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 ++++++++++++++++++

« We respond to Harry Riley re: "ALL THAT IS WRONG WITH GEORGIA STATE JUDGE MALIHI'S DECISION - By Mario Apuzzo, Esq." on Constitutional Emergency | Main | Just passing the baton (till the bankers have it all): Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, Romney (?) »

Private Attorney General's REPLY Re: You really have no clue, do you! Natural Born Citizen explained!

See also Eisner v. Macomber:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=252&invol=189#206

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. 
The 1866 Civil Rights Act [of Congress] did not, and could not, amend the U.S. Constitution;
amendments must comply with the provisions expressly stated at Article V:

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dredscot/excerpt1.htm
No one,  we presume,  supposes that  any  change  in  public
     opinion or  feeling, in relation to this unfortunate [black]
     race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country,
     should induce  the  court  to  give  to  the  words  of  the
     Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than
     they were  intended to  bear when  the instrument was framed
     and  adopted.     Such   an  argument  would  be  altogether
     inadmissible in  any tribunal called on to interpret it.  If
     any of  its provisions  are deemed  unjust, there  is a mode
     prescribed in  the instrument  itself by  which  it  may  be
     amended;   but  while  it  remains  unaltered,  it  must  be
     construed now  as it  was understood  at  the  time  of  its
     adoption.  It is not only the same in words, but the same in
     meaning, and  delegates the  same powers  to the government,
     and reserves  and secures  the same rights and privileges to
     the citizen;   and  as long  as it continues to exist in its
     present form, it speaks not only in the same words, but with
     the same meaning and intent with which it spoke when it came
     from the  hands of its framers, and was voted on and adopted
     by the  people of  the United  States.   Any other  rule  of
     construction would  abrogate the  judicial character of this
     court, and make it the mere reflex of the popular opinion or
     passion of  the day.   This  court was  not created  by  the
     Constitution for  such purposes.   Higher  and graver trusts
     have been confided to it, and it must not falter in the path
     of duty.
                            [Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393]
                             [60 U.S. 709 (1856), emphasis added]


http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm
Congress could not remove the obstacles identified in that [Dred Scott] decision
solely by means of Federal legislation enacted by that Body.  Cf. Eisner v. Macomber supra!


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/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice


From: pc93 <pc9323@gmail.com>
To: paulandrewmitchell2004@yahoo.com
Sent: Sunday, February 5, 2012 8:40 AM
Subject: Fwd: You really have no clue, do you! NBC explained!




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tracy <tracysplace2002@verizon.net>
Date: Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Subject: You really have no clue, do you! NBC explained!
To: pc9323@gmail.com


NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
 
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.]
 
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
 
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts.
Madison's notes of the Convention.
------------------------------------------------
Senator Lyman Trumbull wrote the citizenship clause in the Civil Rights Act, which reads:
"That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;"

AND

Senator Jacob Howard wrote the citizenship clause in the 14th amendment, which reads:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Both of these clauses were amendments added in AFTER the original bill was introduced. During the debates of the 14th amendment, Senators wanted to know what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant. Senator Lyman Trumbull is ON RECORD explaining what the clause meant and I quote:
"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYBODY ELSE. That is what it means."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

Jacob Howard concurs:
"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=16

The Civil Rights Act was written by the Honorable John Bingham but the citizenship clause was added in by Senator Lyman Trumbull, when the bill went back to the House to vote on Trumbull's amendment (the citizenship clause) Bingham is ON RECORD responding to Trumbull's amendment to his bill and I quote:
"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of PARENTS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANY FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"

MIDDLE COLUMN 3RD PARAGRAPH:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

I'm sorry, but it doesn't get any clearer than that and this definition is coming from the EXACT men that made up the clauses aka THEIR OWN WORDS!

You may notice, that is HELPS to do your homework!

February 5, 2012 in Current Affairs | Permalink