Sunday, 29 November 2015

The Catechism For Today

The Catechism For Today
  Which You WILL Obey

The Answer:

In this nation,
Are now under
          the rule
Of men.
In power
The power
        and vice
No more
         the rule
Of law.

No Question.


...And further on this subject:

further from patriotsforameria.ning: ‘May Truth Rule - I Think Cruz Is An Excellent Presidential Candidate, But The Constitution Must Be Obeyed….Apuzzo Is Correct’ - posted by Harry Riley at Constitutional Emergency - November 28

Permalink Reply by Laura Van Overschelde 11 hours ago

While I like the suggestions of Mr. Stanfield above, I wonder if some of these facts and writings, suggestions might also be considered.  The 'record-keeping' of some of our Amendments and their ratifications are absent among the National Archives.  One MOST EGREGIOUS is the Sixteenth Amendment under which we ALL suffer and which has handed so very much power to the National Government.  It is of course the Income Tax.  And since the Constitution explicitly forbids a "tax of capitation" it is un-Constitutional.

I would like to submit to you this summary from Harvard Law Review, because it addresses a number of points brought up in this discussion.  

And then there are these:

Having offered this, I am certainly concerned about the facts that show our judiciary appears much more interested in keeping the status quo rather than interpreting the law.  I have just a few major, MAJOR examples I would like to bring up.

1. The blatant activism that allows Obamacare to stay on the books when the SCOTUS called the justification of a penalty a "TAX", changing the word, essentially they were rewriting the Statute.  This violates Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 1 of the U.S.Constitution. 

2. Elena Kagan was WORKING for the Obama Administration when the law was being batted around in Congress and of course we all knew that she returned to the Oval Office to proclaim it passed in the dark of night on Christmas, 2009 gleeful to report what the Senate had done.

3. It is well disclosed that the law was "Jonathan Gruberized" in multiple videos to prove it that they KNEW IT WOULD NEVER PASS if the damn thing was fully disclosed before or during the period it was legislated.  Kagan did NOT RECUSE herself from the hearing and scrutiny of the law when it came before the Supreme Court.

[4]. There was extensive pushback against the "Gay Marriage" decision by its own admission, the Supreme Court confessed that these matters has been taken out of the hands of the people and put into law by the pen of SCOTUS.  The Court recognized that many State Legislatures and popular referenda have considered this piece of crap and did it anyway.  That is NOT an act that reflects the "consent of the governed."

As we all know, there are many others, so the Judiciary is as corrupt as the other two branches. So we have some serious work ahead of us.  

  • Reply
Permalink Reply by Lee Vail 10 hours ago

The fact remains clear, the intent of the founder was that to be eligible for office of POTUS (and VPOTUS) the individual must have been born to parents who were BOTH US citizens at the time of that indvidual's birth regardless of latter laws that ignored this requirement, therefore Cruz, Rubio, Jindal and Obama are NOT qualified, period. Your other 4 points are well taken.

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Van Overschelde 3 hours ago (November 29)

So Lee Vail do you deny the Naturalization Act of 1790, referenced above with this particularization of it:

1219 The first naturalization act, 1 Stat. 103 (1790), so provided. See 8 U.S.C. § 1421. In Holmgren v. United States, 217 U.S. 509 (1910), it was held that Congress may provide for the punishment of false swearing in the proceedings in state courts.

So why are we not arresting those complicit with ALLOWING Oval Office Occupier stink up our gpublic housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC?

And then there is this:

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (November 29)

Laura, although you make some good points - and Mark Levin has, over the years, made some good points; and the Harvard Law Review makes some good points in their analysis of this subject - you have been subjected to flim-flam on the subject of what a "natural born" citizen meant to the constitutional Framers, and the meaning of which, and the REQUIREMENT of which, has never been changed by constitutional amendment.

It doesn't matter what some Naturalization Act subsequent to the ratification of the Constitution says or doesn't say to the meaning of the term (although the 1790 one was changed subsequently anyway).  The term meant, to the constitutional Framers, and still means to this day, without a constitutional amendment to the contrary: one born on the soil of citizen parents.  That's PLURAL.  As in BOTH.  The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers being to make sure that the occupant of that office, PARTICULARLY because said occupant would also become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces, would have NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  As a naturalized citizen would be subject to.  And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.  Like Cruz (and Rubio, and Jindal).  And like Obama.

There is all manner of historical evidence that the Framers were going by the definitive tome of their day on such matters, Emer de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law,' which defines the term - logically - as one born on the soil of citizen parents.  One can be a NATIVE born citizen - i.e,, born on the soil - but not be a NATURAL born citizen.  And also: Some Obots have tried to point to English common law as making THEIR point on the subject; but - and speaking of subjects - that refers to 'natural born SUBJECTS' - NOT citizens.  The Framers were freemen now, and damn proud of it - they were no longer 'subjects'.  The Framers were NOT going by English common law on this matter.  They were CLEARLY going by American common law, aka Natural Law (as referenced in various of our founding documents). 

I could go on, but let me, instead, just refer you, and interested others, to the website of attorney Mario Apuzzo: puzo1dotblogspotdotcom.  He has researched this matter to a 't'.  The bottom line: It is the 'original intent' that is in question here.  And that intent can only be changed by a constitutional amendment - NOT by 'statutes,' or erroneous court decisions, or whatever.  And in point of fact, both major political parties have even ACKNOWLEDGED that, when, between 2003 and 2008, and between them, they tried a total of 8 times to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this very subject - and failed even to get their proposals out of committee each time, such was the sensitivity around the issue.  So, what did they do?  The result is obvious: they colluded.  They met in a smoke-filled back room in D.C. or its environs, and a Repub Party rep said words to the effect: 'We won't say anything about your candidate on this issue if you won't say anything about any of our candidates on this issue that we may put up in the future.  And between us, with our control over the mainstream media, and the judicial branch, we can, er, persuade the public on this matter, capiche?'.  And the rest is history.  Terrible history.  Outrageous history.

To be changed.  Back to the rule of law. Not the rule of men.  Aka arbitrary law.  Which is the hallmark of tyrants down through the ages.

Not in my country, you won't.




Thank you Stan! Wonderfully and Truthfully put! Hear, hear! "... Not in my country, you won't."

No comments: