..And Speaking Further of The Rule Of Law
from greatamericandaily.com: ‘With One Ruling, A Federal Judge Left Millions Of Liberals Furious’ - July 11
(The federal District Judge from Hawaii who originally ruled against Tump’s travel ban - because of what he felt was in trump’s mind when he issued it, not on what was specifically in it - has shot down an attempt to weaken the temporary travel ban that has been okayed by the SC...
These people on the Left are flailing out and seizing on everything and anything they can get their hands on, in their attempts to block Trump from doing his job…
‘Resistance’ is what you do to a despotic regime, like the French Resistance to the Nazis. ‘Opposition’ is what you do to the other party of a two-party system. This shows what the Left thinks it is: the ‘rightful’ one of a one-party system.
They need to be taken down. And fast. Before they do any more damage to the U.S.A.)
..
now we need to work on getting rid of the idiots in the ninth court
16
•
Reply
- I do think in the next couple years that court will be realigned so it will not be so top-heavy with the population. All the courts God willing will tilt to more conservative in the next few years. This has been perhaps our greatest national threat, a bloated and out of check and balance judiciary. If we can all work to move this back to the Constitutional goal we will have a better chance of survival as a nation! Most (not all of course) of these judges at all levels are very power-oriented and wicked and liars to boot!
- 11
- •
- Reply
- bttrap John Trenter • 13 hours ago (July 11)
maybe term limits will get rid of the bad one even tho it takes time we waited 8years to get rid of a bad president we can wait another few years to get the bad judges out of court
- 11
- •
- Reply
- kibitzer3 bttrap • a few seconds ago (July 12)
Let it never be forgotten, and especially by conservatives, of all people, that Obama was not just a "bad" president, he was an illegitimate president, for not meeting the eligibility requirement of needing to be a 'natural born' citizen. The definition of which is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.
If the American people won't stand for the rule of law - that is, the Constitution - in this matter, they are hopelessly compromised in trying to stand for it in any other matter.- 4
- Reply
nwjohnson kibitzer3 • 14 hours ago (July 12)
His mother was a citizen.- One parent is all that is required. This horse was flogged to death in the '08 campaign.
- Reply
kibitzer3 nwjohnson • a few seconds ago (July 12)
Fact. The definition of a 'natural born' citizen is as I wrote it. It comes from the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations'. (Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up. It's right there on the Internet. No legalistic mumbo-jumbo mystery.)
Fact. If there is any doubt as to the constitutional Framers being aware of this definition when they included it in their contract as an eligibility requirement for that particular federal office: Benjamin Franklin, their elder and much respected mentor, and who was sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those proceedings, is known to have had 3 copies of the de Vattel tome in his possession, and highly admired them, as per historical correspondence.
Fact. Alexander Hamilton, in his role as a delegate to those self-same proceedings himself, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of needing to be a 'natural born' citizen, i.e., born in the country of citizen parents.
As a matter of further interest, and to indicate the non-partisan nature of the objection in this matter, Ted Cruz has tried to claim that he is eligible for the office based on the Naturalization Act of 1790; but has failed to note that that Act was repealed by a later Naturalization Act ON THIS VERY ISSUE, of its being misleading in its wording - and that Act of Repeal was signed off on by no less constitutional authorities than James Madison, then a Congressman, and George Washington, then as president.
And an Act of Congress wouldn't be sufficient ANYWAY to change the eligibility requirement itself. That can only be changed by a constitutional amendment. Which both current major political parties in fact have tried to do (and thus acknowledging the matter), when, between them, they tried a total of 8 times, between 2003 and '08 alone, to get just such an amendment starting through Congress - proposals all of which had this specific issue as their common denominator - and they failed EACH TIME even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue. So, what did they subsequently do? It's obvious what they did: They colluded, in an attempt to slip this hijack by an inattentive public, a public content to assume that 'they' knew what they were doing on the issue. They sure did. They were committing a crime. And will have to face justice on their attempt to demolish the Constitution.
Just as the Usurper will have to face charges as well, now including fraud, perjury, and treason. And when found guilty on at the very least the matter of his ineligibility, all of the legislation that he illegally signed into law, and all of the E.O.'s and P.D.'s that he issued, and all of the appointments that he made - including to the SCOTUS, and inferior courts - go with him. Into the trash bin. As we engage in a major cleanup of ALL of the corruption in the federal government.
Game, set, and match.
- Reply
nicholsda nwjohnson • 7 hours ago (July 12)
Please read again the laws. It says "citizens" not citizen. He fails that requirement as his father was not a US citizen. And if you really want to dig into the laws, his mother could not pass citizenship to him as she was under age and did not meet the 5 year rule when he was born. So while it was hashed out on the internet in 2008, it never was in the courts as the court's liberal judges kept ruling that a voter did not have standing to challenge it in court. Which is dead wrong as the citizens were affected by his election.
P.S. And to point out that all the judicial decisions and excutive-branch regulations that the Usurper's appointees made go with him.
It is to be as if he had never been there. For, he was never there legally.
No comments:
Post a Comment