In this paper, I prove the original intent of the "natural born Citizen" (NBC) clause at Art. II, §1, cl. 5.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vatt...
David J. Edwards is the one who found the evidence that our Founders & Framers relied on Vattel!
It is not WHERE one is born, but rather the citizenship status of one's parents, which determines whether one is "a natural born Citizen" w/in the meaning of Art. II, § 1, clause 5, U.S. Constitution.
This article has relevance to the NBC status of obama, rubio, etc.
It is also relevant to the NBC status of John McCain: it matters not one whit WHERE he was born, b/c his parents were U.S.Citizens at the time of his birth.
It is also relevant to the citizenship status of the Mexicans born within these United States of parents who are here illegally. They are not NBCs!
Tags: natural born Citizen
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Fascinating, David!
And right, the courts reject all such evidence of original intent. I don't understand why people don't recognize & resist indoctrination. Most lawyers got indoctrinated in law school, and they all chant the same drivel. People hear the lawyers chanting on TV and the people watching believe what they hear.
Maybe I should be asking why a few us of are immune to it.
Permalink Reply by Jack Coleman on Is this Constitutional and if so would it be effective?
Dear Congressman Dicks,
I would respectively ask that you study Article VI: Clauses 2 and 3, following that please explain how you could possibly find HR5995 Constitutional?
I will expect your response ASAP and will pass the information along.
Article. VI.
Clause 2; This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States
H.R.5995 : Wild Olympics Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2012
By Mr. DICKS:
Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the
authority to enact this bill.
Article I, section 8; ; Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
New States
Article IV, Clause 3; Grants to Congress power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States (as opposed to property belonging to individual states). As these territories became States, Congress’ powers under this Article were terminated.
Permalink Reply by Jack Coleman on I meant legal, not Constitutional.
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on There may be a new action of significance coming Monday. The concern (doubt) in my mind is whether or not the current SCOTUS will follow the Founding Fathers and their use of Vattel on the issue of "natural born Citizen".
Question #2 is of particular interest in this study group area.
http://libertylegalfoundation.org/2265/supreme-court-reviews-eligib...
This petition asks 2 questions of the SCOTUS:
Question #1:
Does the right to associate force states to accept any candidate from political parties for presentation on state primary ballots when such a candidate does not meet the minimum legal qualifications for the office sought, thereby negating state election laws and state control of elections?
Question #2:
Are all individuals born on U.S. soil Article II “natural born citizens,” regardless of the citizenship
of their parents?
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on I doubt that we want the present SCOTUS to answer these questions. We know that if they answer the Questions, they will go against us. At least 5 to 4 against us.
SCOTUS has persistently refused to review decisions of lower federal courts which dismissed, for lack of standing, the other cases brought by plaintiffs challenging zero's eligibility. Since they "denied cert", that means we couldn't even get 4 (four) justices to agree to review the cases. So that means that the largest possible number of justices who would have sided with us is 3 (three) - if they voted their convictions and not strategically (as in the last para below).
So van Irion (the attorney in Knoxville) thinks that a minimum of two of them will relent and decide these questions in our favor? I don't think so.
A prudent attorney does what we call "forum shopping" or "judge shopping": You don't file in a venue or court when you know you will get a judge who will rule against you. You choose your venue and your court when you can.
You have to think long and hard before you appeal when you should KNOW that you will lose. It is better to accept a lower court ruling against you than to take it up to SCOTUS where you should know you will lose (if they deign to answer the questions). B/c that establishes precedent.
And BAD PRECEDENT puts us in a much worse position than we were before.
I expect the best thing van Irion could do for this Country is dismiss his appeal to SCOTUS.
That is unlikely. So let us pray that once again, SCOTUS denies cert. In fact, if I were sitting on that Court right now, I would vote to deny cert! B/c I don't want those 4 leftist loons & that panty-waist sissy John Roberts deciding this issue and thereby setting horrible precedent.
I would only vote to accept cert IF I had five (5) solid votes in favor of original intent. And that isn't going to happen with this SCOTUS.
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on Agreed. I anticipated your line of reasoning. This is horrible timing for either petition. The current SCOTUS is far too apt to open more doors for anti-Constitutionalists (Obama and cohorts).
That is precisely why I posted that information.
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on PH,
Tuesday's election was sad enough but again tonight I have realized that America is overly populated with quasi-educated morons. Worse yet, many claim to be "conservatives". With "friends" like those, our enemies generate little to be feared.
I hope you can decipher this Example from Twitter:
Tonight, I was in an encounter with someone claiming to be connected to this site: http://www.therightfacts.com ... a guy who calls himself "@AG_Conservative"
After a short discussion in Twitter, I presented these LINKS to that PERSON who claims Marco Rubio is a "natural born Citizen" (apparently because of the Wong Kim Ark decision and the fact that Rubio was born over top of USA's dirt). The discussion went to the definition of "natural born Citizen".:
I disputed his opinion.
He cited the Wong Kim Ark decision and "case law" (implying he is some sort of smart guy wannabe).
He complained that opponents have never read the Constitution. He even claimed Ben Franklin would not qualify as a candidate for POTUS under the Natural Born Citizen rule. I blew that argument apart readily with Article II, Sect 1, cls 5.
He was still dismissive.
At one point, I said:
I showed him these LINKS:
I even explained what they were. The conversation went like this:
https://twitter.com/AG_Conservative/status/266808495096090625
(Let me know if you can view this conversation, pls. For nerdy technical reasons, I cannot be sure the LINK will work on computers other than mine.)
@AG_Conservative responded:
@AG_Conservative finally said:
I should return to astronomy. I need to find a different planet. Two legged life forms on this one are stampeding toward a very bad end.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Why don't you send him my paper? I lay it all out.
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vatt...
Tell him to rebut that.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Do point out to him the footnote where I credit my friend, David J. Edwards, for providing me with the evidence showing that our Framers were familiar with Vattel!!
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on Thank you PH,
I couldn't find it last night; vicissitudes of the Internet played Hob with my effort. That LINK is now deposited in a redundant place of safekeeping. If the Net cooperates, in future I shall be able to raise it up reliably.
It was probably my error though. I'm still recuperating from 2-1/2 weeks spent campaigning against the 'Obamination'. You see, I have a professional type of voice (deep, authoritative, and soothing... much like that of actor James Earl Jones). One of the PACs hired me to campaign for Romney. The days were long. Rest was insufficient. And alas, the result was insufficient.
More the reason to find a way to use the Vattel/Dumas/Franklin evidence, and all else that can be mustered, to reverse the blight on Pennsylvania Avenue before three more Marxists are installed into the Supreme Court.
Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on Oh, I would love to hear your voice! Please email me a link to an ad so I can hear it! No ads were played in Tennessee.
Permalink Reply by David J Edwards on If all goes well with my software and microphone, soon.
© 2013 Created by Judson Phillips.
