Friday, 19 February 2016

On Feeling Things Heating Up - At Least For Me

from ‘PROOF: Neither Rubio or Cruz are eligible to serve as President/Commander-in-Chief  “The End of the American Presidency by JB Williams….” (Second Posting; orig. posted by J.B. Williams at on March 29, 2015) - posted here by Harry Riley - February 18

Reply by Stan Stanfield 2 seconds ago (February 19)

An excellent commentary, but I wish that JB had included the first two sentences of No. 212; viz.:

"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

He may have left that part out because it opens a further commentary needed; to say, further on in this section, de Vattel says that "children follow the condition of their fathers," so it doesn't matter where they are born to be a nbc - all that matters is the citizenship of the father.  In any event, the issue stays the same: Neither Cruz, Rubio nor Obama are eligible for the job.  And JB is right on in pointing out why it is so critical to staunch the constitutional wound: because the New World Order gangsters are trying to take over the country, and merge it into their totalitarian nightmare.  And the Constitution stands in their way.  At least, it used to.

And Cruz is proving to be one of them.  All slippery-tongued and all. 

Reply by michele bodine 6 hours ago

Rubio is a anchor baby for god sake and some of you people will vote for him!

  • ][Reply

Permalink Reply by Shavager 6 hours ago (February 18)

By his birth on U.S. soil--he IS an American citizen and eligible--THAT is the standard for eligibility accepted by the Court--it won't change without an Act of Congress and Amendment BY WE THE PEOPLE.  Ted Cruz received AUTOMATIC U.S. citizenship from his mother--he too is eligible by birth, no matter IF he was born in Canada or Timbuktu.  We can all get mad at Congress or Supreme Court for NOT upholding what WE THINK the law means, but until WE force Congress to research, investigate and define with an Act of Congress for STATES to adopt as Amendment to represent what the Founders expressed, they ARE our representatives and elected LAW makers--which the Court will affirm by not accepting any challenges to the eligibility until a LEGAL STATUTE defines it.

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Marc Thomas 5 hours ago 

Have you ever read the Law of Nations? In Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, it says that a natural born citizen is someone who is born in the country of parents who are citizens. Article 1, Section 8, says that Congress has the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations.

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Shavager 3 hours ago (February 18)

Marc--that book is NOT American LAW, period! It was only a reference just like Blackstone's Common Laws.  While they referenced "natural born"--there is NO LEGAL STATUTE to define it in American LAW. The Supreme Court takes challenges AGAINST LAWS, NOT OPINIONS!  For "natural born" to be LAW of this nation--it SHOULD have been explicitly defined WITHIN the LAW OF OUR LAND--the U.S. Constitution, and it is an egregious mistake they simply overlooked because THEY KNEW what their own definition was when they wrote the Constitution. Without an Act of Congress to DEFINE IT and then passed to STATES for Amendment to the Constitution--it is within authority of Congress or Federal Courts to use their own definition. Since we've had several presidents who've already served that did NOT meet "natural born" as WE think it means--the Supreme Court will consider it settled FACT--Herbert Hoover served from 1929-1933 as president with IMMIGRANT parents in the 20th century--and NO challenge was ever been launched by Congress or any Federal Court against those who've already served. The Court would REFUSE any challenge without a definitive act of Congress, challenged at Federal Court level.  I promise you---IF Congress and WE the PEOPLE amended the Constitution TOMORROW--it would STILL not allow a challenge 'retro-actively' against Obama--because of over 100 YEARS of previous history standing.

  • Reply

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (February 19)

I don't give a bucket of warm spit for 'precedent', or any of the above.  Two wrongs do NOT make a right.  The constitutional Framers didn't have to define the term nbc in their contractual eligibility requirements for that particular office because the term's definition was the common knowledge of the day, and as taught in the universities of the day: from de Vattel's treatise on the subject.  This is all on the record.  To be a nbc of a country, you have to have been born of a citizen father of that soil, at the very MINIMUM.  That's what makes it 'natural'.  

If patriots allow this travesty to stand, they will have signed off on the death certificate of the federal constitutional republic of the U.S.A., and its replacement with a part of a region of the dark Forces' totalitarian New World Order, whether it be called the North American Union, or given any other title.  A hijack is a hijack, by any other name.

Man your battle stations, Patriots.  This is getting serious.

No comments: