The U.S. Constitution

“On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson
to William Johnson, 1823
cfkerchner said…
The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall. The federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”Link to the treason quote in case context: to Case Summary: to Full Case: Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.
Lead Plaintiff
Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

October 12, 2009 12:49 PM


Law Dissertation

December 12, 2009 2:48 AM
cfkerchner said…
The concept of a written Constitution, the whole basis and fundamental law of our nation, does not come from English Common Law. England did not have a written Constitution. Thus even the idea of writing a written Constitution, not just what is contained in it, proves that the founders and framers looked elsewhere other than English Common Law for their sources when creating a new form of government, said new form of government and Constitution said by historians to be a revolutionary new type of government and which has become a beacon and example to the rest of the world. The founders and framers did not find the enlightenment for this new form of government and representative Republic form of government with a written constitution in English Common Law.Emer D. Vattel was indeed one of the key sources and in fact was the major source with his scholarly work, “The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law”. In that great legal treatise work of his in 1758 he proposes a new form of government, one in which the People are the sovereigns, and a more perfect form of government, and which has a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. This United States of America was a new form of national government the world had not seen before and it did not come from English Common Law. See Vattel’s, Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1, Chapter III, ‘Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of a Nation in that Respect’.CDR Kerchner
March 12, 2010 1:12 PM
cfkerchner said…
What the newly sworn in President George Washington was doing with the legal treatise and reference book “Law of Nations” in New York in 1789. An account from the times.There was a news account recently that President George Washington ‘borrowed’ the legal reference book “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office on his first day in office after the inauguration of him in New York in 1789. York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book, This Was New York, The Nation’s Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google’s book site.The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution. The “Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law” which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book. And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the “natural” citizens are, i.e., the “natural born Citizens” of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of “natural born Citizenship” be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation. The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787. Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office.CDR Charles Kerchner
April 19, 2010 10:17 AM
cfkerchner said…
Indeed, Natural Law and The Law of Nations was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed sovereign states.The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It’s silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.Here are just a few examples of some key founders and framers who depended on Vattel’s “The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law” to guide them in setting up a new form of federal government the likes of which the world had never seen before, and which became a beacon to the rest of the world for centuries.Benjamin Franklin used Vattel’s Law of Nations: Washington used Vattel’s Law of Nations: of course, Thomas Jefferson used Vattel’s Law of Nations: truth and real facts and the universal truth of our U.S. Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” to constitutional standards because his father was not a U.S. Citizen and thus Obama was born with dual citizenship. That is not what the framers intended and what Vattel wrote about who is a “natural born Citizen”. Obama will be removed as being a Usurper.CDR Kerchner


Old Glory

             “John Quincy”mockingly  wrote in the WND forum:

How very convenient for you that only in Article 2 does “citizen” mean “subject”, while elsewhere it has its usual meaning. That only in Art 2 must “citizen” be interpreted within the context of English common law.
Are there other places in the Constitution where words have other than their usual meaning? Do tell.Perhaps “nor shall private property be taken for public use” in Amend 7 really doesn’t mean what it plainly says. Oh, that’s right, the Supreme Court told me that “public use” actually means “private use” – nevermind that “public” and “private” are utter opposites – it’s ok, a judge said so so it must be so, -as long as there is “public benefit” due to increased tax revenue: “public use” equals “private use”. But does “public use” really equal “private use”? No. And everyone knows it – regardless of what any robed charlatan proclaims.

Such perversion of language removes the shackles of the Constitution from the government.
There is no good purpose served by twisting other meanings from the usual meaning of words.
The words “natural born citizen” have their usual meaning – Art 2, Sec 1, Cl 5 is self evident.

Flat-earth eligibility theorists, such as yourself, adhere to error even when shown the error. You would prefer to sail off the edge of the earth than admit truth.
Plessy’s requirements were wrong, Kelo is wrong, WKA is wrong. Judges are human – they make mistakes. Judge Gray has been shown to be in error.  Error is forgivable. Adhering to error is an abomination.

13 Responses to The U.S. Constitution

  1. arnash says:

    from WND blog
    Texas Sheepdog
    Posted on April 30, 2011 at 6:02pm

    I don’t personally give a rip WHERE Barack Obama was born. It matters not one whit to me. What DOES matter to me – very much – is that our Constitution MUST be upheld, if we are to preserve our
    Republic. That means adhering to its requirements for the individual who will occupy the highest office in the land, and wield power over 300 million American lives.

    Barack Obama – indeed, the entire Democrat Party leadership – has repeatedly demonstrated complete disdain for all things American. And they have handed out empty promises like they were God’s Pronouncements from on High, while lying to the American people over, and over, and over.
    So when Obama and his toadies make a huge production out of keeping his credentials and his past secret, and instead spin story after story filled with more characters, plot-twists and changes of location than a Hollywood film, I HAVE to wonder what they are hiding. And if what they are hiding is a fraudulent identity that does not meet the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency, I am not being stupid, foolish, or crazy in demanding to know the truth.

    I AM a natural-born, tax-paying citizen of the United States of America, and how DARE anyone tell me I don’t have a right to ask that this be clarified? Whoever sits in the White House holds a great deal of power over my life, my family’s life, and our future. DON‘T tell me I’m not allowed to question whether the man there is legally occupying
    the Office. I help pay his salary, buy his food and utilities, provide his medical and dental care, fund his vacation trips, subsidize his security detail, and even his “Holiday Festivities” on the White House lawn. And by damn, I WILL question just exactly who he is, if there is ANYTHING suspicious about him.

  2. arnash says:

    PhoxarRed wrote:
    “allegiance…would come…from a durable emotional connection to the place of their birth. You insult their values to reject their philosophy as unworthy.

    My question is “Allegiance to what?” Can you answer that? Allegiance to the land? Allegiance to the government? Allegiance to the government doesn’t come from birth-place allegiance, as is shown by the thousands of foreigners (especially British) who choose to reject their own government and land of their birth each year as they take the oath of allegiance to the United States. As for “insulting their values”, what I’m insulting is their LACK of values. Values are not involved at all in loyalty based on place of birth. Values are based on principles, and dirt don’t have any.
    The principles that the framers actually wanted the Commander in Chief to hold are not loyalty to the land but belief in the great American experiment of self-government via a written document as the foundation of the republic and the enumeration of citizen rights, and prohibitions given to protect freedom. That is what the President must SWEAR to protect and defend (the Constitution).

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Note that it doesn’t say “preserve, protect, and defend the United States” (that is assumed to be a given), but the Constitution. Jus soli does not create loyalty to the Constitution, only loyalty to ones homeland, hence it is an inferior and valueless “philosophy”, since all of creation that lives continually in one location has that “loyalty”.

  3. A.R. Nash says:

    Supreme Court case Rogers vs /Bellini
    “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive.”
    The majority takes the position that Bellei, although admittedly a citizen of this country, was not entitled to the protections of the Citizenship Clause. I would not depart from the holding in Afroyim that every American
    citizen has Fourteenth Amendment citizenship. Bellei, as a naturalized American, is entitled to all the rights and privileges of American citizenship, including the right to keep his citizenship until he voluntarily renounces or relinquishes it.”

    The Court today puts aside the Fourteenth Amendment as a standard by which to measure congressional action with respect to citizenship, and substitutes in its place the majority’s own vague notions of “fairness.” The majority takes a new step with the recurring theme that the test of constitutionality is the Court’s own view of what is “fair, reasonable, and right.” Despite the concession that Bellei was admittedly an American citizen, and despite the holding in Afroyim that the Fourteenth Amendment has put citizenship, once conferred, beyond the power of Congress to revoke, the majority today upholds the revocation of Bellei’s citizenship on the ground that the congressional action was not “irrational or arbitrary or unfair.” The majority applies the “shock the conscience” test to uphold, rather than strike, a federal statute. It is a dangerous concept of constitutional law that allows the majority to conclude that, because it cannot say the statute is “irrational or arbitrary or unfair,” the statute must be constitutional.
    Of course the Court’s construction of the Constitution is not a “strict” one. On the contrary, it proceeds on the premise that a majority of this Court can change the Constitution day by day, month by month, and year by year, according to its shifting notions of what is fair, reasonable, and right. There was little need for the founders to draft a written constitution if this Court can say it is only binding when a majority finds it fair, reasonable, and right to make it so. That is the loosest construction that could be employed. It is true that England has moved along very well in the world without a written constitution. But with complete familiarity with the English experience, our ancestors determined to draft a written constitution which the members of this Court are sworn to obey. While I remain on the Court, I shall continue to oppose the power of judges, appointed by changing administrations, to change the Constitution from time to time according to their notions of what is “fair” and “reasonable.” I would decide this case not by my views of what is “arbitrary,” or what is “fair,” but rather by what the Constitution commands. I dissent.

    Since the Court this Term has already downgraded citizens receiving public welfare, Wyman v. James, 400 U. S. 309 (1971), and citizens having the misfortune to be illegitimate, Labine v. Vincent, ante, p. 401 U. S. 532, I suppose today’s decision downgrading citizens born outside the United States should have been expected. Once again, as in James and Labine, the Court’s opinion makes evident that its holding is contrary to earlier decisions. Concededly, petitioner was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas, the conclusion is compelled that the reference in the Fourteenth Amendment to persons “born or naturalized in the United States” includes those naturalized through operation of an Act of Congress, wherever they may be at the time. Congress was therefore powerless to strip Bellei of his citizenship; he could lose it only if he voluntarily renounced or relinquished it. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U. S. 253 (1967). I dissent.

  4. A.R. Nash says:

    “Simply put, to say natural born requires a statutory definition is a contradiction, a paradox, and oxymoronic. Being free of statutory rules is what makes it ‘natural’ in the first place.”
    Exactly! Any attempt to misconstrue the meaning of natural by connecting it to national borders is a crime against the English language, just as surely as a bastardly re-definition of the word “marriage” to include something other that the union of a man and a woman. “Natural” is derived from nature, birth is a natural event that has no connection to native soil or where the event takes place. Just as ones inherited nature is inalienable, so is ones inherited citizenship. A “natural citizen” is one who inherited his citizenship from like citizen parents. No law is needed to “grant” such a one citizenship because it is a natural inalienable inheritance.

  5. arnash says:

    I think a common sense view of the 1795 Naturalization Act is appropriate. Sections 1 & 2 are the actual naturalization statutes, while section 3 is not about naturalization but about official recognizing what was previously taken for granted but not legally stated. Congress was not providing a means of naturalization for children born to citizens abroad, it was merely stating officially the recognized reality that they are citizens and therefore “shall be considered as citizens”, which sounds a whole lot like “shall be recognized as citizens” (my words), in acknowledgement of what was already recognized . So to officially state for the record that they are citizens in no way is a statement that they are not more than that -that they are NOT natural born citizens. Positively declaring as law that which was already accepted, is not a declaration negating a presumption that they are not just citizens but are natural born citizens having been born to American parents who live in the United States.

  6. arnash says:

    Posted by ch22240 on May 18, 2011 22:41
    This natural allegiance was perpetual and difficult to severe or alter (Once a English subject, always a English subject) and was found odious in this country (America went to war against this “natural allegiance” in 1812). The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson.

    Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

    During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden (co-chairman of the Reconstruction Committee) raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country – an issue he would not have raised if Congress were merely reaffirming the common law doctrine.

  7. arnash says:

    Posted by ch22240 on May 18, 2011 22:40
    Pt 2

    Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed: [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, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power 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.

    Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.
    In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
    The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

    House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

  8. arnash says:

    As I wrote some time ago, judges are not appointed by God, are not infallible superior beings from above. They are voted into office by the people and voted out of office for being out of touch with the socio-political views of the public. Higher judicial offices are of course appointed, but they are not humans superior to lower judges whose decisions they regularly overturn, They are all flawed, imperfect, and subject to making choices that are flawed for various reasons. They are not superior to you, nor to me, nor to most others, so why to you make the strong pretense that they are? It’s like you bow deeply at their feet. Why?
    I don’t judge their judgement like I’m a “judge or a king”, but like what I actually am, a citizen, a citizen responsible like all citizens are, for the quality and direction of our government OF THE PEOPLE, and BY the People. AN

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, “With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution.” Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821)

  9. arnash says:

    Where you veered of a cliff is in stating that; “only real law…has ultimately determined Obama’s eligibility”
    In case you haven’t noticed, NOTHING has determined his eligibility, or else this forum wouldn’t even exist. The issues involved in it have never been adjudicated in any court, by any board, agency, committee, or council. And that is the source of the problem. The problem never existed in our lifetimes nor our parents’ lifetimes because a likeable candidate with an alien father has never appeared before. So all the guards were down, no vigilant defense of the Constitution was mounted, the electorate was uninformed and unaware of the issue, my self included. No one knows how this will all turn out, but theoretically he could be blocked from running again because of not being able to show that he is a natural born citizen. AN
    PhoxarRed wrote: “…a term of art, like “Natural Born Citizen”, the allegiance we all agree they would have wanted…THEY BELIEVED,…would come from a durable emotional connection to the place of their birth.”
    Your problem is that you think the allegiance sought by the framers was an allegiance to the country of their birth, but IT WAS NOT. It was nothing other than strict allegiance to the CONSTITUTION of the United States, not to the country (that was a given).
    Why? Because of HUMAN NATURE! Power corrupts and powerful leaders get the sense that they can do things “for the good of the country” that our Constitution grants them no power to do. Call it “executive arrogance”. That is what they feared the most, and sought to prevent by requiring allegiance to the document that LIMITED their authority, that handcuffed them to its restrictions. Allegiance to it was everything.

    “And when such rights are in question, we habitually refer to the English decisions, not only with respect, but in many cases as AUTHORITATIVE. Fleming v. Page, 50 US 603, 618 (1850)”
    My God man, that was 160 years ago, 16 decades. I think a few laws have been passed in the US since then. So I also think that what was authoritative then is not authoritative now.
    Your biggest conceptual error springs from the fact that you fail to recognize that “The essence of the common law doctrine of PRECEDENT or stare decisis…(wherein) the rule of the case creates a binding legal precept.” is the necessary result of a nation’s monarchy-linked government NOT having a written Constitution. Under such a system Precedent is everything. But that is not the case under a Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution and case law based on it is what “is so central to American jurisprudence that it scarcely need be mentioned”. We Americans don’t have to turn with religious allegiance to Precedence like the Constitution-less Brits must because they simply have no other alternative, while we have a written constitutions of government document that is our legal foundation. AN

  10. arnash says:

    The inmates have taken over the asylum. The ignorant are acting as teachers. What hope is there when such a deeply entrenched error has infected the minds of those who should know and understand the Constitution? “native birth provides citizenship, citizenship provides Presidential eligibility” -clearly whole generations of American’s have been raised to be ignorant of the facts and now the fruit of that ignorance has given the nation a chief executive who’s not even eligible to serve! His supporters cling to the deception that place of birth was the issue, not paternal alien citizenship, so thinking that the Frankenstein documents he deluded the nation with were genuine, the deception was complete. Now we’re suffering the consequences. AN

    “…place of birth to determine a child’s citizenship has been part of our Anglo-American jurisprudence since the colonial times.”
    This would be true IF there had never been a revolt, a revolution to overthrow and discard a system geared solely for the domination of all peoples within the domain of the representative of God on earth, the KING! You need to take about 90% of your quotes that defend and reinforce that rejected system and flush them down the toilet. The United States is not just another monarchy in the mold of Britain, it is a NEW system with different rules. It is founded on a written Constitution and its amendments, which are the supreme law of the land, NOT British common law precedence and laws of Parliament, though they occasionally provide historical perspective and reasoning.
    “Nationality” is a term denoting…the duty of OBEDIENCE [or “allegiance”] on the part of the subject and protection on the part of the state.” (meaning: the KING). You need to lose the resort to philosophical abstracts of a feudal society and deal with reality. In the United States the only obedience is to the Constitution and laws derived from it. Duty has nothing to do with anything being as it’s merely a concept of the King’s philosophers. And, dare I say, we are not SUBJECTS!

  11. arnash says:

    “terminology, words, phrases, concepts, language, history, heritage” All these terms that are found in your many quotes referencing English common law are irrelevant to the constitution of government of the United States of America because it was something that had never existed before. The structure and limitations and powers of our government and the enumerated rights of citizens were mostly absent from common law and were “invented” by the framers from concepts, concerns, and inspirations that mostly superseded common law and were mostly not only not derived from it, but were antithetical to it.
    Of course the fabric of the American legal system was connected and descended from English common law but in stating that one must not leave out that American Constitutional law was something new in this world and was not a slave to precedent like the law was in Britain which lacked any legal foundation document or bill of rights that could not be changed without a super-majority vote. Their only legal skeleton was the principle of precedent so they had to reverence it as the sacred glue that holds it all together. We have American legal precedent based on the US Constitution, and are not dependent on an unbroken link to old English common law though it was and is a useful reference point when some legal disagreement arises that is uncovered by any clearly word US or State law.

  12. arnash says:

    Here is what Revolutionary War Hero, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803,
    “That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”

    Wow! The esteemed Judge’s confused and ignorant use of the word “native” in place of “natural” when quoting the Article II Presidential eligibility clause is all the evidence one needs to realize that the grasp of the subject was clearly distorted and confused by ignorance of the actual words used and their true meaning. That is due to there being no Lord & Master that required anyone to actually study and understand what they were talking about. Talk is cheap and came naturally to people, especially Alpha males, who were accustomed to being listened to with reverence. The words and thoughts came quickly to their minds and mouths but without any contemplation as to the their validity. AN
    “[I]s true that we frequently consult English history and common law in attempting to determine the content of constitutional provisions.” Why? Because the world has changed and things arise that aren’t even addressed in the Constitution, so they turn to English history and common law to attempt to arrive at an opinion that they can then claim has a basis somewhere in the past, even though not in the American past. Then they have cover for legislating from the bench. AN
    “Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges . . . A judiciary of integrity is one in which judges are known for the probity, fairness,
    honesty, uprightness and soundess of character. . . . Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, . . .” Code of Judicial Conduct, Uniform Commercial Code Official Comments © 2010

    “I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution … taking from the federal government their power of borrowing.” –Thomas Jefferson (Letter of November 26th, 1798)
    Predictably, Obama has signaled that he will veto the Balanced Budget Amendment. Clearly, it doesn’t comport with his near-term objective of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He classified the BBA as “extreme, radical [and] unprecedented,” and followed that “neither setting arbitrary spending levels nor amending the Constitution is necessary to restore fiscal responsibility.”

  13. arnash says:

    John Potter February 12, 2012

    Every time I hear some claim about the Constitution, particularly if the claimant invokes any sort of “original intent” sentiment, I keep in mind two things:

    1. The Constitution was a compromise. There was no single unified understanding that descended from on high; this isn’t the Pentecost, it’s real history, and history is dirty. Representatives from 13 states, recently colonies, hailing from separate legal traditions, numerous religions, and a variety of classes and lifestyles, came together to revise the Articles of Confederation. The Framers brought many different understandings to the process, and came away with many different understandings of the resulting document … as evidenced by the heated debates before, during, and after the process, some of which continue to this day. When I hear “… according to the Founders’ original intent …” I ask, “Wait; which Founder?”

    2. The Constitution is a big picture document. It did reinvent the “big wheel” by outlining a new federal government. It did not reinvent the “little wheels” by meddling in states’ internal affairs, or rearranging life at an individual level. The Constitution was a tough enough sell as it was, asking the states to submit to a centralized gov’t. It was a continuation of, an extension of, existing legal traditions. If it had represented a break with existing traditions, it’d still be waiting on ratification. Anytime the Constitution is presented as an impenetrable legal barrier, as though all legal events should be thought of as Before Constitution and After Ratification, you can assume the claim is crap. It was a reboot of the collective organization of the states, nothing smaller.
    For further confirmation of just how “hands off” the Constitution was toward the little things, I refer you to the Bill of Rights.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: