Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0
HEIGHT=

Youngevity BTT 2.0 + Healthy Start Paks 2.0

Coffees from Youngevity
HEIGHT=

Coffees from Youngevity

Youngevity Be The Change

Youngevity Healthy Chocolate

GOFoods Youngevity

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.
HEIGHT=

Join or Create a Ron Paul Meetup,.

Ron Paul Forums
HEIGHT=

Ron Paul Forums

APFN Message Board
HEIGHT=

APFN Message Board

Leo Emil Wanta / Wantagate Links

++++++++++++++++++ EBAY ITEMS 4 SALE ++++++++++++++++++

« Think Free Be Free: Dealing with Government Agencies | Main | Vote Ron Paul: Granny News: Granny Warriors in dire need of help,. »

MSNBC now admits: McCain's citizenship called into question, Candidate, born in Panama Canal Zone, may not qualify as 'natural born' + McCain: Bill Would [TRY TO] Remove Doubt on Presidential Eligibility

MSNBC now admits: McCain's citizenship called into question, Candidate, born in Panama Canal Zone, may not qualify as 'natural born'

 

Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:11:40 -0800
From: "Paul Andrew Mitchell" <supremelawfirm@gmail.com>
Subject: MSNBC now admits: McCain's citizenship called into question, Candidate, born in Panama Canal Zone, may not qualify as 'natural born'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028

McCain's citizenship called into question

Candidate, born in Panama Canal Zone, may not qualify as 'natural born'

TO:  towwwdothello towwwdothello@yahoo.com

You missed the point:

Congress has no authority to amend the Constitution;

all Constitutional Amendments require ratification

by THREE-FOURTHS of the 50 States.  See Article V:

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#5

See also Eisner v. Macomber:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189

Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.

[end excerpt]

Shame on you!!!

p.s.  There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)


All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm



towwwdothello <towwwdothello@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sure, the Constitution can be amendend to the point where it is no
longer a Constitution; as well as adding peripherial laws like the
FIOA that compromises citizens private information opposing the 4th
Amendment.

They can amend it, create additional laws that 'enhance' the
Constitution to the point it is no longer recongizable in function--
although modern life should be taken into consideration, but not an
excuse.

Shall we commune over this concept?



dot


--- In catapultthepropaganda@yahoogroups.com, Supreme Law Firm
wrote:


>
> http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/replysup.htm
>
>
> (10) The Qualifications Clauses have never been amended,
>
> despite recent efforts to impose limits on the terms of
>
> federal Representatives and/or Senators. Appellant
>
> agrees that limits upon the terms of federal lawmakers
>
> would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
>
> See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct. 1842,
>
> 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).
>
>
>

> MCAC wrote:
> Does this mean McCain is NOT eligible, now???
>
> GOOGLE SEARCH: http://news.google.com/news?
hl=en&q=bill+mccain+legal&um=1&ie=UTF-
8&ncl=1137528194&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bill Would Remove Doubt on Presidential Eligibility

[input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input] [input]

- Show quoted text -

 

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/replysup.htm

    (1)  The  "Right of Election"  is established and recognized
          by the  Maine Supreme  Court, Appleton concurring at 44
          Maine 528-529  (1859).    The  Maine  Legislature had
          requested that court's judicial opinion, in response to
          the  holding in  Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19  How.  393
          (1856).

     (2)  The  existence  of two (2) classes of citizenship

under
          American law, never repealed,  is also  recognized  by
          numerous authorities infra, both state and federal.

     (3)  The proper construction and common understanding of the
          Qualifications Clauses  are also  explored  thoroughly,
          with pertinent citations dating back to the California
          Constitution of 1849,  and subsequently in People v. De
          La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870) infra.

     (4)  The cases  recognize that  one may  be a citizen of

the
          United States ("federal citizen") without also being a
          Citizen of  any particular Union state.  See e.g. Hough
          v. Societe Electrique Westinghouse  de Russie,  231 F.
          341, (USDC, NY, 1916).

     (5)  The cases also recognize that Americans may be Citizens
          of a  Union state  without also being federal citizens.
          See McDonel  v. State,  90 Ind.  320 (1883);  Crosse v.
          Board of Supervisors of Elections, 221 A.2d 431

(1966);
          11 C.J.,  Section 3,  page 777  and cases cited therein
          (Harding, McDonel, Fowler).

     (6)  The cases  also recognize  that, both  before and after
          the so-called Fourteenth amendment  [sic], it  has not
          been necessary for one to be a federal citizen in order
          to be a Citizen of a Union state.

     (7)  The failure to capitalize the "C" in "Citizen", as that
          term is used in the Qualifications Clauses, has created
          an immense,  nearly

immeasurable,  amount of  confusion
          among references to state  and federal  citizenship in
          all federal  and state  laws which  utilize the  phrase
          "citizen of the United States" [sic].

     (8)  It is  also clear  that this confusion was intentional,
          in order to co-opt the American People into associating
          with a political jurisdiction which is not protected by
          the  Guarantee Clause.    The  United  States  (federal
          government) is  not

required  to guarantee a Republican
          Form of  Government to  the federal  zone, only  to the
          state zone [sic]. See Guarantee Clause.

     (9)  Congress cannot  by legislation alter the Constitution,
          from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
          within  whose limitations  alone  that  power  can  be
          lawfully exercised.   See  Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S.
          189 (1919) (holding predicated  on ratification of the
          16th amendment [sic] as

applied to the term "income").

     (10) The  Qualifications Clauses have never  been  amended,
          despite recent efforts to impose limits on the terms of
          federal Representatives  and/or  Senators.    Appellant
          agrees that  limits upon the terms of federal lawmakers
          would require  an amendment  to the  U.S. Constitution.
          See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct. 1842,
          131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).

     (11) It  is   a cardinal   rule  in  dealing  with

written
          instruments that they  are  to  receive  an  unvarying
          interpretation, and  that their  practical construction
          is to  be uniform.   See Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind.
          327, 335 (1874); Qualifications Clauses, 3:2:1, 4:2:1.

     (12) Citizenship is  a term  of municipal law.  Prior to the
          1866 Civil   Rights  Act,   which  legislated federal
          citizenship into existence as  a municipal  franchise,
          one and

only one class of citizenship was recognized by
          the  U.S. Constitution.    Thus,  prior  to  1866, all
          constitutional references  to "Citizen  of  the  United
          States" and   "citizen  of  the  United States"  were
          identical  in all respects.   See  Roa v. Collector of
          Customs,  23 Philippine 315,  332  (1912);    Murphy v.
          Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885); People v. De La Guerra, 40
          Cal. 311, 342 (1870)

infra.

p.s. There is much additional (and free) reading
at the links below my name here ...

http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm

Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/reading.list.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm (Home Page)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm (Client Guidelines)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


Our condensed list of IRS outreach resources:

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/nutshell.htm <-- START HERE
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.estopped.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.forward.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/irs.perjury.jurats.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/psta.analysis.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/lien.or.levy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/notice.of.deficiency.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/end.times.irs.cclists.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm

 

CONGRESS CANNOT AMEND THE CONSTITUTION: McCain: Bill Would [TRY TO] Remove Doubt on Presidential Eligibility

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/replysup.htm

    (10) The  Qualifications Clauses have  never  been  amended,

          despite recent efforts to impose limits on the terms of

          federal Representatives  and/or  Senators.    Appellant

          agrees that  limits upon the terms of federal lawmakers

          would require  an amendment  to the  U.S. Constitution.

          See U.S. Term Limits, Inc.

v. Thornton, 115 S.Ct. 1842,

          131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995).

 

MCAC <mcac@extremezone.com> wrote:

 

Does this mean McCain is NOT eligible, now???

 

GOOGLE SEARCH: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=bill+mccain+legal&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1137528194&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=more-results&cd=1

------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill Would Remove Doubt on Presidential Eligibility

 
 

Article Tools Sponsored By

 

By CARL HULSE

Published: February 29, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain said Thursday that he had no concerns about his meeting the constitutional qualifications for the presidency because of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone. A Democratic colleague said she wanted to remove even a trace of doubt.

Skip to next paragraph

Related

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out (February 28, 2008)

Times Topics: John McCain

Blog

The Caucus

The CaucusThe latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion.

The Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, introduced legislation that would declare that any child born abroad to citizens serving in the United States military would meet the constitutional requirement that anyone serving as president be a “natural born” citizen.

“In America, so many parents say to their young children, ‘If you work hard and you play by the rules, in America someday you can be president of the United States,’ ” said Ms. McCaskill, a supporter of the presidential bid of Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. “Our brave and respected military should never have to spend a minute worrying whether or not that saying is true for their child.”

Traveling on his presidential campaign, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said that he was convinced he was eligible under the natural-born definition and that from his perspective the matter had been reviewed and settled in earlier campaigns. Mr. McCain was born in 1936 on a military base in the Canal Zone, where his father, a Navy officer, was stationed at the time.

“It’s very clear,” Mr. McCain said. “An American born in a territory of the United States whose father is serving in the military could not be eligible for presidency of the United States is certainly not something our founding fathers envisioned.”

Legal scholars who have explored the issue say that a conclusive legal finding on the clause has never been delivered and that there is the potential for some uncertainty about whether someone born outside the nation proper would qualify.

To date, no president has been born outside what would become one of the 50 states. A handful of serious candidates have been born elsewhere but none were elected and the citizenship question was not tested.

Senior members of Mr. McCain’s campaign team have also said they are very comfortable that Mr. McCain meets the definition of natural born and that he could overcome any challenge should one be made.

They have asked Theodore B. Olson, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer and McCain supporter, to prepare a legal analysis of the issue.

A group of lawmakers made an unsuccessful effort four years ago to eliminate any lingering doubts about the meaning of the provision through legislation that would have said children born outside the country to American citizens are eligible for the presidency.

Ms. McCaskill said that her legislation should be noncontroversial and that Congress should move rapidly to clear up any ambiguity. She acknowledged there could be some who believe the only route to resolve the confusion is through a constitutional amendment.

“We can at least make a legislative declaration that the definition of ‘natural born’ includes children of the active military,” she said. “This should be done quickly and easily.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/politics/29mccain.html?ref=us


 

___

Ref: http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2008/02/john-mccain-ine.html

___

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Teknosis Join us at EENG - Free Blogs,.

February 29, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d3ac69e200e550a21f548834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MSNBC now admits: McCain's citizenship called into question, Candidate, born in Panama Canal Zone, may not qualify as 'natural born' + McCain: Bill Would [TRY TO] Remove Doubt on Presidential Eligibility:

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.