Catching up again.
Check out article, and comments, esp #76.
A lot of information here. Interesting thread, with civilized discussion.
Posted on 03/31/2015 9:38:45 AM PDT by yoe
The further I travel down this rabbit hole, the more I feel divorced from the good conservative people that I choose to call my own. I hold some stories back from our readers. My thought is that people have a hard enough time embracing the basic fact that our government is ( corrupt on both sides of the aisle.) If you knew how corrupt I thought these people really were, I feel like you'd rush to the phone and soon bad men would show up to haul me off in a straitjacket.
Do they still do that?
Regardless, today I want to show you something that might leave you questioning everything around you.
Welcome to my world.
In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the "natural born citizen" constitutional requirement to become President...........
Why is that important?
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomoutpost.com ...
“Considering the history of the constitutional provision, the clause’s apparent intent, the English common law expressly applicable in the American colonies and in all of the original states, the common use and meaning of the phrase “natural born” subject in England and the American colonies in the 1700s, and the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term “natural born citizen” to include those born abroad to U.S. citizens), it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase “natural born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth.” Such interpretation, as evidenced by over a century of American case law, would include as natural born citizens those born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship status of one’s parents, or those born abroad of one or more parents who are U.S. citizens (as recognized by statute), as opposed to a person who is not a citizen by birth and is thus an “alien” required to go through the legal process of naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.
The weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion, as well as the consistent case law in the United States, also supports the notion that “natural born Citizen” means one who is a U.S. citizen “at birth” or “by birth.” The Constitution of the United States of America, Analysis and Interpretation, notes that “[w]hatever the term ‘natural born’ means, it no doubt does not include a person who is ‘naturalized,’” and, after discussing historical and legal precedents and arguments, concludes that “[t]here is reason to believe ... that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.”—Qualifications For President and the “Natural Born Citizen” Requirement, Congressional Research Service
He’s paid by the word.
Natural born Citizen is NOT the same as natural born subject. The founders very specifically rejected the idea of natural born subjects, a term implying an irrevocable fealty to an elite sovereign. Natural born subject was a term of ownership and was used, among other things, to justify impressing as many able bodied, but otherwise unwilling "subjects" into his majesty's royal service as possible (typically as sailors). For this reason (gathering up as many able bodies as possible), qualification as a natural born subject was like a logical OR operation, thus being born of either of the blood of a subject or within the king's realm was qualification enough.
The founders thoroughly rejected this idea and considered every citizen as sovereign -- we were founded as a nation of sovereign Citizens, none higher than any other. Politicians, even up to and including the president, were intended to be the servants of We the People, the exact opposite of the system natural born subjects suffer under. The founders were familiar with the term and concept of "natural born subject" and they rejected it in its entirety.
Furthermore, it is ludicrous on its face to assume that the founders, who were articulately deliberate and elegantly succinct in their writings, inserted an entirely superfluous word into the phrase "natural born Citizen." If they had meant only "born citizen" that is exactly what they would have written, but they did not. As Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote in Holmes v. Jennison (1840):
"In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood."The purpose of the presidential eligibility requirement was to ensure that those born with a naturally divided allegiance be excluded from ever becoming our commander-in-chief. For this reason, qualification as a natural born Citizen was like a logical AND operation, thus one must born one hundred percent exclusively American, both of blood (of two citizen parents) and of dirt (within our territorial jurisdiction).
It may not make sense to you but it appears to make sense to judges and members of Congress.
It was Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray, writing for the majority in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898 who made the definitive statement of connection between natural born subject and natural born citizen. I know of no judge and no member of Congress who has challenged that statement of connection over the last 117 years.
Mr. Justice Gray wrote: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”
Coincidently, Founder and Framer and “Father of the Constitution” James Madison accepted French Citizenship and thus became a dual citizen.
I don’t think that there are many people who would question James Madison’s allegiance.
You clearly have lost the argument and are now grasping at straws. I have made my case and am more than satisfied to let the reader be the judge.
That works for me. Let the reader be the judge.
If winning is that important to you, I’ll go along with your self-assessment that you are the winner.
Congratulations on your victory.
And that is a mental image that inspires hilarity.
So if there’s no valid government, then is this scenario viable?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3276032/posts?page=2#2
How can there be government aggression when the people voted to void the Constitution by the election of an ineligible President? Men and women who used to hold positions of authority and standing choose not to recognize the will of the American people because they do not want to forfeit their positions of authority and standing are aggressive toward those who wish to fulfill the will of the majority and move forward.
The Founding Fathers declared independence from a foreign state after recognizing they had a God-give right to terminate obligations in the form of taxes to the foreign state without representation in the foreign state government. The King ignored the Founders and sent in troops to capture or kill the insurgents. The vast majority of colonist didn’t want trouble and were fine with the status quo. A few bargained with the Crown to settle the matter and resolved to continue a dialog as long as the matter was pending.
The Founding Fathers chose to establish a national governing document to be ratified by the states and defend themselves against tyranny.
You said
” How can there be government aggression when the people voted to void the Constitution by the election of an ineligible President?”
But later said:
“Men and women who used to hold positions of authority and standing choose not to recognize the will of the American people because they do not want to forfeit their positions of authority and standing are aggressive toward those who wish to fulfill the will of the majority and move forward.”
Which is it?
Government either is or isn’t aggressive.
Some of us want to ignore the ineligible President and maintain the status quo because they believe the establishment would not allow them suffer the consequence of electing an ineligible President. Some of us want to negotiate with the voided establishment to seek affirmation and request compensation from a bankrupted entity that is many trillions of dollars in debt.
You’re demanding that I look over my shoulder while I’m trying to move forward to recognize the will of the people and begin a campaign to re-establish a new constitutional republic. I choose not to look backward when there is so much to be done.
I only wanted clarification of your #149; I was not demanding anything.
Republican establishment didn’t challenge it because of Cruz, Jindal, probably Rubio. Rubio because his parents were not naturalized until after he was born. Jindal beause his of anchor baby status and Cruz of course because he was born in a foreign country to a non citizen father.
Had Cruz come along in the 1780’s he would have been considered born as a British subject to a Spanish father. Good luck claiming him as a nbc.
Catching up again.
Check out article, and comments, esp #76.
A lot of information here. Interesting thread, with civilized discussion.
Yes, it is everything I’ve said, and more, about how SADO’s little boy was born in Mombasa, Kenya, and how he came home. They leave out the missionaries, especially Lois Anderson, but I am aware her husband doesn’t want the family involved in this since there have been too many deaths.
I hate to bring this up, but this article emphasizes everything I’ve said about Sen.Ted Cruz: he is ineligible to be the next U.S. President.
The entire American Experiment depends upon decently bred, well read, western Christian gentlemen exercising good judgement at every level of society, but particularly those in elected and appointed posts.
So, Freddy, you can see where this thing of ours is going.
“you can see where this thing of ours is going”
Where are we going? And what’s that handbasket for?
Since the courts, Congress, and the officials of 50 states have declined to offer an opinion, it has been decided by a sort of voter consensus.
(a) A "Natural Born Citizen" is a person born in the the US under any circumstances.
(b) If a person has the bad luck to be born outside of the United States, that person is a Natural Born Citizen,
if either of the birth parents (bio, adoptive, with, or w/o, benefit of clergy) was a citizen of the US.*
This about covers The Mombasa (or possibly Hawaiian) MF, The Canadian Cuban, The Miami Cuban, and the Louisiana Indian. All are ispo facto, Natural Born Citizens, at least according to the hip new thoughts on the subject.
Your erroneous thoughts on this matter are doubtless inspired by Ye Olden Constitution of The United States. Please remember that this yellowing old fuddy-duddy document was written by men only, some of whom owned slaves, and were very mean to Elizabeth Warren's ancestors.
You may doubt this interpretation as you wish. However, be advised that doubt means you are a gender-normative (used to be 'homophobe'), racist, patriarchal, euro-centric, imperialist, colonialist, hegemon, who doubtless doesn't believe in gay marriage.
Get with the program.
*Loretta Lynch will soon amend this rule. If either parent "Knew" another person who was reputed to be an American Citizen, this will also confer NBC status on the child, regardless of what country in which the parents reside.
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.