Both the Main Public Library and my local Branch Library were closed today, for some unspecified reason. (Well, it was good exercise, anyway.) I will have to wait until next Tuesday now to post the following follow-up letter to The Donald:
‘Dear Donald,
‘Further to my very recent letter to you:
‘During the Fox News Debate last Thursday (the 14th), I saw that Ted used another of the slippery rationales for covering up the constitutional Framers’ understanding AND INTENT of the definition of a ‘natural born’ citizen, in an attempt to cover his bona fides (i.e., the lack thereof). It is smoke-and-mirrors stuff. Stick him with the ‘original intent’ facts, as I presented them in my previous letter. It all comes down to that ORIGINAL MEANING and INTENT.
‘Cruz, and the Party Establishments on both sides of the political aisle, also attempt to ‘argue’ (they play down the idea that there is any legitimate opposition to their take on the NBC issue, so attempt to suavely persuade the public that there is no such case to be made, and simply ignore the fundamental facts of the matter rather than 'argue' them - including the inconvenient fact that the only way to change such a fundamental part of the constitutional contract is by a constitutional amendment ) that the Framers were going by English common law in their inclusion of that particular eligibility requirement for the office of POTUS. The Framers definitely were NOT doing so. That speaks of ‘natural born SUBJECTS’. Those men were no longer ‘subjects’. They were freemen - and damn proud of it. No. They were clearly going by American common law, aka Natural Law, as elucidated by E. de Vattel in his previously-referred-to treatise.
‘Which tome on the general subject ('The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law') they were clearly familiar with, as I indicated/touched on in my previous letter, and as further confirmed herein by my pointing out that Benjamin Franklin, their elder and respected mentor, and who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those self-same proceedings, is known to have had three copies of the de Vattel treatise in his possession. (Having been sent them in 1775; and, giving one copy to the Continental Congress; so, a well-known treatise by the time of the Constitutional Convention, in 1787.) So, those men knew PRECISELY what they meant by that term.
‘Our day’s Congressional Research Service to the contrary notwithstanding. (And thus apparently why our congressional representatives are failing to move in this matter: their behinds are covered by the CRS.)
‘Stick to your guns on this matter, Donald. You have the Might of Right on your side.
‘Again,
‘Most sincerely,’
[signed]
'P.S. Another excellent site detailing the ineligibility of Cruz is:
www.scsribd.com/doc/256409078/Cruz-Citizenship-Timeline-docum...
'P.S. Another excellent site detailing the ineligibility of Cruz is:
www.scsribd.com/doc/256409078/Cruz-Citizenship-Timeline-docum...
--
Who ELSE do we have to stick up for the rule of law in this country????????????
GO DONALD!
---
2) from TeaPartyC.C.: ’Tea Party Members Here Is Why Ted Cruz Should Never Be The Republican Nominee For President’ - Elizabeth Jones - January 16
..
Reply by Stan Stanfield 6 seconds ago (January 16)
Elizabeth, how can you overlook the fact that Cruz is not eligible for the office of POTUS anyway? Not only was he not born on the soil. His father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. He is therefore NOT a 'natural born' citizen, as the term was understood to mean by the constitutional Framers, i.e., one born with SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the country, by virtue of being born on the soil of its citizen parents.
He's outta there.
Or this nation, and its rule of law - the Constitution - are finished.
---
And on that note...
After taking another walk today, to try to clear my head, from such thoughts as 'With friends like this, who needs enemies,' I'm beginning to get it:
the American people, by and large, have accepted that the Constitution is dead anyway; and that we are just playing a game, that they are going along with, just as long as the government checks and food stamps and bail-outs keep coming, keeping the ship afloat, even if barely. That The Game consists of which political party can put the most judges on the bench, and adjudicate in their favor, and which side of the issue has the most clever lawyers.
The Constitution itself??
Just a damn piece of paper.
Now, where have I heard that before...
It's like I am being pressed to give up on my country.
If that is, indeed, the case; and the country does NOT see and go with the Truth in this issue:
So be it.
---
And as if to confirm that the nation is lost; more from the diehard deniers, among even Tea Party types:
2b) further on TeaPartyC.C.: ‘Tea Party Members Here Is Why Ted Cruz Should Never Be The Republicak Nominee For President’ - Elizabeth Jones - January 16
..
Permalink Reply by MORTON STEVENSON 1 hour ago (January 16)
Those can be explained away easily. Cruz talked about them. The federal reserve vote wasn't that important they lost before it came up for a vote. They didn't have enough votes. But he should have voted any ways. But the most important thing I believe he isn't eligible. This could create a problem. We know both parents have to be citizens and he has to be born on US soil. There is no question about this. And we know the Democrats are going to take him to court if he wins. Not before cause Obama/Biden would have to resign. So if this happens Obama stays in tell it is settled. Not good. Then runner up gets it. Democrats win. Trump has a problem to he doesn't understand the Constitution very well. He is for government healthcare and no were does the Constitution say healthcare. Rand Paul knows the Constitution best but the voters don't know it. So Paul is talking over there heads. Ben Carson doesn't know the Constitution to well ether. But the media destroyed him couldn't have a conservative black man running they would loose. We are not going to get what we want. So settle for what we can get and keep moving forward. we need Senators on our side.
▶Reply
Permalink Reply by Patricia Eden 42 minutes ago (January 17)
Morton, unfortunately you are incorrect. Judges have already stated that he IS eligible. His mother was and is an American citizen and was of legal age. His father had come to the states as a refugee which gave him status even though wasn't a citizen he had lived in the states for 5 yrs before Ted was born. It has already gone there and done that so please, accept the fact that he IS eligible.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 2 seconds ago (January 17)
Nonsense. Original intent trumps ANY subsequent Acts of Congress, Statutes, Resolutions, court decisions - whatever. The only thing that would make either Cruz or Obama eligible is a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, the meaning of the NBC term when it was set in the Constitution is the salient factor here.
Or do you people who are arguing to the contrary on this issue not believe in the Constitution, only in your personal proclivities??? If so, you are not true Americans.
TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.
--
I am close to giving up.
---
However, if at first you don't succeed......in for a penny............:
from wnd.com: ‘The New Lying ‘Birther’ Media’ - Joseph Farah - January 16
..
Joseph, you are a disappointment. As a good conservative, and a well-known voice for the cause, you should know what the definition of a 'natural born citizen' was at the time the constitutional Framers made it a requirement for the office of the POTUS - and which has never been changed by a constitutional amendment, which it would require to do so, being a fundamental part OF the Constitution.
There is all manner of historical evidence that the Framers were going by the definition as contained in the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law'. In it he clearly delineates the definition; which is: a person born on the soil of its citizen parents. The Whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the Framers, in putting that eligibility requirement in their contract for that office, being to make sure that the occupant of that office had NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States. Which rules out Obama, Cruz, and Rubio.
Period.
--
And that's it for tonight.
Do I bother taking up the cudgels again tomorrow, for the Constitution, to say the rule of law in the country???
Time will tell......
As it is wont to. In many ways.
--
I guess I just answered my own question. Just before wrapping it up for the night; a reply to my comment just above:
That's what I've always thought, since when I was a kid in school this is exactly what was taught. Now all sorts of 'experts' on both sides of the issue are doing their best to muddy the waters.
Reply
•
- Stick to your guns, DixieAngel. Very powerful people are trying to trash the Constitution/rule of law in this country, and make of it a wet noodle, "just a damn piece of paper". They must not be allowed to get away with their nation-wrecking agenda; making everything merely relative to the power of the day, and insuring that that power belongs to them. Call them the New World Order crowd. They mean business. We patriots - and lovers of Truth - must be up to the job of opposing them, and seeing them relinquish the field. Keep doing your part in that honorable endeavor.
,,,and the next day, a response to mine:
The constitution is like the IRS's tax code a wet noddle [sic] that can be twisted any way the powers that be want to twist it . In the end you can't fight city hall. they have more guns.
Reply
- kibitzer3 ericsiverson • a few seconds ago (January 18)
If "you can't fight city hall" on this issue - an issue as important as the eligibility of who occupies the Oval Office, and commands all that power - then this nation is dead. Over. Finished. And the barbarians take over.
Which is what happens when you cease to run your affairs by the rule of law, and resort to the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
Rise up. Or lick the hand of he who feeds you, slave.
-
Samuel Adams had something to say on this last-mentioned subject, and in similar words...
(herewith; with a couple other of his well-put quotes:)
(herewith; with a couple other of his well-put quotes:)
No comments:
Post a Comment