Posted on 01/09/2016 7:58:16 PM PST by Joachim
| The True Law of Free Monarchies: Or The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects By King James I of England - 1598 As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their alleageance, according to the form of government established among them, especially in a Monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the Divinitie, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon; Unity being the perfection of all things,)… First then, I will set down the true grounds, whereupon I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchy is the true pattern of Divinity, as I have already said: next, from the fundamental Laws of our own Kingdom, which nearest must concern us: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by divers similitudes drawn out of the same: and will conclude syne by answering the most waighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected. By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to all his Lieges at his Coronation... As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King: the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited by Gods Spirit, when God had given him commandement to heare the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King. And because that place of Scripture being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose, I have insert herein the very words of the Text... ...it is plain, and evident, that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that King, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intollerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience, not to resist to Gods ordinance: but as he would have said; Since God hath granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as yee have else committed an error in shaking off Gods yoke, and over-hastie seeking of a King; so beware yee fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke, which God at your earnest suite hath laid upon you, how hard that ever it seem to be: For as ye could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may ye no more, for he be once set over you, shake him off without the same warrant. And therefore in time arm your selves with patience and humility, since he that hath the only power to make him, hath the only power to unmake him; and ye only to obey, bearing with these straits that I now foreshew you, as with the finger of God, which lieth not in you to take off.
Speech of James I before Parliament, March 21, 1610 The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods.
|
The Declaration of Independance When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. ...We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
|
|
England
United States
|
The foundational principles in England are completely alien to and incompatible with the foundational principles of the United States.
a big thank you from me too. Please keep posting this stuff. Maybe eventually a few of them will care enough to read it.
Good post.
Yes. The only requirement for that office is US citizenship, no matter how obtained.
Being a dual citizen creates a political issue only, and is not a constitutional impediment to being a senator.
I suppose being a dual citizen creates a political issue only for purposes of NBC, as well. It doens;t matter if cruz is an NBC in fact, what matters is what a sufficient number of people believe and/or accept.
The way the issue of NBC is processed through the legal system precludes getting a legal answer, the answer will be determined by a political process. If Cruz gets enough votes, he'll be seated as president. There is no need for a court decision, only votes and Congressional acquiesence after the electoral votes have been tallied.
Either statement is true, but the outcome of analysis depends on which framework is used.
Is Cruz and NBC? It depends on which framework of analysis is used.
The presumption is that everybody running is an NBC. The presumption is tested or challenged by the political process, meaning the people decide. If enough people vote for Cruz, then he is a NBC.
I agree with you that Yosemitest's legal analysis is fatally flawed, but the argument he makes flies pretty well. If enough (and the right) people believe or say Cruz is an NBC, then he is. The truth of the matter doesn't control the outcome. The perception does.
Hypothetical: A female US citizen and male US citizen have a child in Kansas City, Mo. When the child is age 15, the family moves to Saudi Arabia for the father’s oil industry job and while there, the whole family is radicalized by Shiite’s and trained ala “Manchurian Candidate” (like the Hollywood movie - we’re asserting wild hypotheticals here) and returns for good in 30 years to run for office - first as a Governor, then President as a *wildly* popular candidate with the gift of gab. Is the child a natural born citizen of the U.S. under the Constitution, eligible for the Presidency?
Lee Harvey Oswald is NBC.
Charlie Manson is NBC.
Your ISIS Rape Child is NBC.
My radicalized candidate above is *definitely* NBC.
Good luck with any of them getting elected.
All sorts of folks are NBC. NBC is not some pure “Royal” lineage guaranteed to produce presidential material. Nor is it guaranteed to produce bonafide patriots with the country’s best interest at heart (Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Sharpton, most all liberal-progressives, Trump just a few years ago).
So after that plodding article that makes unsupported rebuttals, here is what we *CAN* say with no parsing, reading-between-the-lines, or need for a psychic-reader: In the Naturalization Act of 1790, written by a congress that included 8 of the 11 framers of the Constitution a mere three years later, wrote that children born outside the nation to citizens were to be considered “Natural Born Citizens” and that is the *only* time the founding fathers saw fit to include those three words (verbatim) in the legislative record. MY point is that if Cruz’s circumstance of birth would have been good enough for the constitution’s framers in that congress, then who am I to argue with them?
And would a constitutionally focused, younger CITIZEN candidate like Cruz have been the “foreign born, usurping” candidate that the founders feared (bearing in mind they considered his birth NBC in their own words) or would they have been more comfortable with a screaming, populist rich man who (out-of-pocket) could buy the office by purchasing every “barrel of ink” in the country for barrage advertisements and making off-the-cuff populist promises with no firm underpinnings other than a “trust me”? Well, we can only guess. But as to their opinion on how they felt about Cruz’s circumstance of birth, we merely have to read their own words in the legislative record.
As to what law actually pertains - we have to look at what laws were in place on the date Cruz was born. Beyond that, if the founder’s opinion counts for anything, I’ll side with them, I will accept Cruz as a candidate and wish him well.
But good luck with your candidate!
Does anyone really believe the founders would consider an "anchor baby" with Chinese parents a natural born citizen that would be eligible to serve as POTUS? What about the children of all the trophy wives living in the middle east or Russia are those all natural born citizens and also eligible to serve as POTUS?
Some adult female gets infatuated with say an ISIS fighter and goes to Syria, gets knocked up and has a child. That child lives with his dad until he is an adult then the child comes to the USA and that child is a NBC and can run for president?
Bump! The Marxist globalists greatest enemy is the uppity American middle class clinging to their birthright, the US Constitution. So the Marxist globalists never pass up an opportunity to weaken the US Constitution or the American middle class.
Redefining the meaning of a natural born citizen is a great victory for the enemies of our republic and Ted Cruz is more than happy to play his part. Zero got the ball by getting rid of the two American citizens parents part. Now Ted is going to spike it thru the hoop by getting rid of the born in the USA part. Natural born citizen is essentially meaning less now. Anyone born anywhere that has a single American parent (even if a dual citizen parent) is now a natural born citizen and can serve as POTUS. Totally ridiculous and as far from original intent as is possible.
But Hey Ted Cruz is a great conservative. /s
The Marxist globalists are very happy with the job Ted and Heidi are doing for them.
Not sure that was much more than a formality, as the US does not recognize dual citizenship.
“...Every single author of the U.S. Constitution understood this definition...”
Yet in the Naturalization act of 1790, written by a congress that included 8 of the 11 framers of the US Constitution, they wrote the following in clear, unambiguous language requiring no “reading between the lines” or psychic reading:
“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”
They actually used the three words (verbatim) “natural born Citizens”.
Who am I to argue with the founders, especially since they removed all doubt with their own words in the legislative record?
Good luck with your preferred candidate!
Very interesting thanks for sharing that story.
Thank you for the bump. I’m honored.
“...Minor v. Happersett is binding precedent...”
Only upon the scope of it’s case. It could certainly be used as an argument for a case specifically scoped to resolve presidential qualifications, but that argument has not yet been made, argued in that court, or resolved.
That’s not *MY* law — it is the nation’s laws of jurisprudence. So don’t take my word for it, google “judicial restraint” and argue with them. I’m just pointing out how your cited case does not (yet) settle the matter as regards presidential qualifications. No one has seen fit to grind that sausage yet.
Good luck with your candidate!
Don't sell yourself short. You can be a lot stupider.
“...And the children of citizens......plural, ?...”
Grammatically correct if they expected more than one citizen to give birth beyond the boundaries. A father is not required to be physically present at the moment of birth, so it could be reasonably expected that (for one example) an expectant citizen mother may prefer a family-member midwife and return to her birth family’s home nation to give birth.
Since they didn’t include the word “both”, then I guess I stand corrected in that the (what I thought was a clear phrase) can be nit-picked to death. So, can we say that the 2nd amendment only pertains to muskets since the founding fathers could never have knowledge of the AR-15 platform and we have to assume what they “implied” rather than taking their written words at face value?
“...If so, then how is it that a man who claims himself a constitutional scholar could make such an error?...”
The obvious answer is that you and he are diametrically opposed on the issue and only one of you can be right. My money is on an actual legal and constitutional scholar and not an “internet scholar”.
All joking aside, is there not one smidgen of doubt that perhaps you may be overlooking something to be so sure that you are right above all other legal and constitutional scholars who have weighed in on the subject in recent history? That you, WTFOVR, has some enlightened understanding that opposes those scholars who have devoted their adult education and professional experience to studying the law and/or the constitution?
Now I fully expect an egregiously egotistical “Yes!” in your reply, but I just want to allow the opportunity to be surprised.
This is the current law - You can tell by the repeated references to USCIS, which did not exist in 1970. (It was the INS back then).
The “current law” can’t amend the Constitution. You can’t amend the Constitution by mere statute.
There are three tests to determine eligibility: 1) natural born citizen, 2) attained the age of thirty five years, 3) been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
Is determining a person’s age a political question, or is it a question of fact?
Is determining a person’s residency a political question, or is it a question of fact?
Of course, these are questions of fact.
Yet determining who is a natural born citizen is somehow a political question?
The consequence is obvious: the negation of one of the three Constitutionally mandated tests. No longer is there a fixed standard, but one defined by political power.
The Constitutional standard may not be expanded or diminished by Congressional act.
Eligibility is not a political question, it is a question of fact and law. The eligibility of a given person is determined by the Judiciary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.