On Shyster Legal Tricks

Speaking of shyster legal tricks, as I did in my last blog; consider:

from libertyalliance.com: ‘Does Ted Cruz Have The Qualifications For President?’ - August 26 (orig. posted at barbwire.com - Steve Deace  -  August 26)

..

Phrank Stein (August 26)

Luci Tomlin Cruz needs to meet the Constitutional requirement to be President. Not some court re-interpretation done by people with an agenda. The Founders made it quite clear as did the writer and Judges involved with the 14th when it became law.

Just because some word has some different meaning today doesn't change that the Constitution means what the words meant when it was written, not today's bastardized definitions.

Unlike · Reply · 2 · 1 hr

Casey Schultz · Glendale, Arizona

Luci Tomlin do you honestly think the pos in the WH had any experience except for covering his tracks?

Like · Reply · 43 mins

William Hampton Flake

Phrank Stein Thank you, for clearly expressing the fact that Senator Cruz does not meet the "Natual Born" requirement. If it were not for this problem, he would have 100% of my support, but I am not wasting my time on a candidate that no more meets the Constitutional requirement than the slime currently residing at 16 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.

Unlike · Reply · 1 · 38 mins

Ed Rosenblum

Phrank Stein The constitutional requirement is "natural born citizen." Since there is no definition of that term in the Constitutional, there cannot be a "re-interpretation," only an "interprertation."

Nowhere will you find a legal or conventional distinction in meaning between "natural citizen," "born citizen," or "natural born citizen." All mean "citizen by birth."

Acciording to U.S. law (8 U.S. Code, Section 1401), passed in 1952, Cruz is a cirtizen by birth. Hence, he also is a "natural citizen, " a born citizen," and a "natural born citizen."

Like · Reply · 35 mins

Stan Stanfield · Stanford University (August 26)

Ed Rosenblum: Ed, you're wrong, The term means constitutionally what it meant to the constitutional Framers when they put it in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY, which is the clue to their intent. They didn't want anybody in that PARTICULAR office, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation's military forces (HINT HINT), to have ANY DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES. As a naturalized citizen would be subject to. And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to. They were CLEARLY going by the definition of the term as espoused in the definitive tome on such subjects of the day, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations Or Principles Of Natural Law,' as there is other historical evidence to attest to, too lengthy to go into here.

Just because the Republican Party failed to make a case for it with the Usurper Obama - for their own purposes; as the current batch of Republican Party presidential candidates amply attests to - doesn't mean that there ISN'T such a case to be made - and that we are not deep into a constitutional crisis in this country. And before lt's over, both the Democrat Party AND the Republican Party are going to be hauled before a court of law on RICO-statute charges, of colluding in a criminal enterprise; in this case, to defraud the American people, for trashing the rule of law in this country: the Constitution. Shyster lawyers to the contrary notwithstanding.

--

One of these days - and I hope well before long - we in this country are going to 'get' - and will HAVE to get - that we cannot move into the New Age - i.e., the kingdom of Heaven on Earth - with any degree of falsity still hanging in our auras.  

Nothing but Truth can stand in that Light, of that New Day.  It's a matter of resonance.

Got it, yet???  If so:

Pass it on.

That we are under

New Management

and the old ways - of lies and deceit and general corruption - just won't cut it anymore.

No more Matrix; for lesson learning.

Now, the Real Thing.

For, we should have gotten our lessons by now.

Shyster legal tricks to the contrary notwithstanding.