Saturday, 4 May 2013

Here We Go Again...

from 'OMG Here We Go Again - Natural Born Citizen, Presidential Eligibility' - by Aaron Cantor - Mar. 14th - posted by George M. on May 4 (w/ a video embedded of some talking heads at MSNBC, talking out of other than their heads).  My comment:

I am getting royally sick and tired of the Left running, and controlling, this ‘debate’.

They need to be brought to justice in the matter, and fast.

Stan, 7 hours ago
Your comment is awaiting moderation.


and the beat goes on:

from Burlington Free 'Vt. Supreme Court hears case challenging legality of Barack Obama's run for re-election' - April 23 (posted at CDR  Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog - May 4

Fortunately, there are some good voices 'out there' who can carry the argument to the enemy.  The enemy being, to say, the enemy of Truth.

The bottom line, of all this to-ing and fro-ing over Supreme Court decisions on this and that:
The purpose of the, quote, "natural born Citizen" requirement conspicuously put in the Constitution for the office of the presidency of the new nation - and that federal office only; and especially because of that person's also thereby assuming the role and title of the Commander in Chief of the nation's Armed Forces - was to make sure that that person did not have any conflicting/dual loyalties or allegiances, as he would have if his father were a citizen of a foreign country, and as he might have if he were a naturalized citizen.  Read my lips: If Barack Obama of Kenya was Barack Hussein Obama's true birth father, Barack Hussein Obama (who has gone under a number of different names during his rather mysterious lifetime) was, and is, therefore ineligible for the office of the presidency of the United States.  

Citizenship of children naturally follows the citizenship of the father.  What could be more obvious than that, in this 'discussion'.  The argument that there are only two categories of citizenship, natural born or naturalized, is as false as false can be.  The apologists for the current occupant of the White House need to stop with this nonsense.  The Founding Fathers wouldn't have been under that persuasion of thought, when they did their best to make sure that any candidate for the office of the presidency did not have any conflicting loyalties or allegianceswhich was the whole point of the exercise.             

It's time to put this matter to rest.  On the side of Justice.  And good for those who are trying to clear this matter up with the citizens of the nation that they are all a responsible part of.

Or not.


The "two parent" garbage was invented by Leo Donofrio, after Obama won the first election. No one arguing this ever heard of deVattel, until Donofrio dragged his tome out of a dustbin. No one arguing this ever read that tome - they're just copying and pasting. They're Denialists, and they'll be a footnote and an abnormal psychology textbook chapter. Obama will have a library, and dozens of biographies will be written. Eat your heart out.

I would not vote GOP for dog catcher.
Reply · 12 · Like · Follow Post · April 23 at 8:53pm
  • 370176_100000657840486_617982998_q.jpg

  • Joe Montgomery
    · Top Commenter · Kansas State University
  • The Indiana Appeals Court acknowledged in 2009 that the Minor decision by the Supreme Court defined natural-born citizen as those born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It erroneously claimed that a broader question was left open as to whether other combinations of birth and parental status could result in natural-born citizenship, but this simply wasn't true because the Minor decision contemplated all known combinations of citizenship status. 
  • As for Vattel, his work in Law of Nations has been widely used and cited by the Supreme Court. It may be inconvenient to the understanding of a lot of Obama supporters, but there is no higher legal authority than the Supreme Court on this issue.
    Reply · 4 · Unlike · Edited · April 23 at 9:05pm


David, you need to read Luria closely:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827."

Do you see the list of court citations after Luria's statement about presidential eligibility?? Notice which decision is NOT listed: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Notice which decision is listed first?? Minor v. Happersett. 

Now, Luria uses the term "native citizen," but on reviewing Minor, "native" is equated with "natural-born" using the same, EXCLUSIVE characterization of being born in the country to citizen parents. Here's the quote:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." 

Luria affirms that Minor provides a direct precedent on native citizen AND on presidential eligibility. This decision was unanimous. It does NOT rely on Wong Kim Ark, which makes sense when one reads all three of these decisions.
Reply · Like · April 24 at 8:54pm


The translation of Law of Nations was changed to reflect the usage in the United States. In 1781, the framers defined the term "naturel" specifically as natural-born. It explains why at least 27 different Supreme Court justices had no problem with using a Vattel definition as the foundation for the court's exclusive definition of natural-born citizen as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." 

Few of the decisions that have heard these challenges were presented the caselaw from Minor and Luria, and most have simply been dismissed over procedural obstacles, such as what the Vermont SOS is attempting against Brooke Paige in claiming he has no legal standing.
Reply · Like · April 24 at 9:49pm


Leo Derosia · Top Commenter · Woodsville High School
Chief Justice Marshall of the US Supreme Court used the law of nations to help decide the Venus and specifically mentioned vattel and gronitz as part of the law of nations. He said vattel had the best description of the natives who are those "born in a country to parents who are its citizens". The minor court used same quote to describe the "natives or natural born citizens" and used the "common law, in the nomenclature of the Framers" for their definition. This was "never in doubt"
Reply · 1 · Unlike · April 24 at 10:09pm


Susan Daniels · Top Commenter
William A. McLaughlin: Obama was put on the Hawaii ballot illegally. HI requires that a candidate be qualified under the Constitution. Kevin Cronin, who was director of the Board of Election in 2008 refused to put him on the ballot. Obama made a trip to HI and met with Cronin and Brian Schatz, the chairman of the HI Dem. party, among others on Oct. 28, 2008. The Certificate of Nomination for Obama reads that he and Biden: "... were duly nominated as candidates...."

The HI one for Al Gore in 2000 and for John Kerry in 2004 reads: "...are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution."

Cronin then retired half-way through his four year contract, a year later Schantz was named HI Lt. Gov. and is now one of their Senators.
Reply · Like · April 24 at 12:20pm


Patrick McKinnion · Top Commenter
There's a couple of problems with claim by many birthers, (such as Paige, his legal advisor Mario Apuzzo, and others) that the US Constitution was based upon or influenced by de Vattel's "The Law of Nations. (Le droit des gens)

The first and most obvious is that the line about "parents" that the entire claim is based upon doesn't exist in the original French. Nor does it exist in the first English translation, which came out in 1760, two years after the French original. The version most birthers refer to is the 1797 version. The United States Constitution was ratified in 1787, ten years previous.

The second is that there are elements of Le droit des gens that tend to go against elements of the US Constitution. For example, in Book One:

§ 114 speaks of government's right to curtail or stifle freedom of speech and of the press.
§ 127 speaks of government's right to curtail freedom of religion.
§ 129 and § 141 talks about government's right to establish a state religion and mandate that ministers must conform to said state religion.
§ 176 states that weapon ownership be restricted to the military and nobility.

And in Book Two:

§ 81 states that property rights default to state control.
§ 115 states that citizens do not have the right to marry non-citizens.
§ 122 states that the state has the right to kidnap foreign women for purposes of increasing the population.

All of those go completely against the principals [sic] enshrouded within the US Constitution. 

It's absolutely mind-boggling to think any sane person could think that the Constitution was somehow based upon "The Laws of Nations", or that the definition of "Natural Born" citizen within the Constitution was somehow taken from a translation of said book that didn't come out for a decade after the Constitution was written.
Reply · 8 · Like · Follow Post · April 24 at 12:51pm


(Patrick McKinnion: It's absolutely mind-boggling to think any same person could think that the Founding Fathers did not know what they were doing when they put that specific requirement in the Constitution for that specific office, and that specific office only.

It is as clear as can be, with that requirement, that the Founding Fathers were NOT going by English common law, which references 'natural born subjects'; but were going by American common law, or natural law, or what was called the Law of Nations.  These were not 'subjects' any longer.  They were proud freemen, standing in the authority of their own sovereignty.   

 It's time to stop playing games in this matter, folks.  We have important work to be about.  Let's get to it. And leave this sort of jiggery-pokery behind.

That work?  The moving of the human race - en masse - up a notch in consciousness, to 5D level.  To be in harmony with the Ascension as well of Gaia, our home.  At least, our home away from Home.

Where we are all heading.  Once we leave the hierarchy of realms of Experience behind (as points of view of The One of which we are each a part); and gravitate naturally back to our Source.

Which is waiting patiently - and lovingly - for our Return.)     


No comments: