Category Archives: constitution

Ted Cruz born in Canada Obama born on planet earth, 2 arrogant Harvard grads, What the hell is wrong with Cruz?, Eligibility challenges grow, Paige v Vermont update, Texas Cruz lawsuit, Even Washington Post challenges Ted Cruz and of course lies about Obama

Posted on January 17, 2016 | 16 comments

Ted Cruz born in Canada Obama born on planet earth, 2 arrogant Harvard grads, What the hell is wrong with Cruz?, Eligibility challenges grow, Paige v Vermont update, Texas Cruz lawsuit, Even Washington Post challenges Ted Cruz and of course lies about Obama

“Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.”…constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Enough is enough!

Ted Cruz, what the hell is wrong with you!

Donald Trump is right.

Cruz will continue to be challenged on his eligibilty for the presidency as a natural born citizen and rightfully so.

We already have a narcissist in the White House. We don’t need another one.

Cruz, do your damn job and get an advisory opinion from the FEC or a court ruling. That is if you care about this country. or is that the problem?

You were born Canadian.

Here is an update from H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Mr. Paige informs Citizen Wells that he will be filing his “Notice of Default” with the court on Monday morning and will subsequently ask the court for an expedited hearing on the merits, a directed verdict based upon the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the issuance of an Order by the Court directing Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions to mitigate and resolve the errors and deficiencies presented in his Complaint.

More information as this unexpected and encouraging turn of events develops.”

From Mr. Paige January 5, 2016.

“Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Well this was an unexpected turn of events.  As a result of their
negligence in Answering or otherwise entering an appearance in Superior
Court, a series of events are unfolding that could result in profound
changes in the Vermont Primary this March.  What those changes will be is
difficult to predict. There are structural and legal problems with Vermont
Election Laws (Title 17) which has been thrown together “piecemeal” over
the years and this case should focus attention on the shortcomings of the
current law.

Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a
copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary
Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are
resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or
disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of
State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The
Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in
on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the
Court relating to the Primary.  The General Election and the “natural-born
Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find
an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC”
precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the
resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by
their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and
“sidetrack” the case.  The expedited resolution of the questions relating
to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont
voters.

CitizenWells  will continue to follow this case and provide all the
details here as they become available !””

The complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

Another legal action challenging Ted Cruz’s eligibility.

“Donald J. Trump predicted that the lawsuits against Senator Ted Cruz, doubting his constitutional eligibility to be president, would start trickling in as questions continued to percolate about the fact that he was born in Canada. As the Republican candidates gathered to debate in South Carolina on Thursday, one had already been filed.

An 85-year-old trial lawyer, Newton Schwartz Sr., filed the complaint in Federal Court in the Southern District of Texas, in Houston, arguing that the definition of a “natural born citizen” has never been sufficiently settled by the United States Supreme Court. The matter, he said, must be urgently addressed.

“The entire nation cannot afford such constitutional confusion and uncertainties overhanging the electorate process,” Mr. Schwartz, who lives and practices law in Mr. Cruz’s home state of Texas, wrote in the 73-page lawsuit.”

Read more:

From the Marshall Report January 7 2016.

“Cruz, Rubio Presidential Eligibility Challenged In FL, VT, and MD!”

“Well, so far complaints involving the ineligibility for Cruz, Rubio and Jindal to run for president have been filed in three states. Florida, Vermont, and MD. It appears all these people have to do is show proof of the eligibility requirements to run for president as stated in the constitution. So far none have, however Jindal has dropped out so it is moot for him. (Citizenship is not the same as the naturalization requirements for citizenship to run for President as stated in the constitution.)

 For some odd reason, Cruz has had his birth records sealed. He’ll have to answer the reason why himself. Heaven forbid if we speculate on that one. It does appear very strange especially if he has nothing to hide? He did show his Canadian Birth Certificate and his paper denouncing his Canadian citizenship, but he has not shown any consulate papers.”

Read more:

Cruz, Rubio Presidential Eligibility Challenged In FL, VT, and MD!

Leave it to the Washington Post to question Cruz and sanction Obama.

From the Washington Post January 12, 2016.
“Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president”

“Mary Brigid McManamon is a constitutional law professor at Widener University’s Delaware Law School.
Donald Trump is actually right about something: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) is not a natural-born citizen and therefore is not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

The Constitution provides that “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President.” The concept of “natural born” comes from common law, and it is that law the Supreme Court has said we must turn to for the concept’s definition. On this subject, common law is clear and unambiguous. The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone, the preeminent authority on it, declared natural-born citizens are “such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England,” while aliens are “such as are born out of it.” The key to this division is the assumption of allegiance to one’s country of birth. The Americans who drafted the Constitution adopted this principle for the United States. James Madison, known as the “father of the Constitution,” stated, “It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. . . . [And] place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.”

Cruz is, of course, a U.S. citizen. As he was born in Canada, he is not natural-born. His mother, however, is an American, and Congress has provided by statute for the naturalization of children born abroad to citizens. Because of the senator’s parentage, he did not have to follow the lengthy naturalization process that aliens without American parents must undergo. Instead, Cruz was naturalized at birth. This provision has not always been available. For example, there were several decades in the 19th century when children of Americans born abroad were not given automatic naturalization.”

“Let me be clear: I am not a so-called birther. I am a legal historian. President Obama is without question eligible for the office he serves. The distinction between the president and Cruz is simple: The president was born within the United States, and the senator was born outside of it. That is a distinction with a difference.”

Read more:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

Let’s be clear about this.

There is zero proof of US birth for Obama.

He has never presented a certified copy of an original birth certificate.

I can prove that in court.

 

 

 

16 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Courts, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, FEC, Harvard, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama administration, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records

Tagged , , , , , ,

Ted Cruz FEC advisory opinion on natural born citizen status patriotic duty, Cruz born in Canada to 1 US citizen parent, Senate resolution 511 sanctioned John McCain who was born to 2 US citizen parents

Posted on January 6, 2016 | 31 comments

Ted Cruz FEC advisory opinion on natural born citizen status patriotic duty, Cruz born in Canada to 1 US citizen parent, Senate resolution 511 sanctioned John McCain who was born to 2 US citizen parents

“Why did Obama employ Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie, to request an advisory opinion on FEC matching funds that he was not eligible for?”…Citizen Wells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

 

 

Donald Trump was quoted in the Washington Post on January 5, 2016.

“Donald Trump said in an interview that rival Ted Cruz’s Canadian birthplace was a “very precarious” issue that could make the senator from Texas vulnerable if he became the Republican presidential nominee.

“Republicans are going to have to ask themselves the question: ‘Do we want a candidate who could be tied up in court for two years?’ That’d be a big problem,” Trump said when asked about the topic. “It’d be a very precarious one for Republicans because he’d be running and the courts may take a long time to make a decision. You don’t want to be running and have that kind of thing over your head.””

Trump is correct.

This is a no brainer.

For the good of the country, the Republican Party and for Cruz himself, he should immediately request an advisory opinion from the FEC as to whether or not he is eligible for federal matching funds as a natural born citizen.

There is a precedent for doing so.

From Citizen Wells January 27, 2015.

“To be president of the US one must be a natural born citizen, not just a citizen and not a naturalized citizen.

Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

Based on my understanding the answer is no.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada and had only one US citizen parent.

Is Ted Cruz a patriot?

I believe so.

For the good of the country I am requesting that Ted Cruz, at the earliest possible moment, request an advisory opinion from the FEC about his eligibility for Federal Matching funds and therefore the presidency.

The FEC will be compelled to provide an advisory opinion about whether or not he is a natural born citizen.

This will be important for two reasons.

Ted Cruz needs to know early if his efforts are worthwhile and not counterproductive.

We need a ruling on this. Every government entity that should provide guidance on the definition of natural born citizen has passed the buck, including the US Supreme Court. The courts and congress have shirked their constitutional duty.

There are 2 important instances of an advisory opinion from the FEC on matching funds.

1. Attorney Robert Bauer of Perkins Coie on behalf of Barack Obama in 2007.

From Citizen Wells January 23, 2012.

“WHY DID OBAMA REFUSE MATCHING FUNDS IN 2008?

PART 4

Obama, attorneys and Democrats control FEC

The devil himself could not have come up with a more devious plan.

Robert Bauer, of Perkins Coie, on February 1, 2007 requested an advisory opinion to keep Obama’s option for matching funds open. Bauer knew full well that Obama, not being a natural born citizen, was not eligible for matching funds. The FEC advisory opinion from March 1, 2007 responded in the affirmative.Ellen L. Weintraub, former staff member at Perkins Coie, was a Democrat appointee of the FEC at that time. She remained well beyond her scheduled tenure with the help of Barack Obama.
Obama, Robert Bauer, Democrats interaction with FEC timeline.
February 1,2007

Advisory Opinion Request: General Election Public Funding

From Obama attorney Robert Bauer to FEC

“This request for an Advisory Opinion is filed on behalf of Senator Barack Obama and the committee, the Obama Exploratory Committee, that he established to fund his exploration of a Presidential candidacy. The question on which he seeks the Commission’s guidance is whether, if Senator Obama becomes a candidate, he may provisionally raise funds for the general election but retain the option, upon nomination, of returning these contributions and accepting the public funds for which he would be eligible as the Democratic Party’s nominee.”

“cc: Chairman Robert Lenhard
Vice Chair David Mason
Commissioner Michael Toner
Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky
Commissioner Steven Walther
Commissioner Ellen Weintraub“

Note, in the above advisory opinion request, Robert Bauer was a Perkins Coie attorney and Ellen Weintraub was a former Perkins Coie staff member.
March 1, 2007

FEC advisory opinion

From Robert D. Lenhard to Robert Bauer

“The Commission concludes that Senator Obama may solicit and receive private contributions for the 2008 presidential general election without losing his
eligibility to receive public funding if he receives his party’s nomination for President, if he (1) deposits and maintains all private contributions
designated for the general election in a separate account, (2) refrains from using these contributions for any purpose, and (3) refunds the private
contributions in full if he ultimately decides to receive public funds.””

June 19, 2008.

“Obama to Break Promise, Opt Out of Public Financing for General Election”

“In a web video to supporters — “the people who built this movement from the bottom up” — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, announced this morning that he will not enter into the public financing system, despite a previous pledge to do so.”

“In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”
Obama wrote:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party
candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/obama-ga-ballot-challenge-natural-born-citizen-status-judge-michael-malihi-why-did-obama-refuse-matching-funds-in-2008-part-4-obama-attorneys-democrats-control-fec/

2. Abdul Hassan, a naturalized citizen, requested an advisory opinion in 2012.

From Citizen Wells March 11, 2013.

“From the FEC March 11, 2013.

APPEALS COURT ISSUES PER CURIAM ORDER IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today issued its Per Curiam Order inHassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Order may be found here: (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_ac_order2.pdf).

Background.

From Citizen Wells October 1, 2012.

“From the FEC October 1, 2012.

DISTRICT COURT ISSUES OPINION IN HASSAN v. FEC

WASHINGTON – The United States District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order in Hassan v. FEC (Case 1:11-cv-02189-EGS). The text of the Memorandum Opinion may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_memo_opinion.pdf) and the text of the Order may be found here (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/hassan_dc_order2.pdf).

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency that administers and enforces federal campaign finance laws. The FEC has jurisdiction over the financing of campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Established in 1975, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2012/20121001_Hassan_v._FEC.shtml

Exerpts:
“Hassan’s challenge to the Fund Act rests on his contention
that the natural born citizen requirement has been implicitly
repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court need
not repeat the thorough and persuasive opinions issued by its
colleagues in at least five other jurisdictions, all of whom
determined that the natural born citizen requirement has not
been implicitly repealed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

“Moreover, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the distinction between natural born citizens and naturalized citizens in the context of
Presidential eligibility remains valid.”

“Because the natural born citizen requirement has not been explicitly or implicitly repealed, Hassan’s challenge to that provision, and the Fund Act’s incorporation thereof, must fail.””

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/abdul-karim-hassan-vs-federal-election-commission-march-11-2013-u-s-court-of-appeals-per-curiam-order-hassan-not-natural-born-citizen/

This is important.

I urge you to contact Ted Cruz with this important information.

https://citizenwells.com/2015/01/27/ted-cruz-eligible-for-presidency-ted-cruz-natural-born-citizen-cruz-a-patriot-ted-cruz-advisory-opinion-from-fec-natural-born-citizen-not-citizen-naturalized-citizen-abdul-hassan-not-eligibl/

31 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, US Constitution

Tagged , ,

Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court

Posted on January 5, 2016 | 30 comments

Vermont eligibility challenge update January 5, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General’s office failed to inform Secretary of State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in the complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Well this was an unexpected turn of events.  As a result of their
negligence in Answering or otherwise entering an appearance in Superior
Court, a series of events are unfolding that could result in profound
changes in the Vermont Primary this March.  What those changes will be is
difficult to predict. There are structural and legal problems with Vermont
Election Laws (Title 17) which has been thrown together “piecemeal” over
the years and this case should focus attention on the shortcomings of the
current law.

Mr. Paige visited the Secretary of State’s Office today to hand deliver a
copy of the latest filings that requested a Temporary Restraining Order to
prevent the “publication and distribution” of the Presidential Primary
Ballots until the “troubles” complained in the Plaintiff’s pleadings are
resolved or an accommodation can be found that would avoid injuring or
disenfranchising the various candidates.

Sadly, the Attorney General’s office has failed to inform the Secretary of
State’s Election Office of their failure to respond in Superior Court. The
Director of Elections appeared “shell shocked” as Mr. Paige filled him in
on the case, the default and the resolution he intends to propose to the
Court relating to the Primary.  The General Election and the “natural-born
Citizen” question will require additional consideration in order to find
an equable resolution which hopefully will include defining “nbC”
precisely as part of the ruling (rather than mere dicta unrelated to the
resolution).

Mr. Paige informs that the gross negligence of the Defendants exhibited by
their failure to respond reduces the A/G opportunities to stall and
“sidetrack” the case.  The expedited resolution of the questions relating
to the Primary could produce an interesting civics lesson for Vermont
voters.

CitizenWells  will continue to follow this case and provide all the
details here as they become available !”

The complaint:

https://citizenwells.com/2015/12/30/ted-cruz-rubio-and-jindal-eligibility-challenged-in-vermont-h-brooke-paige-complaint-filed-december-9-2015-natural-born-citizen-status-requires-us-birth-and-2-citizen-parents-attorney-mario-apuzz/

30 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil Complaint, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, US Constitution

Tagged , , ,

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

Posted on January 3, 2016 | 34 comments

Harvard Law Review article lied about Ted Cruz eligibility, Natural born citizen status, 2 US citizen parents required, Cruz born in canada to 1 US Citizen parent his mother, Is this why Obama and Cruz are arrogant in regard to US Constitution?

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

At the time of the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, there were only 2 types of citizens defined by US Law.

Natural born citizens and everyone else, citizens. There were no legally naturalized citizens and no provision in US Law to be naturalized until 1790.

That is why the founding fathers has to be grandfathered in with the following language:

“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 . . . .”

That language and the meaning of natural born citizen have not been altered.

Only the definition of citizen and how to attain citizenship has been altered.

It is believed by myself and many legal scholars that the founding fathers knew that one had to be born on US Soil to US citizen parents (plural).

Three years later in the Naturalization act of 1790 we find a clarification:

“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”

Obviously from that language one had to have US citizen parents (plural) to be a natural born citizen.

Senate Resolution 511, that Barack Obama signed, stated:

“Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

Once again citizens (plural).

So from start to finish we have the requirement of 2 US Citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz had only one US Citizen parent, his mother and he was born in Canada.

Clearly not eligible.

That is why the following article from the Harvard Review is so absurd.

“We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General during different administrations. We may have different ideas about the ideal candidate in the next presidential election, but we agree on one important principle: voters should be able to choose from all constitutionally eligible candidates, free from spurious arguments that a U.S. citizen at birth is somehow not constitutionally eligible to serve as President simply because he was delivered at a hospital abroad.

The Constitution directly addresses the minimum qualifications necessary to serve as President. In addition to requiring thirty-five years of age and fourteen years of residency, the Constitution limits the presidency to “a natural born Citizen.”

All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase “natural born Citizen” has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.”

This is a big lie!

http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/

From Citizen Wells March 16, 2015.

Truths, half truths and lies.

I will make this simple because it is.

Although our laws were derived from British laws and in fact some common laws are in force today, we have heavily modified them beginning with pre revolution colonial laws and the US Constitution.

The article above conveniently, selectively quotes the US Constitution which states:

“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 . . . .”

Ted Cruz is a citizen, but since he was not alive at the adoption of the Constitution, he is not by default a natural born citizen.

The Constitution was crafted by individuals with an excellent understanding of the law and a concern for foreign influences.

They made a clear distinction between citizen and natural born citizen.

Ted Cruz citizen not natural born citizen, Cruz not alive at adoption of constitution, Harvard Law Review article, Still teach to constitution?, Citizen at birth not equivalent to natural born citizen

Attorney Mario Apuzzo provides a scholarly explanation.

“I read the March 11, 2015 article entitled, “On the Meaning of a ‘Natural Born Citizen,” written by Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, found at 128 Harv.L.Rev.F 161, and accessed at http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/ .  The first sentence of the article says:  “We have both had the privilege of heading the Office of the Solicitor General.”  The article repeats the existing talking points offered in support of the constitutional eligibility of Senator Ted Cruz (all born citizens are natural born citizens) and offers nothing new.  Mr. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  I have written a recent article in which I conclude that Mr. Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President because he does not satisfy the one and only common law definition of a natural born citizen confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  The article is entitled, “What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .  Katyal and Clement maintain that any child who becomes a citizen at birth, regardless of where born or by what means, is a natural born citizen.  They add that since Mr. Cruz became a citizen from the moment of birth and did not need any naturalization after birth he is a natural born citizen.  But there is no historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that this is how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and the authors surely have not presented that evidence even if it did exist.

The authors’ argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion.  They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen.  They do not examine what was the source of the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified.  They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see the numerous articles that I have written and posted at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com .
Read more at http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html#8Lt4afwlA9IQXYvW.99

Read more:

http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/03/attorney-responds-to-harvard-law-review.html

 

 

 

34 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen Journalism, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Founding Fathers, Lies, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, The Case Against Barack Obama, US Constitution

Tagged , , , ,

Vermont Ted Cruz eligibility challenge update January 1, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrell neglects to file timely answer, Notice of Default, Court request for Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions

Posted on January 1, 2016 | 41 comments

Vermont Ted Cruz eligibility challenge update January 1, 2016, H. Brooke Paige v State of Vermont, Attorney General Bill Sorrell neglects to file timely answer, Notice of Default, Court request for Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Just in from Mr. H. Brooke Paige, plaintiff in complaint against the State of Vermont, Secretary of State James Condos and Attorney General William Sorrell.

“Vermont’s Attorney General Neglects to File Timely Answer in Paige v.
State of Vermont, et al (2015) – An Unexpected and Encouraging Event that
Could Expedite the Case !

It Appears the Vermont’s Attorney General Bill Sorrell has gotten cold
feet when it comes to the issue of the “natural-born Citizen” question and
numerous deficiencies in Vermont’s Primary and General Election process
(Title 17),

In the case currently before the Vermont Superior Court, Washington Unit,
Paige v. State of Vermont, et al, Civil Docket #780-12-15, was filed with
the court on December 8, 2015 and service of process was executed by the
Washington CO. Sheriff’s on December 11, 2015 with an Answer or Motion
required by the court 20 days after service today, December 31.

Mr. Paige visited the court clerk’s office at midday today (12/31/15) and
was informed that no communications had been received by the court from
the VT A/G’s office. The clerk confirmed that the answer was  required by
the close of business (4:30 PM) and suggested that he stop back then and
she would provide him with a copy of the filing – which both the clerk and
Mr. Paige were certain would be filed on time.

Mr. Paige arrived just before closing and was informed that the Attorney
General had not yet filed his answer and the clerk suggested he wait until
the office closed.  Mr. Paige waited until the bailiff came by to lock up
the courthouse – no timely response was by A/G Sorrell’s office on behalf
of the State, Secretary of State Jim Condos or Attorney General William
Sorrell (who is himself named as a co-defendant as a result of his
intentional misconduct in Mr. Paige’s prior ballot challenge before the
court)

Mr. Paige informs Citizen Wells that he will be filing his “Notice of
Default” with the court on Monday morning and will subsequently ask the
court for an expedited hearing on the merits, a directed verdict based
upon the Plaintiff’s Complaint and the issuance of an Order by the Court
directing Secretary of State Jim Condos to take appropriate actions to
mitigate and resolve the errors and deficiencies presented in his
Complaint.”

H. Brooke Paige

The complaint:

Ted Cruz Rubio and Jindal eligibility challenged in Vermont, H. Brooke Paige complaint filed December 9, 2015, Natural born citizen status requires US birth and 2 citizen parents, Attorney Mario Apuzzo explains founding fathers intent

 

41 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Election 2016, Election Boards, Election Law, Election update, Electoral College, Electors, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records, Vermont

Tagged , , , , ,

Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and not eligible for presidency, Not a citizen at birth, Not born after November 14, 1986, Media and Democrats are waiting to challenge Cruz, Ted Cruz must request advisory opinion from FEC

Posted on December 14, 2015 | 70 comments

Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and not eligible for presidency, Not a citizen at birth, Not born after November 14, 1986, Media and Democrats are waiting to challenge Cruz, Ted Cruz must request advisory opinion from FEC

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells

 

Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and is therefore not a natural born citizen and is therefore no eligible for the presidency. Period!

This is not an opinion or conjecture.

It is based on the US Constitution and US Citizenship and Immigration Services Policy Manual.

And it is crystal clear.

Why are you not hearing about this?

Because the mainstream media and Democrats are setting a trap for Ted Cruz and the Republicans.

They are waiting for him to rise in the polls and primaries.

They will then most likely issue a court challenge or advisory opinion from the FEC on Cruz’s eligibility for federal matching funds.

If Ted Cruz is a patriot, has any damned sense, can transend his attorney trained arrogance and be concerned about his party, he will, as soon as possible, request an advisory opinion from the FEC.

It is simple to do and he has standing.

Ted Cruz’s eligibility was questioned in the past when he was not a serious contender.

From Citizen Wells March 26, 2015.

“On  August 12, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote the following:
“Donald Trump, staunch birther: ‘Nobody knows’ yet where Obama was born”
“The two then discussed the birthplace of Sen. Ted Cruz, who’s been talked about as a potential GOP frontrunner for the White House in 2016. Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, which would make him ineligible for the office under the provisions of the Constitution.””

Cheryl Chumley WND article omits constitution eligibility words, Who paid Chumley?, 2013 Cheryl Chumley wrote Ted Cruz not eligible due to Canadian birth, Author of Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare is Becoming our Reality???

From Citizen Wells March 30, 2015.

“Ted Cruz is a graduate of Harvard Law School.

He must have known the truth.

I, like Donald Trump, had good teachers.

Therefore I have good reading comprehension skills.

But this is really simple. The law has 2 parts connected by “and.”

Why did Byron York of the Washington Examiner write this?

“Then there are the people who are born outside the United States to parents who are both American citizens, provided one of them has lived in the U.S. for any period of time. And then there are the people who are born outside the United States to one parent who is a U.S. citizen and the other who is an alien, provided the citizen parent lived in the United States or its possessions for at least five years, at least two of them after age 14.”

“That last category covers Cruz, making him a citizen at birth. Last year, Theodore Olson, the former Bush solicitor general who successfully defended John McCain in a 2008 lawsuit alleging McCain was ineligible to be president, told me, “My conclusion would be that if you are a citizen as a consequence of your birth, that’s a natural-born citizen.”  That would likely be the conclusion of any challenge to Cruz’s eligibility, as well.”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/spokesman-senator-cruz-is-a-u.s.-citizen-by-birth/article/2523832

REALLY??

From Citizen News March 30, 2015.

From the US Government.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services

Citizenship Through Parents

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through U.S. citizen parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18.  The term “parents” includes:  the genetic father, the genetic mother, and the non-genetic gestational mother, if she is the legal parent at the time of birth under the law of the relevant jurisdiction.  For more information, seeUSCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

There are two general ways to obtain citizenship through parents, one at birth and one after birth but before the age of 18. For more information, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

Citizenship at Birth for Children Born Outside the U.S. and its Territories

For information on who qualifies as a “child” for citizenship purposes, see USCIS Policy Manual guidance on Children of U.S. Citizens.

In a general, a Child Born Outside the U.S. is a Citizen at Birth when the Child’s Parents Are Married to each other at the Time of Birth IF… AND…
Both parents are U.S. citizens at the time of birth, At least one parent lived in the U.S. or its territories prior to the birth.
One parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and the birthdate is on or after November 14, 1986 The U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the U.S. or its territories for a period of at least five years at some time in his or her life prior to the birth, of which at least two years were after his or her 14thbirthday.If the U.S. citizen parent spent time abroad in any of the following three capacities, this can also be counted towards the physical presence requirement:

  • Serving honorably in the U.S. armed forces;
  • Employed with the U.S. government; or
  • Employed with certain international organizations.

Additionally, time spent abroad by the U.S. citizen parent while the U.S. citizen parent was the unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person who meets any of the three conditions listed above can also be counted.

 

http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents

 

Ted Cruz had 1 US citizen parent but was not born after November 14, 1986.

Cruz became a citizen after birth.

Cornell Law School.

“Natural born citizen

A phrase denoting one of the requirements for becoming President or Vice-President of the United States. Anyone born after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 must be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutionally fill the office of President or Vice-President. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1; id. at amend. XII.

Some debate exists as to the meaning of this phrase. Consensus exists that anyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” One may also be a “natural born Citizen” if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person’s parents.”

Ted Cruz did not immediately receive citizenship on birth from parents and isNOT a natural born citizen.

Case closed!

http://citizenwells.net/2015/03/30/ted-cruz-not-us-citizen-at-birth-cruz-lied-not-natural-born-citizen-us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-1-us-citizen-parent-and-not-born-after-november-14-1986/

Once again, that’s an “and” “

Ted Cruz by law not US citizen at birth, Not natural born citizen, Cruz lied, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 1 US citizen parent and not born after November 14, 1986

70 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2016, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Founding Fathers, Natural born citizen, Presidential candidate, The Case Against Barack Obama

Tagged , , , , ,

Fox News Republican presidential primary debate, Ted Cruz eligible for debate and presidency?, Must meet all US Constitutional requirements, Cruz born in Canada and not 2 US citizen parents, Why does Fox believe Cruz eligible?

Posted on August 6, 2015 | 62 comments

Fox News Republican presidential primary debate, Ted Cruz eligible for debate and presidency?, Must meet all US Constitutional requirements, Cruz born in Canada and not 2 US citizen parents, Why does Fox believe Cruz eligible?

“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 . . . .”…US Constitution

“According to the  US Citizenship and Immigration Services Ted Cruz was not a US citizen at birth and consequently not a natural born citizen.”…Citizen Wells

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″

 

 

Ted Cruz had better get a ruling from the FEC and/or US Supreme Court asap!

He is scheduled to take part in the Fox News Channel (FNC) and Facebook first Republican presidential primary debate tonight, August 6, 2015.

However, the first entry guideline listed by Fox News’ Executive Vice President of News Editorial Michael Clemente is:

“Must meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements”

I have seen no ruling on Cruz’s eligibility.

Have you?

“FOX NEWS AND FACEBOOK PARTNER TO HOST FIRST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE OF 2016 ELECTION
Network Announces Entry Criteria

Anchors Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace to Moderate

FOX News Channel (FNC) and Facebook announced today that they will present the first Republican presidential primary debate in conjunction with the Ohio Republican Party on August 6, 2015. The debate will be presented live from the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, OH from 9-11 PM/ET on FNC along with FOX News Radio, FOX News Mobile and FOXNews.com.

Moderated by Special Report anchor Bret Baier, The Kelly File anchor Megyn Kelly and FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace, the debate will feature Facebook data illustrating how the issues of the day are resonating with people on today’s largest platform for political conversation. FOX News viewers and Facebook users will also be able to share images and video questions via Facebook, some of which will be used to help formulate questions for the candidates and broadcast during the debate.

FOX News’ Executive Vice President of News Editorial Michael Clemente announced the entry criteria as follows:

Must meet all U.S. Constitutional requirements; and
Must announce and register a formal campaign for president; and
Must file all necessary paperwork with the Federal Election Commission (FEC); and
Must have paid all necessary federal and state filing fees; and
Must place in the top 10 of an average of the five most recent national polls, as recognized by FOX News leading up to August 4th at 5 PM/ET. Such polling must be conducted by major, nationally recognized organizations that use standard methodological techniques.
Clemente also noted that FNC will provide additional coverage and air time on August 6th to those candidates who do not place in the top 10.”

FOX NEWS AND FACEBOOK PARTNER TO HOST FIRST REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY DEBATE OF 2016 ELECTION

62 Comments

Posted in Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election 2016, Election Law, Election update, Eligibility, Natural born citizen

Tagged , , , ,

Politico lies Trump tells truth, Zero proof of US birth for Obama, I don’t know where Obama was born, Whitehouse.org image not certified birth certificate, Obama used private and Justice Dept. attorneys at taxpayer expense to hide records, Politico receives 4 Orwells

Posted on July 24, 2015 | 80 comments

Politico lies Trump tells truth, Zero proof of US birth for Obama, I don’t know where Obama was born, Whitehouse.org image not certified birth certificate, Obama used private and Justice Dept. attorneys at taxpayer expense to hide records, Politico receives 4 Orwells

“Why has Obama, since taking the White House, used Justice Department Attorneys, at taxpayer expense,  to avoid presenting a legitimate birth certificate and college records?”…Citizen Wells

“Moore said he’s seen no convincing evidence that Obama is a “natural born citizen” and a lot of evidence that suggests he is not.”…Judge Roy Moore interview by WND

“When asked where I believe Obama was born I answer, I don’t know. There is zero proof he was born in Hawaii. The only evidence of his birth location that we have is much circumstantial evidence and that points to Kenya.”…Citizen Wells

 

 

Remember:

Websters New World College Dictionary

“The official dictionary of the Associated Press”
Lie definition (noun)

“anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression.”

The Politico article below, written by Jeff Greenfield, qualifies as a lie.

Donald Trump, as I. does not know where Obama was born. That is an honest, informed answer.

Jeff Greenfield, has either not done the research and/or doesn’t care about the truth.

From Politico July 22, 2015.

“Donald Trump’s Birther Strategy
His loony birth certificate quest fits into a xenophobic tradition in American politics.”

“However far apart the two men are, their two journeys are linked in significant ways. In the minds of millions of Americans (if polls are right), Barack Obama is actually returning to the country in which he was born—a “fact” he, his parents and the entire Hawaiian public health system have fiendishly hidden from the world for half a century. Those suspicions were fanned greatly by the comments of Donald Trump stretching back more than three years, comments that had no basis in fact, and for which Trump has offered neither explanation nor apology. Back in 2011, Trump trumpeted that he had sent investigators to Hawaii and that “they cannot believe what they’re finding.” We never did learn what it is they had found. A few weeks ago, asked about whether he thought Obama was born in the United States, Trump told CNN, “I don’t know. I really don’t know.”

For his part, Obama has usually resorted to humor to reply. The two men even faced each other at the 2011 White House Correspondents Association dinner, where Obama skewered Trump from the podium for his “birther” stance, saying, “I know he’s taken some flak lately, but no one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than The Donald,” Obama told the crowd. “And that’s because he can finally get back to focusing on the issues that matter, like: Did we fake the moon landing? What really happened in Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?” Two years ago, he told the same dinner about plans for his library: “Some have suggested that we put it in my birthplace but I’d rather keep it in the United States.””

“The meritless suspicions about Obama’s birthplace and beliefs are in part a reflection of who he is: a uniquely “untypical” president”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/donald-trumps-birther-strategy-120504.html?hp=t2_r#.VbJi1PlVikq

I was glad to see that Greenfield at least got this right:

“The framers of the Constitution were determined, in Alexander Hamilton’s words, to avoid “cabal, intrigue and corruption”—threats likely to come “chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.” That’s why they limited the presidency to “natural born citizens.””

From Citizen Wells July 9, 2015.

“To: Donald Trump

From: Citizen Wells

There have been numerous attempts to obfuscate and complicate Obama’s birth proof and eligibility.

The answer is simple.

There is no proof of Obama birth in the US and Hawaii.

Forget the semantics of birth certificate.

Hawaii is very atypical and consistently ranked as one of the most corrupt states.

One can have what is considered a “legal” birth certificate from Hawaii and not be born there.

If one looks at the alleged birth certificate for Obama that was posted on WhiteHouse.gov you will find.

WhiteHouseGovAbstractVerbage

Abstract: “The term abstract is subject to different meanings, but in a legal sense, it refers to an abbreviated history of an official record.””

This automatically disqualifies the WhiteHouse.com image as being a copy of an original birth certificate.

Governor Neil Abercrombie, an Obama friend, could not find a birth certificate for Obama. He may have found a recording of birth.

From Citizen Wells July 19, 2012.

“Former Hawaii elections clerk Tim Adams has now signed an affidavit swearing he was told by his supervisors in Hawaii that no long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate existed for Barack Obama Jr. in Hawaii and that neither Queens Medical Center nor Kapi’olani Medical Center in Honolulu had any record of Obama having been born in their medical facilities.”

https://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/tim-adams-affidavit-no-obama-birth-certificate-in-hawaii-no-medical-records-queens-medical-center-kapiolani-medical-center/

From Citizen Wells May 24, 2012.

“Here is a list of some of the US Justice Department attorneys who have assisted Obama in keeping his records hidden. Their representation of Obama is a matter of public record. This list does not include the support staffs.

Eric Fleisig-Greene

Elizabeth A. Pascal

Neal Kumar Katyal Acting Solicitor General

R. CraiG Lawrence

Mark B. Stern

Andre Birotte Jr.

Leon W. Weidman

David A. Dejute

Roger E. West

George S. Cardona

Tony West

Paul J. Fishman

Robert Bauer, who as an attorney with Perkins Coie helped Obama keep his records hidden before Obama took the White House, and afterwards was hired as general counsel, is not included in the list as well as numerous private practice attorneys

Obama continues to engage numerous Justice Department and private attorneys to keep his records hidden. It may be because Obama pretended to be from Kenya to get foreign student aid and benefits. There are quite a few references to Obama being from Kenya including the recently released bio from his 1991 book publisher.”

To Donald Trump from Citizen Wells, All you need to know about Obama birth certificate and eligibility, Zero proof of US birth, Hawaii birth certificate if “legal” does not prove birth there, Obama has used numerous Justice Dept. attorneys at taxpayer expense

Politico and Jeff Greenfield are awarded 4 Orwells.

Orwells4

 

80 Comments

Posted in 1984, Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Election, Eligibility, Natural born citizen, Obama, Obama lies, Obama Nation, Obama records

Tagged , , , , ,

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

Posted on June 26, 2015 | 38 comments

US Supreme Court US courts fail in their duty, Same sex couple ruling exceeds bounds of federal government, Marriage is a contract between 2 people and the state defined by the states, Chief Justice John Roberts finally makes legal sense, No basis in the Constitution

“The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be pruledassed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.”
“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
“The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises? This is too extravagant to be maintained.”
“Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?”…Marbury V Madison

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court and courts in general have failed to do their duty.

Roberts has acted irrationally in his opinions regarding Obamacare.

Our courts have failed to do their duty in regard to clarifying what natural born citizen means and the eligibility of Barack Obama to occupy the White House.

I was however pleased to see Justice Roberts step up to the plate with his dissent on the same sex marriage ruling.

When I heard the SCOTUS opinion I thought to myself how absurd.

A marriage contract is between 2 people and the state they get married in and the federal government has no damn business meddling in this.

“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA and JUSTICE THOMAS join, dissenting. Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the
past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered). Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.
The majority’s decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court’s precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial “caution” and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own “new insight” into the “nature of injustice.” Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are? It can be tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law. But as this Court has been reminded throughout our history, the Constitution “is made for people of fundamentally differing views.” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting). Accordingly, “courts are not concerned with the wisdom or policy of legislation.” Id., at 69 (Harlan, J., dissenting). The majority today neglects that restrained conception of the judicial role. It seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves to the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question. And it answers that question based not on neutral principles of constitutional law, but on its own “understanding of what freedom is and must become.” Ante, at 19. I have no choice but to dissent. Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.
Petitioners and their amici base their arguments on the “right to marry” and the imperative of “marriage equality.” There is no serious dispute that, under our precedents, the Constitution protects a right to marry and requires States to apply their marriage laws equally. The real question in these cases is what constitutes “marriage,” or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes “marriage”? The majority largely ignores these questions, relegating ages of human experience with marriage to a paragraph or two. Even if history and precedent are not “the end” of these cases, ante, at 4, I would not “sweep away what has so long been settled” without showing greater respect for all that preceded us. Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (slip op., at 8). “

From the Center for Immigration Studies June 23, 2015.

“The Supreme Court recently issued a decision in an immigration-related case Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. v. Din. The decision reaffirms that although people have the right to marry anyone they like, if the spouse is a foreigner, he or she has no intrinsic right to enter the United States when excludable under any of the grounds laid out by law.

To people like myself, it is one of the rare victories these days in an increasingly beleaguered national immigration system under peril from open borders advocates who persistently push the boundaries of sovereignty and common sense.”

“Despite the salutary outcome, there are several disturbing things about this case that merit mentioning:

  • First, of course, is that the 9-CCA ruled as it did. One sometimes wonders whether they ought to be impeached, en banc. Perhaps they could take up residence as appellate court judges somewhere else more appropriate to their extreme views? Like Venezuela.
  • Next, is that four of the nine Supreme Court justices also held that Din’s rights had been infringed because of her husband’s visa denial, and that she was somehow entitled to additional due process review because of it. Imagine the loophole that would have been caused but for one slim vote. Terrorists, narcotraffickers, and sundry other villains would be lining up to join the marriage fraud queue so that their spouses could avail themselves of their “constitutional right” to live in the United States with them.
  • Then there is the curious case of Din herself. She came to the United States as a refugee from Afghanistan in 2000 when the Taliban was in the full glory of its power, sheltering the likes of Osama bin Laden and conducting public maimings, stonings, and executions under Sharia law at the main soccer stadium in Kabul. But where did she find her husband? In Afghanistan, where she traveled in 2006. And whom did he work for? The Taliban, from whom she presumably sought refuge. Did none of this seem curious or anomalous to the folks at USCIS — the ones who had granted her the refugee status in the first place, who were adjudicating her petition for her spouse, and who could have, who should have, taken a second look at whether her refugee application was fraudulent instead of proceeding to naturalize her? Nah, apparently not.

Kind of disturbing to think that USCIS and courts like the Ninth Circuit are the thin line protecting us from terrorists seeking benefits to live in the United States.

http://www.cis.org/cadman/supreme-court-provides-win-sovereignty-security-and-common-sense

38 Comments

Posted in Barack Obama, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, Civil rights, constitution, Courts, Judges, Justice, Supreme Court, Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

Tagged , , , ,

US Constitution subordinated to outdated historical document and irrelevance, Constitution negated by highest levels of government media and apathy, Vast majority of people just don’t give a damn

Posted on May 5, 2015 | 46 comments

US Constitution subordinated to outdated historical document and irrelevance, Constitution negated by highest levels of government media and apathy, Vast majority of people just don’t give a damn

“Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise
that it will last; but nothing in this world is certain but death and
taxes.”…Benjamin Franklin

“If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patroits to prevent its ruin”…Samuel Adams, 1776

“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”…Abraham Lincoln

 

 

At the end of the day, all we have to protect us from tyranny is the US Constitution and our resolve.

How many of us realize that?

From the First Rebuttal May 4, 2015.

“I find it shocking how often I have people tell me the Constitution is out of date and is no longer relevant or necessary. Then there are the vast majority of people that think about the Constitution the same way they think about religion; it makes us feel good to believe in it and we’ll even worship it on a holiday or two The reality is that those who seem to get very worked up to the point that they are willing to act in defense of the Constitution even against the highest levels of government make up a very small minority of Americans. This is a real problem.

You see if people gave a damn the government couldn’t get away with negating the Constitution. But the vast majority of people just don’t give a damn and so the government very easily provides ridiculous and false legal sounding arguments to explain away why they have become a higher law than the Constitution. Now I’ve tried to understand why it is that we Americans are so damn apathetic about everything the government and government officials do.

Let me give a couple examples for which our apathy just boggles my mind. We know they took us into wars on false pretenses resulting in the wrongful deaths of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and yet we’ve prosecuted no one. Hell they’ve admitted to hacking into millions of our home webcams and downloading videos and pictures of us in our most private moments and maintaining those downloads on government servers and then sharing these files with foreign governments.

But because today’s American is simply a shell of a citizen none of the criminal atrocities creates even a stir from us. Sure we all read about these atrocities and we are angered in the moment but it passes rather quickly and we fall back into our self induced ignorant bliss. Only two things can get Americans to formidably rise up. The first is a very direct and immediate impediment to our comfort. For example try cutting back on the monthly social welfare checks. You’ll have riots. The second way is if the mainstream media relentlessly instructs us to be upset about a particular issue. Outside of that there is absolutely nothing the new American won’t move past like water off a duck’s back.

What we’re finding out is that, and it sounds slightly over-dramatic but isn’t at all, unless we are wiling to fight and die to win back the freedom our forefather’s fought and died to secure for us and all future generations we will continue to feel our chains grow heavier and shorter. The simple reason is because our government is very much willing to kill to keep its ever encroaching control. A free population is the antithesis to a political class. And make no mistake the American federal government is the largest and most powerful group of aristocrats the world has known.

This group of traitors (and I mean that in the very technical sense of the word) not only behave according to a separate set of laws they have actually gone so far as to legislate a separate set of laws. This in itself is a direct breach of the very Constitution they swear to defend. Their intent is clear and that my friends is treason. They are directly negating the very basis of the American concept for their own personal self interest and they are doing so by defrauding American citizens into believing their intent is to represent the will of their constituents. Treason, Treason, Treason! What else would you call it?

Now are you ready to fight and die to win the freedoms back for your children and grandchildren? Hell No! No, not at all! And that’s kinda the problem because again the government is willing to kill to ensure your kids and grandkids don’t have the freedoms Americans were guaranteed. The fuck of it is Americans have become so damn brainwashed that despite the founding fathers telling us explicitly our government would end up enslaving the rest of us to solidify their own power and wealth we ignore it. These were the guys that figured out the British were effectively enslaving us and decided to rise against it and create the greatest damn nation the world has ever known. They literally created fucking America!!! I mean holy shit, imagine having that on your CV. And we pay them no mind, like they’re bat shit crazy and not relevant in our intellectual new world.

Today’s legislators rarely discuss the founding fathers or the Constitution beyond the very thin idea that they know we expect them to defend it. That is, like freedom and apple pie, they love it during the campaign cycle. However, ask them why then they continue to legislate against the Constitution and well they don’t want to talk about the Constitution anymore. And we the people ,like apathetic morons, buy into the bullshit they feed us because we simply don’t care. It’s to the point they can pretty much do anything knowing they can bullshit us with any damn nonsense that pops into their swollen heads. And so they do things like hack into our webcams, take nude pictures of us and send them to foreign governments and tell us it’s for our own good. We don’t give a shit because 1. it doesn’t impede our immediate comfort and 2. the press isn’t telling us it’s something to be concerned about.

The danger of being apathetic until it impacts our immediate day to day is that we allow the government to take away all the freedoms we are not currently using. What I mean by that is we so far have not had to face what it means to be powerless and in chains. But only because we haven’t yet ventured out far enough so as to reach the end of our chains. Like a sleeping dog that isn’t aware he’s been shackled until he wakes and tries to chase a bird, we are asleep and unaware of the shackles placed around our ankles.

Some will say “wait, it isn’t apathy it is a trade off between safety and freedom”. But the truth is freedom and safety are not conflictual we’ve only been led to believe so. Fear has replaced freedom here in America and that is not by chance but by strategy of a government that has its own agenda, separate from its oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. So while we should have prosecuted these recent governments for treason we’ve instead rewarded them the rights of dictatorship.

The Constitution is our freedom keeper but once the Constitution is made subordinate the precedent is set and in our legal system precedence is king. The strength in the Constitution is just that, it’s strength. Once we allow an exception to the Constitution’s superseding authority it no longer has any authority. Unfortunately that exception has already been made. With it, the destruction of the Constitution and the end to a guaranty of freedom. Our corrupt government has created ‘legislation’ providing them a legal basis to imprison us without due process. This is a fact.”

Read more:

http://www.firstrebuttal.com/2015/05/04/frankly-my-dear-i-dont-give-a-damn/

 

Hat tip to Zero Hedge.

 

46 Comments

Posted in American Revolution, Americans, Citizen News, Citizens for the truth about Obama, CitizenWells, constitution, Constitution Hall of Shame, US Constitution

Tagged , ,