Constitutional Emergency

Trey Gowdy Twists Natural Born Citizen Qualification to Support Marco Rubio.....By Tim Brown

We can like Rubio and Cruz, and they may serve in any position in the US government "except the office of president of the United States"

http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/trey-gowdy-twists-natural-born-ci...

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. -Article II, Section 1 of the united States Constitution

Before I begin and before you get angry at me for pointing out what I'm about to point out, I want to ask you to hold that thought and ask yourself why you are not more angry at these representatives for their ignorance and willful ignoring of the law! I have been suspicious of Rep. Trey Gowdy for some time now. Though he often says a lot of good things, the reality is that he has been on several congressional committees, including chairing the Benghazi committee and has brought absolutely no resolve to any of those things. However, today, a video was released challenging Gowdy on the Natural Born Citizenship qualifications of presidential candidate Marco Rubio (and we could also apply the same standard to Ted Cruz). Gowdy's answer was simply treasonous.

Evan Mulch, who is a constituent of Gowdy's, confronted the congressman concerning and first asked if he had read the 28 pages of the 9/11 report that several congressmen are attemp.... Gowdy admitted that he had not read them.

However, it was the follow-up question that generated the ignorance and heat. Mulch asked Gowdy, "When Marco Rubio said that his parents were born in another country, that doesn't make him a natural born citizen, according to the Constitution. What would you say to that?"

"That issue has already been litigated," said Gowdy.

Gowdy then went on to totally distort the idea of what was put to him and asked if John McCain was ineligible, something that has not been a part of being a natural born citizen. In case you miss the dodge there, Rubio's parents were not citizens when he was born in the States. Of course, Rubio is an American citizen, but fails to meet the qualifications that even the founders recognized had to be present to be a natural born citizen.

When Gowdy was asked, "So, we don't need a natural born citizen to be president?"

"It depends on what you mean by that?" he responded.

It depends on what you mean? My goodness, the ignorance is glaring and I will demonstrate just how much shortly, but Gowdy continued to demonstrate his ignorance of the natural born citizen issue.

When Mulch said that we know what the founders meant by it, Gowdy retorted, "No you don't!"

But Mr. Gowdy, we most certainly do know! In fact, we have something called the 1790 Naturalization Act, which clearly defines who a natural born citizen is. And no, it is not just a person born on American soil as the Constitution distinguishes between natural born and "a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." If all that was required was to be a "citizen," then why the distinction? It was because of what I'm about to show you.

As Publius Huldah has pointed out, the framers were quite familiar with Vattel's Law of Nations. As such, they understood what it meant to be "natural born," though Vattel used the term subject, not citizen. While many have tried to blow off Congress' use of the Law of Nations, Benjamin Franklin wrote a letter to Charles Dumas on December 9, 1775 to thank him for sending three copies of the book and specifically wrote, "… 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, (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed,) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author…" (2nd para) [boldface added]

So, Congress most definitely was aware of the volume, had high and just esteem for Vattel and continually had it in their hands. Keep in mind that this was all before the Constitution was written in 1787.

In fact, Publius Huldah points out that in the 1916 edition of the Law of Nations published by the Carnegie Endowment, Albert de Lapradelle wrote an introduction which stated that the fathers of independence, "were in accord with the ideas of Vattel," that the found in Vattel "all their maxims of political liberty" and,

"From 1776 to 1783, the more the United States progressed, the greater became Vattel's influence. In 1780 his Law of Nations was a classic, a text book in the universities."

While our founders were originally subjects of Britain, once they won the war for independence, they became citizens, and Vattel was the one who offered that understanding they came to with regard to natural born citizen. Publius Huldah has previously pointed out what the gist of what Vattel penned in Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217, is this:

§ 212: Natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens – it is necessary that they be born of a father who is a citizen. If a person is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

§ 213: Inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to stay in the country. They are subject to the laws of the country while they reside in it. But they do not participate in all the rights of citizens – they enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. Their children follow the condition of their fathers – they too are inhabitants.

§ 214: A country may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen – this is naturalization. In some countries, the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, such as that of holding public office – this is a regulation of the fundamental law. And in England, merely being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

§§ 215, 216 & 217: Children born of citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are "citizens".

So, the founders knew what it meant and we know they knew what it meant. Gowdy is just out to lunch here or is being dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but there is no excuse for a man in his position to not know this.

Furthermore, the 1790 Naturalization Act, which was written within two years of the Constitution, so there is no doubt that these men had the same definition of those who penned the Constitution, reads:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Notice that even in this Act, there is a distinction between "citizens," those who are "naturalized" and "natural born citizens." Notice they also understood that men like John McCain (though he is a traitor to his country) would be a natural born citizen, even if he were born outside US soil in Panama. Why? Because his parents were both citizens! There is no doubt that we can know exactly what the Framers had in mind when they wrote "natural born citizen."

Finally, you'll notice Trey Gowdy said, "You're either going to follow the law of the land or you're not."

Exactly right, Mr. Gowdy, but it seems you are so ignorant of what the Constitution means by Natural Born Citizen that you are unable to follow the law, or you are simply willfully not following it, but propping up nothing but anchor babies from all over. After all, if all that is required to be president is for one to be a citizen, every anchor baby ever born should fit Gowdy's sentiments, right?

Rubio's parents were born in Cuba and were not naturalized till after he was born in the States, making him a citizen, but not a natural born citizen (remember the language distinguishing between those two in the Constitution. Cruz's father was born in Cuba and his mother was a US citizen. Remember, that one must be born of parents (plural) who are citizens, but more specifically the father must be a citizen. Cruz held dual citizenship in Canada and the united States until he wanted to throw his hat in the ring for a presidential run.

But notice the other problem here. We are told we are a nation of immigrants. No, we are not. I'm not. My family decades ago may have been, but my parents were citizens, their parents were citizens and I'm a citizen. Furthermore we are natural born citizens. Also, one woman turns and ignorantly claims, "You realize we're all not natural born citizens." Talk about why we are in the place we are at!

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6

Indeed, America is being destroyed due to the lack of knowledge of the people. As a final thought, keep in mind that the Bible even teaches that a foreigner should not rule over the people, emphasizing the natural born status.

Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. Deuteronomy 17:15


Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/12/trey-gowdy-twists-natural-born-ci...

Views: 898

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

THE COMMUNIST ARE IN FULL CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY ((((((( NOW WHAT THE HELL OUR WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT  ))))))))) ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Any relation to U.S. Grant? Send Sherman on D.C.!

(P.S. edit, couldn't help myself, t'was there for the taking!)

I am not suspicious of Trey Gowdy.    After watching him since his entering into office, I've seen a very effective legislator doing his job as no other has done in my life time.  I figured the establishment will do to him what it did to former Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 50's.  It was Senator McCarthy who tried to warn America that what we see happening here today.  They turned him every way but loose until he just happened to have a Heart Attack down town Washington, D.C. 

I also learned about the Soviet Union's methods of assassinations of the unwanted  who reveal  truth.  Media always provides the language which gives rise to the hatred, then if the hated person ends up dead , Oh well, what difference does it make now,  no one liked him anyway.  You know, it's sorta like the Hillary who now is running for president.  Question:  Just what did the Ambassador know that was a threat to the Obama Administration and then gave rise to the abominable lie dredged up about a video.  And now that same liar is running for president.  Population intel seems to have dropped a little below F- minus to tolerate the political rebellion going on in Congress and the Executive Office. So Go Ben! And be on watch Mr. Congressman Gowdy.

 People keep saying Zero isn't eligible to be POTUS? Has anyone considered that to be a distraction to keep us occupied while they destroy the nation? Is Dreams of My Real Father right? Is Frank Marshall Davis,the communist,his real dad? Zero did say Davis was his mentor,he did spend a lot of time with Davis. I  am making this point because some seam to believe it is okay for Cruz & Rubio because Zero got away with it. 2 wrongs do not make a right.

There are the facts that Zero's step dad had to adopt him so he could attend the islam school , his birth certificate is forged & he did attend college as a foreign exchange student,but I do believe that his dad is Davis & they knew that if the majority of Americans knew who Zero's real dad is he would have never been elected.

Where is Sheriff Joe in a lot of this? Why will no one touch it? The answer is simple. Everyone in D.C. is corrupt with skeletons in their closets that would shock the average person beyond belief !!

Question...where is Cruz' naturalization papers or his US birth certificate? US immigration and naturalization law says there is no need to naturalize a child born to US parents while overseas on official government business (serving honorably in the US armed forces; employed with the US government; or employed with certain international organizations.). However, if you are a US citizen and give birth to a child while overseas on your own business/vacation, you must notify the US consulate/embassy and complete a CRBA.

“A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met. The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State will issue a CRBA, also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

At this point all we have is a Canadian birth certificate and a legal renouncement of his Canadian citizenship. But where's the proof he is a naturalized US citizen at birth? Is he even a legal resident of the US? Is he a man without a country?

How about we recognize we are living in a "POST-CONSTITUTIONAL" STATE?  Has ANYONE heard mark Levin make this statement? If so, then this applies: how did we get here? By incrementally allowing our "law-makers" who are ALSO ABDICATING their appointed role (as per the Constitution) we suffer from this gross indignation.  Not enough of them have lost their seats to make them believe they are replaceable.

Surely we do not have any indication that those in power have any intention of suddenly following the Constitution AND we have an electorate that is blind and dumb to what that means AND because we are living in a time when those in power have no conscience to uphold the Constitution, (no longer does taking an oath mean anything to these profligate elites)  isn't it a little ridiculous to quibble over this?  How about we do something REALLY necessary like ARRESTING  the most serious of the lawbreakers, like Hillary, Barry, Nancy, Harry, etc?  This CAN BE done if only we can find some many hundreds/thousands of men and women who would attempt to do such an honorable thing as per quo warranto script. 
IF we give up our firearms, we will have no hope of recovering anything close to the country we have lived in and is now rapidly after slowly dwindling away by "tolerating" the contempt for authority by those who are charged with authority by rule of law.  Because this crowd now in the Oval Office and the U.S. Capitol live according to their idea of street crime law, and because we have no strength of allegiance to MILITARY ORDER, we see even the joint chiefs exhibit their yellow streaks. 
Pontificating against an honorable man such as Ted Cruz (who incidentally has a very strong understanding of Constitutional governance) has no merit, but it CERTAINLY would be wonderful if those who are so well schooled in Constitutional law WOULD ALSO EXPOSE THE PROFLIGATE CAREER of reaping millions of dollars by Donald J Trump's CONVINCING his cronies in government to use "EMINENT DOMAIN" TO CONFISCATE private property for Trump's now bankrupt casinos in Atlantic Cit and vacant lots in Connecticut where people's family homes stood for decades.  WHY is NO ONE TALKING about this, which is much more damaging to individuals?  To elect another guy who exhibits essentially NO WORKING KNOWLEDGE of the Constitution is insane.  It is like those who have been so upset with Barack Obama has learned NOTHING about the loss of individual liberty in such issues as eminent domain, private property rights, First Amendment protections, particularly religious liberty, 2nd Amendment. Nor do they seem to know that their enthusiasm for Trump rivals the hysteria of B.H. Obama in 2008 and 2012, which it quite obviously does.
Further, WHAT IS IT that the Founders wanted to safeguard when they wrote this magnificent documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?  They were seeking a statement that affirmed the loyalty to the rule of law, to limited governance by the state and with consent of the governed so that individual liberties were held in higher esteem over tyrannical rule.  Do you see that those in power have little, if any allegiance to that school of thought?  
The words that come from the mouth of just about every Democrat prove they have none.  And for that matter neither do the Republicans voice any allegiance to individual liberties.  The Constitution is a sort of "2nd Amendment" for individual liberty, that is only guarded by individuals who understand these ideals.  
When those is in power  or might be elected to power fit the common law definition of "natural born citizen" while renouncing the safeguard the Founders or attempt to install with the term "natural born citizen", have we done what we are attempting to do by GIVING THEM the seats of power?  NO!  Better to have one who holds sacred the blessings of individual liberty and limited governance by the consent of the governed, the spirit of the Constitution (while questioning his "citizenship") than to elect one who fits the age-old definition and denounces individual liberty by passing omnibus bills that crush human industry or by one who has confiscated private property in the name of "progress".  
Words have meaning, but let us be sure we understand the value of the meaning (and its impact) over the words in the document. Webster in the early 1800's surely understood this, he wrote his dictionary for that very purpose.  How about we gain some of that very wisdom?

Laura,

Well put and exactly correct in my mind.

Laura...............I'm going to post another item on PFA, title, "Slavery by consent, THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION" which reflects why we're where we are..........the issue deserves it's own thread outside the Trey Gowdy piece............

That's great,Col.,a lot of people are not aware of that fact.

Marry Christmas to you and family & a wonderful New Year.

Thanks for all you do.

Not available when I click link provided on email for this one.

Same here - file not found

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/officials-found-guilty-i...

A jury in South Bend, Indiana has found that fraud put President Obama and Hillary Clinton on the presidential primary ballot in Indiana in the 2008 election. Two Democratic political operatives were convicted Thursday night in the illegal scheme after only three hours of deliberations. They were found guilty on all counts.

RSS

About

Old Rooster created this Ning Network.

This effort is focused on sacrifice to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Fox News

Tech Notes

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11



HOW TO JOIN YOUR STATE GROUP

1. Click on State Groups tab at the top of the page.
2. Find your State Flag
3. Click on Flag.
4. Look for link to join Your State Group near the top of the State Groups page.
5. Click on it.

Follow the Prompts


How to post "live" URL in posts at PFA............. Adding URLs in blog posts that are not "live" is a waste of everyone's time.....
Here's how....if anyone has better guidance send to me.....
First........type your text entry into the post block to include typing or paste the URL you want us to view........when finished with the text, highlight and copy the URL in the text.......then click the "add hyperlink" tool in the B, I, U box just above the text entry, after clicking, a window will open asking for the URL...paste the URL in the box and click "OK". You have now made the URL "live"...........it shows some code before the post is published, it goes away when you "publish post".......

Events

© 2019   Created by Old Rooster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service