|
"No
person except a natural born citizen shall be eligible to
the office of President"
John McCain was born August 29, 1936
in Panama |
by Francis
Steffan
AmericanVoiceRadio.net
John
McCain was born August 29, 1936 in the Panama Canal
Zone, to two U.S. citizens. It's a common
misunderstanding that the zone was a U.S. territory -
in fact, the U.S. had lease rights, but not
territorial rights.
The
US Constitution 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; neither
shall any person be eligible to that office who shall
not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and
been fourteen Years a resident within the United
States."
"Natural Born Citizen" - "is
where ONLY the natural act of one being born in a
place determines the status of ones citizenship with
no additional stipulations necessary to influence that
status"
No
law or court ruling has ever established the precise
definition of a natural born citizen. It is generally
agreed that a natural born citizen of the United
States is any person born in one of the 50 states or
the District of Columbia.
John
McCain's father "Jack" was born in Council
Bluffs, Iowa. McCain graduated from the United States
Naval Academy in 1931. Like his father and son, he
graduated near the bottom of his class. He married
Roberta Wright, a wealthy oil heiress, on January 21,
1933, in Caesar's Bar, Tijuana, Mexico. During
WW II he commanded the submarine Gunnel at Operation
Torch. After the end of the war, he was assigned to
the Office of the Chief of Naval Personnel until 1948.
He assumed command of Submarine Division 71 in the
Pacific the next year. In 1950, he was assigned to a
series of posts at The Pentagon. He spent the 1960s in
a series of commands in the Atlantic, becoming
Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces in Europe in
1967 and 1968. Admiral McCain directed an
investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS
Liberty and he wanted the investigation done in less
than a week even though the court’s president, Rear
Admiral Isaac Kidd, said that it would take 6 months
to conduct properly. Admiral McCain also wouldn’t
permit Admiral Kidd to travel to Israel or to contact
any potential Israeli witnesses. In fact, the written
affidavits of 60 witnesses from the Liberty itself who
were hospitalized at the time of the restricted
inquiry, were also excluded from the final report and
not considered as part of the evidentiary record. The
investigation was completed in just ten days. The
National Archives in College Park, Maryland includes
in its files on casualties from the Liberty
copies of the original telegrams the Navy sent out to
family members. The telegrams which
called the attack accidental, were sent out
June 9, the day before the Navy court of inquiry
convened .
When
Senator McCain was asked to reopen and conduct a
proper investigation into the USS Liberty's attack he
stated that he wasn’t going to do anything about it
because the “matter was thoroughly reviewed.”
Senator
McCain also collaborated with ultra liberal Senator
Ted Kennedy to attempt to provide amnesty to nearly 40
million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican.
When
the Constitution was established, the United States
government did not have a empire builder foreign
policy. The United States military was for defensive
purposes only. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is not to
have a "standing Army" and all the documents
evidencing the intent of the authors of the
Constitution, warned against becoming involved in
foreign entanglements. The U.S. had zero foreign based
military forces and certainly did not approve of,
envision, or condone having babies and raising
families on foreign based U.S. military installations.
The intent of the authors of the Constitution is exactly opposite the policy twentieth
century U.S. government has pursued.
The Constitution of the United
States, Article 1, Section 8, vests in Congress the
power "to establish an uniform rule of
naturalization." "Naturalization" is
NOT synonymous with "Natural Born Citizen."
In
order to come to a Constitutional definition of
"Natural Born Citizen," one must look to the
common meaning and understanding of the phrase at the
time it was written.
The
Constitution has been called a "living
document" by liberal progressives who think they
know better than the authors of the Constitution and
want what they want with disregard for The Supreme Law
of the Land. In one way, and one way only, is the
Constitution a living document. The authors of the
Constitution gave a specific process to add to or
subtract from the Constitution and that is by
amendment. The Supreme Court, the U.S.
Congress nor the President of the United
States are granted the authority to define or change
the Constitution in any way, they only have an
obligation and duty to obey it.
There
were no foreign based US military forces at the
writing of the U.S. Constitution, therefore, it is
impossible that the intent of the Constitution was to
have babies born to civilian
wives of military personnel
be considered "Natural Born
Citizens." The only authority the government may
lawfully exercise, through the U.S.
Congress, is to declare these children to
be "naturalized Citizens" at birth based
upon the U.S. , Congress's authority
"establish an uniform rule of
Naturalization." I must reiterate, not the U.S.
Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court nor the President of
the United States is "authorized" to define
or change the meaning, definition, or intent of
"Natural Born Citizen" as prescribed by the
authors of the Constitution.
The
original "intent" and therefore meaning and
definition of "Natural Born Citizen" is one
free white man being delivered through natural
progression of a pregnancy, born within the
geographical boundaries of one of the several States
of the union, and later the District of Columbia. This
is very clear and simple and what it means is born
HERE.
In
the Fourteenth Amendment the eligible group allowed
Citizenship was expanded from free white men to
"All persons." This would have been better
stated “all
people” to avoid the bogus recognition of a
corporation being a "person.” This would have been better as it would have
clarified the meaning as intended, which is having
rights of people but lacking any of the liabilities.
One cannot imprison a corporation, but that is
for a later article.
The
Fourteenth Amendment, Section
1 actually defines "natural born citizen" by
stating, "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."
One’s
wishes of what one feels things should be must
yield to facts of law and one must accept the way
things are according to the law until such time one is
able to change the law.
There
are two types of Citizenship in the United States,
Natural Born and Naturalized. The fourteenth amendment
defines "Natural Born Citizen" as persons
born in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof. It goes on to explain that there
exists a dual Citizenship that includes the United
States and of the State in which on lives. This in
itself serves to demonstrate that Natural Born Citizen
being born in the United States means within one of
the several united States of America.
People
may feel that it is not right that John McCain is not
eligible to be President of the United States of
America, however, this is a fact of law. "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. There are two types of Citizenship in the
United States "Natural Born" and
"Naturalized." Congress has authority to make rules
as to how to become a "naturalized citizen."
There is no such authority granted to Congress, the
Court, or the President to define "Natural Born
Citizen."
Given
the fact the United States official and long term
military enclaves presence within foreign nations was
not authorized and in fact was cautioned against by
the authors of the founding documents of this nation
including but not limited to the Constitution it is
not only unlikely but impossible that the authors
intended anyone born outside the several States of the
United States, for any reason, to be considered
"Natural Born Citizens" of the United
States. This position and fact is second witnessed and
verified by the fourteenth amendment, section 1 where
it states clearly the two forms of United States
Citizenship and defines Natural Born Citizen as
"all persons born...in the United
States...".
Some
will attempt to argue the point that U.S. military
bases are under the jurisdiction of the United States
and the fourteenth amendment mentions that. The
fourteenth amendment states, "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." The
word "and" means "as well as"
being born in the United States. Being born only under
the jurisdiction of the United States, as some
misguided military people would like to imagine, is
not good enough. Some would like to believe that
because the "United States" has a Status of
Forces Agreement with a foreign government that
military bases are somehow "sovereign" U.S.
territory. If you murder a Panamanian citizen in
Oregon you will be arrested by Oregon police, go
through the Oregon courts and be imprisoned in Oregon,
and now some other state maybe, but still within the
U.S. If you murder a Panamanian citizen on a U.S.
military base in Panama you will be arrested by
Panamanian police, go through the Panamanian courts
and be imprisoned in Panama. So much for
"sovereignty."
All
this discussion is nothing more than hot air and a
waste of time that is off point. The point is that one
cannot build a viable position on a non-existent
foundation. In this case the foundation is the
Constitution and the intent of the authors, NOT Status
of Forces Agreements and worthless arguments by
military men who would like to have babies on foreign
soil, calling them natural born Citizens and have them
run for President some day.
The
authors of the U.S. founding documents counseled
against becoming entangled in foreign wars. They also
had a distinct distaste for colonial empire building.
So now we are to believe that it was their intent to
designate the prodigy, born on foreign soil, of the
American centurion colonizing for the empire as a
Natural Born Citizen?
The
fourteenth amendment states "born or naturalized
in the United States," that is IN the United
States. At the time of the writing of the Constitution
it was properly written as united States of America as
the word “united” was describing the condition of
the States not a proper name of a thing. The Congress
can direct that persons may be "Naturalized"
"in" the United States to mean embassies,
military bases or wherever else they decide. That is
what they are authorized to do. However, they are NOT
authorized to redefine what "Natural Born
Citizen" means. It means what it meant to the
authors of the Constitution. The US did not have
foreign military bases at the time the Constitution
was authored. Therefore "born on a US military
base in a foreign country" is NOT what they meant
by "Natural Born Citizen."
The
intention of the authors of the Constitution was that no person born outside the
geographical boundaries of the several States of the
United States of America be eligible to hold the
office of President of the United States of America.
Animus ad se omne jus ducit - It is to the intention
that all law applies. Animus moninis est anima scripti
- The intention of the party is the soul of the
instrument. 3 Bulstr 67
- Maxims
of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
There
are consequences to disregarding the Constitution and
the intent of the authors of our founding documents.
There are consequences to following a course of empire
building by military might. There are consequences to being
born on foreign soil as a son or daughter of a
centurion of that empire building military. You are
not Constitutionally eligible to be President of the
United States of America.
You
may think it's not fair. You may feel it's not right.
You may think because military and government
"experts" tell you a military base in a
foreign country is actually the United States that it's okay for
John McCain to hold the office of President of the
United States. You are nevertheless wrong and so are
they, no matter how long they have told the falsehood
and believed in error. communis error no facit just -
A common error does not make law. -Maxims of
Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
The
position stated in this article is based only upon the
Constitution and the intent of the authors of the
founding documents of this nation. The only authority
on this matter is the Constitution and the intent of
the authors. Argumentum ab authoritate est fortissimum
in lege - An argument drawn from authority is the
strongest in law. Co. Litt. 254.-Maxims
of Law from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary.
If
you don't like the law, by all means work to change
it, however, until such time that it is changed John
McCain III is not a natural born citizen and therefore
not eligible to be President of the United States of
America.
|
S.C.
ELECTION UN CONSTITUTIONAL
An
Open Letter To John Edwards |
by Mark A. Adams JD/MBA
opednews.com
I heard your call for
eliminating touch screen voting machines. Of course,
being from South Carolina you are certainly aware of
its use of the notoriously unreliable iVotronic touch
screen voting machines. Last Friday afternoon, I
looked into South Carolina’s use of these infamous
voting machines, and I discovered that it’s
PROHIBITED by South Carolina’s Constitution.
Some of the
key information from my article "South Carolina
Elections Are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!?!" published on
Monday January 14, 2008 on OpEdNews.com follows.
Article II, § 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina
states, "the ballots shall not be counted in
secret." Although there is case law which
supports the right to have votes counted in public,
this is the election integrity jackpot, a
Constitutional provision prohibiting counting votes in
secret! No more need to refer to case law, evidence,
or logic to argue against secret vote counting, at
least in South Carolina.
You have courageously
spoken out against touch screen voting. But, in case
this is the first time someone else reading this has
thought about how votes are counted on computers, they
don’t understand that computers count in secret, or
they think that fears about votes being counted on
computers are unfounded, take a minute and think about
three things: (1) How does a computer count votes? (2)
Do computers sometimes malfunction? and (3) Do you
have any security measures on your computer to protect
against hackers?
The last two questions
are really easy, but for those of you who haven’t
yet thought of how computers count, it’s really
simple. Computers count inside their case, with no
oversight, just like they are told to do, unless of
course, they malfunction or are hacked.
Unfortunately,
there is abundant evidence of problems with counting
votes on computers from across our country in the last
several elections. The corporate media and the
government media don’t mention these problems very
often, but if you haven’t heard of them or you’re
not concerned about allowing votes to be counted in
secret, then you’re in the minority, a minority
which is either hopelessly clueless or completely
power hungry and corrupt.
This is why the vast majority of Americans are worried
about election integrity. In fact, a Zogby poll from
August of 2006 indicates that 92% of Americans are
worried about our votes being counted in secret. See, http://www.zogby.com/templates/printnews.cfm?id=1163
The cat is out of the
bag. The people know about these problems, and they
are becoming more and more aware of the damage that
has resulted from them.
Those few of you who
still think that we can trust having our votes counted
in secret will be happy to know that your view is
shared by many powerful and influential people. For
example, Joseph Stalin said, "Those who cast the
votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide
everything." If you want to roll back the
evolution of civilization from citizen influence over
government to a form of feudalism, then you might as
well quit reading now.
South Carolina is the
best opportunity to make a case against allowing
computers to count the votes in secret. I’ve
discussed this with two leading election law advocates
who have also brought election contests, Paul Lehto
and Andi Novick. They both think that this is the best
opportunity to act that they have seen. The South
Carolina Constitution prohibits secret vote counting!
The election reform community EXPECTS one of the
Presidential candidates to take action.
I’ve already heard from four, now five, radio shows
that want me to come on as a guest speaker this week
to discuss this issue. I’ll be on two shows tonight.
This was discussed on Voice of the Voters last night.
Congressman Kucinich
has a lot of support in the election reform movement,
and he might take action on this. He came out against
the Holt bill after meeting with me last summer. Now,
we have a new Holt bill which is better, but it still
has some shortcomings.
Congressman Ron Paul has been a consistent defender of
Constitutional rights. It would seem like he would
jump on this case. Maybe he is working on it, but he
didn’t ask for a recount in New Hampshire. Also,
he’s running out of time, and he doesn’t have your
legendary trial skills and legal team.
You could sit back and wait to see whether someone
else takes legal action, then join in or sit by and
just speak in support of another’s effort. If so,
you lose the opportunity to take the lead and grab the
spotlight in the effort to stand up for the rule of
law and the right to have our votes counted
accurately.
Most importantly, if you act before the Republican
primary, you can make it a non-partisan issue. You
would be working to help make sure that even
Republicans’ constitutional rights are respected.
Certainly, that would make the Daily Show as well as
all of the late night shows.
I can see it now, John
Stewart saying, "John Edwards has taken legal
action to protect the Constitutional rights of
Republicans. You know, those guys whose leaders
don’t care about Constitutional rights!" It
would explode across America!
When Ellis Rubin, Luke
Lirot and I filed suit last year to seek an injunction
to get Max Linn, the Reform Party candidate for
Governor of Florida, into the Gubernatorial debates,
he got a lot of press. The campaign’s phones started
ringing off of the hook. There was a major increase in
requests for signs and bumper stickers. His poll
numbers went from 5% to 8.7%, a 74% increase just for
standing up for his right to debate! Of course, the
media claimed that his support in their polls showed
less than 2%, but they would not produce any
evidentiary basis for their polls. We did, and we won
injunctions twice!
I think that you would get an even bigger boost
because as the Zogby poll shows, 92% were concerned
about secret vote counting in August of 2006. It’s
hard to imagine a poll showing more support for any
subject! How many are concerned about debates? 25 to
30% at best. Plus, after all of the problems with the
2006 elections and the New Hampshire primary, I would
say that even more people are concerned about election
integrity now.
You know what to do, but
to help expedite things, I suggest that you or your
representative send a letter to the South Carolina
State Election Commission pointing out that using
touch screen computers to count the votes in secret
violates the prohibition in Article II, § 1 against
secret vote counting, and I would demand that they
take immediate action to implement the use of paper
ballots which are counted by hand in public to conduct
the upcoming primary. I would notify them that you
will take legal action as soon as possible to seek an
injunction requiring that the election process comply
with Article II or postponing the primaries until such
time as they can be conducted in a Constitutional
manner.
I suggest filing suit as soon as possible and making
the argument based on South Carolina’s Constitution
first, but I would also include the arguments based on
the U. S. Constitution. Yes, the United State Supreme
Court has ruled that counting votes in secret violates
our Constitutional rights. Unfortunately, those
rulings were forgotten by the public and ignored by
those who forced computers which count votes in secret
upon us. Also, I would include references to
documented problems with the iVotronic machines.
As time is of the essence, I suggest that you take
action immediately. The election integrity community
expects you to take action. More than 92% of Americans
want you to take action! Only the clueless do not
care. Only the power hungry want to keep the votes
counted in secret!
Where do you stand? My
friend, John Russell, and millions of Americans think
that you truly stand for the best interests of all
Americans. I hope they’re right! I hope that you
will take this opportunity to prove it to us all!
If you seize it, then it will catapult you into the
limelight on two issues which already have widespread
support. Our government should abide by the
Constitution, and our votes should be counted in
public, not in secret!
I know that there are
registered Republican voters in South Carolina who
would be happy to join as plaintiffs in this landmark
case. If you want to call John Edwards’ campaign to
volunteer or ask him to take action in South Carolina,
the phone numbers are (919) 636-3131 for his national
headquarters and 803-251-0168 for his South Carolina
headquarters.
|