Rounding Out The Dissertation

(My email to Dr. Gianni Hayes, commented on in these pages earlier today, resulted in a response from her which, though appreciating my points, got bogged down in the ’arcane’ aspects of the term, which her ‘Constitutional expert’ sources said leave the subject too vague to act on.   Hope that Chuck Baldwin will have more honor.
P.S. I told her in reply that she had "just missed the cut for the 'A' team".) 

To: Chuck Baldwin

Subject: NWV Column of Sept. 17, posted Sept. 23 [titled: ‘Trump vs Boehner: A Slugfest For The Soul Of The GOP’]

Date: September 23

Dear Chuck (if I may),

I appreciated your column, on the battle in the Republican Party between the establishment and its real Americans.  But as to the subject of Natural Law, and your approving references to Ted Cruz running for the presidency, a word.

You really should know that Ted Cruz, like the Usurper, Obama, is not eligible for the office of POTUS.  And this is really not the arcane, rocket science that shyster lawyer types are trying to make the American populace believe it is.  It’s really very simple.  Consider:

The whole POINT of the exercise in the constitutional Framers putting the ’natural born citizen’ eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular office - and that particular office ONLY, may it be duly noted for the importance that that factor has to understanding the definition of the term - was so that the person occupying that office, who would as well then become the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces, would have NO DUAL/CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES.  As a naturalized citizen would be subject to.  And as a DUAL citizen would MOST CERTAINLY be subject to.  Like Obama.  And like Cruz; whose father was not naturalized until after Ted was born.

Evidences:

* The letter (7/25/1787) by John Jay to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the Constitutional Convention proceedings, in which this near-future first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court specifically pointed out the importance and desirability of the office/role of the Commander in Chief having SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the U.S., thus needing to be a “natural born" citizen; 

* the proposal at the Convention by A. Hamilton that the president need only be a, quote, “citizen” - which proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent NBC category.

In short; THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.  They were CLEARLY going by the definitive tome of the day on such matters, E. de Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’.  And if any of the delegates WEREN’T sure what they were being asked to vote on, all they would have had to do was ask their learned, and respected, elder mentor, B. Franklin, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to the same proceedings; who, it is known, had three copies of said tome in his possession, and thus was VERY DEFINITELY conversant with the term.

So, it is nonsense to try to claim, and be put off thereby, that ‘the Constitution doesn’t define the term’.  

IT DOESN’T HAVE TO.  A) It’s not a dictionary; and B) It was clear to them.

So: Obama is illegally occupying that office; and needs simply to be arrested, and held for trial, on a whole host of charges by now, including perjury, and treason.  And Cruz is - and Rubio, and Jindal, and Santorum are likewise - ineligible for the job.  And in declaring so, we get back to the rule of law in this country - to say, the Constitution.

Or else we are under the rule of men.  Another word for which is tyranny.

And we need, therefore, to act accordingly.

Please do your part in making this matter crystal clear for the public to understand, and see.  For the utmost importance that it has.  For now.  And the future, of the federal constitutional republic of the United States of America.

Long may its banner yet wave.

Most sincerely,

(signed)

-

Sigh...Are there NO true Americans left??

Time will tell.

But it will have to be soon.