Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Constitutional Resources:
Finding "Original Meaning"
As a central tenet of the Eastman Project, the law itself—before being law—must first take the form of language. As such, the rules of language rule the law before the legal concepts expressed through those words can take any meaningful form of understandable and enforceable law.
And here, with the Framers’ own ordinary legislative definitions serving as our ultimate resource of “Originalist” meanings, we enable ourselves to take a far deeper look into the linguistic origins of our law than our nation's malevolently-interested thought leaders—circa Dobbs and circa Pro-Life—would ever wish.
As Justice Gorsuch stated in Bostock, "This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment." (4).
As we will see, the meanings of our legal texts are entirely dependent on the “original meaning” of the words chosen, and—just as true—dependent on those meanings as clarified by the original definitions of those words. As the Late Justice Scalia was at the ready to point out, the meanings of our provisions may indeed have many implicit meanings baked into them by virtue of the word’s proper definition.
And, to the very point of this resource center, we cannot possibly understand those implications without actually reading with our own eyes the definitions which our Constitution’s Framers themselves looked at with their own eyes.
Thus presented here is a repository of essential definitions which appear and reappear not only throughout the body of my work, but throughout the very articles and amendments of the Constitution itself. Please feel free to copy these, to keep them for your own reference, to publicly discuss, and to retweet in support of your own arguments.
To the bigger Eastman Project thesis, this essential, underlying point must be stressed: each of these Birthright-themed definitions support the Constitution's implicit, self-evident understanding that "DNA is assigned at conception, while Birthrights are assigned at birth."
To the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers, "All Persons Born" are born-and-breathing babies "of either sex." Here, the Constitutional implications are profound, since this kills the entire Pro-Life thesis, meaning that "Babies" are not "embryos" and are not "born at conception"; while, additionally, persons are born "of either sex," indicating that "Binary Gender" is the only possible meaning under the Framers' Constitution, and exposing the demonstrable Trans Fallacy that gender is "Non" Binary.
The 14th Amendment drafters' law dictionary plainly refutes the Pro-Life claims of "birth at conception" and "abortion as murder."
In law, "birth" can only refer to the event during which the fetus is "wholly brought into the world," meaning, outside the womb, and "born alive" into personhood and human spirit.
From the middle definition we note that "Murder" can only happen when the "born alive" child is "wholly" outside "the body of the mother."
By definition, "Murder" cannot include abortion.
The 14th Amendment drafters' law dictionary clearly shows that both "Murder" and "Homicide," by definition, mean "the killing of any person" living outside the womb.
In a single line, the "Homicide" provision that "The person killed must have been born" first echoes the Constitution's "All Persons Born" constraint, and then proceeds to explicitly nullify the entirety of the Pro-Life thesis: in which terminating embryos is tantamount to "Murder."
By definition, "murder" happens only "after birth."
"Citizen... A person.... born... of either sex, who is entitled to full protection in the exercise and enjoyment of the so-called private rights."
Here, human persons/citizens, are limited to those "of either sex," with this Framer-approved definition notably constrained to the "Binary" choice of "either" male or female.
By this Framerly construction of "born" "citizens," then, there is no recognition of a third sex consisting of female impersonators, nor are Birthrights granted to the unborn.
The Fourteenth Amendment reads "All persons born... are citizens."
Despite that unequivocal language, the Pro-Life movement wants ordinary Americans to believe that this Constitutional provision supposedly includes "unborns not born."
In this 2008 video, Justice Scalia sets the record straight; and he confirms for all time the Constitution's original meaning, presenting the self-evident truth that a born "person" can only refer to, in his words a "walking-around person."
Trans Rights Activists complain to me that, "One, there is no such thing as "Natural Born Gender," and, two, where in the Constitution does it say that "Persons Born" doesn't include Trans women and Trans men?"
I tell them that the 14th Amendment's structurally-comprehended definition of "persons" is constrained to natural-born persons. They laugh, utterly oblivious to the fact that the Constitution's Framers were not transsexuals, and that the word "transsexual" didn't even exist in 1868.
To the drafters of the 14th Amendment, "All Persons Born" are either male or female. And to them, "by definition," a "Female" is, one, "the sex which produces young" via childbirth, and, two, a "Female" is "not male."
Similarly, by law, the male gender is "the sex opposed to the female" one.
Thus, "by definition," "at the time of enactment," the original meaning of "female" explicitly excludes any biological, reproductive, or psychological equivalence to either a "male" or "female impersonator."
Seen from the Reproductive Rights angle, the Framer's "persons born" included living, successfully childbirthed humans, each consisting not only of the "body" which gestated in the womb, but, also, the "soul" which was joined with it at the event of childbirth.
The Framers' "person is a thinking, intelligent being," and never an embryo, whether frozen or unfrozen.
In refuting Trans Ideology, we note that "Person" includes "man" and "woman," but never "Trans Woman" or "Female impersonator."
To the minds of the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers, the entire "spectrum" of "sex" or "gender" choices included either, one, "male," or, two, "female." And this binary choice perfectly concurs with what legitimate scientists still believe to this day.
To the Framers, then, a natural-born person can be only either male or female, and nothing else. The Constitution itself is structured upon this very binary; the word "sex" in the Nineteenth Amendment being consistent with this definition.
The Pro-Life lobby wants you to believe that human "viability" begins at whichever point a laboratory scientist can successfully extract an embryo or fetus from a woman's body and manage to keep it alive, whether this is at 20 or 24 weeks. But, to the Constitution's Framers, "viability" only ever meant the benchmark "capacity of living after birth... capable of living, as a new-born infant."
To the Framers, then, abortion would be permissible any time before "viability," or, before birth.
"All persons born" are governable; "All vegetative gestations unborn" are not governable. Under Bible, Constitution, and The Law of Nations, only the "governable" can be subject to the jurisdiction of government, and thus, only the governable have rights.
Here, by way of the Framers' Law Dictionary, U.S. citizens "are either native born or naturalized." What this means is that, even when a foreigner's child is (incorrectly) granted automatic citizenship by way of "Territorial Birth," they are still granted that U.S. citizenship by way of "naturalization." Territorial "Birthright Citizenship," properly understood, is a form of "naturalization." And as such, Territorial Birthright is, by definition, "naturalized," and not "natural born."
The Fourteenth Amendment Framers laid down the law on "naturalization." Their dictionary explicitly and implicitly holds that a "natural born subject" and a 'naturalized alien' are mutually-exclusive, unequal things. Natural born subjects have "native" parents, which logically infers that foreign-born subjects are ones with foreign parents. Thus, by definition, this is about "conferred rights," and not about birth locations.
Consistent with the Framers' definition of naturalization, Vattel's Birthright doctrine holds that "the country of the fathers is therefore that of the children." And, just as Ben Franklin understood it, "The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are [American] citizens." Thus, by The Law of Nations, those born in the country "of parents who are resident aliens" are not U.S. citizens.
Entirely consistent with Vattel's Birthright doctrine, the Framers' law dictionary defines children as being under a state of "subjection" "to their parents." Within the Framers' provision of "persons born," then, the originary childbearing "jurisdiction thereof" subjected to is that of "their parents."
As Vattel, Framer, and I see it, The child is subject to the jurisdiction of the parent; the parent is subject to the jurisdiction of the country. Subjection works in that order.
In his Section Three review in the Supreme Court, Trump's attorney argued that Trump is not an "officer of the United States" within the meaning of Section Three.
Clearly, the Section Three Framers' dictionary defines the "elected" president as "An officer... elected to govern."
Thus, by definition, the U.S. President is in fact an "officer of the United States" under the disqualification standards of Section Three.
At Oral Argument, this definition was not brought up.