We are no longer a nation of laws. Result? Don't hold your breath waiting for any law on the books to be implemented. Ask Merrick Garland about this and you'll get no answers.
CONSTITUTION: Many thanks for the primer on the constitutional qualifiers for the President of the USA. As I read them, something emerged as a consistent theme throughout our founding document: Of the People, For the People and By the People.
In a court of law, the accused is to be judged by a "jury of his peers."
In Congress, we are represented by those who live in our particular areas and are familiar with their constituents.
Each state has two Senators who are elected by those they represent.
The "People" cast their votes on every major issue.
Each Congressman/woman and Senator must qualify on several levels as a citizen of the USA.
For our federal officials to violate the constitutional requirements of ANY official qualifies them as TRAITORS. And, we have laws for that!
Thank you Karen! And how much damage has been done to our republic by a recent President whose political allegiance is to something outside US jurisdiction? I would call that allegiance “City of London.” It seems so to be, by some observations. It is manifested in the current neocon dominated Democrat party of chaos, war and death … a zombie conjured from the corpse of the DNC. This is evidence that supports the Founding Father’s vision, IMO. Look at the tyranny that has overtaken Canada, Australia, NZ and Singapore owing to allegiance to City of London and the vast industrial/banking/insurance/media cabal under its wing. Tyranny is bad enough in the US but ameliorated somewhat by our written Constitution.
It is not so unreasonable … a minimal criterion … to cleave a citizen’s loyalty to the United States by virtue of one generation prior of citizenship. Should the Mother’s citizenship suffice? I can’t answer except that Constitutional governance is in a state of bastardized collapse that has been in progress for decades, but has attained an in-your-face-brazen contempt for the Constitution most recently under Obama who had his hand up the back of a dummy that looks like Biden. Job one is to restore Constitutional governance and take it from there.
My feeling is that changes are unnecessary and counterproductive because they are usually proposed by lightweights and criminal coteries … Kriminala … like the current DNC. The proposed doing away with the electoral college is a great example of the “MOI” generation taking over. That means either “ME” or an acronym for majority of idiots. That must not happen.
Thank you for your comments. In the days of our founders woman had very few rights. When a woman married she became one with her husband. Our Constitution was written using natural law (the Law of Nations too). Natural law (the law of nature - God) Read of the fathers place in the home and society back then. Again, we cannot change the CONTRACT to fit modern times. It means the same today as it did when it was written. The only way to change it is to amend it. And if you read carefully the US Senate Debate of 1866 that I included in my article it is very clear that the men that wrote the Constitution states that a baby born on our soil to foreigners is NOT a citizen either. The Constitution is NOT a living document.
“The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born citizen,” and the Supreme Court has never ruled precisely on its meaning.”
We can interpret what the founders meant or not but the constitution itself does not define it; therefore are we all advocating for a supreme court ruling?
the Constitution does not define ANYTHING that is why we rely on the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founders to determine the meaning. The Federalist Papers were written for that exact purpose. Now do you think our founders would require members of Congress to be citizens and VP/President a natural born citizen if they had no definition or they did not know what it meant. I provided the proof of what the definition of natural born citizen was at the time of our founders and there has never been any law, amendment or Supreme Court decision to change that definition. If you did some research on the 14th Amendment you would also find it was written to give the slaves born on US soil citizenship. It was never meant to give foreigners who drop a baby on US soil automatic citizenship. I also provided that information as well in the Senate Debate I provided. Perhaps you should do some reading and research before you parrot statements you were told to believe.
Listen here Karen, Before you automatically assume I am against you or the article, perhaps you should stop and think that a person questioning you or clarifying things may not be your enemy. This automatic thinking that if a person disagrees with us therefore that person is evil or stupid, is literally a symptom in personality disorders.
Federalist papers If I remember correctly did mention something also about “if the intention of the parents was to stay permanently within the Us, than it would be allowed”? Paraphrasing of course.
Being a citizen is NOT the same as being a natural born citizen. Again, I answered the issue of the 14th Amendment in my previous response. The 14th although it was written to give citizenship to the slaves it says CITIZEN it does not say natural born citizen.
I remember when John McCain ran for president and Dems were fired up talking about how he wasn’t a citizen being born outside the US. Harris obviously hasn’t been vetted and is getting away with it because she is the first female DEI candidate. Frankly, I am bored by all the Dem’s “firsts.” When will votes be cast again for what candidates stand for instead of what candidates look like or whether they wear pants with a crease or a skirt? Harris is unqualified in so many ways, except for the Dems, she will be another first. 🤦🏼♀️https://www.creators.com/read/david-limbaugh/02/16/david-brooks-and-obamas-ongoing-pant-crease
John McCain was as much a natural born citizen as you and I. Place of birth has no bearing on determining if you are a natural born citizen. You are a natural born citizen of the country of your father. These are the facts not matter what the constitutionally illiterate want us to believe.
Yes really. Obviously you have no concern for historical truth. And WHO approved her? The very people that want their bag people installed as President to destroy this country. She is not eligible. If you cannot prove me wrong then perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself.
You’re really great in looking at the truth upside down: compared to the Great Liar Donald Trump, no one in the world can match your truth, so funny, ha ha ha
Been down this path before with Barry Soetoro (Barack Obama) with his getting away with not being eligible to be President. A solid read on him would be "Where's the Birth Certificate?" by Jerome R. Corsi Ph.D. That book should have be at the top of the Best Sellers list but, as usual, censorship and coverup campaigns by the "powers that shouldn't be" squashed that possibility!!! We live in a lawless land, in case you haven't noticed.
the problem with Obama is they went after the wrong thing. Anyone that reads what I just posted can see the real reason to go after Obama was the fact that his father was not an American citizen. I worked for 2 years with the North American Law Center to get him impeached on those grounds (where you are born has no bearing on whether you are a NBC)We worked hand in hand with US legislators but traitor Paul Ryan stood in our way at every turn.
See what I mean? Obama was groomed from his childhood and protected by the CIA and many other handlers to PLAY that role as "Commander in Chief" and hoodwinked the whole world, which goes on to this very day!!! There was a whole battery of lawyers trying to do what you said Karen armed with real proof but the court system would not give them an audience.....how's THAT for justice?
Correct. She IS NOT a natural born citizen
But she IS a natural born moron, slut skank.
When Substack first released, it was nice to see intelligent answers without vulgarities.
We are no longer a nation of laws. Result? Don't hold your breath waiting for any law on the books to be implemented. Ask Merrick Garland about this and you'll get no answers.
CONSTITUTION: Many thanks for the primer on the constitutional qualifiers for the President of the USA. As I read them, something emerged as a consistent theme throughout our founding document: Of the People, For the People and By the People.
In a court of law, the accused is to be judged by a "jury of his peers."
In Congress, we are represented by those who live in our particular areas and are familiar with their constituents.
Each state has two Senators who are elected by those they represent.
The "People" cast their votes on every major issue.
Each Congressman/woman and Senator must qualify on several levels as a citizen of the USA.
For our federal officials to violate the constitutional requirements of ANY official qualifies them as TRAITORS. And, we have laws for that!
Thank you Karen! And how much damage has been done to our republic by a recent President whose political allegiance is to something outside US jurisdiction? I would call that allegiance “City of London.” It seems so to be, by some observations. It is manifested in the current neocon dominated Democrat party of chaos, war and death … a zombie conjured from the corpse of the DNC. This is evidence that supports the Founding Father’s vision, IMO. Look at the tyranny that has overtaken Canada, Australia, NZ and Singapore owing to allegiance to City of London and the vast industrial/banking/insurance/media cabal under its wing. Tyranny is bad enough in the US but ameliorated somewhat by our written Constitution.
It is not so unreasonable … a minimal criterion … to cleave a citizen’s loyalty to the United States by virtue of one generation prior of citizenship. Should the Mother’s citizenship suffice? I can’t answer except that Constitutional governance is in a state of bastardized collapse that has been in progress for decades, but has attained an in-your-face-brazen contempt for the Constitution most recently under Obama who had his hand up the back of a dummy that looks like Biden. Job one is to restore Constitutional governance and take it from there.
My feeling is that changes are unnecessary and counterproductive because they are usually proposed by lightweights and criminal coteries … Kriminala … like the current DNC. The proposed doing away with the electoral college is a great example of the “MOI” generation taking over. That means either “ME” or an acronym for majority of idiots. That must not happen.
Thank you for your comments. In the days of our founders woman had very few rights. When a woman married she became one with her husband. Our Constitution was written using natural law (the Law of Nations too). Natural law (the law of nature - God) Read of the fathers place in the home and society back then. Again, we cannot change the CONTRACT to fit modern times. It means the same today as it did when it was written. The only way to change it is to amend it. And if you read carefully the US Senate Debate of 1866 that I included in my article it is very clear that the men that wrote the Constitution states that a baby born on our soil to foreigners is NOT a citizen either. The Constitution is NOT a living document.
“The Constitution does not expressly define “natural born citizen,” and the Supreme Court has never ruled precisely on its meaning.”
We can interpret what the founders meant or not but the constitution itself does not define it; therefore are we all advocating for a supreme court ruling?
the Constitution does not define ANYTHING that is why we rely on the Federalist Papers and the writings of our founders to determine the meaning. The Federalist Papers were written for that exact purpose. Now do you think our founders would require members of Congress to be citizens and VP/President a natural born citizen if they had no definition or they did not know what it meant. I provided the proof of what the definition of natural born citizen was at the time of our founders and there has never been any law, amendment or Supreme Court decision to change that definition. If you did some research on the 14th Amendment you would also find it was written to give the slaves born on US soil citizenship. It was never meant to give foreigners who drop a baby on US soil automatic citizenship. I also provided that information as well in the Senate Debate I provided. Perhaps you should do some reading and research before you parrot statements you were told to believe.
Listen here Karen, Before you automatically assume I am against you or the article, perhaps you should stop and think that a person questioning you or clarifying things may not be your enemy. This automatic thinking that if a person disagrees with us therefore that person is evil or stupid, is literally a symptom in personality disorders.
Federalist papers If I remember correctly did mention something also about “if the intention of the parents was to stay permanently within the Us, than it would be allowed”? Paraphrasing of course.
Being a citizen is NOT the same as being a natural born citizen. Again, I answered the issue of the 14th Amendment in my previous response. The 14th although it was written to give citizenship to the slaves it says CITIZEN it does not say natural born citizen.
Well it has been a while since I read the federalist papers, but I am in luck, I am due to re read them this year.
I remember when John McCain ran for president and Dems were fired up talking about how he wasn’t a citizen being born outside the US. Harris obviously hasn’t been vetted and is getting away with it because she is the first female DEI candidate. Frankly, I am bored by all the Dem’s “firsts.” When will votes be cast again for what candidates stand for instead of what candidates look like or whether they wear pants with a crease or a skirt? Harris is unqualified in so many ways, except for the Dems, she will be another first. 🤦🏼♀️https://www.creators.com/read/david-limbaugh/02/16/david-brooks-and-obamas-ongoing-pant-crease
John McCain was as much a natural born citizen as you and I. Place of birth has no bearing on determining if you are a natural born citizen. You are a natural born citizen of the country of your father. These are the facts not matter what the constitutionally illiterate want us to believe.
What silly piece of nonsense! Kamala was approved on her first try at the presidency four years ago, friends!
Try something better than time. And you lot want to talk about the Constitution? Really?
Yes really. Obviously you have no concern for historical truth. And WHO approved her? The very people that want their bag people installed as President to destroy this country. She is not eligible. If you cannot prove me wrong then perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself.
You’re really great in looking at the truth upside down: compared to the Great Liar Donald Trump, no one in the world can match your truth, so funny, ha ha ha
Been down this path before with Barry Soetoro (Barack Obama) with his getting away with not being eligible to be President. A solid read on him would be "Where's the Birth Certificate?" by Jerome R. Corsi Ph.D. That book should have be at the top of the Best Sellers list but, as usual, censorship and coverup campaigns by the "powers that shouldn't be" squashed that possibility!!! We live in a lawless land, in case you haven't noticed.
the problem with Obama is they went after the wrong thing. Anyone that reads what I just posted can see the real reason to go after Obama was the fact that his father was not an American citizen. I worked for 2 years with the North American Law Center to get him impeached on those grounds (where you are born has no bearing on whether you are a NBC)We worked hand in hand with US legislators but traitor Paul Ryan stood in our way at every turn.
See what I mean? Obama was groomed from his childhood and protected by the CIA and many other handlers to PLAY that role as "Commander in Chief" and hoodwinked the whole world, which goes on to this very day!!! There was a whole battery of lawyers trying to do what you said Karen armed with real proof but the court system would not give them an audience.....how's THAT for justice?
*want to
???? What is this supposed to mean? Thanks
The "wants" in the title should be plural. Also in the title, it looks like fact should be facts.
Thanks for the lesson but I find it odd that the only comment you have about such important information are regarding some typos.
I only help those whom I like. Keep looking like an blithering idiot if you want to, I don't care.
Such a waste of energy this is.
If this is an oversight, happening for a SECOND time...
SERIOUS shenanigans...
Similar to the toothlessness of both sides on constant display for all to witness in congress...