Wednesday, 6 January 2016

Facts And Fictions

‘The Constitution is just a guideline.  C’mon.  We all know that.  Its interpretation is just a matter of what you can get away with.  Push too far, and you generate too big a reaction.  That’s all.  That’s why they call politics an art.  It’s the art of the possible.  You get your 5-4 decisions from The Supremes, and we get our 5-4 decisions from The Supremes, and we all move on, to the next go ’round.  

‘It’s a ride at an amusement park.  C’mon.  Enjoy the ride.  Don’t take it so seriously.  It’s not supposed to be taken so seriously.

‘Alright alright: It’s more like The Big Game.  But it’s just that.  A big game.  It’s not the end of the world.’

And on the other hand:

‘The Constitution is a contract, between, essentially, two parties: the States and the federal government, in a federal constitutional republic.  To change an essential aspect of the contract, you have to pass an amendment, agreed to by both parties to the contract.  


Aa for the ‘not the end of the world’ bit:

No, it’s not the end of the world.  But it’s the end of an Age.  And one of those wrapping-up exercises goes like this:

from  ’Trump: Let’s Face It, Ted Cruz’s Canadian Birth is a Real Problem’ - Guy Benson - January 6
(“As we've written in the past, Ted Cruz is a natural born United States citizen, and therefore fully eligible to seek the presidency…”)

kibitzer Just now (January 6)

Dear Guy,

It's a shame that you didn't investigate the definition of a 'natural born' citizen at the time that it was incorporated into the law of the land - the Constitution. As a reasonably intelligent person, and professional commentator on the political scene in this country, you would have found out for yourself that an NBC is one born on the soil of citizen parents. That's plural. As in both. The point of the constitutional Framers putting that eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - being so that the occupant 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, er, like Obama. (And Rubio too, for that matter.) Oh - and please note further: this eligibility requirement has never been changed by constitutional amendment. Got it? 

Just a couple of inconvenient truths, that we will have to face up to, sooner or later. Because, you see, the Truth WILL out. No matter how much some people try to keep stuffing it away and out of sight. Funny thing about Truth. It doesn't go away.

Tinsldr2 4 mins ago

Kibitzer says : "you would have found out for yourself that an NBC is one born on the soil of citizen parents"

Now the very first Congress , the one made up of founders and Framers passed a bill that was signed. into law by Pres Washington that made some people born outside the US 'natural born citizens" in 1790

So that kind of defeats your narrative. Citizenship at birth means NBC, 

In english Common law, a natural born subject was anyone born a subject , that included people whose parents were not subjects and people born outside the kingdom

Perhaps he did do his research? The constitution, identifies 2 types of citizens. NBC and naturalized. There is no 3rd type
  • Reply

  • kibitzer Just now
  • It is extremely clear from the historical record that the constitutional Framers were going by E. de Vattel's definitive tome of the day, 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law' when they incorporated that eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office. That definition for an NBC is: one born on the soil (jus soli) of citizen parents (jus sanguinis). So that the person would have SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the new United States republic. 
  • English Common law does not fit here. That talks about natural born SUBJECTS. Those men were no longer subjects; they were freemen - and proud of it. They were CLEARLY going by American Common law, or Natural Law, as defined by de Vattel in his treatise (and as confirmed by David Ramsay a few years later in private correspondence).  [CORRECTION: Historian & Founder Ramsay confirmed it in a public essay; in 1789.  See below.] 
  • Any change in that constitutional requirement would have to be made by a constitutional amendment. There has been none on this issue. But a telling little fact: Both major political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and '08, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on (including) this very issue - and failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue. So: THEY KNEW. And will have to have their day of reckoning - in court - on their subsequent collusion on this matter, under RICO statutes.
  • Reply

jdbixii 2 hours ago

The reason why the concept of "native-born citizen" ("natural-born" vis-a-vis what? Caesarean section?) is important with respect to the office of the President is that of blood-relations in a foreign country and the liability or susceptibility of a President to be unduly influenced by them. This is what should concern any native-born, American citizen. If either Rubio or Cruz have relatives in Cuba whose treatment could be a factor brought to bear on the office of the president, it would automatically disqualify them from running for the presidency. That said, the eligibility qualification of native-born citizen was understood to be "a person born to two United States citizens" as we were taught it in social studies and civics classes more than half a century ago. I am not impressed with recent SCOTUS decisions. 

Needless to say, there are no consistent criteria used as a basis for law. It is purely arbitrary. If a majority decided to legalize something by majority vote, there are few politicians who would suggest that anything other than human reasoning, based on position, was actually necessary.
  • Reply

kibitzer 36 mins ago

You've got your terms mixed up, jdbixii. A native born citizen is one born on the soil. A natural born citizen is one born on the soil (jus soli) AND of citizen parents (jus sanguinis). The Constitution requires a person, in order to be eligible for the office of POTUS, to be a natural born citizen. Not just native born. 

Let's all try to keep this issue clear.

As for the David Ramsay reference; see this, from, the site of Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:

Friday, April 2, 2010

Founder and Historian David Ramsay
Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

In defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” it is important to find any authority from the Founding period who may inform us how the Founders and Framers themselves defined the clause. Who else but a highly respected historian from the Founding period itself would be highly persuasive in telling us how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen. ” Such an important person is David Ramsay, who in 1789 wrote, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), a very important and influential essay on defining a “natural born Citizen.”

David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolution’s first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period. In 1785 he published History of the Revolution of South Carolina (two volumes), in 1789 History of the American Revolution (two volumes), in 1807 a Life of Washington, and in 1809 a History of South Carolina (two volumes). Ramsay “was a major intellectual figure in the early republic, known and respected in America and abroad for his medical and historical writings, especially for The History of the American Revolution (1789)…” Arthur H. Shaffer, Between Two Worlds: David Ramsay and the Politics of Slavery, J.S.Hist., Vol. L, No. 2 (May 1984). “During the progress of the Revolution, Doctor Ramsay collected materials for its history, and his great impartiality, his fine memory, and his acquaintance with many of the actors in the contest, eminently qualified him for the task….” In 1965 Professor Page Smith of the University of California at Los Angeles published an extensive study of Ramsay's History of the American Revolution in which he stressed the advantage that Ramsay had because of being involved in the events of which he wrote and the wisdom he exercised in taking advantage of this opportunity. “The generosity of mind and spirit which marks his pages, his critical sense, his balanced judgment and compassion,'' Professor Smith concluded, “are gifts that were uniquely his own and that clearly entitle him to an honorable position in the front rank of American historians.”

In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Ramsay did not use the clause “natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born Citizen," "native," and "indigenous," all terms that were then used interchangeably.

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born citizen.” Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...” Given his position of influence and especially given that he was a highly respected historian, Ramsay would have had the contacts with other influential Founders and Framers and would have known how they too defined “natural born Citizen.” Ramsay, being of the Founding generation and being intimately involved in the events of the time would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and he told us that definition was one where the child was born of citizen parents. In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined a “natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English). We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” the same way the [sic] Ramsay did, for being a meticulous historian he would have gotten his definition from the general consensus that existed at the time. Ramsay’s dissertation presents valuable evidence of how the Founding generation defined the original citizens and the future generation of citizens which the Framers called “natural born Citizens.” It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified.

Ramsay’s article and explication are further evidence of the influence that Vattel had on the Founders in how they defined the new national citizenship. This article by Ramsay is one of the most important pieces of evidence recently found… which provides direct evidence on how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” and that there is little doubt that they defined one as a child born to citizen parents. While Ramsay did not require that the child be born in the country, the Framers, with the exception of children born abroad to parents who were serving in the armies of the state or were engaged in other government service (see Vattel, Sec. 217), did as is evidenced by the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795…” etc.

A further word as to the end of the Age, and then I will let this blog go.

So: where do we go from here??  First of all, we commit to Truth in all our dealings; for that is the Ring-Pass-Not keeping us from advancing from this point to our next one, which is on a higher rung of the stairway to the heavens - leaving the realm of (seeming) separation behind, and moving a step closer to the Unity realm itself.  Still a ways to go, yet.  But we’re heading in the right direction. 

So, what does that mean.  That means, e.g.: 

* Obama, as a Usurper in that particular office, must go.  (And with him, all the legislation that he has signed into law, and all the E.O.’s and P.D.’s that he has issued, and all the appointments that he has made - including to the SCOTUS.  And thus, all the decisions that that Court has made that depended on his illegal appointments for their passage go with him: into the trash bin.)

* The American presidential candidate process must cease; since a) there are some ineligible candidates on the list, on the Republican side (i.e., Cruz and Rubio, at this point), and, over on the Democrat side, b) Hillary Clinton needs to be arrested and held for trial, on a number of charges of her own.  Perhaps not as severe as the charges that the Usurper is to be held for.  But severe enough. (And both to include the charge of treason.)

* The sitting Congress is also to go, for both major political parties having effectively, if not specifically, colluded in the illegal candidacy and occupancy of the Oval Office of the Usurper.
   We will see what will take the place of them - to say, perhaps of the institution of Congress itself.  Stay at-tuned.  First things first.  As things are set to rights.
   Which will include comprehensive investigations into the likes of

* 9/11; the Sandy Hook exercise; the Boston Marathon Bombing drill; and back to include the likes of the assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, and JFK Jr.; the OKC Murrah Building bombing; etc. etc. etc.
   A thorough investigation, and clearing, of at least our recent past.        

* The Truth requirement will also ensnare the Federal Reserve, and various other aspects of the reigning monetary system.  So that whole system itself needs to go.  For the equivalent of a Jubilee to be declared.  And the New Era to be entered into.  Which includes such aspects as:

* eliminating interest-bearing money as a medium of exchange (on our way to a moneyless system anyway; another, further part of this story);

* moving to what are called ’free energy’ devices, for our energy needs (many of which are already available, with more to come);

* moving away from drug-based medicine to natural-based medicine (and thus eliminating all the horrendous side effects of the first, unnatural kind of ‘medicine’);

* aligning all aspects of society with the spiritual Plan of Life.  Which it is our responsibility - and joy - to uncover, now, at the end of one Age.  

And the Beginning of another.

One more in keeping with, and in alignment with, our true Selves.    

Sparks - fractals - aspects of the One Holy Being.  The Creator of

All That Is.

As we join with our galactic neighbors - and our Ascended Masters - in ringing in

The New.

No comments: