NBC - Natural Born Citizen for President
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Bob Hurt
Apr 15, 2016, 11:43:15 PM4/15/16
to lawmen
The founders had an ambition. Limit the presidency to people with
no natural inclination NOT to remain fully loyal to the ideals of
the republic AND to the Constitution. That means the president
should have no vestige of loyalty to any foreign government, people,
or land, through foreign birth, foreign parentage, or long residence
in a foreign land. NBC accomplishes that ONLY if the NBC is born on
US soil of US citizen mother and US citizen father.
That requirement is a level above a mere citizen born on US soil of foreign parents, or born abroad of US citizen parents, and especially born abroad of one foreign and one citizen parent, or born with or acquiring dual US and foreign citizenship.
Ted Cruz does not qualify to become president and should not be allowed to run for the office even though votes of the people only determine who can become delegates in the presidential election. Cruz experienced birth in Canada of a US Citizen mother and a Canada citizen Cuban-native father. He is not a NBC. Neither is Rubio, so he never could qualify for the presidency because he experienced birth in the USA of Cuban citizen parents.
Our problem: Congress has not made a law obligating an election qualification commission to ensure that all candidates qualify for office prior to having the right to run for election.
Congress does not have the authority to define Natural Born Citizen in any way other than the above way, in keeping with the widely respected Emmerich Vattel's translation and modernization of the Law of Nations.
That requirement is a level above a mere citizen born on US soil of foreign parents, or born abroad of US citizen parents, and especially born abroad of one foreign and one citizen parent, or born with or acquiring dual US and foreign citizenship.
Ted Cruz does not qualify to become president and should not be allowed to run for the office even though votes of the people only determine who can become delegates in the presidential election. Cruz experienced birth in Canada of a US Citizen mother and a Canada citizen Cuban-native father. He is not a NBC. Neither is Rubio, so he never could qualify for the presidency because he experienced birth in the USA of Cuban citizen parents.
Our problem: Congress has not made a law obligating an election qualification commission to ensure that all candidates qualify for office prior to having the right to run for election.
Congress does not have the authority to define Natural Born Citizen in any way other than the above way, in keeping with the widely respected Emmerich Vattel's translation and modernization of the Law of Nations.
Jon Roland
Apr 16, 2016, 12:30:18 AM4/16/16
to lawmen...@googlegroups.com, lawmen
There are many clauses in the
Constitution that do not accomplish that for what may have been
intended, which is conjectural. The Constitution has the clauses
written they way they are, effective or not. Just because we have
a theory of what they should have intended or meant doesn't mean
that's what the words actually mean.
Consider some other ineffective clauses:
1. Election of U.S. senators by state legislatures. Never worked as intended, despite popular myth to the contrary.
2. Failure to make clear that all the Bill of Rights, except the First, applied to the states and created a jurisdiction for U.S. courts.
3. Failure to define "direct" and "indirect" taxes.
4. Failure to make clear Congress did not have the authority to make anything legal tender on state territory.
5. Failure to define "commerce" or what is or is not "necessary and proper".
6. Failure to make clear that the vice-president would not preside in his own removal trial.
7. Failure to define "in all cases" for the legislative power in the District of Columbia.
8. Failure to make clear the U.S. government does not have eminent domain power for state territory.
9. Failure to make clear that the "Welfare Clause" was only a restriction on the power to tax (and spend), not a separate grant of power.
10. Failure to define "for limited times" for patents.
I could go on and on, but this is a sample.
I have proposed corrections for some of the worst of these flaws at http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm
Consider some other ineffective clauses:
1. Election of U.S. senators by state legislatures. Never worked as intended, despite popular myth to the contrary.
2. Failure to make clear that all the Bill of Rights, except the First, applied to the states and created a jurisdiction for U.S. courts.
3. Failure to define "direct" and "indirect" taxes.
4. Failure to make clear Congress did not have the authority to make anything legal tender on state territory.
5. Failure to define "commerce" or what is or is not "necessary and proper".
6. Failure to make clear that the vice-president would not preside in his own removal trial.
7. Failure to define "in all cases" for the legislative power in the District of Columbia.
8. Failure to make clear the U.S. government does not have eminent domain power for state territory.
9. Failure to make clear that the "Welfare Clause" was only a restriction on the power to tax (and spend), not a separate grant of power.
10. Failure to define "for limited times" for patents.
I could go on and on, but this is a sample.
I have proposed corrections for some of the worst of these flaws at http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm
On 2016-04-15 22:43, Bob Hurt wrote:
NBC accomplishes that ONLY if the NBC is born on US soil of US citizen mother and US citizen father.
-- Jon ---------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society http://constitution.org 11447 Woollcott St twitter.com/lex_rex San Antonio, TX 78251 512/299-5001 jon.r...@constitution.org ----------------------------------------------------------
Jon Roland
Apr 16, 2016, 4:31:10 AM4/16/16
to Bob Hurt, Lawmen, Lawsters
It is based more on history. Legal
terms in the Constitution mean what they meant to the Framers and
ratifiers, not what they might mean to some of us today, with our
theories of what they should have meant. We have to look to
history, not to reason, logic, or common sense. Those things are
good for law going forward, but not law looking back.
On 2016-04-16 02:04, Bob Hurt wrote:
On 2016-04-16 02:04, Bob Hurt wrote:
law is based on reason, logic, and common sense.
Jon Roland
Apr 18, 2016, 8:56:32 AM4/18/16
to laws...@googlegroups.com, Lawmen
Here is some language from a model federal constitution I am
writing. See if it does the job.
10.4 Immunities of officials and government
10.4.1 Officials shall have official immunity from execution of money judgments for injuries caused by acts lawfully done by an official or in the performance of his lawful duties; however
10.4.2 Officials shall not have immunity from suit; and
10.4.3 Officials shall not have immunity against money judgments for injuries caused by acts done unlawfully by him or not in the performance of his lawful duties; however,
10.4.4 If an injurious act was done by an official lawfully or in the performance of his lawful duties, the injured party may sue and receive judgment for such injury against the government or agency employing him, under the doctrine of respondeat superior; but the plaintiff may not execute such judgment against assets of the government or agency chosen by him, but paid only from a fund appropriated for the payment of such claims, upon application therefor, provided that funds are available; and
10.4.5 Sufficient funds shall be appropriated for the payment of such claims, before any other funds are appropriated.
10.4.6 Collection of such claims shall not be impeded or made excessively expensive, and the government or agency shall be liable for reasonable costs and delays of collection.
10.4.7 If an official shall not have sufficient assets to pay a judgment against him, his government or agency shall be liable for the deficit; and
10.4.8 If the injury consists of the death or physical impairment of an innocent person, the official may be criminally prosecuted by the plaintiff or his representative for a penalty that may include death.
10.4 Immunities of officials and government
10.4.1 Officials shall have official immunity from execution of money judgments for injuries caused by acts lawfully done by an official or in the performance of his lawful duties; however
10.4.2 Officials shall not have immunity from suit; and
10.4.3 Officials shall not have immunity against money judgments for injuries caused by acts done unlawfully by him or not in the performance of his lawful duties; however,
10.4.4 If an injurious act was done by an official lawfully or in the performance of his lawful duties, the injured party may sue and receive judgment for such injury against the government or agency employing him, under the doctrine of respondeat superior; but the plaintiff may not execute such judgment against assets of the government or agency chosen by him, but paid only from a fund appropriated for the payment of such claims, upon application therefor, provided that funds are available; and
10.4.5 Sufficient funds shall be appropriated for the payment of such claims, before any other funds are appropriated.
10.4.6 Collection of such claims shall not be impeded or made excessively expensive, and the government or agency shall be liable for reasonable costs and delays of collection.
10.4.7 If an official shall not have sufficient assets to pay a judgment against him, his government or agency shall be liable for the deficit; and
10.4.8 If the injury consists of the death or physical impairment of an innocent person, the official may be criminally prosecuted by the plaintiff or his representative for a penalty that may include death.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages