P.S. Before taking a break from the computer and going out for my daily constitutional (usually to the Main Post Office - about a 20-minute's brisk walk away - to post what we in the UK called RTS's, or 'Return To Sender's back to their originators, but also for the exercise) I decided to glance through the top of the stack of such mail that I still needed to get to, before the current day's plethora of beseechers added to the pile. Among them was a letter from the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I have already replied to their mailings with my hand-written sentiments, scrawled on their thus-returned letters, about their unforgivable failure to call BO on his ineligibility, and asking them therefore to stop sending me any more requests for contributions; but the mills of the fundraisers grind exceeding slow, I have found out, with repeated such requests to many sources. I started to write an RTS on the envelope, as I have already done to their mailings since my verbal lashing of them - and as I am so often accustomed to doing these days on the envelopes of such other beseechers that give a return address thereon, to simplify my response process to the similar mail that inundates my letter box these days (I can no longer contribute as much to 'worthy cause' advocates as I had been doing; my savings - being the soft touch that I am - had started dwindling rather more rapidly than I am comfortable with now) - but for some reason, this time I decided to see what they had to say in this particular, what I knew to be essentially donation-requesting, mailing. Inside was a covering letter that opened with:
"Dear Mr. Stanfield,
"I know it is early, but I want to know who you think is the front-runner to be the Republican nominee for President in 2016?" And in their enclosed 'Presidential Proxy Ballot', among the short list of names, were those of…Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz 1
Basta!
I x-ed out those two names on the ballot, writing in above their names 'Ineligible;' and wrote, in the short Comments section of the ballot: "You people are selling out the Republic and the Constitution. Get with it. Or Get lost." And wrote on the return envelope, and underlined: 'Attn: Sen. Jerry Moran;' who is the Chairman of said NRSC, and who had presumably penned the covering letter.2
I had to sigh…before getting angry.
Is there no end to this madness? This inability - really, lack of desire (but that's a subject too long to go into here) - to understand plain facts???
Let there be no mistaking: The Republican Party has sold out the American people to the Constitution wreckers, for the opportunity to put up some ineligible candidates of their own for the presidency. It's disgusting. It's demoralizing. I will have nothing to do with it
Republicans can go to hell. Like the U.S. constitutional Republic is already doing. Having been sold out by its purported friends. And with friends like these; etc.
--
After mailing my response to the NRSC, and still in a high dudgeon over the matter in my (more leisurely, and calming-down somewhat) walk back to my apartment, I sat down to read the rest of the letter. It went on (in italics, and some underlining):
"In the wake of the dysfunctional and disastrous ObamaCare launch and massive website failure, and the IRS, Benghazi and Associated Press abuse of power scandals, it sure looks like the door is swinging open to winning the Senate and eventually the White House, and the very last thing our Party leadership needs is sugar-coated feedback."
Well, did I ever respond in that spirit. And hey - you've got that right, Jerry.
"With fast breaking new events and revelations shifting the political landscape by the hour, I'm reaching out to you because I know I can count on you for unusually frank talk."
Although this may sound like he has 'heard me,' I doubt it; or he wouldn't have bothered to write back. I'm into principles. Not pragmatics. Or, as he calls it somewhere else in his letter: "political reality".
"The core questions in this most updated Ballot deal with whether or not you think these events and scandals have voters inn the Long Beach area finally ready to reverse course after letting Barack Obama and Harry Reid nearly wreck this nation. With both momentum and opportunity starting to move our way, who do you currently think is the best Republican to win the White House and lead us back to prosperity?…"
You just don't get it, do you, Jerry. You country-club Republicans: Your first 'principle' is the economic one. Not good enough, to bring this nation back to its founding principles. Yes, that's part of it. But only part. And not the fundamental ones. On which such conditions as 'prosperity' depend.
He - or whomsoever - ended his letter with:
"So please, speak your mind."
You asked for it, baby. And I would have given you a larger piece of it if I had read the rest of your letter before replying to it.
But it would probably have just ended up in the wastebasket of whomsoever you folks have hired to solicit funds, and/or open your mail. Things being the way they are, these automated, computerized days; with our hotshot leaders not really listening to us grunts on the ground. After all, what clout do we have to return them to their troughs???
As I say: Basta.
It's time for a new order of things.
And it can't come soon enough. To cleanse the Augean stables of our erstwhile masters. Of both the Left AND the Right. Booted and spurred; to ride us to our deaths. And then just hop on another of us subjects, for the glorious ride, of the potentate class.
I do not say 'Ba-a-a.'
I say: Bah.
As in: Ba-sta.
---
footnotes:
1 Both of whom, for those who don't know by now, and have been asleep at the switch of the Constitution for "just a damn piece of paper," in the colorful contribution to confusion of George Dubya (who had his own designs on trashing the Republic, and creating, at the least, an oligarchy, with mates like Dick 'Darth Vader' Cheney to back him up; and which nest of vipers tried their best to get WWIII going under their watch, but found unexpectedly that there are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your NeoCon philosophy, guys), are not "natural born" citizens, as required by the Constitution for presidential candidates; are merely 'citizens'. (Which Obama may not even be either, besides not being an NBC; another story.)
Briefly: A 'natural born' citizen is one who was born on the soil (or its equivalent, like a diplomatic mission or a U.S. military base) of two U.S. citizen parents - that is, not having dual loyalties or allegiances. The constitutional Framers didn't want any conflicting loyalties to bedevil the person who, besides being the president of the United States, was also to be the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces; not a position to be compromised.
As for Obama possibly not being an NBC because of questions regarding where he was born: that's smoke and mirrors stuff. He is not an NBC because of his (purported) birth father not being a U.S. citizen - and so the question of where he was born is not even a relevant one. That would kick in for him possibly to fall at the second hurdle. HE HAS, AND HAD, ALREADY FALLEN AT THE FIRST ONE. Although, not so's the nominal opposition party would have you notice; having their own potential horses in that race, too.
And thus, the subject at hand.
(For good, solid info on the history and definition of the term 'natural born citizen - and its purpose for being in the Constitution for that office, and that office ONLY - see puzo1.blogspot.com; also a video interview with Prof. Herb Titus.)
2 His signature was on it; but I don't know how these things work. For all I know, the people whose signatures are on these covering letters may not even have read them. But I wanted my message to get back to him personally.
Fat chance, possibly. But then, that's part of why we are in the trouble we are in, as a culture. It's all machined. Not being listened to, The People have left the building, and gone about their personal business.
4 comments:
Re: "Briefly: A 'natural born' citizen is one who was born on the soil (or its equivalent, like a diplomatic mission or a U.S. military base) of two U.S. citizen parents - that is, not having dual loyalties or allegiances."
Answer. That is a birther fabrication. There has never been a single court ruling (not even Minor v Happersett, which btw does not say what birthers think) that has ever said that two citizen parents are required in order to be a Natural Born Citizen, and there have been dozens of rulings including the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case that says that every child born on US soil (except for the children of foreign diplomats and enemy invaders) is a Natural Born Citizen.
The term comes from the common law, and that is what it meant in the common law. (IF the writers of the US Constitution had meant to change the meaning of Natural Born from its meaning in the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and they didn't.
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
"Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.”---Senator Lindsay Graham (December 11, 2008 letter to constituents)
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
We're not talking about English common law here, Anonymous, under which the term is used to define a natural born SUBJECT. No 'subjects' in this new, 'free and independent' nation; only sovereigns in their own right. That's what was new about the U.S. and its Constitution.
The Framers were going by AMERICAN common law (Natural Law), as defined by E. de Vattel; whose 'The Law of Nations' was very well known by the Framers (especially their revered elder, Benjamin Franklin; who would have spoken up if there were any question about the matter, to clarify it. He didn't have to. They knew what was meant by the term. What THEY meant by the term.)
Re: "The Framers were going by AMERICAN common law (Natural Law), as defined by E. de Vattel; whose 'The Law of Nations' was very well known by the Framers...."
Yes indeed they read Vattel, but then they read a lot of other things to. In particular they read Blackstone, whose commentary on THE COMMON LAW was even more popular among the writers of the Constitution than Vattel.
John Jay, who first used the term "Natural Born Citizen" in his letter to George Washington, was AN EXPERT IN THE COMMON LAW. If he, or any of the writers of the Constitution, intended to use Vattel's definition, and not the common law, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO---and they never did.
The meaning comes from the common law, which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers (and always with praise), not from Vattel, who is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers AT ALL.
Moreover, we have two excellent quotations from men who knew the writers of the Constitution, and they both use the term Natural Born Citizen to refer to the place of birth, just as the common law does:
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration. ...St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed. (1829)
And, finally, there is the decision of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, BTW, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett so it would overturn it, if Minor had really said what birthers think that it said---and in fact it didn't). And the Wong Kim Ark case ruling stated that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and that it includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats.
So, the Heritage Foundation, and Senators Hatch and Graham, and the articles cited are all correct, and you are wrong.
The above should read: "Yes indeed they read Vattel, but then they read a lot of other things too."
Post a Comment