There is a lot of mis-information going around and I would like to clear some of it up. Why did the founders add 2 little words in front of the proper noun ‘Citizen’ in Article II, Section 1 of the U.S.Constitution describing the qualifications to be the president?
KrisAnne Hall says it best —
[Paraphrased] “A U.S. President must be loyal to the United States first and only; and that unbroken loyalty would be proven, in part, by the fact that both parents were citizens of the United States and establishing that the candidate would have been raised in a home with loyalty only to the United States…”
Think about it for a minute — If you grew up and lets say your mother was originally from Germany, during your childhood she shared the horrible stories about how her father was tortured by the Nazis during the late 30’s and 40’s. You would have a negative bias toward Germany deep down in your subconscience. Or let us look at the flip side — maybe she shared some very positive stories such as the great times she had during Oktoberfest. You would have a positive outlook toward Germany. Either way, you would be somewhat ‘Influenced’.
However, if both of your parents had pledged, and taken an OATH to be a Citizen of one of the sovereign states, then that would ensure loyalty to only that state. Keep in mind now, we are NOT United States Citizens — We are citizens of one of the UNITED States of America.
Now, our founders were very familiar with these emotions, or influences, because most of them were only a generation – or maybe 2 generations – from the same. Heck, we were not even a COUNTRY at that time… just a bunch of settlers that heard of a new land, with great potential & promise, and decided to risk it all. Most of our founders were French, British, Scottish, Spanish & Irish. Majority of these settlers came from governments that were called ‘Monarchies’ — Ruled by Kings.
Now, let us fast forward to the late 1700’s and the Revolutionary War. These settlers didn’t spend weeks, or months, at sea just to fight a bloody battle against Kings on their own new land – NO they were forced to because the tyrant wouldn’t leave them alone. The king wanted money, gold & silver, and the power over the settlers, now called colonies, to control them.
1765 gave us the Stamp Act.
1773 gave us the Boston Tea Party.
1775 gave us the “Shot heard ‘round the World” & Paul Revere’s Ride the following night.
1776 gave us our Declaration of Independence.
1783 ended the war and in 1787 we had generated our U.S. Constitution.
There was much debate while the founders were writing & composing the Constitution. They wanted the original 13 colonies to be free and independent states — little countries so to speak — but since they had connected borders of land, they decided they needed to define a ‘Federal Government’ to take care of Foreign Affairs ONLY! Basically, 4 items — War, Peace, Negotiations, & Commerce.
Once again, I’m going to invoke our 1st Lady of Liberty — KrisAnne Hall. Here she explains it perfectly;
From Federalist Paper 45 — “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Enough of the History lesson, let us now return to the natural born Citizen topic. Here is a good read on it. Even KrisAnne Hall recommends Publius Huldah. It is from 2012… long before our current debate on a couple of candidates who are not eligible.
Here are a couple of portions from the Publius Huldah write-up. I will urge my readers to go to the link and read it in its entirety.
Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time. “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”. Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.
So! In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it. Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.
So! Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used? Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?
What Did Our Framers mean by “natural born Citizen”?
“Our Framers had no need to define “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution, because by the time of the Federal Convention of 1787, a formal definition of the term consistent with the new republican principles already existed in Emer Vattel’s classic, Law of Nations.”
Later she states —
“So! This Act of the First Congress implements the Principles set forth in Vattel, embraced by our Framers, and enshrined in Art. II, §1, cl. 5, that:
• A “natural born Citizen” is one who is born of parents who are citizens.
• Minor children born here of aliens do not become citizens until their parents are naturalized. Thus, they are not “natural born” citizens.
Our Framers rejected the anti-republican and feudal notion that mere location of birth within a Country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
So, we have established the importance of BOTH parents being Citizens and owing loyalty to the same single government for a child to be a natural born Citizen — as our founders intended.
So here we are, January of 2016 and the Iowa caucus is less than 1 month away. We have 2 front runners of the republican party who are NOT natural born Citizens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Both of them have connections to Cuba, a Communist State. Both of their fathers were not citizens of the USA, nor of any state in the Union, when these candidates were born. They are NOT natural born Citizens as the founders defined the qualifications in our constitution.
In the last couple of days, some additional info has come to light about Senator Cruz. His mother & father had apparently become Canadian Citizens shortly after his birth. They are both showing up as registered to VOTE in Canda in 1974. Ted Cruz was born in Canada in December of 1970.
Summary: Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a legal sitting President. Senators Cruz & Rubio are NOT eligible to hold that office either.
Some other related links
Respectfully submitted by SilenceDogood2010 this Ninth Day of January in the Year of our Lord, Two Thousand and Sixteen.
Read Full Post »