On Getting Short-Fused

from patriotsforamerica.ning: ‘Donald Trump’s mouth is a nuclear weapon….by Wayne Allyn Root’ - posted by Harry Riley - November 30

(The discussion has continued on this thread...)

..

Permalink Reply by Harry Riley 2 hours ago (December 5)

  "Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162

a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html>" target="_blank">http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html>;  (1874): In this case

decided after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court stated

(pp. 167–68): 

"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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens

children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship

of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to

the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these

doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all

children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves

citizens."

Please note -- in this context only a child born of US Citizen parents is a

"natural born citizen".

There were additional cases that stated that, in every other instance EXCEPT

qualification for President, the citizen parent requirement was dropped.

Born in the USA was enough.  However, there is one exception as noted in...

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163

a href="http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html>" target="_blank">http://supreme.justia.com/us/377/163/case.html>;  (1964)

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native-born

and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.

The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural

born' citizen is eligible to be President."

Commentary:

Therefore -- it would appear that all the discussions going around are moot.

There is no question that his (Obama's) father, at the time of his birth, was residing

in Kenya and was a British Subject.  Therefore, Obama can not be, by

definition, a "Natural Born Citizen".  

In my view, even if Obama showed a Hawaii long form birth certificate he

clearly was not born of citizen parents, therefore is certainly not eligible

to be President of the United States.  I am continually amazed that this is

completely overlooked by critics and the media (including Fox).

• 
  ]▶ Reply 
• 
  

Permalink Reply by Michael M. Regan 2 hours ago

Question. If this cited case is worth the paper it is written on and goes against the framers intent that any person who does not need to be naturalized and meets the age and residency requirements how is it that all branches of government and all courts have given Obama a pass and have concurred that McCain and Cruz qualify for the office? To my knowledge "Natural Born Citizen is defined by the court as one not having to be naturalized, and that holds true if just one of your parents is a natural born citizen.

• 
  ▶ Reply
  
• 
  

Permalink Reply by Stan Stanfield 1 second ago (December 5)

You need to stop listening to people who have an agenda to take this country down, Michael, and listen, rather, to reason:

The whole POINT of the exercise on the part of the constitutional Framers in putting that particular requirement in their contract for that particular federal office - and that particular office ONLY, for a particular reason that will become clear in just a moment - was so that the occupant of that office, WHO WOULD THEN AS WELL 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.  And a NATIVE BORN citizen with only one citizen parent.  They were after SOLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES for that office, for the reason mentioned in particular.  THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.  

They were CLEARLY going by E. de Vattel's definitive tome of that day on such subjects, 'The Law of Nations Or Principles of Natural Law,' which they were well familiar with - and if there were any question in their minds [as to] what they were being asked to vote on, all they would have had to do was ask their learned and respected elder mentor, Benjamin Franklin, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate to those [same] proceedings himself; who was not only well versed in such matters, but was known to have three copies of de Vattel's tome in his possession (and had previously given a copy to the Continental Congress itself).  They knew PRECISELY what they were voting on.  And it is sophistry for anyone to [attempt to] pretend otherwise.

Plus, both major political parties in our day ALSO KNEW the truth here; when, between them, they tried a total of 8 times between 2003 and '08 to get a constitutional amendment going in Congress on this SPECIFIC MATTER, to water down the more stringent type of citizen that the Constitution requires for that particular office - and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around the issue.  So, what did they do?  It is obvious what they did: They colluded, in an attempt to do an end-around of the Constitution - read: the rule of law in this country - on this matter; and obviously figured that, between them, they could bluff their way on it, with their control of both the judicial branch of government and the mainstream media.  And if it weren't for the Internet and its alternative media, they may well have gotten away with their chicanery.  

So what needs to happen, is:

* the Usurper is asked to vacate the office voluntarily, or be removed, and either way, be held for trial (on a whole host of charges by now, including fraud, perjury, and treason);

* both major political parties are hauled into court on RICO-statute charges, of having colluded in this matter and thus being the criminal enterprises that they are, and ultimately dissolved;

* Congress is dissolved, for having failed to do its constitutional duty as regards a rogue executive (and those of its members who it can be proven to have engaged in criminal acts - like bribery - be held for trial as well individually);

* an Officer of The People is appointed to oversee a) entirely new elections - with Voter Integrity Laws in place in every State, or their votes will not be counted in federal elections; and b) a wholesale cleaning-out of the federal government of those individuals who have been engaged in the attempted takeover of this nation; and

* we get back to some MORAL INTEGRITY in this country.  And by "this country," I mean the federal constitutional republic of the United States of America.  Not some ersatz entity, with the intention to be merged into being merely a part of a region of TPTB's vaunted New World Order.

Which is about to be attempted to be put in place as we speak (with such as the TPP, and a declaration of martial law just waiting in the wings).  If patriots don't damn well DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.  And, like, NOW.

Grrrrrr................................ 

---

I should, perhaps, have mentioned specifically that Vattel's 'Law of Nations' defines a 'natural born citizen' as being one born on the soil of citizen parents.

But I think I made my point.

-

P.S.  And I'm not sure where the growl came from.

But I can guess.

You see, I feel like a reincarnation of King Arthur.

And so I would say, in addition:

If you are going
                 to go
     for a king,
             then
        it's time
              for me
             to take
                 over
                 now
 And you can have
            the real
       thing

  to lead you into

    The New

      World

    aborning

       as we
       speak.

--

P.P.S. from wnd.com: ‘Why Jesus Celebrated Hanukkah’ - Joseph Farah - December 5

(‘Joseph Farah urges Christians to observe biblical feast of dedication’.  A sometimes passionate Comments thread ensued...)

..

kibitzer3 • a few seconds ago (December 6)

I really think that it is time that 'we' had a major dialogue on all this sort of thing, to include the research of earnest scholars like D.M. Murdock (aka Acharya S.), Ralph Ellis, and Joseph Atwill. We in our era have the benefit of information that earlier generations did not, about the origins of their religions. We should all agree on one thing: the Truth. Whatever it may be, and whatever the cost to our current passionate positions.

Passion is one thing. Truth is another.