Welcome President-Elect Donald J. Trump- Please help us Make America Great Again!

ConstitutionalReset.com

Helping to restore our Constitutional Republic

Mark Levin, a self described constitutionalist, has taken a stand against the supporters of Article II, Section I of the Constitution. The Irony is that Levin's whole being is devoted to the Constitution and support of Larry Arn and Hillsdale College. Why would Levin characterize the historical part of that document as trivial.  Surely, he sees the Constitutional destruction under a President who is ineligible to hold that office. 

Once the so-called conservative pundits, including Horowitz and Bill O'Reilly have publicly trashed Article II, Section I, Clause 5, they have in effect nullified the entire document. You can not pick and choose which parts are to be ignored. This is exactly how Obama continues to undermine the document. He ignores  or actively works to undermine the parts he doesn't like, such as the First and Second Amendments. 

Ted Cruz is much more obviously ineligible than Obama, because he was born a Canadian citizen.  Obama's ineligibility is masked by a forged birth certificate, but even accepting that fraud, he is not a natural born citizen. As far as the Cruz argument of this issue being settled law, nothing could be further from the truth.  Millions of dollars were spent and judges throughout the Judicial Branch were threatened and intimidated from hearing the multitude of challenges brought against Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama.

With the duopoly of compromised Congress, allowing of foreign nationals to devolve the office of the President of the United States, a major step has been taken to dismantle the United States of America.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd703.htm

Views: 48

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

From: http://americac2c.com/forum/topics/cruz-and-rubio-eligibility-lawsu...

Cruz and Rubio Eligibility Lawsuit Set for 11 AM, Friday March 4th ...

By  on February 29, 2016
Republican presidential candidates, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. talk after a Republican presidential primary debate, Thursday, Jan. 28, 2016, in Des Moines, Iowa. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)

It has already been reported by the Florida media that the parents of Senator Marco Rubio were not United States citizens when he was born.

The national media has not covered this issue that much. They’ve also underreported on the fact that Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born Canadian and has many eligibility lawsuits filed against him because of it. But now that an Illinois judge is finally hearing one of those cases, Cruz’s eligibility status is making national news.

Eligibility lawsuits have been filed against Cruz in Vermont, Florida, Utah, Texas, Alabama, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Arkansas.

The first court date for Cruz is on March 1st, which happens to be Super Tuesday. March 2nd is the deadline to file for the Arkansas case after Cruz requested an extension that was granted to him. There is also a joint court date on March 4th in Florida with Senator Marco Rubio. All of the pending lawsuits and court dates of Rubio’s have not seemed to get any national attention.

It was initially believed that Rubio’s parents fled Cuba in 1959 while it was under Castro’s rule. Other sources say it was 1956 instead. Rubio’s parents were not United States citizens until almost 20 years after they came to the United States. Since Rubio was born in 1971, this means they became American citizens several years after he was born. So the fact that they were technically Cuban citizens when he was born means his presidential eligibility is being questioned in the suits filed in Vermont, Florida, Indiana and Arkansas.

A professor of international and constitutional law at Fordham Law School named Thomas Lee talked about how natural born citizenship was originally viewed.

Mario Apuzzo explained the following: “The historical and legal record demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth alone, one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth. Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.”

The defense motions filed in Florida for Rubio and Cruz are public information that can be found in the Broward County Court website under Case # CACE15022044.

Rubio has repeatedly said that he is eligible because he was “born in the United States.” As for Cruz, he says he is eligible because his mother was an American citizen when he was born in Canada. Both candidates have been appealing to voters around the country and have argued that there is no way for voters to challenge the candidates for being ineligible to be president and that the courts do not have the authority to judge this constitutional situation. Cruz and Rubio also argue that the courts have to wait until they are elected as Vice President or President before they make a ruling because then they’ll be employed by both Congress and The People.

Here is the oath of office that every senatorial-elect has to make:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit comments:

The biggest bombshell in Rubio’s motion is its globalist, open borders tone, as he tries to distance himself from his previous amnesty push on the campaign trail.   Just like Obama, the Leftist media, and the Gang of 8, he chooses to ignore the difference between illegal aliens and legal immigrants subject to the jurisdiction of the government, referring instead just to “immigrants” interchangeably with “foreign parents” and “noncitizen parents”, arguing wrongly that immigration status has nothing to do with it; any child born here is not only a US citizen, but also a Natural Born Citizen, capable of becoming President of the United States: “A natural-born citizen is one who is born in the United States regardless of their parents’ ancestry,” Rubio’s motion states.   Understand, he cannot argue illegal “dreamers” can become President and believe they are anything other than already US citizens with the right to vote and full government benefits.   This would also preclude deportation. Perhaps Florida’s familiarity with Marco, his eligibility issues and his affinity for amnesty after promising otherwise explain why he is twenty points behind the frontrunner in his own home state.

The Florida hearing over the Cruz/Rubio lawsuit is scheduled for 11:00 AM on March 4th.

source: thegatewaypundit.com

Tim Brown posts this morning: Explained: Natural Born Citizen & Naturalized Citizen 

URL: http://www.dcclothesline.com/?p=57416

Well, Publius Huldah is no stranger to these parts. She has done the prerequisite work in pointing back to how the framers of the Consti....

The following video is specifically on that subject. Unfortunately, I have been sitting on this video for a couple of weeks, but in God’s Providence, it seems it is time just ahead of Super Tuesday to unveil it to the people of Freedom Outpost. This is one you will want to share with your friends over the next couple of days for sure.

To understand what the term natural born citizen means, one must understand that before July 4, 1776, everyone born in the new world was born a subject of the King of England, not a citizen. In fact, our first presidents were all born as subjects of the King of England:

  • George Washington
  • John Adams
  • Thomas Jefferson
  • James Madison
  • James Monroe
  • John Quincy Adams
  • Andrew Jackson
  • William Henry Harrison

Each of these men, along with their fellow countrymen were transformed into citizens on July 4, 1776 by means of the Declaration of Independence.

So, what does that mean for those presidents according to the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a natural born citizen? It means that they were naturalized via the Declaration of Independence, which would later be written out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Our first presidents were simply eligible because they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the ConstitutionThe point is that the framers knew what a natural born citizen was .... Therefore, they had to grandfather themselves into the requirement. However, after that first generation, all subsequent presidents were required to be natural born citizens.

Instead of allowing people to define natural born citizen however they like, just as they have with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro SoebarkahTed Cruz, and Marco Rubio, the framers knew what the definition was because Vattel had defined the term in his book Law of Nations. From letter and other documents, we know that Vattel’s work was studied in the universities and the framers had it in their possession when they wrote the Constitution. So, there is no doubt as to the meaning of the term natural born citizen. So, how did Vattel define natural born citizen?

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. (Emphasis mine)

PH also offers the following documentation from David Ramsay to demonstrate what he wrote.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privilege...

Ramsay, was a founding father, who wrote A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States, which was published in 1789. Ramsay wrote:

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the Declaration of Independence, and as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the Fourth of July, 1776.”

The framers did not desire to have foreigners with divided loyalties to be president. They wanted a president who inherited his citizenship from American parents (plural).

Just as a child inherits his eye color from his parents, he also inherits his citizenship from them as well. In other words, it does not take an act of Congress to make him a citizen. It is a fact of blood that one is a citizen through birth to citizen parents.

To demonstrate the difference between those who are citizens naturally and those through a proclamation of man (Declaration of Independence, Clause in the Constitution, act of Congress), PH points to the 14th Amendment, something that we have dealt with before concerning the Texas senator.

PH points out the one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves. That first generation of freed slaves were most definitely considered citizens, but they were more definitely not natural born citizens because they were not born of parents who were citizens. Therefore, the 14th Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with natural born citizen. It has to do with the creation of new citizens. In other words, it naturalized freed slaves as citizens.

In dealing with the issue, PH then addressed Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.

Rubio was born in the united States, but he was born to parents who were Cuban nationals. Though Rubio’s parents were under the lawful jurisdiction of the united States, they were not citizens and thus, Rubio is not a natural born citizen. In fact, Rubio is a naturalized citizen because his citizenship is by operation of a man-made law. Furthermore, if it were not for Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, Rubio would have been born with the same alien status as his parents!

Something similar happens when we look at Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a father who was a either a Cuban national or a Canadian citizen and an American born mother, whose status at the time of his birth is not clear, but according to PH, “her status doesn’t matter. The father is the one who counts.”

“At the time of the framing of our Constitution, the doctrine of coverture was in effect,” said PH. “Under that common law doctrine, husband and wife are one, and the man is the one! The woman’s legal identity was subsued into that of her husband’s.”

None of this should take Christians by surprise as it is what the Bible lays out for us in Genesis 2. Additionally, women take on the last name of their husbands, even today.

Therefore, we conclude that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen. Additionally, we know that he also held Canadian citizenship, which he did not renounce until he set his eyes on the White House. He stopped being a Canadian citizen on May 14, 2014.

Finally, and this is something that I have put forward in a short video commentary, Cruz has apparently sealed all of the records that would indicate his mother’s status. FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests have been denied. He has also decided to withhold any documentation, such as a Consular Record of Birth Abroad (CRBA), which is required by the State Department via Congress if one is born to a parent abroad and wishes to be considered a citizen at birth. This is not a natural born citizen because it is conveyed via a manmade law. Cruz has yet to produce this document, which then leads us to ask the question, is he here legally? Before you laugh me off, let me ask you, how do you know someone has gone through naturalization without documentation? There is a paper trail. Senator Cruz is telling us he is going after illegal aliens (those without the paper trail, who have not come to the States legally), and yet, he has produced no CRBA documentation that is, in effect, naturalization papers.

So far, the lawsuit against both Cruz and Rubio continues forward despite attempts to dismiss them. Republicans would not do their duty concerning Soetoro, and now they are engaging in pushing forward two ineligible candidates for president. What a tangled web we weave...

Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.

 
Here's the problem that needs to be settled:  Let's say that either Rubio or Cruz wins the nomination.  The DNC will go after the nominee and determine before election day that he is not eligible for the Presidency.  Hello to Hillary.
What do you think?

Laura J Alcorn

Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 4:59 AM
Subject: Fw: Presidential Eligibility Requiremen
 
Feb.29,2016
 
     In eight years I have written approx.forty letters denouncing Barack Obama's illegitimate takeover of the Office of President of the United States. Copies of each letter were sent to most everyone mentioned within the letters and to all on my e-mail list. Initially,I expected to find Obama eligible,but, to my surprize, from day one evidence surfaced showing he used deception,lying,limited fraudulent documents, even silence to hide his ineligibility from the eyes of America. By his efforts he displayed his true colors, which, to no surprize, did not include red, white, or blue! In previous letters, I mentioned how Obama claimed to have been born in Kapiolani Medical Center, in Hawaii, yet,not one hospital, including Kapiolani  will, to this day, confirm his claim. Even Hawaiian Governor Neil Abercrombie, who personally went to that hospital to obtain proof of Obama's birth, returned empty-handed and he publically admitted that his trip was fruitless. Please reflect on the above two sentences for the words were not born of Republicans nor Racists. They were pure and simple statements of fact. If anyone other than Obama had attempted to justify a personal eligibility without valid evidence to confirm their eligibility they would have been laughed out of every courtroom. Obama, however, had the last laugh, for he still had "lying" and "cheating" in his bag of betrayal and he used them well.
 
     Obama's "Silence" Speaks Volumes
 
     The following example will illustrate how truly the above paragraph heading identifies one of the most subtle means of defense Obama employs when his ineligibility is challenged. It's called "Silence". By ignoring questioners he keeps his deception secret, thereby forcing citizens to suffer for simply seeking the truth.
 
     Consider Army Lt.Colonel Terrence Lakin, who had given 18 years of faithful service to our Country as a medical doctor and was a leading flight surgeon and a Bronze Star recipient. As he began to hear of Obama's possible ineligibility he went through military channels and got nowhere. He then wrote directly to Obama, who ignored his letter. After writing a follow-up letter to Obama it, too, was ignored. Having already served one tour in Afghanistan, Col.Lakin simply wanted the growing nationwide doubts of Obama's eligibility put to rest before going on a second Afghanistan tour of duty under a possible ineligible Commander-in Chief.
 
 Think about this-General Benedict Arnold, the American Commander-in-Chief of American forces at West Point,NY during the Revolutionary War, attempted to surrender the Fort to the British. An outright act of treason! If not for a few American militiamen who stopped a disguised British spy, Major John Andre,at a checkpoint and found a map of West Point fortifications from General Arnold and a copy of George Washington's war council minutes of Sept.6,1780, General Arnold's treachery might not have been detected and our Country's future radically changed. Colonel Lakins concern for Obama's legitiimacy was a modern day equivalent of the West Point militia's concern for our Nation.
 
     For almost three years Barack Obama used an ineligible,fraudulent document (Certification of Live Birth) to answer eligibility challengers, though, as a former Constitutional teacher, he knew his document was unacceptable for use by anyone seeking the Presidency. A long-form Certificate of Live Birth,for example, would have been acceptable but he knew he didn't possess one, hence he simply ignored Col. Lakin's letters. For defending our Constitution the Colonel was rewarded with a court-martial conviction and imprisonment in Federal prison. Why-because, at his trial,the Court admonished his attorney not to introduce any records which might "embarrass the President". Embarrass the President! Yes, those were the Court's own words. Unbelievable! Records, or lack of same, which would have exposed Obama's treason, would have been more than "embarrassing". They would have caused Obama's downfall, and more. Justice had its hands tied so that injustice would prevail. Does anyone still doubt that the wrong man was sent to prison?
 
     Did Colonel Lakin's rank and years of faithful service to our Country automatically entitle him to expect a direct response to his letters? No, but common courtesy and appreciation for being a faithful defender of our Country should have elicited a response from someone but Obama knew that breaking his silence with the truth would have unearthed his deception. He, therefore, had to choose between his career and the Colonel's. To Obama, this was a no-brainer. To save his career by silence he sacrificed the Colonel's, thereby choosing treason over truth.
 
     A year ago, I listened to a man tell a group that since Obama only had one year left in Office we should no longer pursue the eligibility issue. After all, he said, what more damage could he do? My response-think of the Supreme Court destruction taking place right now and the illegal importation issue just to mention a few disasters. Unlike today's Senate and House of Representatives inaction, George Washington, after being informed of General Arnold's treason did not say "let's wait until his term as Commander of the Fort ends before we take action." No, he immediately had Arnold declared guilty of treason and ordered his arrest. Unfortunately, General Arnold had fled West Point and boarded a British ship to England and then fought for the British until War's end.
 
     Our Nation is in turmoil and its self-proclaimed leader, Barack Obama, continues using ineligible and/or fraudulent documents(or none at all) to keep his illegal hold over our Country and its Military!
 
     More to follow-It only get's worse
                                                                        robertquinn@earthlink.net
bcc:Our Supreme Court
bcc:all recipients of my e-mails, who are free to pass them on to any and all, with my permission.
 

RSS

© 2017   Created by Greg.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service