Congressman Murphy: A case study in feigned ingnorance in service of tyranny

SAYS IT’S UP TO THE COURTS, BUT DECLARES OBAMA ELIGIBLE ANYWAY IN SUPPORT OF HIS USURPATION

by Sharon Rondeau

Congressman Scott Murphy, D-NY20

(Mar. 13, 2010) — After receiving a letter from a constituent about the questions surrounding Barack H. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be president, Congressman Scott Murphy responded that according to the Constitution, it was up to the courts to decide the meaning of “natural born Citizen.” The two letters Murphy sent in reply are posted below.

However, if it is up to the courts to define “natural born Citizen,” then Murphy should have cited the four Supreme Court cases which have already done so. Using these cases as precedent, Obama would not have qualified to serve as President.

The constituent’s letter began:

Dear Congressman Scott Murphy,

I know you are mistaken in the letters I have received from you in response to a letter I wrote to the Senator of Hawaii, Daniel Kahikina Akaka.

Firstly, you wrote “we all have to rely upon our courts for the proper interpretation of the Constitution,” and that is incorrect. The Founding Fathers knew that not only could there be corruption in the government but also in the courts, including the SCOTUS. So what was created was NOT a democracy of one vote over majority but a REPUBLIC, a Nation of “Laws, not of men.” The Power of this Great Nation, who so many gave their lives in the name of Liberty for you and me comes from our Creator and that power belongs to The People. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…”

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments of The Bill of Rights indicate where the power lies within The Law of the Land, and it says “The People.”

Secondly, you state “that it is clearly a matter of United States law that a Natural Born Citizen is a person born within the United States of a citizen of the United States or a person born of citizens of the United States temporarily residing abroad” and that the Courts have decided on this, when in all actuality, not one Court of The United States ever decided the meaning of Natural Born Citizen within The United States Constitution. Until now, it was known what the Founding Fathers meant by Natural Born Citizen, so in that substance it was not questioned.

So that brings us to: where, then, is the meaning of Natural Born Citizen within the context of the United States Constitution? Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: “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…”. We can stop there because some of the key words are within this part of Article 2. To just be a Citizen and become POTUS, one would have had to have been alive “AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION” and still breathing at the PRESENT. As you well know, that is highly unlikely. Now, to be President of the United States, you MUST BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. Clearly, without a doubt, this shows that a Citizen IS NOT the same as a Natural Born Citizen.

Incorrectly cites Van Buren’s Citizenship

Murphy included in his responses to the constituent, “I note for the records that our native son, Martin Van Buren, was a citizen of Holland and the United States at the time of his birth, and he was the first Natural Born Citizen to be elected president of the United States.”

The constituent confronted Murphy on that point:

This also precludes the matter that you stated that “Martin Van Buren was a citizen of Holland and the United States at the time of his birth, and he was the first Natural Born Citizen to be elected President of The United States.” This is totally false. Martin Van Buren was not a “Citizen of Holland;” his ANCESTRY WAS. Both of his parents were U.S. Citizens. Add that to being born on U.S. soil and you produce the first Natural Born Citizen elected for the Presidency of The United States of America. That is what made him a Natural Born Citizen.

According to one online source, “the Van Burens were a large, struggling family of Dutch descent.” Another lists as a point of interest that “Van Buren was the first president born in the United States.” Many more state that he was the first president born in the U.S. and “not born a British subject.” There is no evidence to support Congressman Murphy’s claim that Van Buren was born a dual citizen of the U.S. and Holland. Murphy is apparently unaware or misrepresenting the fact that Van Buren was “the first president born in the United States” and not originally a subject of the British crown.

Murphy cites no sources for his statement, nor does he explain how a person could be a dual citizen and “Natural Born Citizen” at the same time. This is the exact same question which was raised about Obama almost two years ago after his website admitted that he was born “a dual citizen of Kenya and the U.S.” and described him as a “native citizen,” not “natural born Citizen.”

The DNC also parsed words about Obama’s questionable eligibility, which The Post & Email reported here.

Creates his own Definition

After stating that it was up to the courts to interpret the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution, Murphy contradicted himself by saying that “it is clearly a matter of United States’ law that a Natural Born Citizen is a person born within the United States of a citizen of the United States or a person born of citizens of the United States temporarily residing abroad (such as was the case of Sen. McCain).” However, Murphy does not identify which “law” he is citing nor how he knows that it takes only one citizen parent to qualify the child as a natural born Citizen.

The constituent addressed that issue, quoting from Article I, Section 8, clause 10 of the Constitution:

“The Congress shall have Power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, AND OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS.” YES, the Law of Nations is in and part of The United States Constitution. It was the common law between the Nations at that time and now. You can research more on Emmerich de Vattel, “The Law of Nations” by just typing it in your web browser.

The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, Citizens and Natives: The citizens are members of civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country of PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise then by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed all their rights…

The Law of Nations, Book I, Chapter 19, Section 215: Children of citizens born in a foreign country: It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The Laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. By nature alone, children follow the conditions of their fathers, and enter in all their rights; the place of birth produces NO CHANGE in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him: I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reason, ordain otherwise…

Murphy had asserted that Obama was eligible to run for the presidency by virtue of the fact that he allegedly was born in Hawaii to one American citizen parent, but de Vattel’s definition of “natural born Citizen” would clearly disqualify him.

Wording removed from Second Letter

Murphy’s constituent asked the following question regarding a difference in the two letters:

8. In the first letter I received from you dated October 5, 2009 (enclosed) you Stated: “Certainly President Obama, born of a U.S. Citizen in the State of Hawaii is a Natural Born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution”

In the second letter I received from you dated October 22, 2009, you stated: “Certainly President Obama, born of a U.S. Citizen in the State of Hawaii is a Natural Born Citizen.”

(a) Why did you retract in the second letter what you stated in the first: “within the meaning of the Constitution”?
(b)You also State: “Certainly President Obama, born of a U.S. Citizen in the State of Hawaii…” What legal official evidence do you have that will hold up in any Court without a reasonable doubt to prove he was born in Hawaii? Since Barack Hussein Obama Jr. (AKA Barry Soetoro) sealed all of his personal records from the public view. I doubt you have such evidence to prove he was born in Hawaii without any question that would hold up in U.S.court. If you do please send that to me, my attorney would like to see it.

A detailed description of the history and requirements of the term “natural born Citizen” can be found here.

First letter from Scott Murphy to his constituent

Second letter from Congressman Murphy to his constituent

10 Responses to "Congressman Murphy: A case study in feigned ingnorance in service of tyranny"

  1. Jon   Monday, March 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM

    Sending the letter to Murphy is a brilliant move. And even better is that Murphy replied in detail assuming the writer would accept his premise that Obama is legitimate unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. I wonder if he consulted with Obama’s people to present the talking points?? Another irony is that the media kept questioning Bush’s legitimacy after the SC ruling in the standoff between Bush and Gore. That’s okay except anyone else who questions Obama’s eligibility is deemed crazy and attacked.

  2. Ann   Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 11:16 PM

    I say we all storm the White House and make a freaking Citizens Arrest!!! They can’t stop millions of us…who’s up for it??

  3. Homer Dogue   Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM

    Martin van Buren was born to a tavern keeper in Kinderhook, NY. I cannot believe Murph doesn’t know this. He ought to read more roadside signs It was often alleged that his biological father was Aaron Burr. (Marty van’s …not Murph’s. Murph might have been smarter., had Burr been his ancestor!)

    I also note that Murph (NY’s answer to Patrick Kennedy) has his own definition of “Natural Born Citizen.” FYI, Murph, that requires 2 citizen parents, not one.

    Murph is trying to tell us that if Obama’s mother had married Fidel Castro, and baby Barack Castro were to have been born in Hawaii, he would be a “Natural Born Citizen?” Is he also trying to tell us that you think the children born here to illegal aliens are also “Natural Born Citizens?”

    Newsflash, Ace! “Native,”, in English, does not mean “Natural.” There’s got to be someone smarter than this to run for Congress from the 20th.

  4. live oak   Sunday, March 14, 2010 at 9:52 AM

    No one will say it. Everything is corrupt to the core. We’ve waited way too long and it’s up to us to make it happen, to take the country back and make things right again. Is anybody listening? November is too late!

  5. jtx   Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 8:18 PM

    Obama himself in his political website and his book has already told us he is not a natural born Citizen by saying his pappy was an alien and governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 which governed him also.

    Enough of this treason to the Constitution by all of these Communist bastards!!!

  6. 2discern   Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 5:52 PM

    Again and again the same ole same ole. What is that, you ask? We base our assessment on what we DON’T know. I am tired of the defense of “obummer” based on what we do not know. The first act of his presidency was to seal his records of birth, schooling, college student status, etc. within 24 hrs. of election. DOES that seem strange to anybody? The very attorney group that continually defends his cases is in fact now in the White House (Anita Dunn’s husband, Baurer) $1.7mil + in fees covered by the DNC fund. Ummm? Filings of erroneous selective service dates, false COLB, etc. etc, etc. not to mention the lies consistently (on camera) of policy drowned in socialistic/communistic influence. We have had it. This guy hates America. He is working to destroy it. Why the few straight shooting Congress members can’t raise concerns or voice their opinion is beyond appalling. We need a hero in these United States. One that will be heard based on truthful facts. Please rise up! Bloggers can share opinions all day long. Who will be the statesman that can say, “an impostor is in the White House”?

  7. Pingback: Creg Maroney letter exchange with Congressman Scott Murphy, D-NY 20 « The JAG HUNTER

  8. c.scott   Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 1:58 PM

    Congressman Murphy, you should seek employment elsewhere, I would suggest Census taker or some other civil service endeavor that does not require an understanding of the Law.

  9. billvanallen   Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 1:47 PM

    Murphy is such a piece of work. I look forward to an early ending of his congressional career — the first non-grandfathered “nbc” POTUS Van Buren married one of the Van Allen girls of Kinderhook, NY.

  10. tminu   Saturday, March 13, 2010 at 12:57 PM

    BHO already gave permission for Hawaii to disclose his vitals, or Fukino should be in jail for doing so. Since she is not, he obviously did give permission and since Hawaii does not say he was born in Hawaii, he was not born in Hawaii.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.