Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Get your State Militia revitalized before it’s too late!

In all questions respecting the Militia, Dr. Edwin Vieira is the authority.  In the 7 minute video below, Dr. Vieira  shows us the difference between the State Militia and the State national guard.

I’m going through Title 58 of the Tennessee Code now compiling “The Tennessee Military Code of 1970”. We don’t have an active Militia (within the meaning of Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16 – and which James Madison described in Federalist Paper No. 46) here in Tennessee. All we have is the national guard which is an adjunct of the federal military (Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 12-14).

When the islamists the obama administration is importing as fast as they can start the civil war here, we better have our own State Militia organized and ready to defend us. But those are not my words. JAMES MADISON SAID IN FEDERALIST NO. 46 that the purpose of the Militia is to defend us from the federal government.

Alexander Hamilton also said that when the federal government acts against our interests, we must look to our States to defend us (Federalist No. 28 and 29).

I call upon retired military men all over the Country and of all the various branches to get together and look into your State Constitutions and State Statutes and find out the Status of your State Militia. It may be that we will have to go back to the State Militia laws which were in effect before the State Military forces were federalized as a result of the Dick Act of 1902.

We better un-federalize our State military forces before the trouble starts.  We can not depend on the US military to defend us. Obama is purging the US Military of good men. All that will be left will be his thugs & bullies – and of course, transgender people and such like.

Freedom isn’t free – as we will soon find out.

You can find Dr. Vieira’s articles here: http://edwinvieira.com/   And no, News with Views is not an “attack site with malware”. Some people don’t want you reading the articles they publish.

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

May 10, 2016 Posted by | Dick Act of 1903, Edwin Vieira, Federalist Paper No. 46, Islamization (Islamification), James Madison, Militia | , , , , | 17 Comments

Dayton, Ohio event on May 2

To my Friends in the Dayton, Ohio area: I’m speaking there on May 2.

Now, listen up: I am an unaffiliated and unfunded little old lady who Michael Farris and Mark Mecker – with the seemingly endless stacks of cash available to the con-con lobby – do not want you to hear! They are so terrified of People hearing me speak that they have tried to get my events canceled or sabotaged. They have contacted hosts ranting and raving about how I shouldn’t be allowed to speak.

Ask yourself: WHY do they NOT want you to hear what I say?

Free speech is being wiped out in this Land – and it’s false friends and their minions who are doing it.

So strike a blow FOR the right to speak out boldly in the Public Square on matters of public concern and come to the May 2 event.  (click on the photo to enlarge)

dayton ohio flyer-page0001

April 26, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Event in Jefferson City, Missouri to speak on the con.

Please come if you can!  And tell your Friends and Relations in the area.  Click on it and it will get bigger.

Page1

 

April 4, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Trashing the 12th Amendment with the National Popular Vote

By Publius Huldah

The compact for a National Popular Vote (NPV) is a destructive scheme. Yet it’s been approved by several States; and is pending in others. Since the text of the compact no longer seems to be set forth on the NPV website, we’ll look at the NPV bill now pending in Tennessee.

In a nutshell, the compact seeks to evade the 12th Amendment to our Constitution (where the States elect the President); and substitutes a national popular vote where inhabitants of major metropolitan areas elect the President.

The Constitution our Framers gave us

The federal government created by our Constitution is a Federation of Sovereign States united under a federal government for those limited purposes itemized in the Constitution; with all other powers reserved by the States or the People.

So that The States – The Members of the Federation – could maintain their independence and sovereignty, our Framers wrote these provisions into our Constitution:

  • State Legislatures were to choose the U.S. Senators for their State (Art. I, §3, cl. 1); and,
  • The States, as separate political entities, were to elect the President (Art. II, §1, cls. 2 & 3).

The People were to elect only their Representatives to the House (Art. I, § 2, cl.1).

James Madison explains in Federalist No. 45 (7th para), why this ensured that The States would maintain control over the federal government:

“The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government …Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. …Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments …” [boldface mine]

The result of State Legislatures choosing the U.S. Senators and controlling the election of the President [via the selection of Electors], was that the States would be able to control the federal government.

The 17th Amendment

But we threw away one of these safeguards when we foolishly ratified the 17th Amendment with the popular election of U.S. Senators. This is how The States – The Members of the Federation – lost their representation in Congress and their control of the Senate.

Art. II, §1, cl. 2 and the 12th Amendment

We abandoned the other safeguard when we foolishly ignored the procedures in the 12th Amendment where small bodies of specially chosen wise and prudent men (Electors) made the selections of President and Vice President for their State. We allowed Electors to become rubber stamps for the popular vote in their State.

Our Framers didn’t want popular election of the President because they recognized that People are easily manipulated by those who take advantage of their “hopes and fears”, to steer them towards candidates favored by powerful groups (Federalist No. 64 (3rd & 4th paras; Federalist No. 68, etc.)

Furthermore, under the 12th Amendment, the electoral votes of each State are split according to how the Electors vote. If Tennessee obeyed the 12th Amendment, it would work like this when selecting President: 5 Electors vote for Candidate X; 4 vote for Candidate Y; and 2 vote for Candidate Z. Those would be the vote totals for President which would be sent to Congress. The same procedures are to be followed in a separate vote for Vice-President. 1 The “winner takes all” practice followed in most States is unconstitutional!

How The National Popular Vote Scheme Will Work

Under the scheme incorporated in the NPV bill pending in Tennessee, all of Tennessee’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 States and the District of Columbia.

The wording of the compact is deliberately obscure. In plain English, this is what it does:

Art. II

Each Member State will conduct a statewide popular election for President and Vice President.

Art. III

(a) & (b) The State Election official in each Member State will add up the votes cast in all the States and the D.C. to get the total number of votes cast nationally for each presidential ticket. The State official will then designate the presidential ticket with the largest number of votes nationally as the “national popular vote winner”.

(c) & (g) Electors will then be appointed in each Member State who are to cast all their votes for the national popular vote winner.

So! If the popular vote in Tennessee is for James Madison, but the total national popular vote favors Adolf Hitler, then all of Tennessee’s 11 Electoral Votes are awarded to Adolf Hitler.

Indeed, the winner of the national popular vote will end up with all the electoral votes for every State.  And do not think that the winner will fail to claim a “Mandate” for whatever he wants to do.

 The States Can’t Lawfully Enter Into A Compact Which Violates The U.S. Constitution!

Every aspect of the NPV violates the 12th Amendment.  It sets up a method of electing the President and vice-President which is altogether repugnant to our Constitution.

Furthermore, Art. I, §10, last clause, prohibits States from “enter[ing] into any Agreement or Compact with another State” “without the Consent of Congress”.  So, whether the NPV Compact also violates Art. I, §10, last clause, depends on whether Congress consents to it. But Congress may not lawfully consent to unconstitutional compacts of the States!

Under The NPV Scheme, Votes From Major Metropolitan Areas Will Decide Presidential Elections.

Most of the Population of these United States is located in a few major metropolitan areas. Under the NPV scheme, these areas would decide the elections for President!

See this 3D map (scroll down) showing how the major metropolitan areas voted in a recent presidential election.

The NPV is not about “making every vote count”. The NPV is about guaranteeing that every future presidential election is decided by inhabitants of major metropolitan areas. And it further diminishes State sovereignty.

What Should We Do?

Repeal the 17th Amendment. We must henceforth elect to Congress only those who are committed to repealing the 17th Amendment. This is the only way The States can regain control of the Senate.

Return to the 12th Amendment. We must dismantle the present unconstitutional and corrupt system and return to the method of electing the President and Vice President established in our Constitution. State Legislators could restore to their States right now the power to control the President! All States have to do is obey the 12th Amendment! Also, specially chosen Electors are far more likely to choose good Presidents than the ignorant masses which fill our major cities.

Even in its present perverted form, the “Electoral College” serves two important purposes: (1) It balances the influence of the heavily populated urban areas with the more sparsely populated rural areas; and (2) gives the smaller States a voice in the election of President.

As a People, we need to STOP being so eager to amend a Constitution we have never read and don’t understand.

Endnote:

1 For an illustration of how voting under the 12th Amendment is to be conducted, see THIS under the subheading, The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.”

 

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

February 19, 2016 Posted by | 12th Amendment, 17th Amendment, Election of President, Electoral College, Electors, National Popular Vote | , , , , , , , , , , , | 21 Comments

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

Add to DeliciousAdd 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 | , , , , , , , , , , | 61 Comments

Who Makes the Ruling that Someone is not Qualified for the Office of President of the United States?

By Publius Huldah

According to the original intent of our Constitution, Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio are not eligible to be President because their fathers weren’t US citizens at the times they were born. So they are not “natural born citizens”.

So! How is this handled? Who calls it?  Who makes the ruling? Do we “file a lawsuit” and let federal judges decide? “Slap your hands!”, our Framers would say. They would say, “READ THE CONSTITUTION AND SEE WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!”

[Our lives would be so much simpler – and our Country so much better off – if we read & supported our Constitution.]

Read the 12th Amendment. That sets forth the procedures for election of President and VP. Note that ELECTORS are supposed to be the ones making the selection – not The People. [There is a reason for that.]  For an illustration of how this works, go HERE and read the subheadings,  “Electors” Appointed by States Were To Choose The President!  and The 12th Amendment Establishes Procedures For Voting By Electors.

So! Assume we followed the Constitution on this issue and we get to the part where Congress is counting the votes as provided by 12th Amendment. And Lo! Congress discovers that the person who got the most votes for President is NOT QUALIFIED by reason of age, or not being a natural born citizen, or not having been for at least 14 years a Resident within the United States.

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.

So what happens if Congress finds that the person with the most votes for President is not qualified? We look to Sec. 3 of the 20th Amendment. It tells us what happens. If the President elect has failed to qualify, then the VP elect shall act as President… Now, read the rest of that Section. We would also need to see whether Congress has made any of the authorized laws providing for such contingencies.

So, under the Constitution as written, it is Congress’ job to make the call as to whether the President elect and the VP elect are qualified.

This is NOT an issue for the federal courts to decide. That is because this is a “political question” – not a “legal question”. The power to make the ruling as to whether the president elect or the VP elect are qualified has been delegated to CONGRESS. Traditionally, federal courts have “abstained” from deciding “political questions”.

We study this in our first year constitutional law class, when we study judicial “abstention” from certain kinds of cases including cases which involve “political questions” or the exercise of powers delegated to the Legislative or Executive branches. When a power is delegated to one of the “political branches” (Legislative or Executive), the federal courts (the “legal branch”) have traditionally declined to interfere and substitute their judgment for that of the “political branch” to which the Power was delegated.

And what if Congress gives an ineligible person a pass – as they did with obama? WELL THEN, SHAME ON US – BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES WHO ELECTED THOSE IGNORANT COWARDS TO OFFICE!

 

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

February 4, 2016 Posted by | 12th Amendment, 20th amendment, Election of President, Electoral College, Electors, Judicial abstension, natural born citizen, political questions, Presidential Electors | , , , , , , | 57 Comments

How a Balanced Budget Amendment Would Give the Federal Government Lawful Power Over Whatever They Want

By Publius Huldah

Does our existing Constitution permit the federal government to spend money on whatever they want?

No! It contains precise limits on federal spending.

Federal spending is limited by the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government. If you go through the Constitution and highlight all the powers delegated to Congress and the President, you will get a complete list of the objects on which Congress is permitted to spend money. Here’s the list:

♦ The Census (Art. I, §2, cl. 3)

♦ Publishing the Journals of the House and Senate (Art. I, §5, cl. 3)

♦ Salaries of Senators and Representatives (Art. I, § 6, cl. 1)

♦ Salaries of civil officers of the United States (Art. I, §6, cl. 2 & Art. II, §1, cl. 7)

♦ Pay the Debts (Art. I, §8, cl. 1 & Art. VI, cl.1)

♦ Pay tax collectors (Art. I, §8, cl.1)

♦ Regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the several States, and with Indian Tribes (Art. I, §8, cl.3)

♦ Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)

♦ The mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)

♦ Attorney General to handle the small amount of authorized federal litigation involving the national government (e.g., Art. I, §8, cls. 6 & 10)

♦ Post offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)

♦ Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)

♦ Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9 & Art. III, §1)

♦ Military and Militia (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)

♦ Since Congress has general legislative authority over the federal enclaves listed in Art. I, §8, next to last clause, Congress has broad spending authority over the tiny geographical areas listed in this clause.

♦ The President’s entertainment expenses for foreign dignitaries (Art. II, §3); and

♦ Since Congress had general legislative authority over the Western Territory before it was broken up into States, Congress could appropriate funds for the US Marshals, federal judges, and the like for that Territory (Art. IV, §3, cl. 2).

That’s what Congress is authorized by our Constitution to spend money on. Did I leave anything out? Take a few minutes and, armed with a highlighter, read carefully through the Constitution and see for yourself.

Congress is to appropriate funds to carry out this handful of delegated powers; and it is to pay the bills with receipts from taxes. 1

Pursuant to Article I, §9, clause 7, the federal government is to periodically publish a Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures. Citizens could use this Statement and Account – which would be so short that everyone would have time to read it – to monitor the spending of their public servants.

So that’s how our existing Constitution limits federal spending:

♦ If it’s on the list of enumerated powers, Congress may lawfully spend money on it.

♦ But if it’s not on the list, Congress usurps powers not delegated when it appropriates money for it.

It was unconstitutional spending and unconstitutional promises (Social Security, Medicare, etc., etc., etc.) which got us a national debt of $19 trillion, plus a hundred trillion or so in unfunded liabilities.

Since the Constitution delegates to Congress only limited and narrowly defined authority to spend money; the Constitution doesn’t provide for a budget.

We never had a federal budget until Congress passed the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. By this time, the Progressives controlled both political parties and the federal government.

The Progressives wanted a federal budget because they wanted to spend money on objects which were not on the list of delegated powers.

A balanced budget amendment (BBA) would substitute a budget for the enumerated powers, and thus would legalize the current practice where Congress spends money on whatever they or the President put in the budget.

The result of a BBA is to change the constitutional standard for spending from whether the object is on the list of enumerated powers to a limit on the total amount of spending.

♦And to add insult to injury, the limits on spending are fictitious because they can be waived whenever Congress 2 votes to waive them.

And because a BBA would permit Congress to lawfully spend money on whatever is put in the budget, the powers of the federal government would be lawfully increased to include whatever THEY decide to put in the budget.

So a BBA would fundamentally transform our Constitution from one of enumerated powers only to one of general and unlimited powers – because the federal government would then be authorized by the Constitution to exercise power over ANY object they decide to put into the budget!

You must read proposed amendments and understand how they change our Constitution before you support them.

All federal and State officials take an oath to support the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 3). When people in Congress appropriate funds for objects not listed in the Constitution; and when State officials accept federal funds for objects not listed, they violate their oath to support the Constitution. According to the PEW Report, federal funds provided an average of 30% of the States’ revenue for FY 2013. Look up your State HERE. Were those federal funds used to implement unconstitutional federal programs in your State?

Power over education, medical care, agriculture, state and local law enforcement, environment, etc., is not delegated to the federal government: those powers are reserved by the States or the People. Congress spends on objects for which it has no constitutional authority; and bribes States with federal funds to induce them to implement unconstitutional federal programs. It was the unconstitutional spending which gave us this crushing $19 Trillion debt.

How do we go about downsizing the federal government to its constitutional limits?

We stop the unconstitutional and frivolous spending one can read about all over the internet.

We begin the shutdown of unconstitutional federal departments and agencies by selecting for immediate closure those which serve no useful purpose or cause actual harm such as the Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 3

Other unconstitutional federal departments and agencies must be dismantled and their functions returned to the States or The People.

An orderly phase-out is required of those unconstitutional federal programs in which Citizens were forced to participate – such as social security and Medicare – so that the rug is not pulled out from American Citizens who became dependent.

The federal government is obligated (Art. I, §8, cl. 11-16) to provide for service related injuries suffered by our Veterans.

The Constitution delegates to Congress the power to appropriate funds for “post Roads” (Art. I, §8, cl. 7). While there may be room for argument as to what is included within the term, “post Road”; clearly, some federal involvement in road building is authorized by our Constitution. State dependence on federal highway funds might be reduced by eliminating or reducing federal fuel taxes, and the substitution of fuel taxes collected by individual States. And there is nothing immoral about toll roads.

Since our Constitution was written to delegate to the federal government only the few and defined powers enumerated in the Constitution, we don’t have to change the Constitution to rein in federal spending. The Constitution isn’t the problem – ignoring it is the problem. Let us begin to enforce the Constitution we have.

Endnotes:

1 Our original Constitution authorized only excise taxes & tariffs on imports (Art. I, §8, clause 1), with any shortfall being made up by an apportioned assessment on the States based on population (Art. I, §2, clause 3).

2 Compact for America’s (CFA) version of a BBA permits spending limits to be waived whenever Congress and 26 States agree. CFA’s version also authorizes Congress to impose a national sales tax and a national value added tax in addition to keeping the income tax! See THIS Paper.

3 George Washington’s Cabinet had four members: Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Secretary of Treasury, and Attorney General.

Feb 2, 2016

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

February 2, 2016 Posted by | Balanced Budget Amendment | , , , | 15 Comments

PH’s natural born citizen & Art. V convention event in Fairfield Glade, TN

Fairfield Glade

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

February 1, 2016 Posted by | Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Convention Supporters’ Myths about State Control of Delegates

By Publius Huldah

Convention supporters assure us that the States will have control over Delegates to an Article V convention.

That is not true.

The Truth is States have no power over the convention at Art. V.  All they can do is “apply” to Congress for Congress to “call” a convention. THIS CHART by Judi Caler shows who has the power to do what respecting an Article V convention.

Delegates to an Article V convention are performing a federal function – they are not under the authority of the States.

Furthermore, Delegates are the sovereign representatives of The People and thus are vested with plenipotentiary powers to alter or abolish our form of government – our Constitution (Declaration of Independence, 2nd para).

This has already happened once in our history:

At the Federal Convention of 1787, this plenipotentiary power was exercised to replace our first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution we now have. On February 21, 1787, the Continental Congress called a convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation”. But instead of proposing amendments to our first Constitution, the Delegates wrote a new Constitution – the one we now have.

Furthermore, the new Constitution had a new and easier mode of ratification: Article XIII of The Articles of Confederation (p 8-9) provided that Amendments to the Articles had to be approved by the Continental Congress and all of the then 13 States. But the new Constitution, drafted at the “amendments” convention of 1787, provided at Art. VII thereof that it would be ratified upon approval by only nine of the then existing 13 States.

And the Delegates to that convention disregarded the instructions of their States as well as the instructions of the Continental Congress.

So! Not only do Delegates to a national convention have this plenipotentiary power to impose a new Constitution; the precedent to do so has already been established.

It is child’s play to figure out how to get around State’s “faithful delegate” laws.  This is how to do it:

Delegates can vote to make the proceedings secret – that’s what they did on May 29, 1787 at the federal convention where our present Constitution was drafted.

  • If the proceedings are secret, the States won’t know what is going on – and can’t stop it.
  • And if Delegates vote by secret ballot – the States would never know who did what.

So!  Do you see?  It would be impossible for States to prosecute Delegates who ignore State instructions.

Is it any wonder that James Madison, and Supreme Court Justices Arthur J. Goldberg and Warren Burger said that Delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled?

When James Madison and two former US Supreme Court Justices have warned that delegates to an Article V convention can’t be controlled, it is wicked to dismiss their warnings as “fear mongering”.

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

January 27, 2016 Posted by | Article V, Article V Convention, constitutional convention, Delegates to a convention can't be controlled, Federal Convention of 1787 | , , , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments

Natural born citizen status is inherited – it’s not bestowed by the Constitution or Acts of Congress

1. Neither Obama, Marco Rubio, or Ted Cruz are natural born citizens. At the times they were born, their Fathers were not citizens. Location of birth is irrelevant. Those who insist that a person must be born within the US point to Section 212 of Vattel.  But one must read all that Vattel wrote on the subject and which is contained in Sections 213-217.

A “natural born” citizen inherits his citizenship from his parents. Just as he inherits his eye and hair color from them, so he inherits his citizenship status. He is “born” with the hair and eye color his parents gave him, and he is “born” with the citizenship status they gave him. No provision in the Constitution made him a Citizen – no Act of Congress made him a Citizen – just as no provision in the Constitution or Act of Congress determined his eye or hair color. His citizenship, eye color, and hair color are all inherited from his parents. THAT’s what a natural born citizen is. READ all of the sections on this which Vattel wrote:  By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers; the place of birth produces no change in this particular.   In my first paper, you can find the links to Vattel and other original source documents illustrating the original intent of “natural born citizen”.

2. Our first generation of Presidents were all born as subjects of the British King. There were no US citizens until July 4, 1776 when we proclaimed our Independence.  Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 contains a grandfather clause which permitted our first batch of Presidents to qualify. They were citizens at the time of the Adoption of our Constitution.

3. It appears that both of Donald Trump’s Parents were Citizens at the time he was born.  It is irrelevant that his Mother was an immigrant:  She came here from Scotland; and later became a US Citizen during 1942 – several years before Donald was born.  Donald is a natural born citizen eligible to be President.  [But because of the doctrine of coverture which prevailed at the time of our Framing, the status of Donald’s Mother is probably irrelevant.]

4. I found another article on this topic which is excellent: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-oe-lee-is-ted-cruz-eligible-to-…

5. Our Country would be so much better off if people would stop spouting off about this subject until after they become well-informed. And they can’t become well-informed until they have studied this carefully using original source documents and read all the original source documents I cite in my first paper.

And you must detach the result you want from your thinking when you are studying. TRUTH sheds its own Light – and you will NEVER get that Light until you love TRUTH above all things including the outcome you want.  I am well aware of the disgraceful cases where peoples’ views on this issue are determined by whom THEY want for President.

Be sure to read the short article in the LA Times.  The law professor author discusses the 3 ways of reading our Constitution:

  • original intent (yours truly);
  • textualism (the words mean what they mean today not what they meant when our Constitution was drafted & ratified);
  • it’s a living, breathing, evolving Constitution which means whatever the Judges, or whoever has the power, says it means.

Which are you?  Think hard about the ramifications of each position before you decide.

Jan 17, 2016

 

Postscript added Jan 18, 2016:

People are confused about the effect of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.  I’ll explain:

There is a difference between:

  • a “natural born citizen” (who inherits his citizenship status from his parents by the “laws of nature” alone – like eye color); and
  • someone who becomes a “citizen” by operation of a man-made Proclamation or law such as the Declaration of Independence, a clause in the Constitution, or an Act of Congress.

One of the purposes of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves.  That generation of freed slaves became Citizens by operation of a man-made law:  the 14th Amendment.  So they became Citizens, but they were not “natural born” citizens, because they weren’t “born” as citizens from parents who were citizens.

However, after that first generation of former slaves became citizens,  their children were “natural born” citizens because they were born of citizens.

Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with “natural born citizens”, i.e., those who are born of parents who are already citizens.

Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment has to do with the creation of new Citizens by operation of man-made law.

Under some peoples’ misreadings of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, illegal alien muslims could come here and drop a baby and the baby could later be President!   Our Framers didn’t want that!  They wanted only people who were born of parents who were already citizens to be eligible to be President.   And supposedly we would have standards for deciding who qualified for Citizenship….

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

January 17, 2016 Posted by | Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, natural born citizen, Ted Cruz, Vattel | , , , , , , | 79 Comments

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,885 other followers

%d bloggers like this: