H/T to
"Expose Obama"
ExposeObama.com issued a reporting and link to a
Tennessee Court Transcript in which the attorney for the Democratic Party of Tennessee and
Democratic National Committee Chair (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz) thumbed its nose
in court at the Plaintiffs and concurred as to the ineligibility of Barack
Obama in holding the office of the Presidency of the United States. The Court concluded that only by lack of
Article III specific personal injury by Obama against the Plaintiff, the case
could not move forward.
However, it is my belief that the the family of
Brian Terry, slain U.S. Border Patrol Agent (now of the Obama mis-driven Fast & Furious fame )
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ATF_Report.pdf
has legal standing to sue Obama on Article III standing, and to introduce this Intelligibly Issue into Court...because Obama, by fraudulently seeking and obtaining the Presidency and then altering our Border with Mexico Immigration and Naturalization Policies and Programs installed by President Bus, was directly responsible for those specific alterations in policy that stripped Brian Terry of his gun, and got him killed.
The Terry family has every right to sue Barack Obama and Eric Holder as felony accessories to murder, and to win a potentially multi-billion dollar civil suit against the Government of the United States.
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ATF_Report.pdf
has legal standing to sue Obama on Article III standing, and to introduce this Intelligibly Issue into Court...because Obama, by fraudulently seeking and obtaining the Presidency and then altering our Border with Mexico Immigration and Naturalization Policies and Programs installed by President Bus, was directly responsible for those specific alterations in policy that stripped Brian Terry of his gun, and got him killed.
The Terry family has every right to sue Barack Obama and Eric Holder as felony accessories to murder, and to win a potentially multi-billion dollar civil suit against the Government of the United States.
But getting back to Tennessee....
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION,
JOHN DUMMETT,
LEONARD VOLODARSKY, and
CREG MARONEY,
Plaintiffs,
v. ) No. 12-2143-STA
NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY
of the USA, Inc., DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE,
TENNESSEE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ,
CHIP FORRESTER,
Defendants.
In reference to a specific challenge to Barack Obama
as being unqualified to the Presidency according to the Constitution of the
United States, the defendants for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Tennessee
Democratic Party admitted on technicality that they know that Barack Hussein
Obama is NOT Constitutionally qualified, and that if they want such him or any
other unqualified candidate to run for the Presidency, it is their right to
nominate whoever they choose to run.
Page 2:
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the Chancery
Court for Shelby County, Tennessee, on
October 26, 2011.3
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants “intend[] to send
documents to the Tennessee Secretary of State announcing that [President
Barack] Obama is [their] Presidential nominee for the 2012 general election and
representing that he is qualified to hold the office of President.” (Am. Compl.
¶ 8.)
Plaintiffs further allege that these representations
are false because President Obama is not a “natural-born citizen” as Article II
of the United States Constitution requires for any one who would hold the
office of President of the United States. (Id. ¶¶ 9–19.)
Based on these alleged misrepresentations to the
Tennessee Secretary of State, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants are liable for
negligent misrepresentation and fraud/intentional misrepresentation and that
the Court should enjoin them from filing papers which will place President
Obama’s name on the ballot in Tennessee
for the November general election.
Pager 3: Defendants assert that the
Tennessee Democratic Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run
as a candidate, including someone who is not
Page 4:
qualified for the office.
Page 12:
Accepting the allegations of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint as true, the
Court holds that Plaintiffs have failed to plead the elements of standing with
specificity. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs posit that “[b]ecause Plaintiff
Dummett has standing, all other Plaintiffs in the instant case, including
Liberty Legal Foundation, also have standing.”
The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ theory actually
misstates the law. The Supreme Court has held that “the presence of one party
with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy
requirement.”32 Therefore, Plaintiffs must allege specific facts to show that
at least one named Plaintiff has standing to bring these claims. One
Plaintiff’s standing, however, is not imputed to other named Plaintiff’s who
lack standing.33
32
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547
U.S. 47, 52 n.2 (2006).
33 See
ACLU v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644, 657 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he standing
inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to
ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of
the particular claims asserted.”) (quoting Allen, 468 U.S. at 752).
-------------------------------------------------------
In Florida, the attorneys for the Democratic Party
argued that even though Barack Obama is the ONLY CHOICE ON THE DEMOCRATIC
TICKET for President 2012, since he is not yet the nominee at the Democratic
National Convention, they shouldn't challenge Obama.
WND reported:
"TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Attorneys arguing on
behalf of Barack Obama’s re-election plans today urged a Florida judge to
decide that Obama is not yet the Democratic nominee for president and ignore
evidence challenging his eligibility.
The arguments were raised by attorney Mark Herron on
behalf of Obama in a hearing before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida, who is best
known for presiding over the 2000 Bush v. Gore election dispute.
...Attorney Larry Klayman filed the challenge to
Obama’s eligibility for the ballot on behalf of Michael Voeltz, who identifies
himself in the complaint as “a registered member of the Democratic Party,
voter, and taxpayer in Broward County.”
Attorneys representing Obama at the hearing, which
was livestreamed by WND, argued that the Florida presidential preference
primary, which listed Obama as the only Democrat nominee, didn’t make him the
party’s nominee for president.
Herron argued ...“This language clearly indicates
the winner of the president preference primary, not the nominee of the party,”
he said.
But the judge noted that the party wrote to
Florida’s secretary of state a letter indicating Obama’s name was the only one
submitted, and he thought the state’s electors were bound to vote for him.
“Wasn’t there a letter [that said] this is the only
candidate whose name will appear?” Lewis asked.
Obama’s attorneys said such a decision “has not been
triggered yet.”
Klayman argued that according to state law, when only
one name is submitted, that person automatically becomes the nominee, even if
the national Democratic Party nominating convention has not been held.
No decision was announced immediately. The judge
said he would review the law, but he had pointed questions for both sides.
The one thing of note in the June 2012 Florida
Challenge is the introduction of the Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County and his
Cold Case posse Investigator Mike Zullo's affidavits that the electronic Long
Form Copy of Obama's alleged Birth Certificate is FRAUDULENT in its
entirety.
WND posted Arpaio Affidavits now being used in
Florida Birth Certificate Challenge Case
Story at:
Affidavit
copies used at:
Also now available is Jerome Corsi's Affidavit:
It is of interest to note that Barack Obama has
never proved he was USA born in ANY COURT OF LAW...NOT ONE. He refuses to submit a hard copy he claims to
have to the Press and Public, so much so that he posts that alleged copy on the
White House website;
but that very same alleged document he REFUSES to
submit into Court record under penalty of perjury, etc.
Is that because under the Clinton Administration's
own Report we can cite as,
The
Department of Health and Human Services,
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL,
JUNE GIBBS
BROWN Inspector General.
SEPTEMBER
2000.
0EI-07-99-00570
BIRTH CERTIFICATE FRAUD
on page iii
states:
"Birth Certificates Alone do not Provide
Conclusive or Reliable Proof of Identity"?
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964) states:
@ 165
...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.
Art. II, § 1.
@ 166
While the rights of citizenship of the native born
derive from § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the rights of the naturalized
citizen derive from satisfying, free of fraud, the requirements set by
Congress, the latter, apart from the exception noted,
"becomes a member of the society, possessing
all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the
constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize
Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. "
Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) @ 649-650
states:
"
...Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the
same footing as do native-born citizens. ...And, in order to safeguard against
admission of those who are unworthy, or who for any reason fail to measure up
to required standards, the law puts the burden upon every applicant to show by
satisfactory evidence that he has the specified qualifications. Tutun v. United
States, 270 U. S. 568, 270 U. S. 578. And see United States v. Ginsberg, 243 U.
S. 472, 243 U. S. 475.
..."Citizenship is a high privilege, and
when doubts exist concerning a grant of it, generally at least,
[Page 279 U. S. 650]
they should be resolved in favor of the United
States and against the claimant."
Every applicant must prove he is Constitutionally qualified. Obama, Romney, and anyone else who runs and seeks the nomination of their political party needs to be vetted.
The emboldened in Schwimmer above is the same as Bute v. Illinois,
333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653 which demands of a President (or Presidential
Candidate) proof of the right to be President, for:
"The
burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the
prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim."
That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to
produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with
location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @
54,62), something Obama's lawyers and the Democratic Party Lawyers NEVER EVER
SUBMIT INTO ANY COURT RECORD...NOT EVEN ONE!!!
That is a glaring admission of fraud on their part.
The Office of the White House Press Secretary in the previously cited link
linked
journalists and other interested parties to what they called an authentic Obama
Short Form Certification of Live Birth, as vetted by Snopes.com. Unfortunately,
the link went to Ron Polland’s made from Template Scratch openly attributed
forgery, of which Polland said he was the creator. In other words, the White
House sourced themselves in a genuine copy of a known public forgery which url
even contained Dr. Polland’s previous internet pseudonym in the url / jpg
address itself.
http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn227/Polarik/BO_Birth_Certificate.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barack Obama Sr. and the United Kingdom and Colonies
(British) Citizenship of his son Barack II at birth
If we look at the age attributed to Barack Obama Sr.
on the alleged Long Form Birth Certificate, and compare this to the Obama Sr. File was uploaded onto Scribd from
www.heathersmathers.com , we will see that the Freedom of information Act
obtained file from the United States Federal Government contains an original
birthday of June 15, 1934 for Obama Sr.
1961 minus 1934 is 27, NOT 25 as claimed on the
Barack Obama II alleged Birth Certificate.
The Obama Long Form Birth Certificate Forgery
released by the White House, mislabels Obama Sr. as being 25 years old on August 4, 1961...or misdates Obama Sr. as being born in 1936, rather than
"1934", by Obama Sr.'s own hand in 1961. The first official documentation in which
Barack Obama Sr. used a 1936 birth date would not be for almost another year
before he began altering his birth date to 1936.
For the June 18, 1934 birth date of Obama Sr., see pages 1,3, 9,
19, 32, 35, 37, 39, 43, 45, 49, 51, 52, 54 of the Scribd link
At least 14 times, Obama Sr. is documented as born
June 18, 1934.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54015762/Barack-Hussein-Obama-Sr-Immigration-File
Only in the
post-1961 dated documents,apparently, is the June 18, 1936 birth date is found
...and these are on pages:
7 (dated 07/22/64),
14 dated (04/21/1964),
25 (dated 06/06/63),
31 (undated, but appears to be related to page 32 as
what should have been a throwaway for a corrected 06/27/1962 form listing the
June 18, 1934 birth date).
In other words, no completed official document
before April 21, 1964 makes any claim to a 1936 mis-dated birthday for Obama
Sr., and the very earliest on file corrected listing very likely does not
precede June 27, 1962.
The birth date of Obama Sr. was altered to June 18,
1936 some 4 times, and only on or after June 27, 1962. If Obama Jr. was born on August 04, 1961, his
alleged Birth Certificate or Long Form Birth Certification should most
certainly NOT have this post-1961 discrepancy..
On page 7 copy and on page 14 et al., we find that Obama Sr. arrived in the USA on
August 9, 1959. You will also note below
that Obama Sr. is clearly BRITISH in July of 1964 (listed as page 10 to bottom
right of photo,) even after Kenyan Independence was declared in December of
1963. (See also page 49 for a 1959
document listing the same, Obama Sr. as a British subject, available at the Scribd link above),
On page 39 in the "Memo to File", the
bigamist marriage of Obama Sr. to Ann Dunham is mentioned as being on February
2, 1961 in Maui, Hawaii. For us, such a
date in contrast to the alleged date of birth the ff. August of 1961 assumes
Ann Dunham was impregnated almost 3 months prior to the marriage, with one
possibility of the impregnation merely being the result of a promiscuous
celebration of the election of John F. Kennedy.
Even the two newspaper announcements that Obama supporters claim are his in Hawaii are based in fraud. No Mr. and Mrs. Obama ever lived at the address cited, and the Obama Sr. file confirms this by its glaring absence. Because the address was fraudulent, the newspaper announcement can be thrown out by a jury or a judge under the rules of evidence in a Court of Law. This is another reason why Obama's lawyers fight tooth and nail to keep anyone from having standing, although Robert Bauer did cite these announcements as being in the newspapers, he did not confirm their veracity independently of opinion sources to the Court...and refused to submit ANY documents of birth nationality identity regarding Obama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama does not even rise to the Wong Kim Ark level
of US Citizenship:
Obama supporters dance between Obama being a Natural
Born Citizen by the 14th Amendment and the application of British Common Law as
if British Common Law were US Law. The primary
case they point to is the US v. Wong Kim Ark from 1898.
However, when examined in depth, it is quite clear
that the specifics of Wong Kim Ark refute / disqualify Obama:
1) @ 169
US 652, Wong Kim Ark (WKA) was born and reared in one permanent residence in
California, “and never lost nor
changed that residence."
2) @ 169
US 653 – 654 “neither he nor his
parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or
did or committed any act or thing to exclude him
Page 169 U. S. 653
therefrom.”
3) @ 169
US 654, we are told that he temporarily left the United States at age 17 to
visit China, and returned in the same calendar year. WKA was admitted in by Customs as a
native-born citizen of the United States.
4) @ 169
US 654, although both parents were resident aliens in the United States, they
kept and maintained a permanent residence and domicile for WKA to be born in
and spend his first 21 years of life in, until he became of age at 21.
5) @169
US 654, the resident alien parents were employed, “and there carrying on
business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the
Emperor of China…”
6) @ 169
US 654, it was immediately recognized that WKA appeared to have immediately
qualified as a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment Section 1’s “all persons
born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States."
7) @ 715
“
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I
submit that it is unreasonable to
conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born
within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of
circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to
them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or
not...were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born
abroad, were not.”
8) @ 705
“ The evident intention, and the necessary effect,
of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts
agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question
stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the
United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are
subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in
the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in
any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the
time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated,
this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the
affirmative.”
Conclusion drawn from WKA:
The Court concluded by majority that WKA was a
citizen of the United States under the criteria of the 14th Amendment because –
1) Wong Kim
Ark was born in the United States.
2) Wong Kim
Ark never renounced US Allegiance, nor did his parents do so for him.
3) Wong
Kim Ark was maintained in a permanent US State domicile every year of his life
as his primary residence from birth to age 21.
4)
Neither of his parents were employed in either a diplomatic or in ANY
OFFICIAL capacity at the time of WKA’s birth.
5) Wong Kim
Ark was NOT ruled a natural born Citizen, but simply a Citizen who was
protected under the first section of the 14th Amendment BECAUSE from birth to
age 21, was born on United States soil and was maintained in a permanent US
Residency, and he maintained a permanent US allegiance as its subject without
joining to any foreign power. Since the
14th Amendment does NOT make 14th Amendment citizens of greater standing than
Natural Born Citizens, a Natural Born Citizen must have at least an equal standing
as he who must be born on United States soil, live here and have allegiance
from birth to age 21. That greater
standing is by having a US Citizen Father at birth prior to May 25, 1934; and
two United States Citizen parents since May 25, 1934.
Even with the decision of Wong Kim Ark, the U.S.
Supreme Court at
Weedin v.Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927) @
661-666
takes into
account the Wong Kim Ark decision, and uses as well as implies –
(re: McCulloch
v. Maryland, 17 US 316 (1819)
implied
Constitutional language or intent is justifiable interpretation.)
-- that the
FATHER (Paternal lineage) is primary in the consideration of that necessary
threshold and requirement which confers
a "NATURAL born citizen" status, instead of a simple "born
citizen" status as through a jus soli birth with or without maternal
citizenship and the absence of a father's national citizenship.
The unasked question may need to be addressed in
Court as well, whereby if it is a legal reality or not that mother who is a US Citizen under legal age
having a child bears a Natural Born Citizen or if she bears a 14th Amendment
protected citizen? It is a legal
question pertinent to this debate.
In January, Leo Donofrio, Esquire, at my request, submitted a rushed
Amicus Curia Brief that Judge Malihi (visited by fellow Iranian Valerie Jarrett
days earlier) apparently refused to read, making up a verdict of guilty based
on Valerie Jarrett's visit rather than evidence and the rule of Law which he
had so been inclined to do in the month prior.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than cite United States Supreme Court Cases
or Debate the Natural Born Citizen Clause in Court, Obama defenders have to
utilize rare or convoluted opinions outside the court to obscure the
issue.
Prior to this posting, the most popular challenge
has been primarily one legal opinion comment of William Rawle, who thought that:
“…every person born within the United States, its
territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a
natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the
rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.…”
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the
United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.)
But now, there is another the Left can use...or
maybe not. In 1795, a former Congressman
of Connecticut who served in the U.S. Congress from 1797 - 1793 wrote his view
on what the Laws of Connecticut were, and seemed quite confused as to the
delineation between a subject and a citizen, as well as what British Common
laws did or did not any longer apply.
His name was Zephaniah Swift and his work was "A System of Laws of the State
of Connecticut" (Volume 1, 1795 print).
The relevant section is found as "Chapter Ninth
OF THE PEOPLE CONSIDERED AS FOREIGNERS AND NATIVES"
Relevant excerpts are as follows (my comments are in
blue) :
[Page 163]
THE people are considered:
as aliens
- born in some foreign country;
as inhabitants -
of some neighbouring state in the union;
or
natural born subjects
[note the use of subject, and the absence of the word
'citizen']
born within the state.
[Page 165]
All nations under greater or lesser restrictions
have admitted of the principle of naturalization When a foreigner becomes
naturalized he owes to the country which has adopted him the same allegiance as
a natural born subject
[Note here Zephaniah Swift's obsession with the use
of the word "subject" over that of citizen. ]
and at the same time is not discharged of the
allegiance he owes to his native country The consequence is that a man who has
been naturalized may owe allegiance to two countries ...
[Also notice that Swift does not accept a notion of
multiple nationalities except through naturalization, which was in error even
for 1795]
[page 167]
The children of ambassadors tho born abroad in a
foreign country are considered as natural born subjects because their parents
are not supposed to owe a natural allegiance to the government to whom they re
sent but that which sends them and of course their children must owe allegiance
to the same power.
The children of aliens born in this state
[note this important distinction, "born in THIS
state", which is written as one would underline a Minority opinion and
practice of Law as compared to the majority. But this may also appear to be founded in bastard children impregnated by Connecticut Citizens by presumption into indentured slaves, single alien women afraid to name the father of their child, et cetera. See emphasized in page 169 below.]
are considered as natural born subjects and have the
same rights with the rest of the citizens.
I shall proceed to consider the mode by which
persons may gain settlement in towns and the method of proceeding against and
removing persons who are not legal inhabitants.
Our law [Statutes 383] considers persons residing
here in a threefold light:
-- foreigners who are born in some foreign dominion
-- those who are inhabitants of some other state in
the union
-- amid those who are inhabitants of this state.
[Notice the de facto Naturalization Proviso which
follows]
No foreigner can gain a legal settlement in any town
in this state unless he be
-- admitted by the major vote of the inhabitants of
such town or
-- by the
consent of the civil authority and selectmen or
-- shall be appointed to and execute some public
office.
In any of
these ways our law authorises foreigners to obtain legal settlements This
statute can only be considered as making provision that foreigners may gain
legal settlements in towns so that they cannot be removed and in case of being
reduced to want be entitled to support.
And when a foreigner has complied with the conditions of the act he
gains a legal settlement only for that purpose but the town where he gains such
settlement cannot admit him to be a freeman and to participate in the election
of public officers He must be naturalized pursuant to the act of congress
before lie tan be admitted to that privilege.
No person who is an inhabitant of any of the other
of the United States can gain a legal settlement in any town in this unless lie
be admitted by the major vote of the inhabitants or by the consent
[Page 168]
consent of the civil authority and selectmen or be
appointed so and execute some public office or unless he shall be possessed in
his own right in fee of a real estate to the value of one hundred pounds during
his continuance therein. No time of
residence will gain a legal settlement.
[Page 169]
In 1792 a law was pasted which provided that any
inhabitant of any town in this state by himself or with his family may remove
into another town and continue therein without being liable to be warned to
depart or to be removed therefrom and shall gain a legal settlement in such
town in case he hall reside there for the term of six years and shall support
himself and family without becoming chargeable to such town or the town liable
to support him but if he be unable to support himself and family at any time
before the expiration of the six years and become chargeable to the town that
is liable to support him he and his family may be removed to the last place of
his legal settlement. This law gives
to the industrious and prudent man a fair chance to change his residence as his
interest may require and no town can be under any temptation to shift olf their
poor upon another because such poor must support themselves six years before
they discharge the town from their liability to support them.
I shall next consider the settlements of infants and
married women.
An infant can never
acquire a settlement but he belongs to the place of his father's settlement
unless in the cafe of a bastard
[Canaan vs Salisbury, S.C. 1790]
and then his settlement is the same with his mother
If a woman be delivered of a bastard child in a town
where she does not belong her place of settlement will be that of her
child. [Town of Sanbury v. Fairfield,
S.C. 1789]
An apprentice being a minor,
gains no settlement by residence with guardian or master.
If a woman marries a man who has a settlement in any
other of the United States she shall follow the settlement of her husband tho
she has never been there .
A wife during her marriage can gain no settlement
separate and distinct from her husband.
[Law of Women, 99]
If a woman
having a settlement marries a man that is a foreigner and has none, her
settlement is suspended during coverture and his continuance with her .
It seems to me that the laws of Connecticut in 1795
were clearly in a state of flux, and still forming. If a woman married a husband from New York or
anywhere else in the United States, she was treated as if she was never born or
reared all her life in Connecticut. By
the same principle the child followed the settlement of his father. But what if he was of foreign nationality and
NOT attached to a community? It could be
argued in 1795 Connecticut Court that based on the Laws of Settlement in the State
of Connecticut, a child of an English Father who never settled and naturalized
into Connecticut nor attained office there, though an alien, that child was to
be treated upon exiting the state as though he had never been born there. But this is all hypothetical.
The presumption of Zephaniah Swift putting an alien
on equal footing with the Citizens of the State of Connecticut was effectually
rebuked by the United States Supreme Court in the infamous US Supreme Court
decision of Dred Scott 60 U.S. 19 How. 393 (1856)
@ 393
7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other
description of persons citizens of
Page 60 U. S. 394
the United States, nor entitle them to the rights
and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.
8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of
the Constitution,
may put a
foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own
citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its
dominion and by its laws.
But that will
not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its
courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another
State.
@ 476
... For who, it may be asked, is a citizen? What do
the character and status of citizen import? Without fear of contradiction, it
does not import the condition of being private property, the subject of
individual power and ownership. Upon a principle of etymology alone, the term
citizen, as derived from civitas, conveys the ideas of connection or identification
with the State or Government, and a participation of its functions. ...]
We do not follow the interpretation of natural-born
subject or even that of a natural born citizen as interpreted by the commentary
of laws regarding any one State out of all the United States, nor the Common
Law of England which viewed people as natural-born subjects or even
natural-born slaves / property of the King to be manipulated, beaten, trodden,
abused in any way the King's Pleasure so desired. No. We
are called to view the national implied intent as found in the Constitution by
the Supreme Court Decisions, and by the most direct Founders involved in
drafting the language where possible.
That majority opinion is consistent to sole allegiance and nationality
at birth, the presumption of a US Soil birth, and the presence of at least a
United States Citizen father firstly.
In a
comparison of the minority and oft convoluted view of Swift, I would now refer
to
Edward J. Erler in a speech delivered at a Hillsdale
College National Leadership Seminar on February 12, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona.
and published the ff. May in Imprimis:
"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP—the policy whereby the
children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United
States are entitled to American citizenship—is a great magnet for illegal
immigration. Many believe that this policy is an explicit command of the
Constitution, consistent with the British common law system. But this is simply
not true.
The framers of the Constitution were, of course,
well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles
from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they
knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law.
Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,”
never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright
subjectship is derived from feudal law. It is the relation of master and
servant; all who are born within the protection of the king owe perpetual
allegiance as a “debt of gratitude.” According to Blackstone, this debt is
“intrinsic” and “cannot be forefeited, cancelled, or altered.” Birthright
subjectship under the common law is thus the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.
America’s Founders rejected this doctrine. The
Declaration of Independence, after all, solemnly proclaims that “the good
People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British
Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved.” According to Blackstone, the
common law regards such an act as “high treason.” So the common law—the feudal
doctrine of perpetual allegiance—could not possibly serve as the ground of
American (i.e., republican) citizenship. Indeed, the idea is too preposterous
to entertain!
James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of
Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme
Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked:
“Under the Constitution of the United States there
are citizens, but no subjects.”
The transformation of subjects into citizens was the
work of the Declaration and the Constitution. Both are premised on the idea
that citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of
birth.
“Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication
of Hillsdale College.”
Unlike the European Universities, many of the
Founding Fathers deeply involved with the Declaration of Independence and the
United States Constitution and attended college in the United States, were
trained in Hebrew and Biblical Studies in regular curriculum in at least the
Universities of Harvard, Yale, King's College (later Columbia), Princeton, and
the University of PA. That practice of
Hebraic biblical studies was in place in these Universities on average some 50 years
or more when the men who signed or were specifically involved in the
development and language of the Declaration of Independence and/or the United
States Constitution attended these Hebrew and Biblical Study classes, and were
ingrained with the Biblical concept of the familial tribal relations and
assured citizenship in Israel as seen and through the genealogies, Father to
son, Father to son.
John Locke,
Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59 (in
English, cited in context at the top of the blog-page) and Vattel's Law of
Nations (in French, a vital language to know as the French-Indian War proved)
governed the interpretation of Natural Born Citizen in most of the States, but
American states were not always in concurrence on the meaning, even during the
Confederacy of the United States from 1776 - 1787.
Regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations:
“When the United States declared their independence,
they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity
and refinement.”
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 (1862)
@ 672 :“The
law of nations is also called the law of nature; it is founded on the common
consent, as well as the common sense, of the world.”
The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289 -
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."
The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758)
Par M. De Vattel
Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212 (1797 ff. English
Translation editions)
Le Droit Des Gens. Ou Principes De La Loi Naturelle
states:
"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 the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it
owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that
each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the
children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We
shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may
renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be
born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it
will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
James Kent, Commentaries on American Law, Volume I;
New York: O. Halsted, 1826. Page 255, states:
“The constitution requires, that the president
should be a natural born citizen …of the United States…. As the president is
required to be a native citizen of the United States…the qualification of birth
cuts off all inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war…”
Kent is telling us that to have even one foreign
national parent who never becomes a US Citizen, is to ever have a foreign
inducement upon one’s life to corruption, negotiation, and like biases that are
based on one’s own familial past or heritage rather than upon the exclusive
interests of the people and sovereignty of the United States of America.
In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph
Story's “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” § 1473, we find
this concurring jurisprudential insight from an intelligent and articulate US
Supreme Court justice, who wrote:
“It is indispensible too, that the president should
be a natural born citizen of the United States… to exclude foreign influence
from their executive councils and duties.
…But the general propriety of the exclusion of
foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman.
It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be
intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt
interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have
inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe.
Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive
examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source.”
Representative John Bingham, author of the 14th
Amendment, The Congressional Globe (containing the debates and proceedings of)
the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, on page 1639, states:
“All from other lands, who by the terms of
[congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized,
are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the
Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born
citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching
natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to
Indians.”
Then in 1866, Representative Bingham also stated on
the House floor:
“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of
the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty
is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” So
states Representative Bingham in the Congressional Globe (containing the
debates and proceedings of) the 1st Session of the 39th Congress, March 9, 1866
Ex Parte Lockwood 154 U.S. 116 (1894) states:
“In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court
held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in
a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the
jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the
United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the
constitution as since…”
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“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.”
Alexander Hamilton introduced the essential language
of the now Article 2.1.5. clause that listed only "citizen":
No person shall be eligible to the office of
President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States
or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.
–Article IX, Section 1 of Hamilton’s plan
John Jay, in a letter to George Washington on July
25, 1787,
stated:
"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise
and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into
the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that
the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve
on, any but a natural born Citizen."
Clearly John Jay and George Washington viewed that
there was a delineation, a distinction that could be made between one whom was
native born and one whom was a natural born citizen of the United States...and
this applied to paternal parentage of the child as well as a United States soil
birth.
Even the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Publication in the Obama Administration makes a distinction between the Native
and Natural Born Citizens of the United States
The Obama Administration in its own recent INS
publication (as pulled up on January 25, 2012 by me, (after having a heads up from Leo Donofrio's posting regarding it), and forwarded to an
attorney the same morning) admits to a delineation between a Naturalized
citizen, a native Born Citizen, and a Natural Born Citizen @ 324.2(b),
“The effect of naturalization under the above
statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the
person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as
determined by her status prior to loss.”
The page used to read like this:
The page used to read like this:
(a) Repatriation
(b) Naturalization.
(c) Effect of expatriation reversals under Afroyim v. Rusk upon derivative citizenship rights.
(a) Repatriation . (1) Before and under the 1907 statute . A United States citizen woman who expatriated herself under the circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 could regain her citizenship prior to the Act of March 2, 1907, even though that statute was the first enactment which provided for such restoration of status.
Citizenship lost in accordance with the principles recognized by the Service prior to the 1907 Act was resumed upon termination of the marriage before September 22, 1922, provided the expatriate was then residing in the United States. 26/ If such expatriate resided abroad at termination time, resumption occurred upon her return to the United States for permanent residence prior to September 22, 1922, 27/ or upon her registration as a United States citizen before a United States consular officer subsequent to March 1, 1907, and within one year after termination of the marriage.
Citizenship lost under the 1907 statute was resumed under the same conditions set forth above, except that the expatriate who resided in the United States when the marriage was terminated reacquired status only upon a continuance of such residence for at least a short period beyond the termination date of the marriage. 28/
The statutes did not provide for any procedure whereby a person repatriated in accordance with the above principles could secure an official document as evidence of that fact.
(2) Act of June 25, 1936 . (i) R esumption provisions . The Act of September 22, 1922, 29/ repealed the above resumption provisions of the 1907 statute without disturbing status regained thereunder, and statutory authority for the repatriation of citizen women expatriated through marriage ceased to exist until the enactment of legislation in 1936. 30/
Under the 1936 enactment, any woman, irrespective of her race or that of her husband, who had acquired citizenship at birth within or without the United States, but who, on June 24, 1836, no longer had such status because of expatriation prior to September 22, 1922, under the conditions specified in INTERP 324.1,was restored to citizenship on June 25, 1936, if her marriage had terminated on or before that date; or upon the termination of her marriage thereafter, on a date prior to January 13, 1941. 31/
Lacking termination of the marriage, as above, citizenship was resumed on July 2, 1940, if the expatriate had resided continuously 32/ in the United States since the date of the marriage. 33/
(ii) Effect of oath of allegiance . The above 1936 Act, in its original and amended forms, made provision for the oath of allegiance 34/ to be taken before a naturalization court or a legation or embassy secretary. Although some courts have held otherwise, 35/the Service, supported by substantial authority, has taken the position that a woman contemplated by these statutory provisions was automatically reinvested with United States citizenship by operation of law, irrespective of whether or not the oath was taken.
However, while the taking of the above oath was not a condition precedent to the vesting of citizenship, such action was necessary before the repatriated women might claim or exercise any rights as citizens. 36/
(3) Nationality Act of 1940; Immigration and Nationality Act . (i) Applicability . The 1936 statute, as amended, was repealed by the Nationality Act of October 14, 1940, which, in turn, was superseded by the current statute; however citizenship restored under the 1936 Act, and the right to take the oath of allegiance thereunder before a naturalization court, were not affected by the later enactments. 37/
Moreover, there were included in section 317(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940, and in current section 324 almost identical provisions providing for the restoration of citizenship to women who would have been repatriated by the 1936 Act, as amended, had their marriages terminated prior to January 13, 1941, or, lacking that factor, had maintained continuous United States residence since that date of the marriage.
Termination of the marriage to an alien continued to be a requirement of the Nationality Act of 1940 and the present law but, under both statutes, the event must have occurred on or after January 13, 1941.
The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation.
(ii) Effect of oath of allegiance . Unlike the 1936 enactment, the 1940 statute required and the current law requires as a specific prerequisite to the actual restoration of citizenship status, the taking of the oath of allegiance.
(iii) Proscription of subversives . Current section 324(c) may be distinguished from section 317(b) of the 1940 Act in that, under the present law, specific provision is made to disqualify subversive persons specified in section 313, 38/ whereas under the earlier statute it was held administratively that the somewhat similar restrictions set forth in section 305 of that statute, as amended, applied. 39/
(4) Nature of marriage termination requirement . This requirement within the meaning of all the statutes did and does contemplate the complete dissolution of the martial status by judicial divorce or the death of the alien husband. Thus, when marriage to an alien husband ended, in the sense that he ceased to be an alien by reason of naturalization during coverture, the requirement is not satisfied.
However, if marriage to an alien was terminated in accordance with the above requirement, a subsequent marriage to the same or a different alien after September 21, 1922, other that a marriage to an alien racially ineligible to naturalization contracted prior to March 3, 1931, did not adversely affect eligibility under the 1936 statute, even though the second marriage was valid and subsisting on June 25, 1936.
(5) No foreign nationality acquired . Under the Nationality Act of 1940, as well as the present law, the repatriate must make a showing that no foreign nationality had been acquired by her affirmative act. Moreover, although this express requirement of the two most recent enactments was not found in the 1936 statute, the woman who applied to take the oath of allegiance thereunder was required by the Service to furnish testimony which, in effect, established that she had not acquired a foreign nationality in the manner stated.
The acquisition of a foreign nationality within the above context does not contemplate citizenship automatically conferred by operation of law through marriage to an alien, as discussed earlier in this interpretation, but rather has reference to other affirmative action taken by a woman to gain recognition as a citizen of a foreign state. 40/
(6) Good faith oath of allegiance requirement . A person who has been restored to citizenship by the Act of June 25, 1936, as amended by the Act of July 2, 1940, and applies to take the oath of allegiance in order to regain the rights and privileges of citizenship, or a former citizen who applies for repatriation under current section 324(c), is required to be questioned to determine whether she intends in good faith to discharge the obligations of the oath of allegiance and whether her attitude toward the Constitution and Government of the United Stat es renders her capable of fulfilling the obligations of the oath. If the intention in good faith or the required attitude is not established, an objection to the taking of the oath or to the repatriation shall be made on the ground that the applicant is unable to take the prescribed oath of allegiance.
Shortly before enactment of the present legislation, the good faith and proper attitude described above were also required of applicants who sought repatriation by taking the oath of allegiance pursuant to section 317(b) of the Nationality Act of 1940. 41/
(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.
(8) Evidence of repatriation . An application who has been restored to citizenship under the provisions of the 1936 Act, the Nationality Act of 1940, or the current section is not entitled to receive a certificate of naturalization such as is usually issued by the clerk of court. 42/
The respective statutes provide, however, that the above repatriate may receive from the clerk, a certified copy of the proceedings in court, which is acceptable as evidence of the regained status. If the proceedings were conducted abroad, a similar document may be secured from the United States consul.
(b) Naturalization . At one time or another since September 22, 1922, women who expatriated themselves under the circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 have been able to regain citizenship by means of a simplified form of naturalization, if for any reason status had not been restored to them in accordance with the principles outlined in INTERP 324.2(a).
Generally, the statutes authorizing the above naturalization procedures 43/ modified or accorded exemptions from the usual naturalization provisions requiring a declaration of intention, United States residence, lawful entry for permanent residence, residence within the jurisdiction of the court, and the petitioner's intention to reside permanently in the United States.
The above 1922 legislation, in its original form, provided only for the naturalization of a citizen wife who had lost her status solely by marriage to an alien eligible for citizenship and expressly prohibited naturalization during continuance of the marital status if the husband lacked such eligibility. 44/ The naturalization privilege was extended by the above 1930 amendment to include a woman who had undergone expatriation as a result of her husband's loss of United States citizenship during subsistence of their marriage.
The 1931 Act cited above not only repealed the restrictive provisions of section 5 of the original 1922 enactment, mentioned above, but it also extended the scope of the earlier legislation by providing for the naturalization of those women who lost citizenship by residence abroad following marriage to an alien or by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship. In addition, it sanctioned the naturalization of those women, formerly citizens at birth, who were otherwise racially ineligible, but pr ecluded restoration of status to any women whose citizenship originated by marriage or the naturalization of a husband. 45/
The last mentioned restriction was not continued in the Nationality Act of 1940, nor was naturalization of racially ineligible women thereunder limited to those who had acquired status at birth. With such exceptions, the 1940 enactment contained substantially the same provisions as the 1922 Act following its final amendment in 1931, and somewhat comparable provisions are included in current section 324(a).
A petitioner for naturalization under all of the foregoing statutes was required to establish that a foreign nationality had not been acquired by her affirmative act, a requisite that has been considered in connection with repatriation under INTERP 324.2(a).
The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss.
(c) Effect of expatriation reversals under Afroyim v. Rusk upon derivative citizenship rights . Prior to the decision in Afroyim v. Rusk, children were held to have derived United States citizenship as a result of a parent's reacquisition of citizenship in one of the ways described in INTERP 324.2 (a) and (b) above. Whether such reacquisitions of citizenship have ceased to have validity as naturalizations for derivative citizenship purposes, because the findings of expatriation by marriage which made them necessary have been reversed under the Afroyim principle, is a question considered in INTERP 32 0.1(e)(2).
\ slb \ SERVICE LAW BOOKS MENU \ INTERPRETATIONS \ Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
Previous Document Next Document
Clearly, the Obama Administration at the Immigration
and Naturalization Service from January 2009 to at least January 2012 ALSO made the SAME legal distinction as we have
been arguing as Constitutionalists. And
perhaps in part because of the
concurrence with us Constitutionalists being in writing from their own
Immigration and Naturalization Service materials as late as January 2012,
we know have degraded to virtual open admissions as
referred to in Tennessee at the opening of this post, where they now
effectually say to the world that they know Obama is Constitutionally
ineligible, so what?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney, traitor to the United States
Constitution and Constitutional Law along with Barack Obama
Mitt Romney dismisses the United States Constitution
and its laws as merely "A Matter of personality or matters of that
nature"? In a June 2012 interview,
Romney, a Progressive Republican faux conservative and willing traitor to the
United States Constitution is dismissive and derisive of the Supreme Law of the
Land, like Obama, viewing it as a matter of personality to follow or not to
follow.
Host: The
birther argument has made some uncomfortable, and I’m wondering if you disagree with that, why
not tell him [Donald Trump] to knock it off.
Why is that so difficult?
Mitt Romney:
I disagree there's no question that the president was born in the United
States of America. I don't go around telling all my supporters what they should
think or what they should say. He
[Donald Trump] knows what I believe about this.
I believe the real issues in this campaign and the issues that America
cares about are not issues of the president's personality or matters of that
nature, but instead the issue is the president in a position to lead America
and to get us out of these economic doldrums and put families back to
work. I don't think he is. I think he's
proven over the last three and a half years he's not up to the task.
Excuse me?
Whether or not someone is even Constitutionally qualified or follows the
United States Supreme Law of the Land is an issue of personality or matters of
that nature? And the Republican
Leadership (probably bought off) is pushing this hypocrite as the alternative
to Obama? Good grief!!!
In regard to dealing with Foreign Nations, whom does
the Usurper of the United States Presidency most advocate for? The Constitution of the United States and its
goodness, or the interests of other nations against the best interests of the
United States?
I submit that on the basis of Constitutionality,
Barack Obama is without question unqualified to even hold the Office, and that
Mitt Romney lacks the necessary fidelity and respect he needs to have to
uphold, govern, defend and protect America by ensuring the United States
Constitution is upheld as a Sacred Trust , rather than a flavor of the month or
a matter of personality as to choose or not to choose to follow the Supreme Law
of the Land.
Mitt Romney has certainly adopted at least one of
the new philosophies permeating elitist / snobbish circles in Washington D.C.
and in the Media, that somehow the United States Constitution has become a
suicide pact if we are to hold people completely to it.
This U.S.
Constitution shouldn't be a suicide pact ploy came about in part as a
subversion tactic used by Progressive / neo-Communist lawyers discussing a quote from
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) @160 which goes:
“[W]hile the Constitution protects against invasions
of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact.” Ergo, if the U.S. Constitution is not to be
a suicide pact against invasions of individual rights, why not apply that to
the Presidency and the candidates we can pick and choose?
As I
previously posted, neo-Communists under the label of
"Progressives", Democrat Congressional Representatives Nancy Pelosi
and James McGoven, have called for a doing away of the Bill of Rights to US Citizens
they believe don't deserve them. Make no
mistake, I count the Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney -- based on
his own words -- as now being in this
same category.
Progressives have a major problem with the
Declaration of Independence as well, because it lists the rights of Life and
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as Rights from GOD that CANNOT be taken
away by Government. Mention GOD as
giving us anything that Government seeks to lay claim on, and Progressives
enter into bouts of teeth gnashing insanity.
But the US Supreme Court in Cotting v. Godard, 183
U.S. 79 (1901) @ 107 refutes the
Progressive view and states that:
"While [the Declaration of Independence’s] . .
. principles may not have the force of
organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision[s] as to the
limits of right[s] and dut[ies], and while in all cases reference must be had
to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the
body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it
is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the
Declaration of Independence."
To which John Quincy Adams rightly also observed:
“The Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States are parts of one consistent whole, founded
upon one and the same theory of government . . . ."
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, THE JUBILEE OF THE CONSTITUTION:
A DISCOURSE 40 (1839)
In other words, we address ourselves of having the
right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as citizens in a free
republic...not as subjects or property of a sovereign king or of a sovereign
government; the word subjects suggesting people are the property of the State
whose rights can dissolve at the whim of a new administration in Government or
by a sovereign running the State.
President George Washington, at his Farewell
Address, stated in 1796:
“The basis of our political systems is the right of
the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the
Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and
authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. ”
Reid. v. Colvert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) @ 14 says:
"The concept that the Bill of Rights and other
constitutional protections against arbitrary government are inoperative when
they become inconvenient or when expediency dictates otherwise is a very
dangerous doctrine and, if allowed to flourish, would destroy the benefit of a
written Constitution and undermine the basis of our Government. If our foreign
commitments become of such nature that the Government can no longer satisfactorily
operate within the bounds laid down by the Constitution, that instrument can be
amended by the method which it prescribes. But we have no authority, or
inclination, to read exceptions into it which are not there. "
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635 (1862)
@ 668: “The
Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.”
Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942) @ 25 states that:
“Congress and the President, like the courts,
possess no power not derived from the Constitution.”
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.
579 (1952) @ 585 reminds us that:
"The President's power, if any, to issue the
order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution
itself."
The issue of Obama's ineligibility is a matter of
Law; and the Obama supporters are incapable of making a legal case for Obama in
Court, so they do what they can to stonewall there, and attack or smear the
names - reputations - web sites of those who dare to be such goody two-shoes as
to actually wish Congress and both major political parties to follow and wish to uphold the Laws of the
Constitution of the United States of America.
I mean, how
dare we wish to be smart, safe, orderly, civilized, and practice equality and
morality and dare to equal demand every word of the Constitution matters as a
safeguard to keep every right in the Constitution's Bill of Rights?
What is British Citizenship | Imperial Visas
ReplyDeleteBritish Citizenship – you can get Information about British Citizenship and other forms of British Nationality act 1981. The most Vital evidence of British Citizenship is a British Passport.
Keywords :->
British Citizenship, British Nationality.
Contact us->
2nd Floor Cygnet House,
12-14 Sydenham Road Croydon
Surrey CR0 2EE-58785
Telephone: +44-0203 627 4777
Fax: +44- 0203 627 5488
Email: info@imperialvisas.com
http://www.imperialvisas.com/what-is-british-citizenship.html