Further On Constitutional Eligibility/The Rule Of Law

more on wnd.com: 'Eligibility Nipping At Obama's Heels Again' - Bob Unruh - Jan. 26

.. (to recap the beginning of this section of this Comments thread, to put it all in context; posting for its valuable addition to this sorry, sordid subject:)

kibitzer3 • 4 days ago  (Jan. 26)

When are conservatives going to wake up to the fact that they are either being conned or misled even by people on their own side of the political divide on this issue? Obama's status as being ineligible for the office on the "natural born citizen" legal point has somewhat to do with the copy - forgery or not - of a birth certificate on the official White House web site. But it has everything to do with his parents.

Contrary to some obfuscators on this issue, this is not rocket science. The whole POINT of the 'exercise' on the part of the constitutional Framers in putting that particular eligibility requirement in their national contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY - was to make sure that a candidate, if elected - who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces - would have no DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. Like a naturalized citizen. And like a DUAL citizen. Like - lo and behold - Obama.

The evidences of their thinking on the matter abound. There is a letter by John Jay - who subsequently became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court, of all ironies - to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention, on this issue. There is the fact that at the Convention, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the eligibility requirement for that office be only that the person need be a, quote, "citizen" - and his proposal was specifically TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent requirement. NO FOREIGN INFLUENCES in that office. End of story.

The Constitution can be amended on the issue. It has not been. Thus, Obama is a Usurper in the office - who unfortunately has also been allowed to occupy it because of the inaction of the 'opposition party' in our two-party system of government. Why has the Republican Party gone along with this charade, this farce, this fraud on the Constitution and the rule of law?? Obviously, for their own purposes: to allow them as well to slip someone into that office who is not constitutionally eligible. Thus, the Republican Party officials need to be taken to (a legitimate) court as well, on RICO-Statute charges of colluding with their Democrat Party cohorts in this deceitful and meretricious matter.

Result: Obama is simply removed from the office (or resigns under his own speed), and charged with a shopping list of felonies; the two major political parties in America are dissolved, for being corrupt enterprises; the Congress itself is dissolved, by act of The People, Assembled, for failing to do its constitutional duty in reining in a rogue Executive. And America is saved from moving out of a Republic stage of development into either an Empire mode - in a replay of the Roman experience; lesson learners please take note - or is absorbed into being merely a part of a region (already called the North American Union; and thus the reason for the failure of TPTB and their minions in Congress to secure our southern border) of the 'New World Order' that is the intention of the Party bigwigs on both sides of the political aisle, and their masters at the top of the pyramid of power of [arrogant and immoral] individuals who currently run this world.

And whose rule is about to come to an abrupt end. As the likes of the American People rise to the occasion, and do their duty, to God and country.

8

•

•

Reply

• 
  
• Trish P kibitzer3 • 4 days ago 
• 
  Why don't I see any mention made of this:
  Dems in Congress made 8 attempts between 2003 and 2008 to either eliminate the natural-born requirement or redefine natural-born to accommodate Obama!!! (See the Congressional record) This is not a coincidence.
• 
  Justia.com (used by lawyers to research precedence) has been caught removing references to Minor vs. Happersett to attempt to hide this important precedent! …the only time the US Supreme Court ever did define the class of persons who were POTUS eligible under Article 2 Section 1 was in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), wherein it was held:
• 
  “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S.
  162, 168.
• 
  Note the word parents (with an s).
• •
• Reply
• 
  kibitzer3 Trish P • 3 days ago (Jan. 27) 
• 
  Thanks for this addition to the 'debate,' Trish. But just for the record: It wasn't just the Democrats who tried those 8 times between 2003 and '08 to change the nbc requirement for the POTUS office. At least one of those attempts was by a Republican, too.
• 
  So - THEY KNEW. And thus were/are involved in this attempted heist of the office. And which is why, then, they/their officials have kept quiet on the issue, OR tried to eliminate it from consideration: because they have been involved in a collusion with their Democrat Party counterparts on the matter. And so this is not just a constitutional crisis. It is a full-blown political crisis.
• 
  When Justice is served, - as it will be; because this is a Just universe - the authorities of both main political parties will be hauled into (a legitimate, non-Maritime Law) court on trial for RICO-Statute conspiracy charges, found guilty as criminal enterprises, and dissolved. And politics in America will never be the same again. For more on which: another time, perhaps.
• •
• Reply
• 
  Trish P kibitzer3 • 11 minutes ago (Jan. 29) 
• 
  Thanks for the reply (so I looked up my research). I knew that one Republican supposedly just wanted to define the NBC term (but now rereading it he is either wrong or purposely wanted to change the meaning).
  
• 
  
• 
  
•                                       kibitzer3  Trish P • a few seconds ago
  
  

                                        Indeed they did, Trish. Indeed they

                                        did.

                                        Keep up the good sleuthing. It all 

                                        adds to the energy of Justice and 

                                        Truth to be served.