Saturday, 14 March 2015

Further On Further etc.

(Something happened when I last added some stuff to the previous blog on this subject, and I haven't been able to figure out yet how to correct it.  But I wanted to post this latest 'sally' on this thread, with my wrapping-up comment as to its larger significance.  First, to recap a bit its setting:)

Reply by Stan Stanfield 18 seconds ago


With all due respect: A "natural born" citizen, which rules out a naturalized citizen OR A DUAL CITIZEN, cannot change its birth status, only ASPECTS OF its birth status.  If it chooses to cease being a dual citizen, that it is its prerogative; but that DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIRTH STATUS.

If Congress wants to try to get an amendment started to change the law of the land - which is the Constitution; not subsequent shenanigans regarding it - it can go for it.  But you don't seem to understand law.  You can't just make a ewe a bull.  Now I grant you, sophists over the years, and especially in our days, have attempted to do just that.  As Nancy Pelosi, e.g., has attempted.  But if you don't want fleas, don't lie down with dogs.  Male or female.  

Permalink Reply by Patricia Eden 19 minutes ago

What you are all over looking is the little statement about the father even though he isn't an American citizen, is residing in this country and has been.  With that little statement the fact that his mother was and is an American citizen, makes him an American citizen and ELIGIBLE to be President!!!!!

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by June Gagnon 7 minutes ago

Patricia -Ted's father has become a "naturalized citizen"; I don't    remember the exact date, believe it was within the past few years.
Permalink Reply by Patricia Eden 5 minutes ago

That is great, I was trying to get the disputers to understand that the Constitution does state that as long as the father, not being a citizen had resided here in the US for a while it then makes the child a natural born.

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield just now


You keep confusing 'citizen' with 'natural born citizen'.  They are DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.  You obviously haven't read my initial posting on this thread.  Alexander Hamilton, at the constitutional Convention, proposed that a person occupying the office of the presidency need only be a "citizen" - and his proposal was TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more strict category, for that PARTICULAR office (& that particular office ONLY), of needing to be a 'natural born' citizen - i.e., one born on the soil of two U.S. citizen parents, and thus having NO DUAL OR CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES, in order to be a proper, unconflicted Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces.

You need to be more aware of what's going on in our day.  There are people among us who are trying to hijack this country from its constitutional roots, in the form of a federal constitutional republic, in order to turn it into a mere (trading) region - with Mexico & Canada - of their totalitarian New World Order, and are just itching for conservatives to fall into their trap, of thinking/trying to make two wrongs make a right.  If you allow the clear intent of the Constitution to be thwarted on this issue, of the clear intent of the term 'natural born' citizen, you will cause the Constitution to be compromised into the trash bin.  And then they've GOT YOU.  Meaning, the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A.  And goodbye to all your constitutional protections. 

You may WANT that to happen.  I don't.  And I will defend to the death the right of the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A to exist; as a 'shining city on a hill'.  Beckoning ALL humanity to its shores.  To live in freedom.  Not servitude, to its erstwhile Masters.  Whose machinations you obviously need to be more aware of.  Because you are falling right - into - their - trap.

How can anyone who was EVER a citizen of another country be thought to be eligible to seek the presidency?  This is EXACTLY what The Framers were trying to avoid with the "natural born citizen" requirement in Article II, Section I, Clause 5!  Yeah, Ted's closer than Barry, but neither makes the cut.
What's the point...

"We love you, Ted!"

Yeah, well, this Constitutional scholar -- and supporter --- might have to vote for a write-in candidate in 2016.

Why does anyone believe that one has to be a lawyer to understand The Constitution?  It was intentionally written to be understandable by anyone with an average fifth-grade education.  I'm not a lawyer (Sorry, Hause!), although I have studied law and have two Ph.D.'s, one of which is in American history.  My history dissertation, "On the Development of a Large-scale Experiment in Governance" (1979), required me to do a great deal of research on this exact subject over several years, and I would put my Constitutional knowledge up against that of Larry H. Parker (a "qualified" lawyer!) or Nancy Pelosi (NOT a lawyer, but, nevertheless, in a position of power over America and as stupid as hell!) at any time and in any place.

Three "qualified" lawyers said that O.J. Simpson was innocent.  Other "qualified" lawyers and judges (Judges are lawyers who are poor salesmen!) found an absolute right for women to murder their babies in The Constitution in 1973.  Uh-huh.  Why do you think that no court has been willing to hear a case on Obama's eligibility?  Because they all know that he is ineligible, that's why!

"...qualified lawyers..."

Qualified to do what, exactly?  Our once-great nation has been utterly ruined by "qualified" lawyers.  All of these rules and agencies which oppress us have been brought to us by, yes, lawyers.  Almost all of our best public servants have been anything but lawyers.  Would you want "Stuttering Barry" Obama to defend you against an unjust murder charge?  Hank Johnson?  Sheila Jackson Lee?  Lawyers all!  Joe Biden is a "qualified" lawyer, but I don't think he's smart enough to babysit a chicken.

"Yeah, but, 'natural born citizen' isn't defined in The Constitution!"  That's right!  Neither are "vote", "year", "originate", nor "four"; it's NOT a dictionary!  To understand what The Framers intended, one must use the texts available to them at the time. Read Emerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations (1758) to get some idea of the meanings of the words in The Constitution.  I have The Law of Nations in several, mostly English, translations, as well as in the original French; I have studied all of them.  I have also read many other contemporary works by American and other authors, and I can tell you this:

Washington, Madison, Franklin, and all of the others would tell us that Cruz is ineligible.
You've nailed it, Ed.
Thanks for your clarifications.

No comments: