For the past weeks and months, I have written or commented
many alleged Conservative and mainstream Media here and abroad who are hypocrites where the Natural Born
Citizen clause of the United States Constitution is concerned.
It seems that very few are even concerned in the Conservative and Alternative Media about the fact that they are aiding and abetting a Globalist takeover of America, and really could care less about it. To them, it is all about the money, of selling books, making paid appearances, getting people stoked with the outward symptoms or playing politics as if we were living in the early 1990s in a very different circumstance than what we are facing today.
It seems that very few are even concerned in the Conservative and Alternative Media about the fact that they are aiding and abetting a Globalist takeover of America, and really could care less about it. To them, it is all about the money, of selling books, making paid appearances, getting people stoked with the outward symptoms or playing politics as if we were living in the early 1990s in a very different circumstance than what we are facing today.
We are in a dangerous time in America, where multiple generations
have been dumbed down and stripped of individuality and taught immorality and
anti-Christian values, calling evil good and good as evil. The globalist secret societies and the Communists of Russia and China as well as dedicated jihadi Muslim leaders and Muslim royalty funding jihadi activities, these have all merged under the umbrella of the Democratic National Committee without a doubt as of 2005, and have infected the Republican Party since 2007, most certainly first gaining President George W. Bush and certain leadership members of the Republican National Committee, and then later gaining Speaker of the House John Boehner, as well as Senators John McCain and Mitch McConnell into their confidence to betray the Constitution of the United States of America.
Right now, certain elements of the Islamic Proselytizing Illegal Obama Administration are orchestrating a false flag operation in which born-again Christian Conservatives will be set up and blamed for some terrorist action as was planted recently in an alleged incident regarding the hacking of Federal agent home addresses and planting fake messages to make it look like a Christian or Christians did it.
The question is, is it just a hypothetical war gaming "what if", to ask or question the possibility the ISIS could be being primed by the Obama Administration Drug Enforcement Agency to now become a new drug gang battling for "turf", to be armed and supplied to then outgun Law Enforcement to help further weaponize and Federalize all Police at all government levels from municipal on up, later on? Or will a more likely possibility, one to which they of Al Qaeda / Isis are more experienced and attuned to, acts of war and terrorism, that will be what is being planned by Obama -- (a current citizen of Kenya and Indonesia while illegally occupying the Presidency) -- and others in his illegal administration for our future? Could it really be that a most definite act of war and an aiding and abetting America's enemies to invade and war on the United States is about to really be carried out?
"The government watchdog group Judicial Watch cites Mexican government and military officials as saying the terror group ISIS, or Islamic State, has two camps in Mexico near the U.S. border.
One of the camps is reportedly located in Anapra, an area just west of Ciudad Juárez, and the other is near Puerto Palomas, a few miles from Columbus, New Mexico.
The Anapra area is dominated by the Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Cartel (Juárez Cartel), La LÃnea (the enforcement arm of the cartel) and the Barrio Azteca (a gang originally formed in the jails of El Paso), according to the Judicial Watch report.
A Mexican Army field grade officer and a Mexican Federal Police Inspector told Judicial Watch human traffickers, known as coyotes, working for the Juárez Cartel are smuggling IS terrorists into the United States through the porous border between Acala and Fort Hancock, Texas."
See also: http://www.infowars.com/isis-camp-discovered-at-u-s-border/
And:
http://www.infowars.com/leaking-of-government-officials-addresses-accompanied-by-note-warning-of-fema-crackdown-by-nwo-satanists/
"A disturbing message accompanying hacked material containing the addresses and personal details of US government officials cites ‘ 911 treason’, and a ‘future FEMA camp planned public crackdown’ as justification for making the details public.
The material was apparently hacked from an unknown source, and the insinuation is that ‘right wing extremists’ are to blame.
The personal details of Homeland Security and FBI officials are contained within the documents, according to reports.
CBS News reports that the message accompanying the material, titled “DHS-CIA-FBI TRAITORS HOME ADDRESSES,” states:
“LET THESE EVIL NWO SATANISTS KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY FOR THEIR 911 TREASON, AND THEIR FUTURE FEMA CAMP PLANNED PUBLIC CRACKDOWN TREASON ALSO
A further note reads:
JESUS IS LORD, AND THE PUBLIC IS IN CHARGE, NOT THESE SATANIC NWO STOOGES” "
John Brennan, head of C.I.A., is a dedicated Muslim actively helping ISIS / Al Qaeda kill all Christians in the Middle East by seeing ISIS / Al Qaeda logistically supplied and supplied for that purpose: Christian genocide. The CIA as of July 2013 now actively engages in DOMESTIC Propaganda as if US Citizens are the enemy, so could elements of CIA recruited or directed abroad by John Brennan in Syria and Iraq, be those used and employed to attack us here in the United States, especially in Texas (as well as New Mexico) and other States?
Wouldn't the logical next step for them after supporting an Al Qaeda series of terrorist attacks in the State of Texas, (as well as the State of New Mexico and elsewhere) be to have U.S. Army troops based out of Georgia to be called in and ordered to fire on local Law Enforcement in aiding and abetting an Al Qaeda series of terror attacks, and to label the Police as Christian Terrorists disguised as police, with a willing Council on Foreign Relations driven Mainstream Media spinning that very narrative? After which, the Obama Administration would likely then blame all born again Christians with fake evidence, and demand martial law for perhaps the entire State of Texas, and seek to perhaps ban firearms for one entire state, with the notion, that if they can false flag and by martial law disarm the entire State of Texas, they can nuke a small city (be it hot or simply dirty / severely contaminate it) and false flag and disarm the nation? Could such a scenario really happen?
And even though it could potentially mostly be carried out to almost all the stages except that of full state disarmament of Texas itself, how do we stop it legally and peacefully even if WE THE PEOPLE of the United States collectively and as one united together could stop it? By removal of the ones guilty of TREASON, of high crimes against the United States and the PEOPLE of the United States before it happens. The only way, in my analysis, is a legal action based on carrying out the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen clause.
There is a very small historical window remaining for us
to wake the Citizens of the United
States who DO want to keep this Constitution and the rights they still
currently have. But how do you awaken a
hypnotized mass culture wanting to be sedated and hypnotized out of their
psychotic stupors, a mass culture that is technically insane as if they are
contently tripping out on political correctness
LSD
scattering their attention span and altering their focus?
History will also judge those in the media and having shows reaching millions, who when they should have spoken up, remained silent (just as the Germans did in regard to the Jews and Christians being hauled away to death in the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s). Yes, even having learned -- they haven't learned. Those in positions of influence through large
audiences or positions of political power almost without exception by their actions and words seem to care more about temporary $$$
for themselves, as if that ($$$) would somehow save them from a coming
Totalitarianism. $$$ did not work to save those who were not top international bankers or top international industrialist rich from a totalitarian Hitler, and even those super influential banking and industrialist rich would not have been spared at all (not a single one) had they lived in a Communist or Soviet Russia, or a Maoist Communist
China in the first 15 years after either being taken over.
Is it even possible anymore, to get any of these who are the most influential to mass groups of citizens to defend and
uphold the Constitution against the Constitution's domestic enemies
anymore? And even those that could make
such a decision to truly follow the Constitution in circles of influence where
they can affect or help sway the opinions of millions, these will likely never
dare read this article, especially if they demand blind obedience to support
Barack Obama or Ted Cruz because of political party affiliation or
hypocritically because of their guy's ethnicity.
Ted Cruz is not someone that should be uplifted as if he were a Republican Messiah figure, just as Barack isn't anything more than a slimy Communist-Socialist Muslim con-man with a Media following that seeks to make him into a living myth, and then knowing the lies, pretend that the myth is the new reality.
TED CRUZ IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY
ILLEGAL
TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
THAT IS A LEGAL FACT!!!
Even Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, Jr. knows this since when he ran for the U.S. Senate in Texas as stated and quoted in
THE END OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY By J.B. Williams March 29, 2015 NewsWithViews.com http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams300.htm
In a campaign interview during his freshman senate race, a GOP Texas State Committee member sat down with the young candidate to ask a few poignant vetting questions, and here are the questions and answers from that interview… (Redacted information is to protect the witness at this moment, but the witness is willing to offer sworn testimony)
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Rafael Edward Cruz, Jr.: He was born as a Canadian Born citizen with paternal power citizenship claim at birth to Cuba. To promote his candidacy for President in 2016, is to violate and go actively in conspiracy against the Constitution of the United States to illegally place another foreigner into the U.S. Presidency with the current usurper in office, and set a 2 major party precedent to discard the current Constitution of the Republic?
We do not need a Presidential candidate or President so badly, that we have to go outside the pool of two citizen parents at their birth on US Soil for a President, regardless of the candidate's ethnicity.
So just what makes Ted Cruz, a jus soli born CANADIAN NATIONAL who retained his BIRTH citizenship (and for all we know STILL POSSESSES it despite claiming only months ago he would junk it) as being in any way eligible to the U.S. Presidency? Not a damn thing.
In fact, by example, we have the ineligibility of F.D.R. Jr. to guide us on the matter. The N. Y. Times, May 26, 1949, p. 26, columns 3 - 4, by legal example demonstrated that legally Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., third son of the late President, “never can carry that great name back into the White House” since his birth on August 17, 1914, was at Campobello Island, New Brunswick, Canada, home of a Roosevelt Canadian summer estate.
Marco Antonio Rubio
MARCO RUBIO IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY
ILLEGAL
TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
Marco Rubio was born to two Cuban immigrants in Miami, Florida, who did not naturalize to the United States as its citizens until 1975. Until such naturalization of the parents occurred, any children born in the United States to Mario and Oria Rubio, would be born as dual citizens. Marco would only be a United States Citizen by operation of Law, NOT by operation of nature, because at anytime up until Mario and Oria Rubio took the oath to become United States Citizens, they could have returned to Cuba or simply moved to any other country they wished as Cuban exiles, retaining their heritage and national identity as Cubans only. Marco's maternal grandfather Pedro Victor Garcia legally immigrated with the intent to naturalize, returned to Cuba, then re-entered the United States as an operated as illegal alien or "undocumented worker" during the years of 1962 to 1966. Marco was NOT born of United States Citizens at the time of his birth, and there was no 1802 statute that allowed his parents to the age of 21 to naturalize from the time of an alleged U.S. soil birth to make any claim as to a U.S. soil birth designated as an judicial exemption in how "natural born citizen " might possibly be interpreted as Senator Bayard related to A.P. Hinman over the issue of President Chester A. Arthur.
Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881. A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York. DEAR SIR:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant- the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S. The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor. Yours respectfully, T. F. BAYARD
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States
In fact, if we consider that naturalization is an operation of law, and that by naturalization or by operation of Law a child is accepted as a U.S. Citizen rather than by natural circumstances involving indigenous obviousness in nature as to birth location and obvious species, then we must also realize that technically Senator Bayard never exempts Chester A. Arthur, because if a law has to be forced to resolve an issue, it is in no way natural that a child be a sole allegiance born citizen as is required by the phrase "Natural Born Citizen".
"No Person except a Natural Born Citizen…
shall be eligible to the Office of President...."
US Constitution: Article 2, section 1, Clause 5
"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used
and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth
to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
"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."
John Jay's letter to George Washington on July 25, 1787
which led to the "Natural Born Citizen " clause being eventually introduced into the Constitution we now have. John Jay was formerly a President of the Confederacy of the United States, which government was dissolved in 1787, and then became the first Chief Justice in this Republic of the United States after the Confederacy was dissolved.
In 1789, if you read David Ramsay, you will note that in the United States as the U.S. Constitution was undergoing ratification by the States, VOTING CITIZENS, or men above the age of 21, gave their children the right to be Natural Born Citizens. Fathers cannot be excluded from having a United States Citizenship if the child is to be born a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, because United States Natural Born Citizens may NOT have any allegiance by birth to foreign states as Obama did to the United Kingdom and Kenya at birth and remained so until age 23 and regained his Kenyan Citizenship by U.S. intervention into the Constitution of Kenya of 2010
http://www.kenyalaw.org:8181/exist/kenyalex/actview.xql?actid=Const2010#KE/CON/Const2010/chap_3
that reinstates Obama and any born to at least one Kenyan national parent abroad at any time), and as Rafael Edward Cruz had to Canada and Cuba at birth and remained so until age 43 (or so we are told he gave up his Canadian Citizenship), or to Cuba as Marco Rubio had at the time of his birth and for 4 years after.
Without a U.S. Citizen Father, it is impossible to have any child born as a United States Natural Born Citizen.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html
Vattel states in regard to the Law of Nations in effect (which John Jay, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and other founders read from the 1760s to the 1790s).
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also. Obama's father did NOT immigrate to the United States, he simply studied as a student on VISA here. His child Barack Jr. follows the condition of his father as an alien national at birth. Ted Cruz was born in Canada and stayed there for years afterwards, with the father attaching himself to that society. Both Ted Cruz and Brack Hussein Obama II are NOT United States Natural Born Citizens by any law or any law of nature.
The US Congress specified in its use of Plenary Powers who they meant to call a "natural born citizen". In the United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103), they specified it was to be "a free white person" who was repeatedly a "he", who was "of the age of twenty one years", and specified that it was the father that passed the ability to be called a natural born citizen onto the child by jus sanguinis (by blood) rather than the simplistic jus soli (by the soil) only requirement found in English Common Law.
But still adapting some of the English Legal ruling of Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :
"No one has the power / ability / authority to leave / reject / disown himself from the Father's Land." [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]
From those times until the 26th Amendment, effective June 30, 1971, Constitutionally speaking on the academic plane, for a citizen of the United States able to pass on a natural born citizenship status, he had to be 21 years old. If he was not at least 21, technically (under constitutionally set parameters) his child was to be disqualified from being able to run for President or be Vice-President.
As of June 30, 1971, the age of 18 became the Constitutional age when 18 year old acquired the right to vote. The amendment process is not retroactive, so that someone born on June 29, 1971, needed a 21 year old parent...that is, if we follow strict Constitutionalism. For exceptions to this, we have to look to codified laws in the US Code to say differently, and any codification not measuring up to the Constitution is subject to a legal challenge in the US Supreme Court by any party having legal standing to sue.
To this day, the majority of the nations of the world recognize their own "natural born citizens" as those who are descended directly from their own national citizen fathers, regardless where in the world the child is born. This legal concept goes back many centuries, and pre-dates not only 1609 and the founding of America in 1620, but even pre-dates even the official discovery of America in 1492 under the leadership of Christopher Columbus.
Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. Some claim that the children of Citizens is enough in itself, but the term "citizens" means both parents must be United States citizen parents, as was stated similarly by the Court in Minor v. Happersett decades later.
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.”
The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.
That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only those children having and being the child of to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.
In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."
This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."
In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".
[In other words, the father "of a US Natural Born Citizen defined son" was never to be a foreign national, and forever RENOUNCE any foreign citizenship immediately if even offered. Ted Cruz retained and refused to relinquish his Canadian foreign allegiances and citizenship, bitterly clinging to it for many months after it had been exposed by the Media and he absolutely damn well knew of it...and for all we know, still holds it. That Obama had his foreign UK and Kenyan citizenships to age 23 is beyond dispute. In 2010, illegal VP Joe Biden helped word the Kenyan Constitution to reinstate Barack Obama's Kenyan Citizenship as current, plus the fact that since 1967, as Barry Soetoro, Barack Obama has been a citizen of Indonesia and has never relinquished that citizenship attached to him either. It is possible that his real mother may have been a direct female descendant of the leader of the Indonesian Sabud cult to which Ann Dunham Obama Soetoro belonged, as that Subud cult leader at about 70 and Barack Obama could almost be twins in familial likeness,
https://youtu.be/Xck4t1jVnAQ?t=5m26s
it is that close.]
Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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."
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother).
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."
And with the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604) , the operation of Law still required the Father alone to confirm a child's citizenship. This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless. The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding. With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years. But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.
On July 28, 1868, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the natural born citizen requirement of a US Citizen became clarified and founded upon the inclusion of that birth which was in a State of the United States, and that the 14th Amendment minimum was that the person also be a citizen in the State where they reside, and be subject to the laws of both the national jurisdiction of the United States and that of the local State wherein they reside. The action implies a continuous present tense formulation in its legal phrase: a lifetime US residency and citizenship, not subject to withdrawal by the participant citizen without risk to a withdrawal of 14th Amendment Citizen standing.
Further, as of June 22, 1874, six years after the 14th Amendment was passed:
"The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be 'true and faithful' alone to our government."
US House of Representatives Report No.784, June 22, 1874
Dual Citizenship at birth denies one the claim of being a 14th Amendment Citizen AND that of being a United States Natural Born Citizen.
Concerning the 14th Amendment by the authority of the author of the first clause insertion of having no allegiance to any foreign power at birth, Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), states:
“ (I) find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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 …”
The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.
George D. Collins asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”
Mr. Collins cited Mr. Vattel in probing for the answer, and while he quoted
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens."
He also quoted that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins
Breckinridge Long in his 1916 Assessment of Charles Evan Hughes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68922032/Natural-Born-Citizen-Within-Meaning-of-Constitution-by-Breckenridge-Long-Democrat-1916
own Presidential aspirations would agree:
"The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”
The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “
Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."
Rafael Edawrd "Ted" Cruz, Jr. and Barack Hussein Obama II (aka. Barry Soetoro) FAIL to measure up to that very basic sole allegiance to the United States at birth, and possession of a United States Citizen Father, or of an operation of NATURE which allows for NO PREFERENCE but a design and natural order that they can ONLY BE United States Citizens at birth and nothing else. Marco Rubio would have to result to the Wong Kim Ark defense, which demonstrates that from birth to age 21 he had no other allegiance interests, and lived solely in the United States. But because neither parents were citizens at the time of birth, Marco Antonio Rubio is naturalized at birth by operation of law, and this naturalization is doubly confirmed by his father's naturalization some 4 long years later after his birth.
What about the Mother Effect On Citizenship Of The Child?
In regard to having a UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN, the father and mother must both be citizens of the United States at the time of birth, and the birth must be on U.S. soil. No U.S. Citizen Father, the argument is therefore moot. But let me address that anyway.
On May 25, 1934, Congress did NOT amend the Constitution of the United States by 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States, but they did pass a lesser law that has been misapplied. That Act of May 24, 1934 cannot be used so as to deny the Constitutional effectiveness of paternal citizenship regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause, because all laws must conform to the Constitution of the United States, or they are without legality.
In Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments, the acknowledgement that a mother can pass citizenship rights was referred to and reads:
Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.
I take it from your argument if Congress wanted to go back to that, it would not offend anything in the U.S. Constitution to do so.
Mr. Kneedler: It would be subject to judicial review, and under the facially legitimate bona fide standard of Kleindienst v. Mandel and Fiallo, it would be necessary to ask what Congress was up to in a situation like that, so we are not suggesting that there is...
Justice Ginsburg: Suppose Congress wants to restore the way it was, the way it was for most of our Nation's history, that the father's citizenship gets transferred to the child, not the mother's?
Mr. Kneedler: Given the developments of equal protection under the law in this country, this Court might well conclude that it would not be facially legitimate for Congress simply to decide to go back to as you described it, the bad old days where all rights were thought to derive from the father or the husband. So we are not suggesting that.
The transcript and tape is available at:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_2071/argument
Justice Ginsburg refers us back to the Act of May 24, 1934.
In other words, beginning on May 25, 1934, both fathers and mothers were able to pass on citizenship without prejudice. However, the condition of "Natural Born Citizenship", of being born with a citizen father of the same country you were born in, remained unaffected. Only now, it was absolutely essential that BOTH father and mother be citizens of the same country you were born in, that is in the jurisdiction of the United States, in order to be a United States Natural Born Citizen.
By example to that, we see that in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308 (1961), http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/308/case.html
that United States citizenship was inherited via the father only (or the presumption of the father) until 1934:
Page 365 U.S. 309
…In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment
Page 366 U. S. 310
of § 4 of an Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 155), provided that
"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) R.S. § 1993, substantially a reenactment of § 1 of an Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), provided that
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
Page 366 U.S. 312
...Whatever may have been the reason for the 1874 reenactment of the Act of 1802 as R.S. § 2172, we find nothing in that action which suggests a purpose to reverse the structure of inherited citizenship that Congress created in 1855 and recognized and reaffirmed until 1934. On this basis and in the light of our precedents, we hold that, at the time of petitioner's birth in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship status for foreign-born children of American parents. That statute cannot avail this petitioner, who is the foreign-born child of an alien father.
Again, when one views what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, regardless of the Act of May 24, 1934, one CANNOT exclude the father from the equation, or the fact of one sole national allegiance at birth. Rafael Edward Cruz as well as Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro), have neither qualification of a United States Citizen Father nor any non-fraudulent proof of a United States soil birth that could ever be accepted in a U.S. Court of Law as evidence.
South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 - 450
http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "
It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible...
Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared:
"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."
...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478:
"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."
And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654
"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at the time the Constitution was
written and being ratified is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his
Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up
and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that
same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until
he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in
the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the
nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off. ( See also John
Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6:59, cited further on,
below).
Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution. See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause:
The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
"subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"...
What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) a U.S. citizen whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States. At birth, Marco Rubio's nationality follows that of his father, Cuba, and is a dual citizen with the United States, a duality of citizenship PROHIBITED to Natural Born Citizens under the Constitution because his parents were NOT Citizens of the United States at the time he was born in Miami, Florida, USA.
New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo has excellent attorney at law perspectives on this, especially regarding Ted Cruz, as well:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html
See also: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html
And it is not just Attorney Apuzzo who has excellent points on this issue. See also:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd670.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams296.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams297.htm
And for an academic level of information, use intelligent reason to apply Stephen Tonchen' s Presidential Eligibility Tutorial to that of Canadian by birth Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any other usurper wannabe that comes down the pike to say they are running for the U.S. Presidency and the hell with Constitutional Law regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?
Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we have no President, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well, and moreso, could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
The Constitution expresses 5 citizen terms, of which Natural Born Citizen is the most exclusive and stringent.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Those who follow Ted Cruz like he were some new cult messiah NOT to be questioned or challenged on ANY level, should NOT not pretend that by backing Ted Cruz they somehow do not violate the Constitution and aid its enemies to Overthrow the Constitution of the United States by backing Ted Cruz. They are committing a form of TREASON, whether it is actively or passively consciously recognized by them, I personally think most of them they damn well know it. As with any legal challenge of Obama, they should ask the legal questions that should be addressed in a U.S. Supreme Court addressing the Natural Born Citizen issue.
1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?
2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?
3. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?
By example, again, as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: "When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”
4. Is 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?
5. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?
6. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which
“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ "
or not?
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”
"Ted" Rafael Cruz Jr. was born in CANADA, and has a father who was a Cuban National at the time of his birth there...and was reared as a Canadian birth citizen at least 3 years in Canada, and REFUSED to renounce his Canadian citizenship before 18 and before age 21.
Further, Ted Cruz's father,
Rafael Cruz Sr.,
is on record saying that at some time in the past
he naturalized himself as a Canadian Citizen.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
It would be nice to know precisely what year that was
because it may make Rafael Cruz Jr. unmistakably a
Canadian Natural Born Citizen
under the Laws of Canada in 1971.
Further, did the mother of Rafael Cruz, Jr.
naturalize to Canada along with her husband
at any time prior to Rafael "Ted" Cruz Jr.'s
birth as well?
The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59
In 1833, we also read from the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States...to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."
Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12 http://supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“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. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”
Again,
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
“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.”
Just because we have one USURPER illegally and unconstitutionally wielding power he legally can have VOIDED OUT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ page 180 because he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (i.e., Obama), does not mean we should let the second major party finalize the destruction of the Constitution by also placing their own illegal in office, so they can dissolve the Republic for a full blown Communist-Socialist dictatorship replacement one. Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate,but because the United States Congress and the G.W. Bush Administration has openly DEFIED the Constitution and placed a foreign usurper in Barack Obama in office, who by his own claim (until 2007 at Harvard as well as through Acton and Dystel, etc.) was born in Kenya, who in May 2009
http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf
affirmed his Kenyan birth diplomatically through official U.S. Department of State recognition of the same with Kenya, whose birth in Kenya is affirmed repeatedly by officials of Kenya's Government both formally and informally,
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT Thursday, 25th March, 2010 The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph
[Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]:
" ...how could a young man born here in Kenya,
who is not even a native American,
become the President of America?
It is because they did away with exclusion."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25
and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Council on Foreign Relations (anti-U.S. Sovereignty secret society billing themselves as masters in the New World Order where Ted's own wife Heidi advocates the US - Canada - Mexico as merging into Region 1 of a One World Government)?
In Regard to Region 1 of a 10 Region World Government, you can see it used in Agenda 21 Carbon Tax "G-Cube" Models and think tank papers. One I have previously cited in past writings is still on the internet at:
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/pubfiles/McKibbin_and_Wilcoxen%2C_The_economic_and_environmental_effects.pdf
That the United States should merge with Canada and Mexico has been pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations at the United Nations itself since 1991 under the Soviet Communist 100 year economic subversive agenda called "The Program" in which environmentalism would be the back door to push Communitarianism and Marxist-Leninism through the back door and stealth if the direct means of propaganda did not convince the nations that they should all be useful idiot slaves under totalitarian Communist Socialist controls, a theme I personally strongly suspect was re-adopted by Howard Dean and the Democratic Party in 2005 after John Kerry lost to George Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election.
As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)@442 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
U.S. Constitution, Article. VI. "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. 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...."
The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you.
The Final Question is the Title Question:
So, as ISIS / Al Qaeda Preps With Obama Administration
To Attack U.S At Texas (and New Mexico),
Will The Natural Born Citizen Clause NOT Be Used
To Stop Obama Since It Disqualifies Ted Cruz
From Presidential Aspirations?
Answer: Short of an actual major terror attack
upon the Citizens of the United States,
you can probably bet almost everything you got
that we will have to have casualties not seen
on U.S. soil since the U.S. Civil War before
Americans force Congress to Impeach
the Enemy in Chief and his fellow treasonous
co-conspirators. In our current Republic and system
of Federal Government, it seems that removal of a Usurper
to the Presidency, falsely acting in its name via fraud of
qualifications he does not have (100% U.S. Citizenship
only plus birth on U.S. soil plus both parents being
U.S. Citizens) has to be done in such a legal way
so as NOT to allow all his voidable acts to stand.
Any action on our part or the part of the PEOPLE
must be to see that everything Obama has ever passed
or signed be legally and peacefully voided out,
making that scumbag usurper of the Presidency
of the United States no more than an asterisk in
history, if even that much.
[Updated 04/16/2016 7 am Pacific]
Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution. See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause:
The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
"subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"...
What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
At Birth Ted Cruz is Canadian first, a Cuban national through is father secondly, and in a distant third, by operation of law (INA 1952) a U.S. citizen whose internationally recognized natural born citizenship rests in Cuba through his father, NOT the United States. At birth, Marco Rubio's nationality follows that of his father, Cuba, and is a dual citizen with the United States, a duality of citizenship PROHIBITED to Natural Born Citizens under the Constitution because his parents were NOT Citizens of the United States at the time he was born in Miami, Florida, USA.
New Jersey Attorney Mario Apuzzo has excellent attorney at law perspectives on this, especially regarding Ted Cruz, as well:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html
See also: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html
And it is not just Attorney Apuzzo who has excellent points on this issue. See also:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd670.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams296.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams297.htm
And for an academic level of information, use intelligent reason to apply Stephen Tonchen' s Presidential Eligibility Tutorial to that of Canadian by birth Rafael Edward Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any other usurper wannabe that comes down the pike to say they are running for the U.S. Presidency and the hell with Constitutional Law regarding the Natural Born Citizen clause:
http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Question: Should the citizens of the United States have a Government and Governance that conforms to the Constitution of the United States, which in Article 6 of that document, says it is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, or not?
Since Obama is NOT President of the United States by Operation of the Constitution of the United States, we have no President, but some kind of alien usurper and oligarchy (through him) in place, Cruz would operate under the same lawlessness and non-binding compliance to the U.S. Constitution as well, and moreso, could be the excuse to DISSOLVE the Republic and that Constitution (with its Bill of Rights) we now have!
The Constitution expresses 5 citizen terms, of which Natural Born Citizen is the most exclusive and stringent.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/Citizenship-Terms-Used-in-the-U-S-Constitution-The-5-Terms-Defined-Some-Legal-Reference-to-Same
Those who follow Ted Cruz like he were some new cult messiah NOT to be questioned or challenged on ANY level, should NOT not pretend that by backing Ted Cruz they somehow do not violate the Constitution and aid its enemies to Overthrow the Constitution of the United States by backing Ted Cruz. They are committing a form of TREASON, whether it is actively or passively consciously recognized by them, I personally think most of them they damn well know it. As with any legal challenge of Obama, they should ask the legal questions that should be addressed in a U.S. Supreme Court addressing the Natural Born Citizen issue.
1. Is the burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, upon those making the claim, (such as the President of the United States, or those aspiring to such office) as stated by 333 US 640 @ 653 Bute v. Illinois (1948), a requirement under Supreme Court ruling and the Law (that can be affirmed as so by an example of those having Article III standing and suing them) or not?
2 Is there a requirement in the Constitutional Article specified as 2.1.5 in which a Natural Born Citizen, and those seeking the Presidency of the United States, have sole allegiance to the United States at birth?
3. Does a United States Natural Born allegiance also under a Constitution where the paternal citizenship governed the nationality of the child was in effect when it was written, does follow the condition of the nationality and citizenship of the child’s father at birth or not? And if the claim if no longer, where is the Constitutional Amendment that alters or denies what the founders intended, as there is NO Amendment that states anywhere that a Citizen Mother can give birth to a Natural Born Citizen of the United States in or out of the United States with an alien father, and alter what the Constitution clearly under the laws in effect clearly forbad?
By example, again, as to what relevant paternal power was in effect legally, less than 30 years after the Constitution was ratified,
Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820: "When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The CIVIL LAW DETERMINED THE CONDITION OF THE SON BY THAT OF THE FATHER. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him.”
4. Is 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?
5. Does every word of the US Constitution have its due force, as stated by Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 @ 570-71 (1840); and is the precept of interpretation of the US Constitution to this effect, where “every word [of the US Constitution] must have its due force” active in the Rule of Law in the Supreme Court of the United States as it regards the Constitutional Article 2.1.5 “natural born citizen” clause or not?
6. Is not the Constitutional Intent of the Constitution the following definition in which
“…the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414
and the debate regarding the meaning behind the 14th Amendment was clearly specified in The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 where Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred that “The provision is, ‘that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof’… What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.
…It cannot be said of any…who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’ "
or not?
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment is at:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38
see Part 4 (column 2), page 2890, Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893,
Part 4 (columns 2-3), page 2895]
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94 (1884) @ 101-102 states that:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was …to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and OWING NO ALLEGIANCE TO ANY ALIEN POWER, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306.”
"Ted" Rafael Cruz Jr. was born in CANADA, and has a father who was a Cuban National at the time of his birth there...and was reared as a Canadian birth citizen at least 3 years in Canada, and REFUSED to renounce his Canadian citizenship before 18 and before age 21.
Further, Ted Cruz's father,
Rafael Cruz Sr.,
is on record saying that at some time in the past
he naturalized himself as a Canadian Citizen.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/20/193585553/how-ted-cruzs-father-shaped-his-views-on-immigration
It would be nice to know precisely what year that was
because it may make Rafael Cruz Jr. unmistakably a
Canadian Natural Born Citizen
under the Laws of Canada in 1971.
Further, did the mother of Rafael Cruz, Jr.
naturalize to Canada along with her husband
at any time prior to Rafael "Ted" Cruz Jr.'s
birth as well?
The Founders utilized John Locke for this definition:“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59
In 1833, we also read from the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States...to become President is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."
Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1 (1887) @ 12 http://supreme.justia.com/us/121/1/case.html
"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument."
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1 (1824) @ 188-189 http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html states:
" ...the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said. If, from the imperfection of human language, there should be serious doubts respecting the extent of any given power, it is a well settled rule that the objects for which it was given, especially when those objects are expressed in the instrument itself, should have great influence in the construction."
Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello, wrote:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. (14 Peters) 540 (1840)@ 570-571 http://supreme.justia.com/us/39/540/case.html
“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. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies …”
Again,
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167
“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.”
Just because we have one USURPER illegally and unconstitutionally wielding power he legally can have VOIDED OUT Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) @ page 180 because he is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen (i.e., Obama), does not mean we should let the second major party finalize the destruction of the Constitution by also placing their own illegal in office, so they can dissolve the Republic for a full blown Communist-Socialist dictatorship replacement one. Ted Cruz openly admits to being foreign born with a publication of proof by his Canadian birth certificate,but because the United States Congress and the G.W. Bush Administration has openly DEFIED the Constitution and placed a foreign usurper in Barack Obama in office, who by his own claim (until 2007 at Harvard as well as through Acton and Dystel, etc.) was born in Kenya, who in May 2009
http://www.wnd.com/files/110525nsisbulletin.pdf
affirmed his Kenyan birth diplomatically through official U.S. Department of State recognition of the same with Kenya, whose birth in Kenya is affirmed repeatedly by officials of Kenya's Government both formally and informally,
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL REPORT Thursday, 25th March, 2010 The House met at 2.30 p.m. p. 31 ...2nd paragraph
[Mr. Orengo, Minister of Lands of the nation of Kenya, speaking]:
" ...how could a young man born here in Kenya,
who is not even a native American,
become the President of America?
It is because they did away with exclusion."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29758466/RDRAFT25
and whose birth in Kenya was repeated as affirmed especially when Obama was first elected to the U.S. Senate http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
...then since the Dems have their own illegal and usurper in open defiance of the U.S. Constitution in office under color of the "race card" as their "authority", the Republicans might as well have their own Council on Foreign Relations (anti-U.S. Sovereignty secret society billing themselves as masters in the New World Order where Ted's own wife Heidi advocates the US - Canada - Mexico as merging into Region 1 of a One World Government)?
In Regard to Region 1 of a 10 Region World Government, you can see it used in Agenda 21 Carbon Tax "G-Cube" Models and think tank papers. One I have previously cited in past writings is still on the internet at:
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/files/pubfiles/McKibbin_and_Wilcoxen%2C_The_economic_and_environmental_effects.pdf
That the United States should merge with Canada and Mexico has been pushed by the Council on Foreign Relations at the United Nations itself since 1991 under the Soviet Communist 100 year economic subversive agenda called "The Program" in which environmentalism would be the back door to push Communitarianism and Marxist-Leninism through the back door and stealth if the direct means of propaganda did not convince the nations that they should all be useful idiot slaves under totalitarian Communist Socialist controls, a theme I personally strongly suspect was re-adopted by Howard Dean and the Democratic Party in 2005 after John Kerry lost to George Bush in the 2004 Presidential Election.
As for Congress winking at the Law and ignoring the Constitution regarding the Natural Born Citizenship requirement clause in the Constitution:
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886)@442 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180 "... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
U.S. Constitution, Article. VI. "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. 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...."
The Law is equal for all, regardless of race, color, creed, or what have you.
The Final Question is the Title Question:
So, as ISIS / Al Qaeda Preps With Obama Administration
To Attack U.S At Texas (and New Mexico),
Will The Natural Born Citizen Clause NOT Be Used
To Stop Obama Since It Disqualifies Ted Cruz
From Presidential Aspirations?
Answer: Short of an actual major terror attack
upon the Citizens of the United States,
you can probably bet almost everything you got
that we will have to have casualties not seen
on U.S. soil since the U.S. Civil War before
Americans force Congress to Impeach
the Enemy in Chief and his fellow treasonous
co-conspirators. In our current Republic and system
of Federal Government, it seems that removal of a Usurper
to the Presidency, falsely acting in its name via fraud of
qualifications he does not have (100% U.S. Citizenship
only plus birth on U.S. soil plus both parents being
U.S. Citizens) has to be done in such a legal way
so as NOT to allow all his voidable acts to stand.
Any action on our part or the part of the PEOPLE
must be to see that everything Obama has ever passed
or signed be legally and peacefully voided out,
making that scumbag usurper of the Presidency
of the United States no more than an asterisk in
history, if even that much.
[Updated 04/16/2016 7 am Pacific]
No comments:
Post a Comment