Geo-political vs Biological: The Constitutional eligibility issue rises again

You might have a wonder why I might use a title to this post as “Geo-political vs Biological”. Well it has to do with the discussion around the eligibility of the President of these United States as listed in Art 2.1.5 of the Constitution, that one being a ‘natural-born citizen’.

Well, there continues to be alot of confusion around who are not eligible but are thought to be; namely Bobbie Jindal, Marco Rubio, & Barack Obama. Okay then, let me try to break it down so you might understand if you think all 3 are eligible.

There are two terms people keep confusing one as equating to the other. One is ‘native born citizen’ and the other is ‘natural born citizen’, confusing the latter as the former. This will explain the title as well.

The term ‘native born citizen’ has to do with Geo-political, borders or countries created by man. As in “born within the boundaries of a country and acquiring citizenship, usually granted by the law of the country”.

Now the term ‘natural born citizen’ gets it own meaning if broken down with definitions. Starting off with the first part is ‘natural’ or ‘being of nature’. And to expand that into “becoming a citizen by the nature of biology, by which being born into citizenship”.

Many try to argue that it only takes 1 parent to be a citizen to have their offspring be a ‘natural born citizen’, but this can be dis proven with the long used term “it takes 2 to tango” if you happen to catch my drift & some thought. “Through the nature of biology to acquire citizenship through the parentage” might be a better way to say it. But also something to think about if you have a child with 2 different ways they can go in their citizenship (each parent is a citizen of a different country), it often divides their loyalty, but yes it may not always be the case.

Dr. Alan Keyes

Dr. Herbert Titus

Advertisements

25 Myths of the U.S. Constitution

I know I haven’t posted for awhile, but been been busy with life. I have come across a very good list by Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio is putting together. It is 25 Myths of the US Constitution. Give it a read through, and you might learn a thing or two.

The rubber ruler argument

Or calling the Constitution a ‘living document’

I continue to hear those from the left trying to argue that the Constitution is ‘a living document that needs to be reinterpreted with the changing time’ or some other strange nonsense. This I have been starting to call a rubber ruler argument. Why a rubber ruler? Well, considering that:

  1. rubber stretches
  2. rulers are primarily made from unyielding (non-stretchable) materials
  3. unyielding/non-stretchable materials give a standard with which you can have continuous accuracy

If you consider at least these 3 things, then you get the idea that without a standard of measure you won’t have consistency.

That’s not to say things change with time, and that the Constitution shouldn’t be changed. Personally could do better without the 16th & 17th and a rewritten 14th. BUT as a 223 year old contract , it should be changed through the proper channels laid out within it, namely Article 5. The Framers were smart enough to include such a process, but as such did not want it to be an easy one. If it was easy, it could lead to willy-nilly changes and onto a destructive course of events.

Class is in Session

US Constitution Class by Richard Church – Parts 1 – 4 of 4

The Constitutional Case Against Progressives

Patriot’s Pub

Patriots Pub. RSS Feed

To learn about how the US federal government should be today, you need to go back to how the United States started. Excellent continuing series about that. Leading up to the Constitution and the daily debates that went on to forge the second document of defining the United States, The Constitution.

The REAL birther question

Now I am not the kind of person to write blogs and such but mostly short quips on twitter (@jdmeac). But something has been getting at me lately which has been pointed out on Andrea Shea King’s show. It seems that some online radio show hosts, with an example being Glenn Beck seem to be misunderstanding the underlying issues of the so derogatorily named ‘birther’ movement.

After looking at the issue over time, and listening to some online radio shows, I have reformed my view slightly from the question of where Barry Obama was born, to the correct Constitutional question of is Barry Obama a ‘natural born citizen’ from the original intent of the Constitution. The non Constitutional following left wing keeps trying to phrase the question to citizen to try and make out us ‘birthers’ as crazy as ‘truthers’. This is outright misdirection.

As been pointed out on several shows I listen to, Founding Truth for example, I have been gratefully educated on why we need use original static intent instead of living morphing contract. By using an unchanging static definition, we have a standard set of rules by which the government knows and (should) stay within its bounds. Though that’s not to say the Constitution can’t be changed by the means of Article V.

We can learn the meaning of many terms the Founding Fathers used by going to the books of Emmerich de Vattel’s Law of Nations. The reason of going to The Law of Nations instead of British Common Law, is because the Founding Fathers wanted to divorce from British system as much as possible. Now the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in the Law of Nations is this:

Book 1 Chapter 19 ( http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm )

§ 212. Of the citizens and naturals.

“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.”

Did you catch that? Born of parents who are citizens. Considering even this (likely forged) COLB proves he isn’t eligible. For even using Barry’s own book OR even their OWN Fight the smears.com site, his father Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was a British citizen at the time of his birth. This would make Barry, nothing more than a dual citizen, which means he could NEVER be a ‘natural born citizen’.

Anyway you look at it, with alittle research/resources, Barrack Hussein Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen, and is therefore NOT eligible to be President of the US. You may say that ‘he won, it’s too late, get over it’, well, is it too late if the candidate never was eligible in the first place? It’s like saying it’s ok for a guy to win Miss America AFTER you find out it’s a guy.

Which reminds me about Senate Resolution 511. This resolution was passed saying,

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.

So according to the Senate, John McCain is a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was born to parents who were American citizens, not just one citizen parent.

So then what do we do about the issue? We continue to question boldly those who don’t make this an issue. We continue to fight against the ignoring of the original contract of the States with the Federal government. We continue to educate what the original intent of the Constitution is, and that it shouldn’t be changed by ‘adopting’ different definitions of the words used in it. We need to continue to make this an issue by holding those who were elected and swore an oath to following the Constitution. Barry Obama swore an illegal oath if he is NOT a ‘natural born citizen’ according to the facts that we know. So if we do nothing about this, then the Constitution means nothing.

(Real comments relating to the issue please, this is quite a serious issue.)