Attorney General Jeff Sessions Testifies To Congress – 2:30pm Livestream…

Conservative Treehouse ^ | June 13, 2017 | Sundance

[COUNTrecount]

Attorney General Jeff Sessions will be testifying before congress today and his former democrat colleagues have promised to tear him limb from limb. Fired FBI Director James Comey previously testi-lied that it was his opinion Jeff Sessions was placed inside the U.S. Attorney Generals office to coordinate with Vladimir Putin. Gottabe a spy, ohmygosh.

AG Jeff Sessions’ response will take place at approximately 2:30pm EDT today. Tickets for the circus level fiasco are sold out and media are breathless with anticipation.

RSBN Livestream Link – Alternate Livestream #1 – Alternate Livestream #2 – Alternate Livestream link #3

[gov_bean_ counter]

The only “fact” you stated is that the Russian investigation is a witch hunt.

Everything else...

[dmd25]

I’ve had it since my mid 20’s.

Wow. That is so young. I hope you are coping well with it.

[Godebert]

NATURAL LAW, NATURAL RIGHTS AND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISM

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

MINOR V. HAPPERSETT IS BINDING PRECEDENT AS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL DEFINITION OF A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

The Harvard Law Review Article Taken Apart Piece by Piece and Utterly Destroyed

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

Supreme Court cases that cite “natural born Citizen” as one born on U.S. soil to citizen parents:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

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.

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

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. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. 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.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

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 society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.' Again: 'I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

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. Some authorities go further and 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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

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.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939),

Was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship."

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

If there is extensive law written that covers election fraud, but it is impossible to enforce, or if a sufficient number of people agree that So-and-So is the President or Pope despite the law, how does that not utterly, completely destroy the entire notion of the Rule of Law itself? As I have said for years with regards to Obama, if you can’t enforce Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution, what can you enforce? Can you enforce the border? Can you enforce citizenship? Equal protection? Search and seizure? Right to bear arms? Can you enforce the law against treason? Theft? Murder? Trafficking in body parts? Religious persecution?

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

Not much information exists on why the Third Congress (under the lead of James Madison and the approval of George Washington) deleted "natural born" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795. There is virtually no information on the subject because they probably realized that the First Congress committed errors when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and did not want to create a record of the errors.

It can be reasonably argued that Congress realized that under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is given the power to make uniform laws on naturalization and that this power did not include the power to decide who is included or excluded from being a presidential Article II "natural born Citizen." While Congress has passed throughout United States history many statutes declaring who shall be considered nationals and citizens of the United States at birth and thereby exempting such persons from having to be naturalized under naturalization laws, at no time except by way of the short-lived "natural born" phrase in Naturalization Act of 1790 did it ever declare these persons to be "natural born Citizens."

The uniform definition of "natural born Citizen" was already provided by the law of nations and was already settled. The Framers therefore saw no need nor did they give Congress the power to tinker with that definition. Believing that Congress was highly vulnerable to foreign influence and intrigue, the Framers, who wanted to keep such influence out of the presidency, did not trust Congress when it came to who would be President, and would not have given Congress the power to decide who shall be President by allowing it to define what an Article II "natural born Citizen " is.

Additionally, the 1790 act was a naturalization act. How could a naturalization act make anyone an Article II "natural born Citizen?" After all, a "natural born Citizen" was made by nature at the time of birth and could not be so made by any law of man.

Natural Born Citizen Through the Eyes of Early Congresses

Harvard Law Review Article FAILS to Establish Ted Cruz as Natural Born Citizen

Watch: Mark Levin declares Ted Cruz a "Naturalized Citizen"

Mark Levin Attacks Birthers: Admits He Hasn't Studied Issue; Declares Canadian-Born Cruz Eligible

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

[SkyPilot]

I am completely factual in all of my assertions. In fact, Tucker Carlson is on FOXNews right now sparring with a Democrat about Jeff Sessions. And there is no walking back from this political landmine we now find ourselves in, because of Jeff Sessions. This mess not only dominates our political conversation, it is harming our nation, and harming everything about the Trump agenda. Talk your way out of that one.

[petitfour]

It’s like they wrote their stories ahead of time . . .

[Godebert]

Tool.

[sport]

Mr. Sessions’s appearance did little to move the White House beyond the shadow of Russia-tinged investigations,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It was intended to. And it wasn’t intended to clear anything up. It was merely to drag things out. What is going on is a coup against President Trump. It is led by the alphabet new organizations and abetted by the Democrat Party. Its sole and only is the removal, by hook or crook, of President Trump from Office. The Republican Party is also aware of what is going on and fully supports it.

[gov_bean_ counter]

You sit in judgement regarding your opinion about his motives about recusal?

And you further assume that Dems would not have found a way to put Trump in an equally uncomfortable position?

You assume much.

[Godebert]

Do you even know the difference between statutory law and natural law?

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

[SkyPilot]

He’s only been in office a few months. You think you could do any better?

Yes. I would not have stabbed my boss in the back after only 2 1/2 months in office.

[Sequoyah101]

I recall that as well. Nobody is perfect and certainly not politicians.

This says it all about politicians for me, all of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvDcJydVcHo

They are always acting, posturing to the best of their ability. Even some without much grey matter do it well. It just comes naturally to them.

Dogs are dogs and Cats are cats.

[M Kehoe]

To the WaPo and NYT: spin it anyway you like, but a large majority of the American people see exactly what you are trying to do.

All that any of you reprobates have to do is site a statute violated and evidence of such . You have had over one year and the entire IC colluding to find something.

What do you have?

Bupkis.

5.56mm

[SkyPilot]

You assume more than I do. The facts are the facts. Jeff Sessions recused himself and by doing so he threw President Trump to the political and media wolves. If you turn on your television tonight, you can witness the slaughter. Try CNN, FOX, ABC. This is not to say to media would have not been against Trump from the beginning, but Jeff sessions gave them the batteries. Why do you deny the facts?? Is it a sunny disposition? Do you believe in fairies?

[FenwickBabbitt]

“I saw Drudge’s headline. I would not call this a smack down by any stretch of the imagination.”

How would you know, since you never even watched the hearings and very clearly made up your mind about them long before they began? You’ve spent numerous posts here pushing misleading, uninformed slander. I would have thought even you would be tired of hearing yourself saying the same thing on one single thread this many times.

I especially think it’s disturbing how you keep equating ethical, principled behavior that follows explicit U.S. regulations as being egotistical and cowardly, especially when you keep telling us how Christian you are.

I’ve been watching Fox (and Fox Business) periodically tonight too, and the hosts (and titles at the bottom of the screen) have used words like “fierce,” “fiery,” “fighting back,” “came out swinging,” and several other similar terms to describe Sessions’ strong and often forceful testimony today. You are seeing what you wanted to see based on the opinion you already had of Sessions. That was clear from your first post when you had only seen one small clip from the hearing and was already declaring Sessions a failure.

[M Kehoe]

The Deep State is getting restless. Nothing they do is working. Look for them to start manufacturing evidence.

5.56mm

[Cboldt]

The OpEd pieces are over the top crazy. Through the looking glass.

Give this a week to sink in. Sessions' testimony is rock solid. Only a couple places where it reads like perhaps he and his interlocutor were briefly talking past each other. Otherwise, without cherry picking, his testimony was substantive, clear and compelling. When he got pushback, he rebutted, and won.

He's the kind of fellow who closes the loop. I will not be surprised if he calls the bluff on the "stonewalling" claim, by getting certain conversations with Trump cleared, and providing answers to those in a letter to the Committee, published on DoJ webpage. Burr pointed out ...

BURR: Before I recognize Senator Blunt, I would like the record to show that last night Admiral Rogers spent almost two hours in closed session with the -- with almost the full committee fulfilling his commitment to us in the hearing that in closed session he would answer the question, and I think it was thoroughly answered and all members were given an opportunity to ask the question. I want the record to show with what senator Heinrich stated.

Heirich stated that Rogers refused to answer questions. That was false. Rogers answered the questions after getting cleared.

[DivineMomentsOfTruth]

Thanks so much! A man asked me if I had had a stroke.. I explained it was neurological and only affects my voice.. He proceeded to ask if my dog was a service dog.. I said no.. He can’t talk for me! A least he was nice.. Too many aren’t.

[SkyPilot]

So now, somehow, I am not a Christian because I am critical of Jeff Sessions? Send me the chapter and verse of the Bible where that is appropriate. I have not sinned against the man nor have I slandered him. I have pointed out the facts of what he has done. If I had the opportunity to take him aside in private and point out his sin I would do so But I don't. Neither can you. If I were to adhere to your ridiculous standards, then no one could criticize anything in government including you!

Just admit it. Sessions put the President and the country in a horrible situation because of his ego and his pride of protecting his "reputation".

[M Kehoe]

Bttt.

5.56mm

[Sequoyah101]

I don’t think Sessions could have done a thing to stop the Russian thing one way or another. There were no adults in the room to nip it in the bud during the campaign. It grew from there and has gotten increasingly Gordion and has sucked in other things like a black hole.

The whiz bang action after Sessions recused himself and the appointment of Mueller came to fast and too easy. It was almost like all of it was scripted. Maybe it was.

But hey, then again, intrigue only begat intrigue doesn’t it?

I wouldn’t be too hard on Jeffie. It is pretty easy to recognize him for what he really is: a politician, a lawyer, a slow talking southerner, probably a pretty darn nice guy, pretty sharp when pushed, quiet, loyal but no mover and shaker ball of fire though not without his own agenda. It is all relative.

If Trump had wanted someone to tear some new butt holes he would have appointed someone different as AG but Trump isn’t the fire breather some would like him to be. He may have a long game that does not involve him intentionally throwing the country into a malestrom of prosecutions that should probably happen. He also probably underestimated just how dastardly evil the left is (though I find that hard to believe) and how little support he actually has from the pubbies (though I find that even harder to believe).

The nation does not change for the better and regulation and taxes increase because just about everyone in DC and politics in general wants it that way. They just like different flavors of the same ice cream but they all want more ice cream even if they can’t eat it all. They are greedy power hungry bastards.

Not many in his right mind would go into politics and those who are in their right mind don’t last long. Tom Cotton for example. Unless I am dead wrong he won’t stay or he will get quiet. We will see in time and I’ll be watching that one.