Tweet
Reality Check: Constitutional Eligibility & Divided Loyalties; Need To Obey The Constitution
Birther Report
11/14/2014
Excerpt:
Constitutional Eligibility of Ted Cruz and Others
Carol D @ Facebook
Are you a Constitutionalist? Does it drive you crazy when you see BHO violating it, making law, changing laws with his pen? Or when you see judges "legislating from the bench" as it's called? If you answered 'yes' to those questions, why do you want to violate it yourself? Ah, you say, you don't. Ah, yes you do! You want Ted Cruz to run for president. EVEN THOUGH you know he is ineligible according to the Constitution. Why is that? Ah, you say you "like" him better than the others. Well, a lot of folks "liked" Obama too! They didn't care if he was eligible or not. We tried to give warning, but no one listened. The media pushed him as if he were the messiah in earthly garb. Girls swooned over the stick figure. Talk show hosts made fun of us as if we were escapees from the "home". Judges made absurd rulings that we had no "standing" to make sure our president was really eligible, saying that we had to show harm to us as individuals. They were either bought off or scared off of making a proper ruling. Maybe Gruber is right, that Americans are stupid. I don't like to think so, but maybe he is right. All the hoopla over "the first black president" without ever looking at the content of his character or at the many communists in his background and even in his foreground. None of that mattered, he was black. The color of his skin was all that mattered. Didn't matter that he wasn't born in the US., which is required to be eligible Those that said he was, including himself, were lying and putting forth fraudulent documents. Didn't matter than he wasn't "natural born", which requires both parents be citizens at time of birth. His father was never, ever a citizen, before or even after the birth. None of that mattered. Birthers were screaming as loud as we could, whenever and wherever we could. But no one listened. Everyone gave him a pass because he's black. Now look where we are. We may lose the entire country. It may become another banana republic among the many. No more the "shining city on a hill". No more a place where people can find a haven from the ravages of war. Or tyranny. We are on the verge of becoming just as tyrannical as any country that ever was. Bit by bit, bite by bite. Just like eating an elephant it is happening.
Why did the Founders write it into the Constitution that a president must be natural born? To preclude loyalty to another country. To make sure that the person's loyalty is to the USA and not somewhere else. Notice how immigrants that have been here 30 years or more keep saying in conversation "my country" and still identify their country of origin as "their" country instead where they have been citizens for decades? That shows divided loyalty! What if "their country" declares war on the US? Where would such a potus stand? What would he do? Where would his loyalty be? Would he bomb the city where some of his close relatives still live? It's 'his' country remember. That cannot be the mindset of our leader.
Only two requirements to be "natural born": born here in the US, and both parents are citizens at the time of birth. Simple.
You see? Even in the quote from the Constitution, there is a distinction between Citizen and natural born Citizen!
Why born here? So the child hopefully grows up here and not in some foreign country. His culture is American culture. He learns what it is to be an American. It becomes as natural as breathing. Think about your own childhood.
Why should the parents both be citizens at the time of birth? If a child grows up in a household with split loyalties, he will retain some of that divided loyalty even unconsciously as an adult. The Founders dd not want that.
Why wasn't "natural born" defined in the Constitution? Because at the time it was written, everyone knew what that meant. If you are writing about a motorcycle, you would not give a dictionary definition of it in your writing because it is assumed that most people already know the word, know what it is, so there is no need to clutter up your writing with defining it and other words you may be using. Why didn't they define citizen? Or president? Or many other words. Same reason. An educated person knew those words already.
The requirement for president is stated clearly in the Constitution. Only two requirements, be natural born, and be at least 35 years old.
To change the requirement means amending the Constitution. It has not been amended although it has been tried, and failed.
So we are "stuck" with it. Violating the Constitution with BHO should have taught us our lesson. But many of you sound like Obots in your enthusiasm for Cruz, or Rubio, or Jindal. They are all ineligible. But you don't care. Because you "like" him, you are willing to violate the Constitution. But you scream like stuck pigs when that BHO violator violates the Constitution, the one the Obots elected. Duplicity. Hypocrisy. Stupidity. How else can I describe it?
Cruz was born in Canada. His father was a not a citizen of the US until Ted was already an adult. He meets neither requirement. He's out..
Divided loyalties.
His father was born in Cuba, later became a Canadian citizen, then still later changed citizenship again to the USA. Potential loyalties to three different countries!
Now Cruz's office is confusing the word citizenship with natural born citizenship because Ted wants to be president so they can claim he is eligible. Can't say I blame him. Would be nice for him personally. But "wanting" to be is no excuse for violating the Constitution. Think about this. If he is willing to ignore and violate the Constitution to start with, what other ways would he be willing to violate it? How loyal would he be in keeping to the Constitution if he is willing to violate it already? When tough decisions have to be made?
We need someone who IS eligible and who WILL stick to the Constitution. The last few years have been a horrible disaster, with more still to come. We don't need someone who is willing to violate the Constitution for his own personal gain and recognition, because then what could motivate him to do it again? And again? In other matters.
There is a mindset we have to overcome. Violating the Constitution once makes it easier the next time. Right? Like the kid who steals a pack of gum and gets away with it. Next it's a small radio. Then a bigger item. Bigger and bigger, more and more. Until he's a full-blown thief. Same here. America was stupid. Really stupid. Allowed one who is blatantly ineligible to "lead" our country. So that makes it okay to do it again? Why? Those of you who claim you want your government to follow the Constitution want to violate it yourself! You should be screaming along with me to make sure that no more ineligible candidates ever get on the ballot! That they are thoroughly vetted way before the primaries, before the ballots in any state are printed. We see the current violations becoming outright tyranny! Do we want more of this? I'm not questioning Cruz's loyalties. They are whatever they are. But that it not the point. We need to obey the Constitution. Allowing the government to flagrantly disobey the Constitution has led us to the brink of annihilation. Do we continue on that road to oblivion? Or do we now straighten up and fly right?
[ Facebook ] Hat tip George Miller.
View the complete article at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/11...itutional.html
Birther Report
11/14/2014
Excerpt:
Constitutional Eligibility of Ted Cruz and Others
Carol D @ Facebook
Are you a Constitutionalist? Does it drive you crazy when you see BHO violating it, making law, changing laws with his pen? Or when you see judges "legislating from the bench" as it's called? If you answered 'yes' to those questions, why do you want to violate it yourself? Ah, you say, you don't. Ah, yes you do! You want Ted Cruz to run for president. EVEN THOUGH you know he is ineligible according to the Constitution. Why is that? Ah, you say you "like" him better than the others. Well, a lot of folks "liked" Obama too! They didn't care if he was eligible or not. We tried to give warning, but no one listened. The media pushed him as if he were the messiah in earthly garb. Girls swooned over the stick figure. Talk show hosts made fun of us as if we were escapees from the "home". Judges made absurd rulings that we had no "standing" to make sure our president was really eligible, saying that we had to show harm to us as individuals. They were either bought off or scared off of making a proper ruling. Maybe Gruber is right, that Americans are stupid. I don't like to think so, but maybe he is right. All the hoopla over "the first black president" without ever looking at the content of his character or at the many communists in his background and even in his foreground. None of that mattered, he was black. The color of his skin was all that mattered. Didn't matter that he wasn't born in the US., which is required to be eligible Those that said he was, including himself, were lying and putting forth fraudulent documents. Didn't matter than he wasn't "natural born", which requires both parents be citizens at time of birth. His father was never, ever a citizen, before or even after the birth. None of that mattered. Birthers were screaming as loud as we could, whenever and wherever we could. But no one listened. Everyone gave him a pass because he's black. Now look where we are. We may lose the entire country. It may become another banana republic among the many. No more the "shining city on a hill". No more a place where people can find a haven from the ravages of war. Or tyranny. We are on the verge of becoming just as tyrannical as any country that ever was. Bit by bit, bite by bite. Just like eating an elephant it is happening.
Why did the Founders write it into the Constitution that a president must be natural born? To preclude loyalty to another country. To make sure that the person's loyalty is to the USA and not somewhere else. Notice how immigrants that have been here 30 years or more keep saying in conversation "my country" and still identify their country of origin as "their" country instead where they have been citizens for decades? That shows divided loyalty! What if "their country" declares war on the US? Where would such a potus stand? What would he do? Where would his loyalty be? Would he bomb the city where some of his close relatives still live? It's 'his' country remember. That cannot be the mindset of our leader.
Only two requirements to be "natural born": born here in the US, and both parents are citizens at the time of birth. Simple.
- No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ~US Constitution
- § 212. Citizens and natives~The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ~US Legal Dictionary
- § 212. Citizens and natives~The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. ~US Legal Dictionary
You see? Even in the quote from the Constitution, there is a distinction between Citizen and natural born Citizen!
Why born here? So the child hopefully grows up here and not in some foreign country. His culture is American culture. He learns what it is to be an American. It becomes as natural as breathing. Think about your own childhood.
Why should the parents both be citizens at the time of birth? If a child grows up in a household with split loyalties, he will retain some of that divided loyalty even unconsciously as an adult. The Founders dd not want that.
Why wasn't "natural born" defined in the Constitution? Because at the time it was written, everyone knew what that meant. If you are writing about a motorcycle, you would not give a dictionary definition of it in your writing because it is assumed that most people already know the word, know what it is, so there is no need to clutter up your writing with defining it and other words you may be using. Why didn't they define citizen? Or president? Or many other words. Same reason. An educated person knew those words already.
The requirement for president is stated clearly in the Constitution. Only two requirements, be natural born, and be at least 35 years old.
To change the requirement means amending the Constitution. It has not been amended although it has been tried, and failed.
So we are "stuck" with it. Violating the Constitution with BHO should have taught us our lesson. But many of you sound like Obots in your enthusiasm for Cruz, or Rubio, or Jindal. They are all ineligible. But you don't care. Because you "like" him, you are willing to violate the Constitution. But you scream like stuck pigs when that BHO violator violates the Constitution, the one the Obots elected. Duplicity. Hypocrisy. Stupidity. How else can I describe it?
Cruz was born in Canada. His father was a not a citizen of the US until Ted was already an adult. He meets neither requirement. He's out..
Divided loyalties.
His father was born in Cuba, later became a Canadian citizen, then still later changed citizenship again to the USA. Potential loyalties to three different countries!
Now Cruz's office is confusing the word citizenship with natural born citizenship because Ted wants to be president so they can claim he is eligible. Can't say I blame him. Would be nice for him personally. But "wanting" to be is no excuse for violating the Constitution. Think about this. If he is willing to ignore and violate the Constitution to start with, what other ways would he be willing to violate it? How loyal would he be in keeping to the Constitution if he is willing to violate it already? When tough decisions have to be made?
We need someone who IS eligible and who WILL stick to the Constitution. The last few years have been a horrible disaster, with more still to come. We don't need someone who is willing to violate the Constitution for his own personal gain and recognition, because then what could motivate him to do it again? And again? In other matters.
There is a mindset we have to overcome. Violating the Constitution once makes it easier the next time. Right? Like the kid who steals a pack of gum and gets away with it. Next it's a small radio. Then a bigger item. Bigger and bigger, more and more. Until he's a full-blown thief. Same here. America was stupid. Really stupid. Allowed one who is blatantly ineligible to "lead" our country. So that makes it okay to do it again? Why? Those of you who claim you want your government to follow the Constitution want to violate it yourself! You should be screaming along with me to make sure that no more ineligible candidates ever get on the ballot! That they are thoroughly vetted way before the primaries, before the ballots in any state are printed. We see the current violations becoming outright tyranny! Do we want more of this? I'm not questioning Cruz's loyalties. They are whatever they are. But that it not the point. We need to obey the Constitution. Allowing the government to flagrantly disobey the Constitution has led us to the brink of annihilation. Do we continue on that road to oblivion? Or do we now straighten up and fly right?
[ Facebook ] Hat tip George Miller.
View the complete article at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2014/11...itutional.html