(further from Tea Party C.C.: '2016: Ted Cruz Will Bank on the Base' - Dec. 15. Two excellent source references. Another: 2 videos on YouTube by Prof. Herb Titus.)
..
Reply by kathyet yesterday (Dec. 16)
Natural Born Citizen – Why it Should Matter to Both Republicans and Democrats
Jon Hubbard 20 hours ago
There has been a lot of misinformation and confusion regarding the true definition of the term natural born Citizen. Some say that being just a Citizen of the U.S. is all that is required to be considered a natural born Citizen. The Framers of the US Constitution decided, after much debate, that the President must be not just a US Citizen, but a 'natural born Citizen.' Only the President is required to be a natural born Citizen....all other offices need only be a Citizen of the United States.
Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
Jon Hubbard 20 hours ago
There has been a lot of misinformation and confusion regarding the true definition of the term natural born Citizen. Some say that being just a Citizen of the U.S. is all that is required to be considered a natural born Citizen. The Framers of the US Constitution decided, after much debate, that the President must be not just a US Citizen, but a 'natural born Citizen.' Only the President is required to be a natural born Citizen....all other offices need only be a Citizen of the United States.
Article II Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;..."
To qualify as a 'natural born Citizen' of the United States, both parents must be US Citizens (either natural born, native born or naturalized Citizens) at the time the child is born in the USA.
The 'natural born Citizen' requirement to be president is a 'national security' requirement, because our Framers did not want the Commander-in-Chief of the military to have multiple, or dual citizenships. In other words, the President of The United States must not have allegiances to any country other than the United States of America!
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, discussions between Founding Fathers John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington led them to choose the definition of natural born Citizen provided by Emerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law," Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, (175. According to "Law of Nations," natural born Citizen is a child born in the USA of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents. Vattel's Law of Nations defines how being a Natural Born Citizen differs from a classification of citizenship given to those simply born in the United States. Natural born and simply being born in the USA does not share the same meaning! The parents can be US Citizens by birth or they can be US Citizens by Naturalization after immigrating to the USA. But to create a natural born Citizen of the USA, 'both' parents must be US Citizens at the time the child is born on USA soil.
The Framers even recognized the "Law of Nations" within the US Constitution, where in Article 1, Section 8 it states, "The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the "Law of Nations."
John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington stating that the citizenship requirement for the Office of Commander-in-Chief of our armies should contain a 'strong check' against foreign influence. Jay recommended to Washington, and Washington agreed, that the Commander of our Military be open only to a 'natural born Citizen.' Thus, both Washington and Jay agreed that simply being a 'born citizen' was not sufficient to ensure against foreign influence. They wanted allegiance to be solely to the USA. The word 'natural' goes to the citizenship of the parents via of natural law as defined in Vattel's "Law of Nations."
According to an article on World Net Daily, "There have been 8 attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for President, to remove the Constitution's requirement that the president be a natural born Citizen, suggesting an organized strategy." They clearly knew the true meaning of natural born Citizen, otherwise why would they have attempted to change or eliminate this requirement if not to usurp the law?
This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but a constitutional issue that applies to candidates of all parties. The reason Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States has nothing to do with the argument over where he was born. However, by his own admission, Obama's father was never a US Citizen, which in and of itself makes Barack Obama ineligible to be President of The United States. Likewise, Senator Ted Cruz (R) is ineligible because he was born in Canada, not in the United States, and his father was not a US Citizen at the time of Senator Cruz's birth. Neither Marco Rubio (R) or Bobby Jindal (R) are eligible to be President because one or both of their parents were not US Citizens at the time of Senator Rubio's nor Governor Jindal's births.
We must decide if The United States of America is indeed a nation of Laws, and if the US Constitution is indeed the Law of the Land. If so, there can be no argument that a 'constitutionally unqualified' person has indeed occupied the Office of The President of the United States since January 2009! The question now must be, what are we going to do about it?
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/na...Qx79Xu9fAhq.99
The 'natural born Citizen' requirement to be president is a 'national security' requirement, because our Framers did not want the Commander-in-Chief of the military to have multiple, or dual citizenships. In other words, the President of The United States must not have allegiances to any country other than the United States of America!
During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, discussions between Founding Fathers John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington led them to choose the definition of natural born Citizen provided by Emerich de Vattel's "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law," Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, (175. According to "Law of Nations," natural born Citizen is a child born in the USA of two (2) U.S. Citizen parents. Vattel's Law of Nations defines how being a Natural Born Citizen differs from a classification of citizenship given to those simply born in the United States. Natural born and simply being born in the USA does not share the same meaning! The parents can be US Citizens by birth or they can be US Citizens by Naturalization after immigrating to the USA. But to create a natural born Citizen of the USA, 'both' parents must be US Citizens at the time the child is born on USA soil.
The Framers even recognized the "Law of Nations" within the US Constitution, where in Article 1, Section 8 it states, "The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the "Law of Nations."
John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington stating that the citizenship requirement for the Office of Commander-in-Chief of our armies should contain a 'strong check' against foreign influence. Jay recommended to Washington, and Washington agreed, that the Commander of our Military be open only to a 'natural born Citizen.' Thus, both Washington and Jay agreed that simply being a 'born citizen' was not sufficient to ensure against foreign influence. They wanted allegiance to be solely to the USA. The word 'natural' goes to the citizenship of the parents via of natural law as defined in Vattel's "Law of Nations."
According to an article on World Net Daily, "There have been 8 attempts by members of Congress during the years Barack Obama was developing a power base and running for President, to remove the Constitution's requirement that the president be a natural born Citizen, suggesting an organized strategy." They clearly knew the true meaning of natural born Citizen, otherwise why would they have attempted to change or eliminate this requirement if not to usurp the law?
This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, but a constitutional issue that applies to candidates of all parties. The reason Barack Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States has nothing to do with the argument over where he was born. However, by his own admission, Obama's father was never a US Citizen, which in and of itself makes Barack Obama ineligible to be President of The United States. Likewise, Senator Ted Cruz (R) is ineligible because he was born in Canada, not in the United States, and his father was not a US Citizen at the time of Senator Cruz's birth. Neither Marco Rubio (R) or Bobby Jindal (R) are eligible to be President because one or both of their parents were not US Citizens at the time of Senator Rubio's nor Governor Jindal's births.
We must decide if The United States of America is indeed a nation of Laws, and if the US Constitution is indeed the Law of the Land. If so, there can be no argument that a 'constitutionally unqualified' person has indeed occupied the Office of The President of the United States since January 2009! The question now must be, what are we going to do about it?
Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/na...Qx79Xu9fAhq.99
I have to admit I do like Ted Cruz but sadly he isn't eligible to run..That is my opinion of course and I am sticking to it. The article above explains it some what.
Awake yet America???
Awake yet America???
..
jeffrey,
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
That is all that the U.S. constitution has to say about Natural Born. Therefore the constitution actually has nothing to do with this argument. All that has been presented regarding Natural Born is immaterial if it cannot be linked directly to the U.S. constitution at the time that is was ratified. There is a reason why I emphasized that with bold italic text. No, it is not rocket science so you should be able to point out where that linkage is in the U.S. constitution.
I have provided a source for you:
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Ray Vernon Brown 2 hours ago
The vote Ted Cruze put to the senators, was are you for the constitution or not? The vote was 22-74. 74 of the senators voted not to uphold the constitution. Ted Cruze and Mike Lee would make very good President and Vice- President. Unlike Bush one who had everyone reading his lips and Bush two just saying what people wanted to hear. Who knows at this point what Jeb Bush will come up with, I know the Republican establishment will try keep the Tea Party down. I also believe three Bushes in the Whitehouse would lead to a total victory for the Democrat Communist Party. Because Jeb Bush would loose and good bye to the constitution, with another eight years of a Democrat being president.
▶ Reply
Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (Dec. 17)
Ray, if political bed partners like you don't wake up and realize that Cruz is ineligible for that office, we can say "good bye" to the Constitution right now, regardless of who either Party puts up for the office. You need to go back and look at earlier posts in this thread. It's all there, including good references for you (& others, possibly) to go by, to find out the truth of the matter.
Which is, essentially, that 'they' are already getting - and in actuality, have gotten - rid of the Constitution, by such unconstitutional acts as putting up Obama for the job, who is a Usurper, for not being a bona fide "natural born" citizen, rather, just a citizen (if, actually, even that, since we haven't seen a copy of his true original bc, only a forgery. For which he is liable for removal from the office in & of itself, being a felony). We are already not living under the rule of law, by that act. Only the rule of men. Another word for which is tyranny. And with friends like you, who needs enemies.
Smelling the coffee will include understanding that both sides of the political aisle are being controlled at the top by the same nest of vipers, who want to establish their New World Order over the whole of humanity. And the taking of America is a key step in accomplishing their mission. Which is why we Patriots need to take our stand, firmly, against this juggernaught threatening the basic, spiritual principle of 'essential liberty' on Earth. Do your homework. And join the 'right' team.
--
(late addition: reply, a/o early Dec.18, to my reply above, and my response to it:)
--
A Prayer for the Nation
Almighty God, You have given us this good land for our heritage. We humbly ask You that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Your favor and glad to do Your will. Bless our land with honorable endeavor, sound learning and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties and fashion into one united people the multitude brought here out of many nations and tongues. Endow with the Spirit of wisdom those to whom in Your Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Your law we may show forth Your praise among the nations on ith thankfulness, and in the day of trouble do not allow our trust in You to fail. Amen.
President Thomas Jefferson
Washington D.C. · March 4, 1801
--
- Stan,
If a law is known to have been broken and there is no prosecution then the law becomes null and void. (nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws) Try as you might but, you nor anyone else can undo the damage that has been inflicted on the U.S. constitution. Perhaps if we were able to put a true conservative in the White House then we might be able to restore the laws and take measures to safeguard against future attempts to usurp the laws.
What you have presented in this argument is irrelevant if you cannot tie it to the U.S. constitution at the time that it was ratified. We are a nation of laws. If a contract is tested in a court of law and there is an unrecognized clause that is not defined within the boundaries of the contract then the court will force you to prove that all parties bound by contract had full knowledge and understanding of the legal bindings of the clause. 'Been there done that' and was awarded a $75,000.00 judgement. That is where the argument over Natural Born stems from.
When people state that there is no legal definition of Natural Born then they are almost right. Neither the constitution or the laws of U.S. citizenship defines Natural Born. Can you prove that Natural Born was in fact substantiated in the U.S. constitution at the time that the constitution was ratified? I say that it was but, since you are the authority I would like to read your opinion.
The sad truth is that the argument over Ted Cruz's eligibility is a huge waist of time. The GOPE is going to attempt to pull off a coup d'état and leave conservatives stranded in the wilderness. The Cromnibus bill had provisions that will allow big money to drown us out. When we learn of who the GOPE will force on us then I believe that you would have been happy to have had Ted Cruz as the presidential candidate............ and then there is always the possibility that obama will not step down.
- Permalink Reply by
- Delete
- "If a law is known to have been broken and there is no prosecution then the law becomes null and void."
And if the law has been attempted to be prosecuted but the judicial branch has avoided going there? We are supposed to accept that?? No way, Jose."If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." Thomas Jefferson
P.S. As for 'substantiating' the intention of the constitutional Framers: Besides the rest of the references I and others have made herein (including you), there is the 1789 essay of David Ramsay; and the fact that there was a copy of de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations' in the very building that the Convention was being held; put there by their elder, and respected, statesman, Benjamin Franklin. Who they would obviously look to, and rely on, for advice on such subjects. If de Vattel's take on the definition of an NBC wasn't the one intended by the delegates in their final vote on the subject, he would have spoken up, and said so.
I rest my case. Unless TPTB try to wriggle out of this one. In which case, I will be anything but at rest.
As for the other points you make: Indeed, there is an agenda going on here. And that discussion is for another time and place, than here. And one that I would dearly like to see the Tea Party C.C. get into. And any other site for patriots.
It is time for all good men - and women - to come to the aid of their country. Tempus fugit.
No comments:
Post a Comment