Posted on 01/14/2013 2:13:04 PM PST by JohnPDuncan
WASHINGTON – Congressman Steve Stockman (R-Texas 36th) released the following statement Monday afternoon.
The White House’s recent announcement they will use executive orders and executive actions to infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms is an unconstitutional and unconscionable attack on the very founding principles of this republic.
I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment.
The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.
Under no circumstances whatsoever may the government take any action that disarms any peaceable person – much less without due process through an executive declaration without a vote of Congress or a ruling of a court.
The President’s actions are not just an attack on the Constitution and a violation of his sworn oath of office – they are a direct attack on Americans that place all of us in danger. If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.
# # #
Better late than never but they will need great force to complete the job in the Senate.
If they are going to impeach the “Constitution Stomper” they should also throw out those that did not question his eligibility, or lack thereof.
But at least, the TX GOP is unlikely to do to Stockman what the FL GOP did to Allen West.
Better late than never but they will need great force miracles to complete the job in the Senate.
The C students might fall for Jedi mind tricks.
I called Stockman’s office to thank him. A very nice man answered and said they hoped it wouldn’t come to it, but, if necessary, Stockman feels strongly enough to follow through on this. Although my Texas congressman is pretty conservative, I can’t imagine him doing anything like this. (Hopefully, he’ll support Stockman, though.)
“...I called Stockman’s office to thank him....”
I contacted mine too and asked him to stand up with Rep. Stockman and back him on this all the way.
What, a Republican LEADER with COURAGE???
I will look to financially support Stockman in any future election he may have.
I hope your colleagues, especially those from my state, join with you in this effort.
I'll do all I can to encourage them. United, we stand.
Click on his website and send him $5 or $10.
As will I.
GOD to get rid of the Kenyan userper would be a dream come true. I will never forgive all the dumb asses in this country who put this POS back in.
So, instead of slavery at the point of a gun, it will be slavery by men in suits who impose confiscatory taxes to pay the interest on the money we have borrowed to pay for the Leviathan Welfare-Warfare state.
It is a form of tyranny that humanity has no prior historical experience with, especially when combined with electronic fiat money, taxes on income including “income” that comes from inflated dollar value of assets, and the total surveillance of financial accounts, even those located outside the territory of the country.
It is serfdom in slow motion as tax freedom day moves from April into May and beyond.
Amen!
What’s even more disgusting, however:
“If the President is allowed to suspend constitutional rights on his own personal whims, our free republic has effectively ceased to exist.”
Is that it’s gotten THIS FAR, AFTER all the Constitutional Rights Stomping Zero pulled in his first term.
Statesman: See above article
Politician: See most everyone Else in DC
An attack on the Constitution? This congressman is a fraud and a coward, just like the rest of the GOP. An entire nation of gutless cowards.
Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)
Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .
Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)
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.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
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.
Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),
Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.
But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."
The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.
Me neither. I believe if it was up to boner, this guy would be found in Fort Marcy Park with two or three bullet holes in the back of his head (suicide).
FMCDH(BITS)
Huzzah! Huzzah! Huzzah!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.