of Association. It was adopted by the second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, with Henry Laurens as President, and ratified by all thirteen states on March 1, 1781 under the Presidency of Samuel Huntington, with George Washington as commander of the continental army. With ratification of the Articles of Confederation the Continental Congress became known as the Congress of the Confederation.

- 162 -

Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States

[1] To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

[2] Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

-I-

[3] The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America’.

-II-

[4] Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

-III-

[5] The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

-IV-

[6] The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

[7] If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

[8] Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

-V-

[9] For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

[10] No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

- 163 -

[11] Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

[12] In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

[13] Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

-VI-

[14] No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

[15] No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

[16] No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

[17] No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

[18] No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

-VII-

[19] When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

-VIII-

[20] All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

[21] The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

- 164 -

-IX-

[22] The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article -- of sending and receiving ambassadors -- entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever -- of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated -- of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace -- appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

[23] The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, 'well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward': provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

[24] All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

- 165 -

[25] The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States -- fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States -- regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated -- establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office -- appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers -- appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States -- making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

[26] The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated 'A Committee of the States', and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction -- to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses – to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted -- to build and equip a navy – to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judeg can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.

[27] The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

[28] The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

- 166 -

-X-

[29] The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

-XI-

[30] Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

-XII-

[31] All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pleged.

-XIII-

[32] Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

[33] And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

[34] In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

[35] Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781.

- 167 -

Continental Congress Member States

Connecticut Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington Oliver Wolcott Titus Hosmer Andrew Adams Delaware Thomas McKean John Dickinson Nicholas Van Dyke Georgia John Walton Edward Telfair Edward Langworthy Maryland John Hanson Daniel Carroll Massachusetts Bay John Hancock Samuel Adams Elbridge Gerry Francis Dana James Lovell Samuel Holten

New Hampshire Josiah Bartlett John Wentworth Jr. New Jersey John Witherspoon Nathaniel Scudder New York James Duane Francis Lewis William Duer Gouverneur Morris North Carolina John Penn Cornelius Harnett Jhn Williams

Pennsylvania Robert Morris Daniel Roberdeau Jonathan Bayard Smith William Clingan Joseph Reed Rhode Island and Providence Plantation William Ellery Henry Marchant John Collins South Carolina Henry Laurens William Henry Drayton John Mathews Richard Hutson Thomas Heyward Jr. Virginia Richard Henry Lee John Banister Thomas Adams John Harvie Francis Lightfoot Lee

- 168 -

U.S. CONSTITUTION: ORIGINAL BIRTHER DOCUMENT

The Fourth Seminal Document of the ‘union’

The First Seminal Document of the ‘Union’

169

General George Washington presided over the 1787 Constitutional Convention

Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin are seated center front

The Continental Congress debated the Articles of Confederation for more than a year and a half, and the ratification process took nearly three and a half years. Many participants in the original debates were no longer delegates. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States document was signed by delegates who were not present in the Congress at the same time. Roger Sherman was the only founder to sign all four documents of the “union/Union”. The United States of America, conceived by resolution on July 2, 1776, was born March 1, 1781 and the Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union were ratified March 2, 1781.

“The ratification of the Articles of Confederation being yesterday completed by the accession of the State of Maryland: The United States met in Congress, when the following members appeared: His Excellency Samuel Huntington, delegate for Connecticut, President. ...”

The March 2, 1781 letter sent to the states by Continental Congress President Samuel Huntington stated:

“By the Act of Congress herewith enclosed your Excellency will be informed that the Articles of Confederation & perpetual Union between the thirteen United States are formally & finally ratified by all the States. We are happy to congratulate our Constituents on this important Event, desired by our Friends but dreaded by our Enemies. Samuel Huntington, President”

However, the states were having difficulty conducting interstate business under the Articles of Confederation so they had a convention to improve the Articles. At that time the decision was made to replace the unicameral Congress with a tripartite federal government with equal authority between the legislature, executive, and the court.

→ http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

- 170 -

The U.S. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787 by the delegates, ratified June 21, 1788 by the ninth state, implemented March 4, 1789 when the new Congress met to begin conducting the business of the new government with the three branches. On April 30, 1789 Washington was sworn in to be the first president of the tripartite federation with dual powers, Chief Executive and Commander of the armed forces.

The U.S. Constitution is the only seminal document of the ‘Union’ of the states to use the words “natural born Citizen” to identify the first of three immutable permanent requirements, and one immutable temporary requirement to be “… eligible to the Office of President”.

Part 1a: No Person except a natural born Citizen,

Part 1b: or a Citizen of the United States,

Part 1c: at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Part 1d: shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Part 2a: neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

Part 2b: and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Ratification Timeline: Adopted September 17, 1787 · Ratified June 21, 1788 / May 29, 1790

On September 17, 1787 the U.S. Constitution was adopted by the convention delegates from the first 12 states listed, and ratified by the 12 states before Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. John Dickinson was ill and not present at the signing of the new constitution, so George Read signed his name by proxy. Three delegates did not sign, Edmund Randolph, George Mason and Elbridge Gerry.

1) Delaware ratified December 7, 1787

2) Pennsylvania ratified December 12, 1787

3) New Jersey ratified December 18, 1787

4) Georgia ratified January 2, 1788

5) Connecticut ratified January 9, 1788

6) Massachusetts ratified February 6, 1788

7) Maryland ratified April 28, 1788

8) South Carolina ratified May 23, 1788

9) New Hampshire ratified June 21, 1788

10) Virginia ratified June 29, 1788

11) New York ratified July 26, 1788

12) North Carolina ratified November 21, 1788

13) Rhode Island ratified May 29, 1790

March 2, 1789: The last meeting of the Congress of the Confederation was adjourned sine die.

March 4, 1789: The first day the tripartite federation government began operating when the bicameral Congress was seated at Federal Hall in New York City.

April 6, 1789: The day the Electoral College unanimously elected George Washington as the first U.S. President and John Adams as the first U.S. Vice President.

April 30, 1789: George Washington was inaugurated as President of the United States at Federal Hall and John Adams as Vice President.

January 10, 1791: Vermont voted to ratify the Constitution and apply for admission to the Union.

September 25, 1789: This is the day twelve amendments were approved by the Senate after being passed by the House the day before. Two amendments were set aside and the remaining ten were ratified by the states on the same day, December 15, 1791, and are known as the Bill of Rights. One of the original twelve amendments which limited congressional pay was ratified on May 7, 1992 as Amendment 27.

1) The ‘union’ became an independent nation on July 4, 1776 with the Declaration of Independence. It was governed by the Articles of Confederation without executive and judicial branches until March 4, 1789.

2) On February 21, 1787, the Articles Congress called a convention of state delegates at Philadelphia to propose a plan of government to strengthen the Articles of Confederation.

3) The Constitutional Convention began deliberations on May 25, 1787.

- 171 -

4) The Convention met on September 17, 1787 for its final session when the new constitution was proposed, adopted and sent to the states to be ratified.

5) Transmitted to the Articles Congress then sitting in New York City, the Constitution was forwarded to the states by Congress recommending the ratification process outlined in Article VII.

6) Each state legislature was to call elections for a federal convention to ratify the constitution.

7) Eleven of the thirteen ratified. Ratification by the thirteen original 1776 states began with Delaware on December 7, 1787 and ended with Rhode Island on May 29, 1790.

8) The Articles Congress certified eleven states beginning the new government, and called the states to hold elections to begin operation.

9) Article Seven describes the process by which the entire Constitution was to become effective.

10) It required that nine of the thirteen original States ratify the constitution.

11) After New Hampshire, the ninth state, ratified the constitution, on June 21, 1788, a timetable was set for the start of operations under the constitution.

12) The Articles Congress dissolved without incident on March 4, 1789, the day the first session of the first U.S. Congress started the business of the new government with legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

13) George Washington was chosen by all of the Electors to be the first executive of the new federation government and was inaugurated as President almost two months later on April 30, 1789.

Seven Articles of the 1787 U.S. Constitution

Article I: Legislative Power

Section 1: Bicameral Congress

Section 2: Representatives

Section 3: Senators

Section 4: Elections

Section 5: United Authority of Congress

Section 6: Regulations of Congress

Section 7: Business Order

Section 8: Taxes and Commerce

Section 9: Migration, Habeas Corpus, Direct Taxes

Section 10: State Business and the Consent of Congress

Article II: Executive Power

Section 1: Power of the President, Electors, Eligibility

Section 2: Commander in Chief, Senate Consent

Section 3: State of the Union

Section 4: Impeachment of ‘civil Officers’

Article III: Judicial Power

Section 1: Supreme Court

Section 2: Extent of Judicial Power

Section 3: Treason

Article IV: Sovereign State and Federal Congress

Section 1: State ‘Faith and Credit’ Protected by Congress

Section 2: Citizen Privileges and Immunities

Section 3: New States

Section 4: Republican Form of Government Guaranteed

- 172 -

Article V: State and Congress Amendments

Authority of the Congress and the Legislatures of the Several States to Propose Amendments

Article VI: Federal Authority

Debts, Treaties, Oaths, Religious Test

Article VII: Ratification

Ratification by Nine Original States

Article I: Section 2

In 1787 the people closest to the candidates were expected to ‘elect’ federal representatives ‘to’ the federation to protect the interests of the people in their districts who elected them.

Article I: Section 3

In 1787 the Legislatures of the states were expected to ‘choose’ federal senators ‘to’ the federation to protect the interests of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’.

Article I: Section 4

In 1787 the electors of each state were expected to ‘vote by ballot’ for the federal executive of the federation whom the citizens of the ‘several States’ expected to protect the interests of the citizens of the ‘several States’, not the interests of the federation government against the interests of the citizens of the ‘several States’ [modified by the 12th Amendment June 15, 1804].

The people, the Legislatures of the states, the electors determining who is to be president? THAT was brilliant in 1787 and still is today! Right? Yes. The Articles of Confederation of Perpetual Union were not brilliant for several reasons: 1) The people of the states did not send representatives to the confederation congress; 2) The Legislatures of the twelve colonies/states chose their representative to the confederation congress; 3) The president of the confederation was chosen by the representatives of the states and did not have executive authority; 4) The confederation congress was not given authority by the Legislatures of the states to enforce taxation of the states.

After the 1913 17th Amendment took control away from the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to ‘choose’ their two senators who were expected to represent the interests of their own state Legislatures ‘to’ the federation government, the direct ‘election’ of the two senators has over the decades degenerated into a political pig sty situation with senators turning on their legislatures and representing the interests of the federation ‘to’ their own state Legislatures. Obamacare is the most recent and obvious case in which many federal senators voted for Obamacare and went against the wishes of their governors and their attorney's generals who were fighting in the courts against Obamacare.

THAT political war between the federal senators and their legislatures is one example of why the 17th Amendment must be repealed to return to the legislatures of the states the authority to ‘choose’ their two federal senators. After the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ take back control of their own federal senators Article V can be used to return to the states control to repeal the President Woodrow Wilson socialist 16th Amendment tax on income before income can be saved and multiplied. Now, definitely, that is an idea whose time has come to bring it back into the ‘freedom’ conversation. Right? A tax on income is the 2nd plank of the manifesto of internationalist, globalist communism.

Also, an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to ‘propose’ an amendment to clarify the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” must be addressed by the legislatures because the bicameral Congress, especially the Senate, does not want to repeal the 1913 17th Amendment and return ‘representation’ control of the federal senators back to their own home state legislatures.

- 173 -

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

Adopted September 17, 1787

Ratified June 21, 1788

Effective March 4, 1789

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

Article 1

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2

[1] The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

[2] No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of twenty-five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

[3] [Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons. – changed by Amendment 14]. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

[4] When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

[5] The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Section 3

[1] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, [chosen by the Legislature thereof, – changed by Amendment 17] for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

[2] Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one-third may be chosen every second Year; [and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies – changed by Amendment 17, clause 2].

[3] No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

- 174 -

[4] The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

[5] The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

[6] The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

[7] Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 4

[1] The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

[2] The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such meeting shall be [the first Monday in December – changed by Amendment 20, Section 2]; unless they by law appoint a different day.

Section 5

[1] Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

[2] Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

[3] Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one-fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

[4] Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6

[1] The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

[2] No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

Section 7

[1] All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

[2] Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve, he shall sign it, but if not, he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration, two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

- 175 -

[3] Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section 8

[1] The Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[2] To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

[3] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[4] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[5] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

[6] To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

[7] To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

[8] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

[9] To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

[10] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

[11] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[12] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

[13] To provide and maintain a Navy;

[14] To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

[15] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions;

[16] To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[17] To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And

[18] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

- 176 -

Section 9

[1] The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

[2] The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

[3] No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

[4] No Capitation, or other direct Tax shall be laid unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (See Amendment 16, income tax)

[5] No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

[6] No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

[7] No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

[8] No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Section 10

[1] No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

[2] No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

[3] No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in a War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 2

Section 1

[1] The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold Office during the Term of four Years, and together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected as follows:

[2] Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[3] [The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. – superseded by Amendment 12]

- 177 -

[4] The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

[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.

[6] [In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation, or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. – changed by Amendment 25]

[7] The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

[8] Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2

[1] The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

[2] He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

[3] The President shall have the Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions, which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he may receive Ambassadors, and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4

The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

- 178 -

Article 3

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2

[1] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — [between a State and Citizens of another State – changed by Amendment 11]; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. – changed by Amendment 11]

[2] In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before-mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

[3] The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3

[1] Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[2] The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture, except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article 4

Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2

[1] The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[2] A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee Justice, and be found in another State, shall, on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the Crime.

[3] [No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.– changed by Amendment 13]

Section 3

[1] New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the Congress.

[2] The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

- 179 -

Article 5

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided, that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Article 6

[1] All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States Under this Constitution, as Under the Confederation.

[2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[3] The Senators and Representatives before-mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Article 7

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

- 180 -

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES MEMBER STATES

Go. Washington – Presidt. and deputy from Virginia New Hampshire John Langdon Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts Nathaniel Gorham Rufus King Connecticut Wm. Saml. Johnson Roger Sherman New York Alexander Hamilton

New Jersey Wil. Livingston David Brearley Wm. Paterson Jona: Drayton Pennsylvania B Franklin Thomas Mifflin Robt Morrison Geo. Clymer Thos. FitzSimons Jared Ingersoll James Wilson Gouv Morrison Delaware Geo: Read Gunning Bedford jun John Dickinson Richard Bassett Jaco: Broom

Maryland James McHenry Dan of St Thos. Jenifer Dani Carroll Virginia John Blair— James Madison Jr. North Carolina Wm. Blount Richd. Dobbs Spaight Hu. Williamson South Carolina J. Rutledge Charles Cotesworth Pinckney Charles Pinckney Pierce Butler Georgia William Few Abr Baldwin Attest: William Jackson Secretary

In Convention Monday September 17th 1787

Present The States of

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Resolved,

That the preceding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution.

That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned, that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President, and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution.

By the unanimous Order of the Convention

Go. WASHINGTON—Presidt.

W. JACKSON Secretary.

- 181 -

Congress of the United States

begun and held at the City of New-York,

on Wednesday the fourth of March,

one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of the institution:

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution: viz..

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. …

FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate.

ATTEST,

JOHN BECKLEY, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

SAM. A. OTIS Secretary of the Senate.

On September 25, 1789, Congress sent to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments. Two were set aside. One was about Congressional representation (not ratified) and the other about Congressional pay (ratified May 7, 1992 as Amendment XXVII). The remaining ten are known as the Bill of Rights.

Synopsis

Article 1

Legislative Department: Organization, Powers, Restraints

Section 1

Legislative powers; in whom vested

Section 2

House of Representatives, how and by whom chosen. Qualifications of a Representative. Representatives and direct taxes, how apportioned. Enumeration. Vacancies to be filled. Power of choosing officers, and of impeachment.

Section 3

Senators, how and by whom chosen. How classified. State Executive, when to make temporary appointments, in case, etc. Qualifications of a Senator. President of the Senate, his right to vote. President pro tempore, and other officers of the Senate, how chosen. Power to try impeachments. When President is tried, Chief Justice to preside. Impeachment, judgment, possible legal penalty.

Section 4

Times of holding elections, how prescribed. One session in each year.

Section 5

Membership, Quorum, Adjournments, Rules, Power to punish or expel. Journal. Time of adjournments, how limited, etc.

- 182 -

Section 6

Compensation, Privileges, Disqualification in certain cases.

Section 7

House to originate all revenue bills. Veto. Bill may be passed by two-thirds of each House. A bill not returned in ten days to become a law. Provisions as to orders, concurrent resolutions.

Section 8

Powers of Congress

Section 9

Provision as to migration or importation of certain persons. Habeas Corpus , Bills of attainder. Taxes, how apportioned. No export duty. No commercial preference. Money, how drawn from Treasury. No titular nobility. Officers not to receive presents.

Section 10

States prohibited from the exercise of certain powers.

Article 2

Executive Department: Powers, Restraints, Duties, Election of Presidents

Section 1

President: his term of office. Electors of President; number and how appointed. Electors to vote on same day. Qualification of President. On whom his duties devolve in case of his removal, death. President's compensation. His oath of office.

Section 2

President to be Commander-in-Chief. He may require opinions of cabinet officers, may pardon. Treaty-making power. Nomination of certain officers. When President may fill vacancies.

Section 3

President shall communicate to Congress. He may convene and adjourn Congress, in case of disagreement. Shall receive ambassadors, execute laws, and commission officers.

Section 4

All civil offices forfeited for certain crimes.

Article 3

Judicial Department: Powers, Restraints, Treason Defined

Section 1

Judicial powers. Tenure. Compensation.

Section 2

Judicial power; to what cases it extends. Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court Appellate. Jury trial.

Article 4

Relation of States and Territories to the Federal Government

Section 1

Each State to give credit to the public acts of every other State.

Section 2

Privileges of Citizens of each State. Fugitives from Justice to be delivered up. Persons held to service having escaped, to be delivered up.

Section 3

Admission of new States. Power of Congress over territory and other property.

Section 4

Republican form of government guaranteed. Each State to be protected.

- 183 -

Article 5

Congress or the Legislatures of the States Can Propose Amendments to the Constitution

Article 6

Supremacy of the Constitution

National Debts Identified

Supremacy of the U.S. Constitution

Federal Laws and Treaties

Federal and State Officials Pledge to Uphold the Constitution

No Religious Test Required to Qualify to Public Office

Article 7

Ratification Instructions to Establish the Constitution

27 Amendments from 1791 to 1992

The new U.S. Congress sent twelve amendments to the states, the price the states required for ratification. Two were set aside and the ten that were created September 25, 1789 became known as the Bill of Rights after they were ratified December 15, 1791.

Amendments 1 – 10

Proposed: September 25, 1789

Ratified: December 15, 1791

Amendment 1

Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Right to Petition

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3

Soldiers in Time of Peace

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4

Right of Security

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- 184 -

Amendment 5

Protection of Accused

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Amendment 6

Right to Speedy Trial

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment 7

Jury Trial

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8

Excessive Bail, Unusual Punishment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9

People Retain Rights

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

Amendment 10

States Retain Undelegated Powers

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment 11

States Exempt from Suits

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794

Ratified February 7,1795

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

- 185 -

Amendment 12

Election of Presidents Changed

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803

Ratified July 27, 1804

The Electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President]. – changed by Amendment 20, Section 3] — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such numbers be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

Amendment 13

Slavery Prohibited

Passed by Congress January 31, 1865

Ratified December 6, 1865

Section 1

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 14

Rights of Citizens, Apportionment of Representatives in Congress, Status of Insurrectionists

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866

Ratified July 9, 1868

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- 186 -

Section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of Electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the [number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State – modified by Amendment 19 (sex), 26 Section 1 (age)].

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment 15

Right of Citizens to Vote

Passed by Congress February 26, 1869

Ratified February 3, 1870

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 16

Unapportioned Income Tax

Passed by Congress July 2, 1909

Ratified February 3, 1913

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever sources derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

- 187 -

Amendment 17

Election of Senators

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912

Ratified April 8, 1913

[1] The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislatures.

[2] When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the Executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the Legislature may direct.

[3] This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment 18

Prohibition of Alcohol

Passed by Congress December 18, 1917

Ratified January 16, 1919

Repealed by Amendment XXI

Section 1

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the Legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 19

Right of Men and Women to Vote

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919.

Ratified August 18, 1920

[1] The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

[2] Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 20

Start and End of Terms for Congress and President

Passed by Congress March 2, 1932

Ratified January 23, 1933

Section 1

The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

- 188 -

Section 2

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3rd day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4

The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5

Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article [October 1933].

Section 6

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment 21

Repeal of Prohibition of Alcohol

Passed by Congress February 20, 1933

Ratified December 5, 1933

Section 1

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 22

Two Term Limit for President

Passed by Congress March 21, 1947

Ratified February 27, 1951

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more that two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

- 189 -

Amendment 23

District of Columbia Electors

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960

Ratified March 29, 1961

Section 1

[1] The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

[2] A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 24

Federal Poll Taxes Abolished

Passed by Congress August 27, 1962

Ratified January 23,1964

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or any other tax.

Section 2

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 25

Continuity of the Presidency

Passed by Congress July 6, 1965

Ratified February 10, 1967

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress

Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

- 190 -

Section 4

[1] Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

[2] Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmits within four days to the President Pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment 26

Right to Vote for Citizens at Age Eighteen

Passed by Congress March 23, 1971

Ratified June 30, 1971

Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 27

Pay for Congress is Limited

Passed by Congress September 25, 1789

Ratified May 7, 1992

No law, varying the compensation for services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

- 191 -

Dates When Amendments Were Passed and Ratified

Amendments 1 - 10 Passed: September 27, 1789 Ratified: December 15, 1791 Amendment 11 Passed: March 4, 1794 Ratified: February 7, 1795 (1798) Amendment 12 Passed: December 9, 1803 Ratified: June 15, 1804 Amendment 13 Passed: January 31, 1865 Ratified: December 6, 1865 Amendment 14 Passed: June 13, 1866 Ratified: July 9, 1868 Amendment 15 Passed: February 26, 1869 Ratified: February 3, 1870

Amendment 16 Passed: July 12, 1909 Ratified: February 3, 1913 Amendment 17 Passed: May 13, 1912 Ratified: April 8,1913 Amendment 18 Passed: December 18, 1917 Ratified: January 16, 1919 Amendment 19 Passed: June 4, 1919 Ratified: August 18, 1920 Amendment 20 Passed: March 2, 1932 Ratified: January 23, 1933 Amendment 21 Passed: February 20, 1933 Ratified: December 5, 1933

Amendment 22 Passed: March 24, 1947 Ratified: February 27, 1951 Amendment 23 Passed: June 16, 1960 Ratified: March 29, 1961 Amendment 24 Passed: August 27, 1962 Ratified: January 23, 1964 Amendment 25 Passed: July 6, 1965 Ratified: February 10, 1967 Amendment 26 Passed: March 23, 1971 Ratified: July 1, 1971 Amendment 27 Passed: September 25, 1789 Ratified: May 7, 1992

Etiology and Teleology of “natural born Citizen”

Here are two words from the American Heritage Dictionary which can be applied to ‘original genesis’ and the implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” and eligibility to be president.

etiology, also aetiology n.

1a. The study of causes or origins.

1b. The branch of medicine that deals with the causes or origins of disease.

2a. Assignment of a cause, origin or reason for something.

2b. The cause or origin of a disease or disorder as determined by medical diagnosis.

teleology n.

1. The study of design or purpose in natural phenomena.

2. The use of ultimate purpose or design as a means of explaining phenomena.

3. Belief in or the perception of purposeful development toward an end, as in nature or history.

[Gk. telios, telos, perfect, complete (< telos, end, result) + —LOGY (study)]

etiology: Origin [genesis] example: a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president.

teleology: Purpose [intent] example: to protect the office of the “Command in chief” from foreign influence over the military, etc.

- 192 -

In the context of Article II and eligibility to be president, the etiological genesis of “natural born Citizen” was to be determined by natural law (law of nature). The executive “Command in chief” of the army was to be from within the Union of WE the People as implied by John Jay in his note to Washington, a suggestion which was adopted on September 17, 1787.

In the context of Article II and eligibility to be president, the teleological history of the “purposeful development toward an end” is the perpetual protection of the executive branch of the federation from foreign influence, including the ‘foreign influence’ of an alien ideology intent on transforming the United States of America contrary to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution itself as expressed in the preamble, “We the People ... more perfect Union ... secure ... Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ...”, and transforming the U.S. Constitution from a charter of “negative liberties” (what the federal government can not do to or for the people) as enumerated in Article I Section 8 clauses 1-18, into a charter of “positive liberties” (what the federal government can and must do to or for the people, contrary to the “original intent” enumerated in Article I) in order to fulfill a progressive, liberal, globalist, internationalist, communitarian agenda that is being pursued by both theists and atheists in the ‘uni-party amalgamation’ of socialist Democrats and socialist Republicans. This ‘amalgamation’ is ideologically related to the Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum “Great Reset” ‘amalgamation’ which will “Build Back Better”. In a world which is ‘built back better’ the people of the entire world will own nothing and will be happy about that lack of personal control of private property, because in the “Great Reset” the ‘great state’ will provide for the people from the cradle to the grave with the help of the corporations of the world who will join the ‘Public Private Partnership’ (PPP), also called ‘Public Private Cooperation’ (PPC), in which the ‘Private’ corporations are subservient to the ‘Public’ state. In other words, the ‘amalgamation’ inherent within the Klaus Schwab World Economic Forum ‘Great Reset’ is, in essence, an amalgamation of a nazi socialist (national socialism) and a marxist socialist (international socialism) global union – a ‘great state union’ – amalgamation of nazi fascism and marxist communism.

The Legislatures of the thirteen ‘several States’ created the constitution which created the federation, but an effort is being made which will make the ‘several States’ to be ‘equal’ in the (inter)national commune which is being created by the federation government, the ‘child’ that did not exist as a federation government until it was ‘created’ by We the People of the ‘several States’ who also adopted Article V to protect We the People of the ‘several States’ and only their own “Posterity”. The tripartite federation government is using the executive office of president #44 BHObama to continue “... transforming the United States of America ...” into an ideologically ‘pure’ (free from contrary thinking and speaking) and more ‘equitable’ new social order, a new humanity so to speak – or else – if you don’t ‘submit’.

For those who do not comply, who do not submit (pick a word), with head bowed, to living in the commune of a transformed America, there will be consequences for the recalcitrant who do not want to be members of the globalist, internationalist commune that is being so unselfishly provided by the ‘child’ of the ‘parent’. The ‘child’ is the federation. The ‘parent’ is the creator of the federation. The federation includes all of the original 1787 citizens of the ‘several States’ who created the federation and all of the citizens of the ‘several States’ today in the 2000s who want to preserve the federation and who do not want to ‘transform … America’ as it becomes “more perfect” (‘more’ = perpetual) generation to generation.

We the People are the ‘law’, the natural law (law of nature) of the land which preceded the positive law (law of people). ‘We’ are the ‘natural law’ which preceded and created the ‘positive law’, the written law of the land, the Constitution. It is the Legislatures of We the People of the ‘several States’ who will have the final say on who controls the federation, not the tripartite federation which did not exist until the text of the constitution was debated and written and adopted by the delegates of the Legislatures of We the People of the ‘several States’. That means that the entire tripartite federation, and, specifically, the executive of the federation, was not a party to the compact made by We the People of the original 13 colonies, the ‘several States’. That makes it obvious about who is in charge of OUR federation government, right? The ‘parent’ who ‘created’ is in charge, not the ‘child’ which was ‘created’ by the natural law (law of nature) ‘creator’ – We the People. To put it in other words, the 1787 We the People, the ‘natural law’ creator which was not ‘created’ by positive law (law of people), did ‘create’ with ‘positive law’ words alone (by fiat) their ‘positive law’ ‘child’, the Constitution. With their ‘Constitution child’ the 1787 We the People ‘created’ the ‘positive law’ tripartite federation form of government. The ‘positive law’ federation is under the authority of the ‘natural law’ We the People, the ‘parent’, which controls the intent of their ‘positive law’ ‘child’. That is very clear now, right?.

- 193 -

We the People of the 1787 ‘several States’ ‘created’ the Constitution to be a charter of ‘negative liberties’ into perpetuity, generation to generation. They did not intend for the Constitution to be ‘transformed’ into a charter of ‘positive liberties’ by persons with temporary Article I or Article II or Article III authority. The 1787 ‘creators’ were not looking into the future with the progressive utopian theory, utopian myth, of providing utopian universal health care, to use only one example, and establishing a national commune for the American people where everybody in the commune will eventually submit to being provided with a single payer health care system. In the collectivism commune of the ‘positive liberties’ ideologues everybody will be equal and will not be allowed to be exceptional or else off to the reeducation camp to get rid of the stinkin' thinkin' of individualism because collectivism and individualism can not coexist in their utopian ‘equitable’ commune.

In essence, the attempt is being made of ‘transforming’ the United States of America (USA) from ‘Yes, I can’ be exceptional into ‘Yes, we can’ be equal in the political collective of the national ‘commune’ of the United Commune States of America (UCSA), with some even calling for being equal in the religious collectivism of the United Ummah States of Muslamerica (UUSM), or the United States of Muslamerica (USM). Maybe it could be called the United Ummah States of Islamerica (UUSI), or the United States of Islamerica (USI).

What do you think? In a United Ummah States of Islamerica (UUSI) would eligibility to be president continue to be open to males and females who are not Muslims? Would eligibility be ‘transformed’ with an Article V amendment to exclude Muslim females as well as all males and females who do not convert, who do not submit to submitting to Allah, and with eligibility limited to only male Muslims? If eligibility to be president is changed from only singular U.S. citizenship possible 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, how would it be changed? Changed from ‘singular’ to ‘dual’ citizenship? Changed from birth exclusively on only U.S. soil to include birth on foreign soil? Changed from a male married to only one female or married with two, three, or four female wives? Will homosexual ‘wives’ and transgender ‘wives’ even be allowed to exist in a United States of Islamerica (USI).

For presidential eligibility purposes, what’s the point of maintaining the original genesis implicit intent of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” of only singular U.S. citizenship if, since 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the same constitutional ‘right’ as men to vote, if Article II and eligibility for men and women to be president is not maintained into perpetuity for the benefit of only the ‘posterity’ of all of We the People who are either ‘born’ citizens or ‘naturalized’ citizens from generation to generation, election to election, president to president? That’s an excellent and pertinent individualism question that applies to men and women, right?

Original Genesis Birther John Jay v ‘neobirthers’

→ https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16

The comments below I posted on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog on January 3, 2015 (see at 10:53 PM), and since then I have added clarifying points.

Mario,

You have the etiological and teleological history of “natural born Citizen” under control, and absolutely nobody has refuted your definition of a “natural born Citizen” as a child only born on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen parents (plural) only married to each other only before the child is born. Those neobirthers who do try to refute you try to do so by starting with what they assert is the lack of clarity in the “natural born Citizen” phrase since 1787. However, after asserting with certainty the lack of clarity in original birther John Jay's “natural born Citizen” suggestion to George Washington, and stating with certainty that there is confusion surrounding the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II, neobirthers express three more certainties that are very confusing to the uninformed about “natural born Citizen” and John Jay's original intent in underlining the word ‘born’.

1) Some Obama birth narrative neobirthers assert with certainty that they are absolutely sure that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” because, naturally, he was born to at least one U.S. citizen only on U.S. soil. How do the Obama birth narrative neobirthers ‘know’ that John Jay implicitly meant birth to only one parent only on U.S. soil if Jay was not clear in 1787? Good question, right? What is their natural law (law of nature) ‘legal’ basis for ‘knowing’ what they ‘know’ about what the positive law (law of people) word ‘Citizen’ means?

- 194 -

2) Some ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ is eligible to be president neobirthers assert that they are absolutely sure that any child ‘born’ is naturally an Article II “natural born Citizen” even if born to zero U.S. citizens on U.S. soil, and they know this with certainty thirty years before the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ‘opinion’ about what the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment meant (Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley, etc.)? How do neobirthers ‘know’, for eligibility to be president, that, in 1787, John Jay meant zero ‘citizen’ parents, Article II meant zero ‘citizen’ parents, and the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment meant zero ‘citizen’ parents?

3) Some ‘MY GUY / MY GAL’ is eligible to be president neobirthers assert that they are absolutely sure that any child ‘born’ is naturally an Article II “natural born Citizen” if born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen (Texas Sen. Ted Cruz). How do neobirthers ‘know’ that John Jay implicitly meant only one U.S. citizen parent for eligibility to be president for children born on foreign soil if Jay was not clear about what he meant when he underlined the word ‘born’ in 1787?

So, not being a lawyer like Mario Apuzzo, Leo Donofrio and others, or a law school or legal foundation affiliated scholar like some ‘birth on U.S. soil or foreign soil to two or one or zero U.S. citizen is good 'nuf for POTUS eligibility’ neobirthers, this “table talk conversation” is my normal citizen common sense living originalism articulation of the original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as John Jay may have clarified the common law if he had been asked by 1787 neobirthers, but he never was asked about the common law and the implicit meaning of ‘born’ because ‘living constitutionism’ neobirthers did not exist in 1787.

That is the presidential eligibility debate in a nutshell as I came to understand the “natural born Citizen” debate in my short 2 year 11 month study. I started studying the eligibility to be president issue on February 2, 2012 to January 3, 2015, and, after laying it aside for over five years, started to rewrite my comments on July 18, 2020, 8 years 4 months after March 1, 2012, the day Sheriff Arpaio held his first news conference about putative president Obama’s computer generated birth certificate, and, on September 23, 2022, continuing my rewrite of the “natural born Citizen” issue which I started on March 2, 2012, the day after Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference about the fraudulent birth certificate that, as President, only Obama must have authorized to be posted on the We the People federation government website. How do We the People ‘know’ that only President Obama must have authorized the posting of the fake birth certificate of live birth (COLB) on the federation government website? Well, since he is the final authority who claimed that it was authentic, who would dare to post it ‘IF’ he did not authorize the posting of a fake COLB? Good point, right?

John Jay was Not Ambiguous or Vague

→ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/23/off-to-a-bad-start-originalism-and-the-good-constitution

On the Washington Post website Randy Barnett has a brief look at McGinnis and Rappaport’s book Originalism and the Good Constitution:

“When a provision is ambiguous or vague, interpreters may resort to nonoriginalist materials to determining the Constitution’s meaning. But constructionist originalism raises its own difficulties because it significantly reduces the scope of originalism. Indeed, some theorists have questioned whether constructionist originalism’s embrace of nonoriginalist methods to resolve ambiguity and vagueness does not largely collapse originalism into living constitutionism. Constructivist originalism also leaves unanswered the question of what replaces originalism when originalism does not apply”.

While the quote is not an explicit reference to “born” in “natural born Citizen” in Article II and eligibility to be president, the relevant words in the quote which can be applied to Article II are “When a provision is ambiguous or vague, ...”. The words are relevant to understanding the common law implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” as original birther John Jay may have clarified the words if neobirthers had existed in 1787 and asked him what he meant. Of course, neobirthers did not exist in 1787 America and John Jay was not ambiguous or vague when he underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington who implicitly understood the common law implicit meaning of ‘born’ as a reference to birth to two U.S. citizens by marriage before a child is born as the ONLY way to produce a child who has, by birth alone, only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president.

U.S. citizens married only to each other before a child is born, the “implicit meaning” of “natural born Citizen” for eligibility to be president, is confirmed by the inclusion, after the comma, of “...or a Citizen of…”. The single word “or” was understood in 1787 to apply to British subjects of the thirteen colonies who were grandfathered as U.S. ‘citizens’ when naturalized by Article II Section 1 clause 5. When the constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 the naturalization word “or” was NOT understood to be a reference to future naturalization at birth to alien parents. That is how the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark fiat (‘because we say so’) opinion of the Supreme Court has been applied since then.

- 195 -

“Ambiguous or vague”? The original genesis implicit intent of “natural born Citizen” was not ambiguous or vague in 1787 as John Jay and George Washington understood the eligibility words. Common sense, right? Jay, Washington, the delegates who framed the Constitution and the state’s ratifiers obviously would not defend living constitutionism as understood by 2000s new meaning neobirthers who say that “natural born Citizen” could have two different but equally plausible meanings, singular or dual citizenship. That would definitely be incoherent, not just ambiguous or vague. Right?

The implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” was not uncertain. How do we in 2000s America ‘know’ that the implicit meaning of “born” was not uncertain? Well, because Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” for a common law reason. Right? That means that Jay was definitely “certain” that he knew what “born” meant to him, and it also means that Washington would also “know” what “born” meant to Jay. Right? Also, it was deliberately and with definite purpose exclusive and limited, it was not inclusive to include a multitude of living constitutionism new meanings proposed by 2000s neobirthers.

No. John Jay was, with definiteness of purpose, not ambiguous or vague. Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the original genesis and perpetual living originalism word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” was not schizophrenic or incoherent. When the “We the People … more perfect Union” Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787 and sent to the states for ratification, founders John Jay, George Washington and all of the framers and state’s ratifiers did not think that the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” was ‘ambiguous’ or ‘vague’. How do we know that with certainty? Well, the framers did not debate the implicit meaning of ‘born’ in relation to eligibility to be president. In 1787, as it does today, the implicit meaning of ‘born’ required the physical union of two heterosexual parents married only to each other, and if both were U.S. citizens (in the 1700s and until 1922, a female acquired either the foreign citizenship or the U.S. citizenship of a male by marriage) it was the common understanding in 1787 that the U.S. citizenship of the married parents would devolve on the child by birth alone. For that marriage ‘legal’ reason the child was recognized in 1787 (and generation to generation) as a ‘citizen’ who was a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone and so eligible to be president.

In the 1790 first U.S. Congress of President Washington's first administration, some legislators obviously misunderstood(?) Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen”, which obviously only refers to birth on U.S. soil to only two married U.S. citizens. This error turned out for us in the 2000s to be a fortuitous error of judgment by the 1790 first Congress because their error helps us in the 2000s to see the natural law reason why “born” in “natural born Citizen” can only apply to children born on U.S. soil to two U.S. married citizens. In the 1790 Naturalization Act the first U.S. Congress passed language which identified a child as a “natural born citizen” (lower case ‘c’) even when the child is born on foreign soil to married U.S. citizens (plural). Fortunately this was a serendipitous error by the first Congress which was corrected with James Madison's participation in the 1795 third Congress of Washington's second administration. The misapplication was corrected with the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘citizen’ word when it was passed with the clarification that a child was only a ‘citizen’ if born on foreign soil to married U.S. citizens (plural). It is obvious that to the 1795 third Congress, ‘citizen’ and “natural born Citizen” did not implicitly mean the same thing. Right? If born on foreign soil, a ‘citizen’ born to married U.S. citizens is not eligible to be president. If born on U.S. soil, a ‘citizen’ born to married U.S. citizens is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and so is eligible to be president.

Next, after the ONLY implicit meanings of “natural born Citizen” itemized in 7 parts, are 4 neobirther possibilities to choose from. They are incoherent compared to the ONLY one implicit meanings in living originalism birther John Jay's original genesis implicit reason for underlining the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington. The living originalism and first original birther John Jay, by underlining the natural law (law of nature) word ‘born’, was implying that he could only mean one original genesis possibility, not two possibilities – “natural born Citizen” has only one original genesis implicit meaning and only one implicit intent for eligibility to be president:

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 birth of a child

- 196 -

The living constitutionism neobirthers want uninformed citizens to believe that John Jay really, really, really meant ‘dual’ citizenship and not only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president. In other words, ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” has more than one original genesis implicit possibility and more than one implicit meaning for eligibility to be president:

1a EITHER singular U.S. citizenship

1b OR dual U.S. and foreign citizenship

2a EITHER birth on U.S. soil

2b OR birth on foreign soil

3a EITHER two U.S. citizen parents (Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump)

3b OR one U.S. citizen parent (Barack Obama, Ted Cruz)

3c OR zero U.S. citizen parents (Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, Kamala. Harris)

4a EITHER marry each other before a child is born

4b OR marry each other after a child is born

4c OR never marry after a child is born

Putting #3 and #4 together, it is easy to see how incoherent and absurd are living constitutionism attempts to include dual citizenship, with or without ‘legal’ marriage, as a possibility for eligibility to be president. The ultimate question for an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to amend Article II and clarify the implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” is very simple to articulate. Simply put, which original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” will the American people agree is John Jay's original genesis implicit meaning: living originalism (singular original genesis intent) or living constitutionism (dual original genesis??? intent)? Which will citizens choose for their own “natural born Citizen” children? It's time to choose. The ultimate question for an Article V convention of the Legislatures of the ‘several States’ to amend the intent of Article II and clarify the meaning of “natural born Citizen” is very simple. It is time to choose. Do we maintain the perpetual “… more perfect Union ...” of America as expressed by the 1787 We the People, and which President Lincoln clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861, or do we not maintain a “… more perfect Union”?

So, which original genesis implicit meaning of “natural born Citizen” will the American people choose for their own “natural born Citizen” children and their own posterity for eligibility to be president?

Article II Natural Law ‘except’ and Positive Law ‘or’ Clarify Explicit and Implicit Words

John Jay wrote a short thank you note to George Washington dated July 25, 1787 which had the word ‘born’ underlined in his “natural born Citizen” suggestion. Almost two months later, September 17, 1787, the three words were adopted in Article II Section 1 clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause. The underlined word ‘born’ is visible in the original note: “Permit me to hint … that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen –”.

Article II Section 1 clause 5 Itemized

“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."

Words have meaning, and the words in Article II have meaning in themselves and in relation to each other.

Part 1a

No Person except a natural born Citizen,

Part 1b

or a Citizen of the United States,

Part 1c

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution

Part 1d

shall be eligible to the Office of President;

Part 2a

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

Part 2b

and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

- 197 -

Permanent ‘Except’ and Temporary ‘Or’

Part 1a

In 1787 America ‘except’ implied ‘natural born’ for perpetual eligibility to be president.

In 1787 America ‘except’ implied ‘Citizen’ for perpetual eligibility to be president.

In 1787 America ‘born’ implied only on U.S. soil.

In 1787 America ‘born’ implied original intent was not U.S. soil or foreign soil.

In 1787 America ‘born’ implies U.S. citizenship required U.S. citizens married only to each other.

In 1787 America ‘born’ implied birth citizenship from two U.S. citizens married only to each other before birth of the child.

Part 1b

In 1787 America “… or a Citizen of …” applied to a temporary positive law (law of people).

In 1787 America “… or a Citizen of ...” only applied to a ‘citizen’ naturalized on July 4, 1776.

In 1787 America Part 2a & 2b did not apply to Part 1b “… or a Citizen of ...”. Some 1787 naturalized citizens were not yet 35 and some were older, but, from the ‘grandfather’ naturalization date of July 4, 1776, none had resided in the U.S. for 14 years when Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789.

Part 1c

In 1787 America ‘time’ is permanent when applied to “natural born Citizen”.

In 1787 America ‘time’ is temporary when applied to the last 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” who died sometime in the middle to late 1800s.

In 1787 America “… or a Citizen of ...” was already a July 4, 1776 naturalized U.S. Citizen “… at the time of the Adoption …” on September 17, 1787.

Part 1d

In 1787 America ‘eligible’ was applied permanently to a “natural born Citizen”.

In 1787 America ‘eligible’ was applied temporarily to an “… or a Citizen of ...”.

Part 2a

In 1787 America “attained … Years” is positive law (law of people) for eligibility to be president.

In 1787 America for eligibility to be president only a “natural born Citizen” must attain to age of 35 years.

Part 2b

In 1787 America 14 year residence is positive law (law of people) in addition to age 35.

In 1787 America for eligibility to be president 1) birth on U.S. soil, 2) fourteen years residence on U.S. soil, 3) attaining to Age 35 are all positive law (law of people) statements.

Conclusion: Part 1a “natural born Citizen”

What is the conclusion to be drawn about the September 17, 1787 Article II Part 1a “natural born Citizen” requirement for persons born before or after July 4, 1776 and the war for independence and of being a ‘subject’ of a sovereign in a monarchy? Since 1787 We the People community ‘is’ the singular sovereign of the new republic. All of We the People (one community) of the new Union are sovereign (singular), and one individual is not sovereign.

- 198 -

Conclusion: Part 1b “… or a Citizen of...”

What is the conclusion to be drawn about the September 17, 1787 Article II Part 1b “… or a Citizen of ...” requirement for persons born before or after the July 4, 1776 war of independence, and before the September 17, 1787 adoption of the constitution? In 1787 “… or a Citizen of ...” applied only and until the last person born before July 4, 1776 and naturalized by Article II died sometime in the middle to late 1800s. What other original genesis and implicit intent could the original birthers, authors, delegates have intended for “natural born Citizen” and “… or a citizen of ...” in 1787? It is not coherent to conclude that founder and New York ratifier John Jay, author of “natural born Citizen”, and the framers who approved the language to be included in Article II were implying only singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to be president until the last “... or a Citizen of ...” died, and then also (also???) implying that dual citizenship was Jay’s and the framer’s second original genesis implicit intent (‘second intent’ – huh ???) generation to generation. The two implicit intents are simply not rational or coherent. That is obvious, right?

Well, when put that way, yeah, right.

Eligible to be President

singular U.S. citizenship

by birth alone on U.S. soil

two U.S. married citizens

reside 14 years in U.S.

and attain age 35

I Was Not Clear About Original Genesis and Original Intent Until…

On March 1, 2012 Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio held his first Cold Case Posse news conference. On March 2, 2012 I started posting on my first blog (original birther document .blogspot .com) what I would later call a tabletalk conversation later when I started posting on my second blog (original-genesis-original-intent .blogspot .com) what I was learning about why John Jay underlined the word ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” in his note to George Washington. I was not clear on March 2 about the issue of eligibility to be president until I started to analyze why John Jay underlined the word ‘born’, and I was also not clear about the 1787 original ‘genesis’ understanding of the constitution convention delegates, the original birth(ers) who accepted the suggestion from Jay which Washington passed on to them. They were the original authors of the original words of the original birth(er) document which united the ‘several States’ under the codified common law, a positive law (law of people) known as the ‘We the People’ U.S. Constitution, and, specifically, for eligibility to be president, Article II Section 1 clause 5, the only location in the four seminal documents of the ‘union / Union’ where the ‘hint’ by John Jay about protecting the office of the president by allowing only a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be president is found, the only words which implicitly refer to perpetual presidential eligibility with only singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, only on U.S. soil.

Article II Section 1 Clause 5

Part 1a

No Person except a natural born Citizen....

(“except ... born” = on U.S. soil = ‘birth’ and ‘soil’ = permanent natural law / law of nature requirements)

(‘born’ = birth to two U.S. citizens = married only to each other = to pass on singular ‘citizen’ status = permanent natural law / law of nature requirements)

Part 1b

or a Citizen of the United States,

at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,

shall be eligible to the Office of President; ...

(“... or a Citizen of ...” = all of Part 1b is immutable and temporary positive law / law of people until the last positive law / law of people ‘or’ citizen died sometime in the 1800s)

- 199 -

Part 2a

neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office

who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years,

(‘attained’ = a permanent positive law / law of people requirement)

Part 2b

and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ….

(“been ... within” = U.S. soil and, implicitly, on foreign soil under U.S. jurisdiction such as embassies and military posts = a permanent positive law / law of people requirement)

Four Eligibility Requirements For U.S. President

I also was not clear about the relevance of ‘born’ in “natural born Citizen” until I started to analyze the perpetual relevance of two parts of the Constitution, the preamble and Article II: 1) “We the People, in order to form a more [‘more’ = perpetual intent] perfect Union”, and 2) the Article II presidential eligibility words “natural born Citizen”, the only words in the U.S. Constitution which implicitly reveal four requirements to be “… eligible to the Office of President”.

1) Soil – Place

The location is only U.S. soil (or jurisdiction on foreign soil), not foreign soil.

2) Soil – Birth

The birth is only on U.S. soil (or jurisdiction on foreign soil), not on foreign soil.

3) Parents – Married

The parents are married only to each other before a child is born.

4) Parents – Citizenship

Both parents are U.S. citizens before a child is born.

1) The national soil (place) of the two married citizens exists before the birth of a child on that soil.

2) The birth of children must be on the same national soil of the two citizen parents.

3) The marriage status of the two parents, ‘legally’ married only to each other only before a child is born, is as important as the ‘legal’ jurisdiction, the soil (place) on which the parents reside and on which the child is born (‘place’ must exist before birth) and resides for a minimum of 14 years before or after attaining age 35.

4) For eligibility to be president the singular U.S. citizenship status of the two parents before a child is born is as important as their marriage to each other before a child is born for the child to be a “natural born Citizen” by birth alone. The singular U.S. citizenship status of the two parents and the ‘legal’ marriage of the two parents only to each other must precede the birth of a child. Just as two parents bestow life on a child because the two parents are alive, the same two parents bestow singular U.S. citizenship on a child because the two parents are U.S. citizens. The birth and citizenship of the child are as important as the soil (place) which exists before a child is born on that soil.

Both 14 and 35 years are required for eligibility to be president, and, unless amended, both time requirements are permanent positive law (law of people).

Both soil and birth on the same U.S. soil of the citizen parents are required for eligibility to be president, and both are permanent natural law (law of nature) which cannot be changed by positive law (law of people).

Both the soil of birth and the singular U.S. citizenship of the two parents who are married only to each other before a child is born determine the singular U.S. citizenship of a child.

After reading Mario Appuzo's Natural Born Citizen blog (https://puzo1.blogspot.com/) for a year after March 1, 2012 it started to become clear to me that the only original genesis implicit intent for eligibility to be president from the day that John Jay wrote his thank-you note to George Washington suggesting a way to prevent foreign influence over the executive branch and control of the military was the only implication possible: all future presidential aspirants must have only singular U.S. citizenship only by birth alone only on U.S. soil only to two heterosexual U.S. citizens only married only to each other only before a child is born.

- 200 -