8 Responses to “Attorney Larry Klayman’s case on behalf of Michael Voeltz was dismissed by judge Lewis in FL on June 29”

1. Bill Kelly
   July 2nd, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

   Larry did not do well in oral arguments and he overstated his case to the press and underwhelmed before the judge. He looked nervous. Obama is outsmarting everyone.

2. Bruriah Sarah
   July 3rd, 2012 @ 1:52 pm

   To Bill Kelly

   I don’t think that Obama is outsmarting everyone. I think that we have to look at the scenario -there is blockage. Obama’s lawyers are using technicalities to defeat the case from being heard. So therefore, using technicalities can also be used to win the day. Why not establish a think tank of lawyers to figure out what the arguments should be and how to maneuver this very corrupted judicial system. I also feel that Congress must get involved. And perhaps it is time that petition be started to show that the people expect more = justice.

3. Willy
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:05 am

   Where you will find the answers is with the Founders Papers, Federalist papers, notes, etc.
   4 cases, the opinion handed down either cited or referred to “The Law of Nations” written by Emmerich de Vattel and his definition of “Natural Born Citizen” as it appears in Book I, Chapter 19, paragraph 212, of the English translation of 1797 (p. 110):

   Paragraph 212 – Citizens and natives – The French original: Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays de parents citoyens, . . .

   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 French phrase “les naturels, ou indigenes” both refer to the same category of citizen: one born in a country, of parents who were both citizens of that country.
   Following is a recap of the 4 instances ruled on by the Supremes :

   1) – The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 was decided in 1814

   The Venus case regarded whether the cargo belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer, bringing into question the citizenship issue.

   In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, writing the unanimous decision, quoted the entire 212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English stated; “Vattel, who though not fully on point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it, than any other work that has fallen into my hands” ;

   “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.

   “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

   2) – Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 was decided in 1830

   16 years later the Supreme Court heard the case regarding the dispute over the inheritance received by two daughters of an American colonist, from South Carolina; one of whom went to England and remained a British subject, the other of whom remained in South Carolina and became an American citizen. At the beginning of the case, Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

   Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782.

   Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her ? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast.

   3) – Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 was decided in 1875

   This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

   The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. 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.

   4) – United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was decided in 1898

   In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:

   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.

   On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”

   In all 4 instances taken up by the Supreme Court, their ruling cited diredtly, or indirectly, the Vattel definition that a “Natural Born Citizen” is any person who is born in a place to which both their parents are citizens thereof”.

   The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 was decided in 1814

   Page 12 U. S. 278
   1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel “domicile,” which he defines to be, “a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there.” Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word “domicile,” but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates “strangers” and the latter “subjects,” and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them
   Page 12 U. S. 279
   In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations.
   Page 12 U. S. 283
   It is said that this presumption ought to be made because, upon receiving information of the war, it will be his duty to return home. This position is denied. It is his duty to commit no acts of hostility against his native country, and to return to her assistance when required to do so; nor will any just nation, regarding the mild principles of the law of nations, require him to take arms against his native country or refuse her permission to him to withdraw whenever he wishes to do so unless under peculiar circumstances which, by such removal at a critical period, might endanger the public safety. The conventional law of nations is in conformity with these principles.
   Page 12 U. S. 289
   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.”
   “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
   Page 12 U. S. 290
   them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”
   A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than “simple habitation.”
   Page 12 U. S. 291
   Vattel says,
   “Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no account here. It is the political ties which determine the quality. While a man remains a citizen of his own country, he remains the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war.”
   So far is the law of nations from considering residence in a foreign country in time of peace as evidence of an intention “always to stay there,” even in time of war, that the very contrary is expressed. Vattel says
   Page 12 U. S. 292
   as incorporated into that society so as immediately on a declaration of war to become the enemy of his own. “His property,” says Vattel,
   “is still a part of the totality of the wealth of his nation. . . . The citizen or subject of a state who absents himself for a time without any intention to abandon the society of which he is a member does not lose his privilege by his absence; he preserves his rights and remains bound by the same obligations. Being received in a foreign country in virtue of the natural society, the communication and commerce which nations are obliged to cultivate with each other, he ought to be considered there as a member of his own nation, and treated as such.”
   Page 12 U. S. 297
   The law of nations is a law founded on the great and immutable principles of equity and natural justice. To draw an inference against all probability, whereby a citizen, for the purpose of confiscating his goods, is clothed, against his inclination, with the character of an enemy, in consequence of an act which, when committed,

   American writers quoted {The Law of Nations} on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book’s publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved,” that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution.
   Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that `the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,’ `that their authority does not extend so far,’ and `that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.’|” In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.
   The early revolutionary leaders’ emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written.

   Alexander Hamilton although many men contributed to the founding of the United States, it is useful to focus on Hamilton, since of all of America’s founders, he was most clearly influenced by Vattel, and his actions were most coherent with Leibnizian natural law. No one played a more important role than Hamilton, in the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and in fulfilling its Leibnizian mandate. A number of Hamilton’s key initiatives show how Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} shaped Hamilton’s thinking and actions, and thereby shaped the founding of the United States.
   The U.S. Consititution. One of the first and most persistent in efforts to replace the weak central government with a strong one, was Alexander Hamilton. The government of the Articles of Confederation demonstrated its inadequacies during the American Revolution, and its failings became even clearer, when it was unable to halt the economic collapse which resulted from British economic warfare, following the 1783 Treaty of Paris. On Sept. 3, 1780, Hamilton, who was {aide-de-camp} for Washington, sent a letter to James Duane, who was then a Congressman, arguing that the weak central government was a disaster and urging specific reforms to strengthen it. For the next seven years, Hamilton argued in private letters, public appeals, resolutions, speeches in assemblies, and maneuvers at conventions, that a new constitution was needed to provide a strong central government.

   the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel’s conception. Hamilton stated that it is a “fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.” However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall.
   The Citizen Genet Affair. George Washington became the first President of the United States, under the new Constitution, in April 1789. Hamilton was appointed the Secretary of the Treasury, which was by far the largest department. President Washington usually sought the views of the key members of his cabinet, before making important decisions on domestic and foreign policy. Hamilton relied primarily on Vattel in his writings on foreign policy.

   Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel’s {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel’s influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

   Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, “The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.” In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and “his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}” James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.} Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and “Vattel’s {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.” Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.

   Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin’s key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, “I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of
   your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting …|.”

   The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions “of the circumstances of a rising state,” is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel’s arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the “inalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people. Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our “British Brethren,” but since they “have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,” we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, “to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.”

   The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel’s Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration’s Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke’s philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his {Two Treatises of Government,} that the fundamental right of men is to “Life, Liberty, and Property.” The inclusion of “the pursuit of happiness,” rather than “property,” as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.

   is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”
   Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote: The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…”
   Here the court is assuming what Congress may have intended while also arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”
   An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was “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 definition for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” handed down in Elk posed a real problem for Wong Kim Ark because Wong’s parents did not owe the United States direct and complete allegiance nor did they fall within the political jurisdiction. To try and sidestep the judicial meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” found in Elk, Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by painting a new meaning under the Fourteenth Amendment:
   Unfortunately for Gray, he can’t unmake history nor can he hide from what he had ruled in Elk. Again, Kim Ark was not born into the allegiance of the United States, his parents had no political attachment, and his parents were subject to treaties in the same way that Indians were.
   When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.“
   That statement pretty much removes all doubt whether the Wong Kim Ark court had any idea what they were talking about.
   The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”
   It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth’s first section (privileges and immunities).

4. Willy
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:09 am

   4 specific cases where the United States Supreme Court has made rulings involving “natural born citizenship”
   The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 was decided in 1814
   Page 12 U. S. 278 – Page 12 U. S. 279 – Page 12 U. S. 283 – Page 12 U. S. 289 – Page 12 U. S. 290 – Page 12 U. S. 291
   Page 12 U. S. 292 – Page 12 U. S. 297
   Vattell – Law of Nations – Vattell – Law of Nation etc. etc.

   Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 was decided in 1830
   Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 was decided in 1875
   United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 was decided in 1898

5. Willy
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:19 am

   a connection with Vattell must be established the use of vattells writings to write the Constitution and or the Declaration of Independence must be made This will support the argument that obama does not meet the qualifications as to Natural Born Citizen
   You cannot use recent rulings as they are mere interpretations of and or lower courts rulings of common law and or of liberal sitting judges
   Horace Grey (WKA)upheld segragation the anwers are in the library of Congress and the first five sitting persidents which were considered Founders and signers of the Constitution

6. Willy
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:26 am

   ARTICLE 1
   SECTION 2: (2) 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.
   SECTION 3: (3) 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.
   SECTION 8: (10) To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against THE LAW OF NATIONS
   ARTICLE 2
   SECTION 1: (5) 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.
   20th Amendment
   Section 3: If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
   14th amendment
   SECTION #1
   All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
   3 USC § 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act.

   (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties

   of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

   (2) The same rule shall apply in the case of the death, resignation, removal from office, or inability of an individual acting as President under this subsection.

7. Willy
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:29 am

   This bill was introduced on February 25, 2004, in a previous session of Congress, but was NOT ENACTED.
   show cosponsors (2) Sen. James “Jim” Inhofe [R-OK] Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]

   2/25/2004–Introduced “Failed not enacted”
   Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President, as: (1) any person born in, and subject to the jurisdiction of, the United States; and (2) any person born outside the United States who derives citizenship at birth from U.S. citizen parents, or who is adopted by the age of 18 by U.S. citizen parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship.
   H.J.R. 33 – 1975 failed not enacted, H.J.R. 33, H.J.R. 38 – 1977 failed not enacted, H.J.R 59 H.J.R. 67 – 2003 failed not enacted, S.2128, H.J.R. 104 – 2004 failed not enacted
   H.J.R. 2, H.J.R. , 15 H.J.R. 42 – 2005 failed not enacted, S.2678 (Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill) failed not enacted.
   S.R511 Passed and enacted, by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK]
   Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements. The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president

8. Willy
   July 4th, 2012 @ 7:33 am

   Calling on all Constitutional Law Professors who are willing to take up the cause in support of the Founders reasons for the Constittuion and defend it !!!

Leave a Reply