Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cheburashka
I decline to reduce myself to responding to your insults by insulting you back. I regard your insults as an admission of defeat by you. Due to your bad manners I also have no further interest in anything you have to say.

For goodness sakes, if there is a dialog, no one should feel insulted. Perhaps Cheburashka really doesn't see that his response is misleading? Perhaps he does, and is employing the tactics of the Ruling Class? Since it isn't clear, and since what is important is that other readers are not confused, here is some clarification.

Cheburashka says: "I see nothing requiring two citizen parents in S. Res. 511."

Since S. Res. 511 requires nothing and does nothing but state opinion, that is no surprise, though it sounds as if the accusation of the intent to deceive has been refuted. That technique is sometimes referred to as 'erecting a straw dog.' A resolution saying we feel John McCain should be considered a natural born citizen is disingenuous posturing for a now clear political purpose. If Cheburashka doesn't intend to refute the attempt to mislead which is S. Res. 511, his statement has that effect. Only an amendment can modify the Constitution. There have been many, 25 in all, failed attempts to modify Article II. Neither McCaskill's SB 2678 or Senate Res. 511 attempted to address McCain's grevience because they were not filed as amendments. No lawyer in the legislature, and most of them are, doesn't know that only amendments modify the Constitution.

If Cheburashka's confusion was about the question raised by many trolls, not that Cheburashaka is a troll, of whether the common law definition included the child of one alien and one citizen, that question has been addressed a number of times by knowledgeable FR researchers, and the understanding was also clear in Chertoff's statement and Leahy's agreement: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,” Chertoff replied. “That is mine, too,” said Leahy. Chertoff, a former federal judge, meant what he said. So did Leahy. Press releases are triple checked by legal staff. There is no mistake. "Parents" was meant to be plural.

This is the most massive case of fraud ever perpetrated on citizens by our government. Sadly, it is so audacious that most can't believe it could be true. Read the constitution and a few cases, no more than twenty pages, and you will understand the truth of the common law definition: most terms in the Constitution depend upon our common law, not English common law. Our Constitution was written in our common language with the intention that it be understandable to any literate person. If it were written as a legal dictionary, it would be subjected to constant revision to track changes in language usage, enabling changes in the meaning of the framers, intentional of accidental. Madison explained that the Constitution only has meaning when interpreted in the language of the framers. The definition of natural born citizen, however, has not changed, as evidenced by questioning in a 2001 case in which Judge Ginsberg had the definition explained, or in Perkins v. Elg in 1939, where Minor v. Happersett was cited, which contains the original John Jay/Vattel definition. Our justices, Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes, justices James Wilson, Joseph Story and James Kent all explain and cite the definition. They all refer to "citizen parents". 14th Amendment John Bingham's of "parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen" is a bit more eloquent. They all mean the same thing, and all clearly show that Obama is not constitutionally our president. Too many apparently feel they have too much to lose by challanging the state-run media and the corrupt judicial system. Too many are already working for the state. Eventually, we may have to begin again to fight for individual freedoms.

187 posted on 08/04/2010 4:11:25 AM PDT by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies ]


To: Spaulding; Greenperson; Natural Born 54; Gemsbok
This is the most massive case of fraud ever perpetrated on citizens by our government. Sadly, it is so audacious that most can't believe it could be true. Read the constitution and a few cases, no more than twenty pages, and you will understand the truth of the common law definition: most terms in the Constitution depend upon our common law, not English common law. Our Constitution was written in our common language with the intention that it be understandable to any literate person. If it were written as a legal dictionary, it would be subjected to constant revision to track changes in language usage, enabling changes in the meaning of the framers, intentional of accidental. Madison explained that the Constitution only has meaning when interpreted in the language of the framers. The definition of natural born citizen, however, has not changed, as evidenced by questioning in a 2001 case in which Judge Ginsberg had the definition explained, or in Perkins v. Elg in 1939, where Minor v. Happersett was cited, which contains the original John Jay/Vattel definition. Our justices, Chief Justice Marshall, Chief Justice Morrison Waite, Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes, justices James Wilson, Joseph Story and James Kent all explain and cite the definition. They all refer to "citizen parents". 14th Amendment John Bingham's of "parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural-born citizen" is a bit more eloquent. They all mean the same thing, and all clearly show that Obama is not constitutionally our president. Too many apparently feel they have too much to lose by challanging the state-run media and the corrupt judicial system. Too many are already working for the state. Eventually, we may have to begin again to fight for individual freedoms.

What more can one say but BRAVO!

188 posted on 08/04/2010 4:21:39 AM PDT by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

To: Spaulding
Chertoff's statement and Leahy's agreement: “My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen,”

Note to the grammatically-challenged in trolldom:

The phrase "American parents" is plural

The phrase "natural-born American citizen" is singular and thus the "you" is singular

Conclusion: It takes two "American parents" [plural] to produce one "natural born American citizen" [singular]

189 posted on 08/04/2010 4:35:51 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson