Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained

Here are the links to the Exhibits:

Vattel, Law of Nations, Book I, Ch. XIX, at §§ 212-217

Click to access cruz-canadian-renunciation-letter.pdf

And here is where Candidate Trump re-tweeted the same video:  I got tons of hate mail & comments from Cruz supporters….

Add to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

February 11, 2016 - Posted by | 14th Amendment citizens, Marco Rubio, natural born citizen, Naturalized citizens, Ted Cruz, Vattel | , , , , , , , , , ,

74 Comments »

  2. […] him his rights as a natural born citizen the courts almost certainly would regard him as one (Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained). So I chuckled at the unpleasant irony and voted for him in the Virginia Presidential […]

    Like

    Pingback by GOVERNMENT-GIVEN RIGHTS VERSUS GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS — PART 1 – On the Pilgrim Road | April 29, 2020 | Reply

  3. I wrote a small article: The Republican Party’s Response to the Natural Born Citizen Clause: Cowardice, Hypocrisy and Perfidy https://www.academia.edu/23179986/The_Republican_Partys_Response_to_the_Natural_Born_Citizen_Clause

    Law only exists on the bed of virtue.

    Like

    Comment by Lindsay Wheeler | March 23, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, it’s certainly true that we lost our Constitutional Republic because The People first lost their virtue.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | March 24, 2016 | Reply

  4. […] him his rights as a natural born citizen the courts almost certainly would regard him as one (Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained). So I chuckled at the unpleasant irony and voted for him in the Virginia Presidential […]

    Like

    Pingback by GOVERNMENT-GIVEN RIGHTS VERSUS GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS — PART 1 – Citizen Tom | March 12, 2016 | Reply

  5. Excellent, concise video. Two points:

    1. You state that Vattel goes on to say that location of birth is irrelevant. My read indicates otherwise; eg —

    “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ”

    It appears one must not only be born to citizen parents, but also born “in country.” He later goes on to point out that a birth to citizen parents in an overseas embassy is regarded “in country,” as is such a birth on a vessel flying the flag of the country of interest. I think it is easy to extrapolate these examples to include, for example, McCain’s birth in Panama at a US military hospital, to citizen parents serving overseas at the direction of the government. Given that most births no longer occur at home, I can’t see foreign service personnel being penalized for optimg to give birth at a local hospital rather than on embassy grounds (unless the embassy has a fully equipped birthing center, which I doubt most, if any, do).

    For those born to citizen parents who are overseas at their discretion, instead of at the ir government’s direction, I would say that Vattel does not clearly categorize their offspring as natural-born. George Romney is such an example — born to US citizens in Mexico. The initial US Natiralization Act defined such offspring as natural-born, but if Vattel is the authoritative source, which I think it is, then such definition appears to have exceeded Congress’s authority by effectively amending the Constitution.

    2. In the sentence from Vattel quoted above, the word “parents” is used, which I interpret to mean that both patents must be citizens of the country of interest. However, immediately following that sentence, Vattel drops “parents” and makes several references to “father.” That inconsistency begs for SCOTUS to interpret what is meant — both parents, or just the father. I believe the logically most consistent interpretation is that both parents need to be citizens, as the offspring could feel a loyalty to a mother’s country of citizenship. I think Vatyel dropped the ball here.

    Like

    Comment by skookumchuck55 | February 26, 2016 | Reply

    • You read Vattel selectively – pick out part of a sentence here – part of a sentence there – and paste them together to come up with a result which doesn’t accurately reflect what Vattel said.
      You are clearly in love with YOUR own thoughts.
      That you find “inconsistencies” in Vattel shows you don’t understand what he wrote [possibly because you didn’t read all of it with an open mind]; and that you have no understanding of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at that Time.
      And your suggestion that it is up to the Supreme Court to “interpret” words in the Constitution shows you have no understanding of the proper role of the supreme Court or of the “creator” – “creature” concept.
      And you set YOUR opinions above Vattel’s.

      It is the ignorance and conceit of the American People which destroyed this Country.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2016 | Reply

      • Vattel, Book I, Chapter XIX, is riddled with inconsistencies as I clearly pointed out. Why are you unwilling or unable to address them?

        Like

        Comment by skookumchuck55 | February 26, 2016 | Reply

        • No, Vattel is not inconsistent. You are not understanding what he actually says. You don’t seem to know how to read a legal treatise. And you don’t seem to understand the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 26, 2016 | Reply

  7. Reblogged this on Laineethecat’s Blog and commented:
    Best Explanation of Natural Born. Short & Sweet

    Like

    Comment by laineethecat | February 21, 2016 | Reply

  8. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/rod-d-martin/some-say-ted-cruz-not-natural-born-citizen-george-washington-and-james. Ted Cruz is eligible. So too were John McCain, George Romney, Barry Goldwater and yes, Donald Trump (whom Cruz hilariously pointed out would be an anchor baby by his own interpretation). The law couldn’t be clearer. But more than that, the Founding Fathers couldn’t have been clearer.

    So, if “original intent” is something you care about – as opposed to something you merely pretend to care about – Ted Cruz’s eligibility is a slam dunk.

    Like

    Comment by purplewings123 | February 17, 2016 | Reply

    • And you KNOW that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” because….. ?

      And are you claiming to “know” this because of your own profound understanding of these issues [yeah, right] or because some told you Cruz was eligible?

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 17, 2016 | Reply

  9. […] By Publius Huldah […]

    Like

    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained | Grumpy Opinions | February 16, 2016 | Reply

  10. Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel WATCH.

    Like

    Comment by agent provocateur | February 15, 2016 | Reply

  11. Reblogged this on U.S. Marijuana Party of Kentucky and commented:
    Very educational and informative site regarding our Constitution…sk

    Like

    Comment by ShereeKrider | February 15, 2016 | Reply

  12. […] By Publius Huldah […]

    Like

    Pingback by Natural Born Citizen and Naturalized Citizen Explained | Viewpoints of a Sagitarrian | February 15, 2016 | Reply

  13. I had a question. I tried to look through the comments below to see if it was asked and I’m sorry if I missed it. My question is, does the Naturalization Act of 1790 or some other Act or law say that a child can become a natural born citizen as long as one of the parents is a citizen? Also I was wondering how you would answer critics who would object to your claim that the “father” has to be a citizen in order for the child to become a “natural born citizen” since the law has changed. Thank you for your time.

    Like

    Comment by Raul C | February 15, 2016 | Reply

    • Read this: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/

      You can see for yourself from the above what the Naturalization Act of 1790 said – It repeated the understanding of the time, already set forth in Vattel and in Ramsay’s Dissertation, that a natural born citizen is one born of parents who are already citizens. Specifically, it recognized the Principle set forth in Vattel’s Sections 215-217 that children born of American citizens in a foreign country, at sea, or while overseas in the service of their country, are “natural born citizens”.

      As to your other questions, if you will kindly read ALL my posts [most are very short] under the Natural Born Citizen Category you will find the answers. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

      Note particularly where I discuss the 3 ways of reading the Constitution – do you not see that a Constitution which shifts its meaning as times change is no Constitution at all, but is silly putty in the hands of the people with the power to force THEIR meaning on others?

      Liked by 2 people

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 15, 2016 | Reply

  14. Please please email me these documents. Excellent logic and facts we are in dire need of. Thank you!!!

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

    Comment by Tammy Kobza | February 14, 2016 | Reply

    • Tammy, if you go to my first post under the “Natural Born Citizen” category, you will find my original paper on this where I have the hyperlinks to Vattel and Ramsay’s dissertation.

      Ted Cruz’s Canadian citizenship renunciation is here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/229039536/Canadian-Renunciation-Letter

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2016 | Reply

  15. Donald J. Trump on Twitter: If @TedCruz doesn’t clean up his act, stop cheating, & doing negative ads, I have standing to sue him for not being a natural born citizen.

    If Trump goes to court with his knowledge of Natural Born Citizen, we will end up with yet another bad decision/opinion on the issue.

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-threatens-sue-ted-cruz/2016/02/12/id/714144/?ns_mail_uid=100282735&ns_mail_job=1654765_02132016&s=al&dkt_nbr=hkyzqpcv

    Like

    Comment by Peabody | February 13, 2016 | Reply

    • Good thinking – it would be a mistake to ask the courts to decide this: they are unlikely to give the right answer – they don’t go by original intent, they go by what result they want. Then they write an opinion to justify that result.
      Besides, they have no proper jurisdiction to decide this. The constitutional power to determine whether the President elect is qualified has been delegated to CONGRESS! See, 12th Amendment and Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment.
      In our present unconstitutional system of electing Presidents, The People can enforce the Constitution by refusing to vote for ineligible candidates. That Cruz and Rubio supporters don’t care is discouraging. But that is the fruit of an ignorant and corrupt populace.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2016 | Reply

  16. It’s my belief Naturalization and Natural born citizens are a Kind. The Constitution limited Congress to keep the country Naturalized and the Natural born.

    Kind originally meant natural. “the kindly fruits of the earth” Book of Common Prayer.

    “Were all thy children kind and natural” Shakespeare

    “Yearnings to be with her own natural kind” Wordsworth

    The above are a few examples.

    There’s more but..not enough space…

    Congress UnNaturalized the country. The Founfers wanted a homogeneous country not heterogeneous.

    Gecynde, cynde, cynn native natural…

    Like

    Comment by Obliged Friend (@ObligedFriend) | February 13, 2016 | Reply

  17. Reblogged this on Starvin Larry.

    Like

    Comment by gamegetterII | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  18. The 14th Amendment to the 1787 US Constitution restricts “privileges and immunities” of US citizenship to persons “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The “privileges and immunities” is an “equal rights” clause, and was first mentioned in the Articles of Confederation of 1777-1781, which was the first attempt to write a plan of government. US Codes may define the US Constitution as amended, but cannot revise it. Only amendments can change the US Constitution. Congress can only write naturalization laws, which are found in TITLE 8 US CODES. Ted Cruz was not born in a United State. So, under the logic of 14A he is a naturalized US citizen. Ted Cruz “derived” citizenship through his US citizen parent. i.e. “derivative naturalization”. He only had to enter the US before age 18 “or lose his nationality or citizenship unless he be continuously physically present in the United States for a period of …” (8USC1401(a)(7) circa 1978.

    Like

    Comment by Gerry Nance | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • I not sure I understand your point. But yes, if Ted Cruz is now a US citizen, he is such by virtue of a man-made Law – he is not a natural born citizen.
      And be careful of rewriting constitutional language. e.g., Sec. 1 of the 14th doesn’t RESTRICT “privileges and immunities” to US citizens – it says States may not abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  19. This is the essence of the problem I have with the ill defined Natural Born Citizen Clause: we know at least that the clause is an attempt at assuring at some loyalty in the president, by virtue of the US citizenship of his parents. However, this particular effort involves undetermined gradients. And a person with parents who are both US citizens, might then be considered a Super Natural Citizen.

    Like

    Comment by sean kraft | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Constitutions are not, of course, dictionaries. The only word defined in the Constitution is “treason”; and James Madison told us at Federalist No. 43 at 3. why “treason” had to be defined in the Constitution.
      “NBC” is clearly defined in Vattel and Ramsay. So we all can know what it means.

      The only “gradient” arises from the status of the mother – at the common law, under the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing [and up to modern times], a wife’s legal identity was merged into her husbands’. Married women couldn’t own property, etc., etc.
      And people in their 80s have told me they were taught this in school…. of course when they were in school, coverture was still in effect to some extent. Just a few decades before I took the State Bar Exam, women were not allowed to take the Exam. So social conditions do change – but the Constitution does NOT properly evolve along with it….. that would give us an “evolving” Constitution which means whatever the Judges say it means. And we have seen how that crazy notion worked out.

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

      • I remember many elements of coverture myself, but I have not see where it has been adjudicated in any real way concerning NBC. If it had been, we could easily see some American businessman’s Russian born love child grow up in Moscow, then move to the states and theoretically become president. And still we would have the protections intended in the clause for loyalty? I think applying period male dominance as an intended unspoken clause to a qualifier would help make the whole clause mute.

        Like

        Comment by sean kraft | February 12, 2016 | Reply

        • Adjudicated? By that, do you mean the federal Courts must decide this? Why do you believe it must be adjudicated?

          And can it be properly adjudicated? To whom is the power to determine whether the President Elect is qualified delegated?

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

          • adjudicated or an opinion. I don’t know what’s needed here. But I believe we wouldn’t have gotten bama if it had been done at some time far back.

            Liked by 1 person

            Comment by sean kraft | February 13, 2016 | Reply

            • The American People had the practical power to enforce the NBC clause – they were too ignorant or didn’t care.

              As a People, we MUST disabuse ourselves of the false belief that it is the province of the Supreme Court to decide such issues. It isn’t – it never was. Americans have been indoctrinated with that Lie.

              And do we want the new Supreme Court – with obama’s THIRD nominee deciding this?

              Like

              Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2016 | Reply

          • Sorry, but that is the purpose of the Supreme Court, whether we like it or not. Otherwise, you the people should institute term limits, or whatever it is that you want to limit government further. But without adjudication, how do you get to NBC having any teeth?

            Like

            Comment by sean kraft | February 14, 2016 | Reply

            • Three points:

              1. “you people”?
              Who is “you people”?
              And since YOU are obviously excluded from “you people” – what group are YOU in?

              2. I can not undertake to lay my finger on that provision of the Constitution which says that a purpose of the supreme Court is to define the words in the Constitution and to decide whether the President Elect is qualified to hold office. Would you be a dear and cite the Article, Section, and clause?

              Also, how do you reconcile your view with the provisions of Section 3 of the 20th Amendment? Obviously, it’s Congress’ job to make the ruling – to make the call – on whether the President and VP – selected by the ELECTORS – are qualified under Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

              I discuss that here: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2016/02/04/who-decides-whether-someone-is-qualified-for-the-office-of-president-of-the-united-states/

              3. And explain how you can hold to the view that Supreme Court opinions are THE ONLY Law of the Land – when our Constitution says at Article VI, clause 2 that only The Constitution and Acts of Congress and Treaties authorized by the Constitution comprise the “supreme Law of the Land”? Supreme Court opinions are not included….. wonder why?

              Like

              Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2016 | Reply

          • I believe someone has gotten you on the defensive and you are misinterpreting my words and intentions. I am lodging a complaint essentially with the process, not declaring that this or that must be done or that I have the knowledge of how it should be done and that you don’t. Re-read plkease. If I reply with “you people” after you have just taken on the role of speaking for the people, it’s not a conspiracy, it’s just conversation. Relax I’m on the side of whomever is on the side of the Constitution.

            Like

            Comment by sean kraft | February 14, 2016 | Reply

            • My question stands. Why do you believe that the supreme Court has the power to enforce the NBC clause? Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment shows that such power is delegated to Congress alone. Congress exercises and enforces that power by refusing to qualify an ineligible President Elect.
              Furthermore, the question is a non-justicible one – it’s a “political question”: the power to make the determination has been delegated to Congress. Traditionally, the supreme court has declined to interfere in how one of the “political branches” exercises a power delegated to one of them.
              And do you really think we can limit the federal government by new amendments? What about an amendment saying they can’t infringe our right to keep and bear arms? Yes, that will stop them.

              Like

              Comment by Publius Huldah | February 14, 2016 | Reply

    • Yes, and the Constitution, like the Ten Commandments, both given by God to men, are ‘carved in stone’. Neither one can be changed, but man always attempts to do so. Look at Mark 7 as an example where the Pharisees were giving the people an ‘out’ by their ‘traditions of the elders’ and Jesus rebuked them for it.
      The Constitution was given by divine inspiration of God and has withstood the test of time with few minor exceptions written in the Bill of Rights or other amendments. But none go so far as to change the Constitution, only man made laws that were not in alignment with the Constitution or which the Constitution did not address specifically.

      Like

      Comment by ppanther | February 10, 2019 | Reply

      • some of the amendments to the US Constitution DID change it – some for the better – others for the worse.

        and while God’s Law is carved in stone; our Constitution is not as it can be amended.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 10, 2019 | Reply

  20. If there is a LAW that makes you a “Citizen”, then you are NOT a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN under the Constitution. You are a “CITIZEN” by legislative measures otherwise known as Naturalized.

    Semper Vigilo, FOrtis, Paratus et Fidelis

    Liked by 1 person

    Comment by Kevin Keener | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • BRAVO – you said it all right there! Yes! Now, we must teach The Clueless American People..

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  21. So, if thisis correct, it is then true that Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, since his father was a Kenyan, and the coverture portion of this video would have the ‘one’ be Kenyan, regardless if his mother was a natural born citizen. “Ay, there’s the rub.”

    Like

    Comment by Tom | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, when BHO was born, his putative father was a subject of the Queen of England because Kenya was still a British Colony. That alone disqualifies BHO from the office he holds. Furthermore, it seems that when he was a child, he was taken to Indonesia where he became an Indonesian national. As far as we know, BHO never became a US citizen by naturalization.

      As I showed in a recent post on my Home Page, Congress should have disqualified BHO. But we elect fools and cowards to Congress….

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  22. First comment above is off base. The CONGRESS “interprets” what the LAW is. Courts only decide if legislations and statutes COMPORT with the LAW. The US Constitution is NOT what is “interpreted” in court – even by SCOTUS – but rather the little pricks of the knife that pass for “color of law” delivered by busy-bodies who want what we have and have tricked us into supporting them against “the other guy”. In the end. WE, the PEOPLE, have the final say. Read the first words of the US Constitution: “We, the people…”. Then read the last words of Amendment Ten in conjunction with its opening statement: “All powers not delegated to Congress, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to … the people.”

    Like

    Comment by Jim Greaves | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Well, not really. Congress’ lawmaking powers are restricted to the powers delegated to Congress – there is very little in the Constitution to “interpret”. [E.g., I didn’t “interpret” “natural born citizen” – I looked for the definition our Framers used.]
      And since the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of the federal government are all CREATURES of the Constitution, they are completely subject to its terms.
      As shown in the Nullification Paper I linked to – our Framers said the STATES – as the parties to the constitutional compact the States made with each other, are the final judge on whether their creature has violated the Constitution.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

      • “I looked for the definition our Framers used.]”

        Do you have proof that our framers used laws of Nations when designing our constitution? I don’t think any proof exists. It could very well be true but this book is not law anywhere especially not in the United States or Great Britain at that time or now. It’s a book on philosophy and the author was not an American or a British subject he was a foreigner. I have read the Constitution many times and have seen no mention of this book. I do believe it’s likely they pulled the phrase natural born citizens from this book but it’s also possible they did not. I also never said the Supreme Court is the only cord that can rule on constitutionality. The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction after every lower court has already ruled but they do have the ultimate Authority. One of the functions of our courts are to settle disagreements, like the definition of natural born citizen. I agree with your definition but that does not make it long and at this time right or wrong, the definition does not require both parents to be American citizens. Barack Hussein Obama’s case was unique because his mother was a minor when he was born in Hawaii according to Hawaii law he would have the nationality of the minor parents Guardian not the minor parent. His mother’s Guardian was her husband who was a British subject. This would make him British not American however the court refused to hear a case on this that could potentially remove the first black president. I can’t think of a clear case of racial motives then this. I guess the court could argue they felt the case had no merit, but that’s a huge stretch. Anyone thinking clearly could see that was a racist Act.

        Like

        Comment by Guardian eagle | February 12, 2019 | Reply

        • I do hope you will open your mind and be willing to learn! You have much to learn.

          1. This paper proves that our Framers were greatly influenced by Vattel: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/the-constitution-vattel-and-natural-born-citizen-what-our-framers-knew/ I suggest you didn’t read the paper carefully.

          2. Our Framers were influenced by many others – they were influenced by their teachers and by works they had read. Vattel’s nationality is irrelevant.

          3. You also have much to learn of Supreme Court Jurisdiction and of the proper scope of their powers.

          4. The US Supreme Court’s refusal to review the “birther cases” had nothing to do with racial motives of people on the Court. A totally different Principle was involved. The court was correct in refusing to review those cases. The federal courts have no power to remove a sitting President! Congress has the power to remove a sitting President. But the federal courts have no power to “order” Congress to remove a President.

          Like

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2019 | Reply

          • Yes, this was covered in your last post and I guess he/she is too lazy to read what you send out. You go into great detail about how Benjamin Franklin got a copy of Vattel and how he actually was sent three copies and donated one copy to the library and the other to the congress I believe, keeping one for himself, of course. Yes, we are based on the laws of the nations, which Vattel used and endorsed. These all came into being over time after proving them to be of utmost value. So I don’t know why these people want to remain ignorant when you have already gone to the trouble of explaining this multiple times, in detail.

            Thanks for all you do my dear. Donna

            Like

            Comment by ppanther | February 12, 2019 | Reply

            • Ah, a Kindred Spirit!
              thank you! I thought it was clear – wonder how he/she missed it.

              Liked by 1 person

              Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2019 | Reply

              • I assumed when you say he / she you mean the Congress man and woman the justices that sit in the courts and various different Administrations. If you’re talking about me I’ve read it all and I’m not the one that needs to be convinced. I get your opinion and I liked it unfortunately it’s just not the way our world works at the moment. I say again for the umpteenth time that I’m not the one you need to convince. I don’t have the ability to decide what we accept as a natural born citizen. I agree with your opinion and always have but the government does not insisting it is so does not make it so. I also believe I have the right to to carry a weapon anywhere I want the United States Constitution says I do but the government says otherwise and I will go to jail if I carry a weapon in certain States. Unfortunately my beliefs don’t change that nor do my beliefs change who can or cannot be president.

                Like

                Comment by Guardian eagle | February 12, 2019

              • My aim is not to convince YOU. I tell the Truth; and our job, yours and mine and that of other good citizens, is to turn the lights on for the people who don’t know the Truth.

                That others don’t know the Truth makes all the more imperative that they be shown the Truth.

                Like

                Comment by Publius Huldah | February 16, 2019

              • YES, MOST DEFINITELY LOVE YOUR SPIRIT! LOVE THAT YOU LOVE OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEFEND IT AND TEACH IT! THAT IS SO LACKING IN OUR NATION AND THEN THOSE WHO GET YOUR MATERIAL AND TEACHING, DON’T BOTHER TO READ WHAT YOU SEND! THAT IS JUST DISAPPOINTING BUT AT LEAST THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY! YES, I AM A KINDRED SPIRIT! : )

                Like

                Comment by ppanther | February 13, 2019

  23. She has a good argument and she should take it before the supreme court, and if she knows the constitution as well as she claims, she also knows that only the supreme court can interpret the intent of the founders, however she claims to know their will and claims to know they took the definition from Vattel’s “law of nations”, which isn’t US law, wasn’t even written in English, and as far as I know wasn’t considered to be law anywhere.

    I’m not saying the founders didn’t agree with Vattel’s definition, but I am saying she cannot make that statement as fact, only the majority decision of the supreme court can judge what is or isn’t the will of the founders. The problem here is that the current seated justices would never accept that definition as it would unseat president obama, so they would most likely avoid hearing the case, or give us a ruling we don’t like.

    Bottom line is we are screwed and it’s our own fault because we knew about this problem for decades and didn’t do something about it and now all we can hope for is to redress this issue at a time in the future when we have a supreme court that better respects the constitution.

    Like

    Comment by Guardian Eagle | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • What? Yes, we are screwed and it’s all our fault b/c WE REPEAT THE STATIST DOGMA WE ARE FED!

      Everything you said about the powers of the supreme Court is totally FALSE: Here is your homework assignment:

      1. What comprises “the supreme Law of the Land”? – list it and cite Authority for your answer.
      2. Read this and look up the hyperlinks and learn Truth: https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/nullification-the-original-right-of-self-defense/

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

      • Came across this article … one thing is for sure, we better come up with new strategies to teach about the foundation of our Constitution and remain vigilant to defend our Freedoms – or the communist political speakers will continue to pick our constitutional pockets.

        I’ve also noticed a few articles indicating that the City has ‘backed-off’ — but that doesn’t mean that they won’t continue to impose this nonsense again.

        February 8, 2016

        San Diego Tells Staff Not To Mention Founding Fathers:

        “Just in time for President’s Day, the City of San Diego is warning its employees that mentioning the Founding Fathers could get them in trouble.

        That’s one of the many startling conclusions reached by a new manual the city has issued for written and oral communication by its employees.

        In a section on “Bias-Free Language,” the City instructs workers to eliminate from their vocabulary a number of words and phrases considered gender biased, including “the common man,” “manmade,” man up” and many others. As one example, the guidelines note that “founding fathers” is also problematic and should be replaced with “founders.” …
        http://www.pacificjustice.org/press-releases/pjis-letter-to-mayor-kevin-faulconer

        February 10, 2016
        City Of San Diego Purges ‘Founding Fathers’ From Employee Communications:
        http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/city-san-diego-purges-founding-fathers-employee-communications

        Like

        Comment by usnveteran | February 12, 2016 | Reply

        • Well, I plan to double down on MY use of “offensive” language! “Man-up” is a challenge I use all the time – but henceforth, will use more often. And….. our Framers were men! And under the common law, H & W are “one” and the Man is the “one”!

          Liked by 1 person

          Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

          • Yup! I will use the terms ‘Man up’ and ‘Founding Fathers’ (with emphasis) as much as possible. Or the next thing we know there will be attempts to remove Mount Rushmore because it does not appear to be ‘diversive enough’.

            Like

            Comment by usnveteran | February 12, 2016 | Reply

            • Well, I do wish they would remove Teddy Roosevelt’s face – since no one has been able to point to those provisions in the US Constitution which permit the federal government to own and operate national parks, wildlife areas, forests, etc.

              Meanwhile, I’ve been referring to those at the Federal Convention of 1787 who drafted our Constitution as our “Framers”. But that isn’t male enough – help me out here: Could I say “our Framers [who were all men, by the way]” ? Or “Framing Fathers”!

              Like

              Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Who says the Supreme court is the only ones that interpret the founders intent?

      Like

      Comment by Justavet | February 12, 2016 | Reply

      • I too want to hear Guardian Eagle’s answer. But I can tell you right now that law students are told by their law professors that the Supreme Court’s word is FINAL – no recourse.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  24. I re-posted your Vimeo video as

    if that is okay.

    Like

    Comment by Brianroy | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  25. Reblogged this on WatchmanMomma and commented:
    Here is the Constitutional proof (via PH) that neither Marco Rubio nor Ted Cruz is eligible to be in Congress, much less the Presidency.

    Here is part of Vattel’s discussion of law.

    “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 [218] all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. [102]”

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by WatchmanMomma | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Thank you for this quote, WatchmanMomma. For it points out that both jus sanguinis AND jus soli are required for a person to be a nbc.

      Comment, Publius???

      Liked by 1 person

      Comment by kibitzer3 | February 13, 2016 | Reply

      • One has to know much before he can understand how little he actually knows.

        Like

        Comment by Publius Huldah | February 13, 2016 | Reply

  26. Please-don’t-forget-to-remember …

    The Snyder Act of 1924 – aka: The Indian Citizenship Act:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act

    Indian Affairs: Laws And Treaties:
    http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol4/html_files/

    Act of June 2, 1924, Public Law 68-175, 43 STAT 253:
    ‘Which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to issue certificates of citizenship to Indians.’
    http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=602

    … another important lesson in the history of this nation.

    Like

    Comment by usnveteran | February 12, 2016 | Reply

    • Right, Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment did not naturalize Indians because Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Congress saw them as subject to the jurisdiction of their Tribes.

      So AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified, Congress passed laws which naturalized Indians. So that first generation of Indians were naturalized Citizens – but their after children were natural born citizens.

      Like

      Comment by Publius Huldah | February 12, 2016 | Reply

  27. This article makes it very clear. that neither Obama, Cruz, or Rubio are eligible to become POTUS. Obama is a clear fraud. None of these people are Natural Born citizens and only a Natural Born citizen can become POTUS. So how do we unseat Obama and send him packing?
    what are the remedies and how do we the citizens start this process? Because it needs to be done and it needs to be done now! we are only 7+-years late getting to this.

    Liked by 2 people

    Comment by Sandra Bishop | February 11, 2016 | Reply

  28. Publius…….. Thank you very much!

    George Fuller

    Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:57:12 +0000 To: grfuller1@msn.com

    Like

    Comment by George Fuller | February 11, 2016 | Reply

  29. Dave

    Another reference regarding inhabitants, citizens, naturalized citizens, and natural-born cistizens. Thought you might be interested.

    Pat

    On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Publius-Huldahs Blog wrote:

    > Publius Huldah posted: ” Here are the links to the Exhibits: > http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2246#lfVattel_label_1642 > See Sections 212-217 > https://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-D” > >

    Like

    Comment by Patrick Malone | February 11, 2016 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »