HomeSearchLog inRegister
Latest topics
» Mind-Boggling Last Images From Saturn Probe 4/27/17
Yesterday at 11:20 pm by PurpleSkyz

» NIBIRU News ~ BIG NIBIRU SHADOW ! Florida plus MORE
Yesterday at 11:17 pm by PurpleSkyz

» UFO News ~ Huge UFO Captured on Snowboarder’s GoPro Footage plus MORE
Yesterday at 11:08 pm by PurpleSkyz

»  Strange phenomenon like ‘Earthquake Lights’ appears in the sky above the Philippines
Yesterday at 10:54 pm by PurpleSkyz

» RFK, Jr. Excerpt from The Truth About Vaccines Series
Yesterday at 10:51 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Moving at *1000 m/pm* a large fireball disintegrates over S Florida!
Yesterday at 10:48 pm by PurpleSkyz

» COLOUR-CHANGING ORB AT ISS CAUGHT LIVE
Yesterday at 10:43 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Open Letter to One Who Knows and Light Workers by Mojo
Yesterday at 10:07 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Anonymous Now I’m going to speak to the civilian population of all nations.
Yesterday at 10:02 pm by PurpleSkyz

» POOFness for APR 27: THIS WEEK
Yesterday at 7:42 pm by EL_O_EL

» Cindy Kay Currier - How the "good guys" punked the CIA
Yesterday at 7:32 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Canada Hit by Countrywide Internet, TV and Phone Outage
Yesterday at 7:30 pm by PurpleSkyz

» This Weeks RV/CGR News - 2017: 4/23 - 4/29
Yesterday at 7:26 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Decoding Star Wars and the Force by TS Caladan
Yesterday at 7:20 pm by PurpleSkyz

» How does drinking alcohol affect one's prana? Sadhguru
Yesterday at 7:13 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Spiritual effects of alcohol
Yesterday at 7:11 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» CATHERINE AUSTIN FITTS - EMPIRE ENDGAME: DIGITAL SLAVE POPULATION! DARK JOURNALIST
Yesterday at 7:11 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Strawman - The Nature of the Cage (OFFICIAL)
Yesterday at 7:11 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Sadguru shuts up Christian Journalist in a way that he shall never forget !
Yesterday at 7:10 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» APR 26: Mid Week ZAP CRAP
Yesterday at 6:46 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Balance & Presence
Yesterday at 4:32 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» The Secret Ancient Alphabet No One Knows About [FULL VIDEO]
Yesterday at 4:15 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» The Truth About Alcohol: Etymology & Symbolism. PLEASE SHARE! Sequel Cmg Soon!
Yesterday at 4:14 pm by Consciousness Of Economic

» Ears Ringing? The Frequencies Are Amping Up! What Does This Mean?
Yesterday at 9:47 am by Light Being

» A Case for LIFE: Stop Killing Us, Please!
Yesterday at 9:38 am by Light Being

» Breakthrough Artificial Photosynthesis Cleans Polluted Air, Makes Energy
Yesterday at 9:25 am by PurpleSkyz

» Visual Futurist: Step inside the sci-fi world created by ‘Blade Runner’ visionary Syd Mead
Yesterday at 9:09 am by PurpleSkyz

» Strange Anomalies Detected by Large Hadron Collider Could REWRITE the Laws of Physics
Yesterday at 8:10 am by PurpleSkyz

» FULL Benjamin Fulford Updates - April 24, 2017
Yesterday at 8:03 am by PurpleSkyz

» Ireland - Archaeologists Discover Remains of New Human Species
Yesterday at 8:01 am by PurpleSkyz

» MICROWAVE WEAPONS ARE BEING USED AGAINST CIVILIANS, IN THE UK AND US 1
Yesterday at 7:57 am by PurpleSkyz

» Nature's Solution to the Water Crisis
Yesterday at 7:52 am by PurpleSkyz

» Dr Greer Unacknowledged Sirius Interview!
Yesterday at 7:51 am by PurpleSkyz

Who is online?

Share | 
 

 The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
PurpleSkyz
Admin
avatar

Posts : 58461
Join date : 2012-01-04
Location : Woodstock Nation

PostSubject: The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue   Sun Jan 17, 2016 11:42 am

The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue

Posted on January 17, 2016 by Tim Brown

The issue over the idea of natural born citizen is being touted quite a bit leading up to the GOP debate this week and in its wake, too many people are confused and have not looked at what the Constitution says, nor have they taken the time to go back and see how the founders understood the term. They regurgitate what conservative talking heads and such spew out about Supreme Court rulings and cite laws that do not deal with the term natural born citizen. However, the elephant in the room (or the Constitution) that is never addressed is the differences of how there are the apparent differences of citizens in the Constitution itself.
I have alluded to this previously when pointing out that the Constitution specifically addresses in the very qualifications that there are natural born citizens and citizens.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution reads:
Quote :
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. (Emphasis mine)
Now, there is no question that men like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal all meet the criteria of being at least 35 years old and have been residents in the States. There is also no question that these men are citizens. The question is, are they natural born citizens?
The other night in the debate, Ted Cruz mixed up natural born citizen and citizen just like he has in the past. However, he’s not the only one that does that. There are lots of people who claim you are either a citizen or a naturalized citizen and there is nothing else that can be added to another kind of citizen, but that’s not what the framers had in mind and it isn’t even what the Constitution presents to us.
First, as has been very eloquently presented by Publius Huldah, the founders had at least three copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations in their possession during the first Constitutional Convention and they made use of it. In that book, it is the first place that we read about a natural born citizen. Vattel writes concerning citizens and natives:
Quote :
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)
Clearly, Vattel, in defining natural born citizen, would have deemed Obama, Cruz, Jindal and Rubio as those who are not natural born citizens. I really don’t think there is any argument against Vattel on that. However, the question is, does the Constitution follow that thinking? Lo, and behold, it does.
As cited above, there is a clear distinction between a natural born citizen and the citizens in the grandfather clause. While many of those in America would be considered citizens at the time of the founding, they would never be natural born citizens and so this was the need for the grandfather clause.
But consider in addition to Article II, Section 1 that deals with the requirement to be a natural born citizen for the President, that there are other requirements for representatives and senators and notice the language:
Article I, Section 2 states:
Quote :
“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”
Article I, Section 3 states:

Quote :
“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
Do you notice something that is obviously missing from a requirement of these offices that is in the requirement for President? That’s right, there is no requirement for representatives and senators to be natural born citizens. Rather, the framers simply used the term citizen, as they did in Article II, Section 1. We can also see that they emphasized a length of time one had to be a citizen to hold that office (7 years for a representative and 9 years for a senator).
So, what is the issue, you ask? Clearly, the framers saw, for lack of a better term, “different classes of citizens.” This has nothing to do with diminishing the rights of any citizen, but distinguished who would have the privilege of serving in these offices and who could not.
The real difference here is this: natural born citizen is a fact and citizen is a legal status.
Get that?
And lest you think I’m straining at gnats here, understand that the “devil is always in the details,” or in this case, the distinction of natural born citizen and citizen. The framers have even written in such a way to make that distinction. Every other place in the Constitution, only the term citizen is used and I believe it was a clear indication of protecting an office that only one man holds and they wanted to ensure that his loyalties were not divided with dual citizenship allegiances.
My contention in this matter is not about personalities. I have addressed the issue with Obama and now I’m addressing it with those who claim to be on my side. The issue is one of principle. To mix and match citizen with natural born citizen is to undermine the very wording of the Constitution and distinction of those terms for the purpose of holding office.
This article is far longer than I desired it to be already, but I hope that it sets a foundation of understanding that the Constitution presents the two citizens as distinct. I will continue my thoughts on this in a future installment. Stay tuned.
Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.




Thanks to: http://www.dcclothesline.com


  

Back to top Go down
 
The Elephant in the Constitution that No One References when dealing with the Natural Born Citizen Issue
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Out Of Mind :: THE INSANITY OF REALITY :: GOVERNMENT & THE NEW WORLD ORDER-
Jump to: