UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT, UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW
by Cody Robert Judy, ©2013
(Dec. 5, 2013) — A couple of days ago I had the question come into my mind, “Why have elected officials all across the Nation, Main Stream Media pundits, and so many businesses and corporation executives taken a stand so hard for Obama and so definitely against the Constitution?”
It’s actually hard for me to understand and to see the arguments of delusion when it comes to Obama emphatically not being a natural born citizen and how so many people will in their own defense of him state his mother was an American Citizen so Obama is also, denying in their own statement the fact he is not a “natural born citizen” that requires being “born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents,” and also recognizing in their own statement that U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators and in fact the President’s office required being a “Citizen;” however, only the President’s Office required after the Constitution was signed being a ‘natural born citizen’ as was specified in the grandfather clause of Article I, Sect II, Clause 5.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITCr420K4i8
‘..or a ‘Citizen’ of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution’, clearly tells us that after the Constitution was signed two full generations were required for the Office of the President known and understood to be those “Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents,” and clearly our first President, George Washington, and first Supreme Court Justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Jay, understood that.
Yet I see time and time again people make the statement that Obama’s mother was a “Citizen,” so he is, too. We’re not talking about Obama not being a ‘Citizen,’ for heaven’s sake, we’re talking about his not being a ‘natural born citizen’ and the differences are notable in the requirements for U.S. Representatives to be “Citizens” and U.S. Senators to be “Citizens,” and for those who were “Citizens” before the Constitution was signed this exemption clause was penned into the Constitution.
It’s equivalent to the “Bait and Switch” tactic any business would be ridiculed for using. For those not understanding “Bait and Switch,” let me sum it up with another word for you: “Obamacare.” Not only are we seeing the “bait-and-switch” tactic used in Obama’s identification fraud in the way I mentioned, but the same tactic is being used for Obama policies. Please consider the text definition of the Bait and Switch from Wiki if you will.
Bait-and-switch is a form of fraud used in retail sales but also employed in other contexts. First, customers are “baited” by merchants’ advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods are not available, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher priced items (“switching”).
How many personal accounts have you heard about people logging on the Obamacare website and finding out their insurance was much higher than their previous insurance? How many personal accounts have you heard of about people being ‘shocked’ at the price of Obamacare after being led down the path by Obama that it would be cheaper then their old insurance? How many personal accounts have you heard about people who were “told” by Obama over and over and over again that they could “keep their doctors,” ‘they could keep their insurance,” and then found out neither of those was true and they would be fined if they didn’t sign up for Obamacare and perhaps be imprisoned?
Why would you need to ‘criminalize’ someone into a plan like Obamacare that is so fabulous? The language states you can be subject of 5 years in prison and a quarter of a million dollars as stated by Representative Peter Roskam (R.-IL).
—————————
See the video and read the rest here.
NOTE: LAST PARAGRAPH @ I like that idea
Still being on the same horse I rode in here on I’m obliged to deliver the same message;
The coup d’état by Usurpation has been perpetrated on the back of a series of “legal-loop-holes” that overlap and intertwine creating a web of convoluted legal propositions ALL designed to obscure the FACT that there is no uniformly acknowledged “legal”, (enforceable), definition of circumstances that constitutes being in conformity with the term of words set out in the Constitution, i.e., a (U.S.) natural born Citizen, that in order to be uncontestably “LEGAL” MUST be construed under Federal, (Constitutional) Law.
I continue to assert that such “construing”, under Federal Law, MUST begin with the 1790 / ’95 Acts and end with the current Title 8 definitions, which are in conformity with the “established uniform Rule”, notwithstanding the error of applying jus soli citizenship to ineligible individuals…………
I re-raise the alarm recognizing the “plausible deniability defense” may well become just another “legal-loop-hole” against any potential indictments for “fraud or other high crimes and misdemeanors”.
The legal bar is raised to very high levels when set at the door of Federal Officers and the only one sure circumstance of black letter Constitutional Law is the exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision of A2S1C5, aka, the (U.S.) natural born Citizen provision which was defined in the 1790 Act and remains as a statute at large, amended ONLY by place of birth by the 1795 Act which repealed the “born abroad provision”.
The NBC provision is the “0”s Achilles Heel and the “uniformly acknowledged “legal”, (enforceable), definition of circumstances that constitutes actually being a (U.S.) natural born Citizen is BOTH the Arrow that takes down Achilles and the Sword that unravels the Gordian Knot.
Consider the “0” running out the clock on his term attaches a certain amount of legitimacy; …
.. and Impeachment on any crime other than ineligibility, (civil offense), is left to be characterized in typical liberal fashion, racist, bigot homophobia/islamophobia, etc.;……
……….. whereas the DETERMINATION that the “0” is NOT a U.S. natural born Citizen as construed under Federal Law REQUIRES his immediate REMOVAL and leaving ALL signed Acts, Appointments, etc. subject to nullification to the full extent of the existing political will right down to REMOVING his name from the list of POTUS’s leaving only an asterisk w/ or without footnote.