end of update. ]]]]]
Question: Can I take the "Natural Born Citizen Clause of the US Constitution" literally?
Answer: Yes, and there is an 18th Century US Supreme Court case we can cite for this, even as a Treaty was in the intent of this language, we have within a generation other US Supreme Court Cases saying basically the same language and intent as it regards the US Constitution and Framers Intent in the cases of the early 1800's.
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 3 Dall. 199 (1796) @ 240 states:
“When we collect the intention from the words only, as they lie in the writing before us, it is a literal interpretation, and indeed if the words and the construction of a writing are clear and precise, we can scarce call it interpretation to collect the intention of the writer from thence. The principal rule to be observed in literal interpretation is to follow that sense, in respect both of the words and the construction which is agreeable to common use.”
And @ 245 “This principle is recognized by the Constitution….”
As I have stated previously, the US Constitution to be understood in the natural sense per South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 @ 448 - 450 (1905), Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189, taking also into account the influence of Vattel -- even as cited in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 @ 289-290 (1814) -on the definitions of the framers in using "natural born citizen" in place of indigenes (indigenous) as used by Vattel. And further, every word of the US Constitution (according to the Framers Intent, as stated by the US Supreme Court) is to have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840). This includes the word "natural" in front of "born citizen" in Article 2.1.5 of the US Constitution in order to designate the Government of the father is passed on to his seed or child.
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) - Chief Justice John Marshall: “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.’”
Those who argue that by English Common Law, Obama becomes a US NBC. Problem is, this is America...not England, and since the Treaty of 1651 with Virginia. America has had a unique distinction from England, though patterned after much English common law, as British America, it had variances to those Common Laws that were uniquely American. But even were we to accept the Doctrine of Natural Allegiance in English Common Law, what the Left fails to inform you is that in citizenship of the child, it is famously and best expressed as:
Nemo potest exuere Patriam... [expanded and reiterated by me, is translated in that context as]:
"No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land."
Barack Obama Sr. was NEVER a US Citizen, and ever a Kenyan Citizen his entire life (with a dual British Commonwealth Citizenship at the time of his death and at the time of Barack II's alleged 1961 birth ).
In the context of Barack Obama, that means he has an attachment and legience to Kenya at birth, something a United States Natural Born Citizen can NOT legally have AT BIRTH."No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land."
Barack Obama Sr. was NEVER a US Citizen, and ever a Kenyan Citizen his entire life (with a dual British Commonwealth Citizenship at the time of his death and at the time of Barack II's alleged 1961 birth ).
Chris Matthews, the guy that allegedly got sexually aroused by Obama at the 2008 DNC Convention with a tingle up his leg, and his Liberal Pundits, want you to disregard the US Constitution "natural born citizen" clause, and to now trust Hawaii's new Governor Neil Abercrombie, a documented Soviet Communist Agent sponsored "asset" over patriotic Constitutionalist Americans.
So MSNBC's Chris Matthews and friends say that we are to trust the same Neil Abercrombie who was sponsored by a known alleged Communist Soviet Agent?
Chris Matthews and his MSNBC friends (the same company own by GE, whose subsidiary bought the Royal Bank of Scotland just before they received $92,000,000,000 in Obama given "stimulus monies at US Taxpayer expense), these say that we are to trust the same Neil Abercrombie who has close ties with the American Communists offshoot the Democratic Socialists of America? That Neil Abercrombie?
Let me give you a brief background by a New Zealand Investigator, Trevor Loudon, http://newzeal.blogspot.com/
who deserves research and background investigation credit on Abercrombie et al., and who also deserves financial support by those of you who are able to give to this pro-US ally.
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Neil_Abercrombie_%28Summary%29
"Neil Abercrombie was a covertly socialist Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives 1st district of Hawaii, until he resigned in early 2010 to seek the Governorship of Hawaii. While attending the University of Hawaii in the early 1960s, Neil Abercrombie was part of a circle that included Barak Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, the parents of future U.S. President, Barack Obama. Abercrombie has been a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus from as early as 1998 to the present. The Council for a Livable World, founded in 1962 by long-time socialist activist and alleged Soviet agent, Leo Szilard supported him in his successful run as U.S. Representative for Hawaii.
DSA Controversy: Following evidence that Abercrombie had been a member of the Democratic Socialists of America circa 1990…."
See also http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-neil-abercrombie-lying-further.html
So if the Communist Agent sponsored Neil Abercrombie knew Obama's parents (and perhaps the Communist Frank Marshall Davis on whose FBI file I already posted on at: http://brianroysinput.blogspot.com/2010/07/frank-marshall-davis-review-of-obamas.html ) intimately, and Obama was the right hand man (a Chief of Staff in the early 1990s) for Alice Palmer, who herself was sponsored and assisted by another known and registered Communist Soviet agent, Chicago lawyer David S. Canter,
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-file-47-paid-soviet-agent-behind.html#links
(the same registered and known Soviet agent that recruited Communist David Axelrod), while she (Palmer) pushed Soviet Bloc propaganda and interests, and worked closely with the Communist Soviet Journal Izvestia...
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/11/obama-file-90-alice-palmer-re-examined.html
...Chris Matthews and his yes men casus fæderis (if one may say so) are themselves in flagrante delicto (in blazing offense) by saying that they would rather trust the American Soviet assets on being more reliable on the Obama Birth Certificate Issue than real patriotic Americans merely wanting the US Constitution to be upheld equally for everybody, and so should you.
Do you trust known Soviet Assets over the US Constitution and US Supreme Court case law? I sure don't...neither should you.
No comments:
Post a Comment