THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE

A few days ago, I received an email announcing that the work of the group meeting under the banner CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF 2009 had been completed. Laid out with large capital letters in varying sizes, in bold, highlighted, it exhorted me to appreciate the solemnity of the work that came out of this gathering, and challenged me to prove my patriotism by distributing this work to others.

HERE IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. PLEASE REMEMBER THE FINE YOUNG SOLDIERS THAT HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES OVER THE YEARS FOR OUR FREEDOM. DON’T GIVE OUR COUNTRY AWAY HERE AT HOME. THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES….WHAT WILL YOU GIVE????

This was followed by a few quotes – for example, Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” – apparently aimed at eliciting my enlistment in this campaign by inciting a patriotic fervor.

Here is my reply.

Dear barngoddess30 and Others:

You urged me to read about the event you refer to as the “Continental Congress 2009,” in this email filled with language equating the approval of work that came out of that confab; with demonstrating a personal commitment to preserving liberty and honoring fallen troops. On the contrary, it is precisely because I cherish liberty and value the high cost to life to maintain such liberty, that I reject both the stated mission of “cc2009” and the work it produced. I will not question the motivation of the people who conceived and carried out this gathering. However, I cannot condone such exhortations to “spread the word” of the cc2009 or else call into question my fealty to my country, when the opposite is true. Indeed, putting my ‘stamp of approval’ on this endeavor would not only evidence that I know nothing about the real history of the Continental Congress but also that I place self above others in our Republic.

State delegates to the First Continental Congress of the United States, held in 1774 in Philadelphia, PA, were usually chosen by state assemblies (legislatures) which, when not in regular session, were convened by state Governors specifically for the purpose of electing these delegates. Sometimes, the selection of delegates was put to a popular vote. (Much of this process was carried out in secret, including where applicable the election of delegates, as opposing the Crown at that time, was unlawful.) Particular attention was paid to making sure to include both radical and conservative leaders in the state.The decision as to which issues these delegates would submit for discussion at the CCongress and, what were the state’s positions on these issues, were determined beforehand in consultation with the citizens of these states, through various means that included public meetings; distribution of pamphlets; and special votes of the assemblies.

In other words, unlike the attendees at cc2009, individual delegates to the First CCongress did not obtain these positions just by volunteering. They did not meet with each other in the first instance at the Congress to determine what issues were of primary import to the people and then substitute their positions on these issues for that of the people. They certainly did not distribute the results of their work under the guise, since they – the attendees – resided in several different states this work necessarily represented the will of the ‘people.’

Attempting to conflate in the minds of the People, the inception and function of the present day CCongress with its illustrious namesake evidences either an odious display of hubris or a woefully inadequate knowledge and understanding of American History. At least in terms of democratic representation and results, this current iteration of CCongress bears little resemblance to that First CCongress in 1774.

For a good summary of how delegates to the First CCongress were selected, see

http://books.google.com/books?id=lO1YMD0a5OkC&dq=how+were+representatives+of+the+first+continental+congress+chosen&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=oGQyS_uwKcyztgentYmPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CDwQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false

jbjd

All of that human and financial capital expended for CCongress 2009 – two weeks at a hotel, live video feeds, etc. – focused on a handful of issues like gun control; income tax; and the federal reserve system which, when distilled, amount to little more than a reassertion of states’ rights over federal authority. And Robert Schulz, Founder and Chairman of the “We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education,” who conceived and spearheaded the drive for a CCongress 2009, has been actively pursuing strategies to publicize these issues for more than 15 (fifteen) years. With this one exception.

The mission of the CCongress 2009 now expanded to include work on a reinvention of the definition of the phrase natural born citizen drafted into the Constitution. (Printed on the agenda, both Mr. Schulz and Orly Taitz, Esquire were scheduled to address attendees on “History, Meaning, Effect, Significance and Violations of the Natural Born Citizen Clause of the Constitution.” The appointed head of the sub-committee charged with carrying out this work is a hydrologist.) Of course, Mr. Schulz knows, no definition of natural born citizen has any practical value absent a federal court holding in a case directly on point. But inserting into his decades old activist agenda of states’ rights versus federal authority, this issue of the Constitutional eligibility (of Barack Obama) to be President; arguably proved to be a marketing, recruiting, and fundraising bonanza.

We people continue to focus on opposing individual problematic outcomes of the legislative and executive branches of federal government – opposition to the work of the judicial branch has overwhelmingly resulted from our ignorance of the law and of sound legal practice – and not on how members of the DNC Services Corporation have thus far avoided scrutiny for Certifying to state election officials that Barack Obama was Constitutionally eligible to be President. (A year ago now, his own attorney, Bob Bauer, admitted to a federal court no evidence exists in the public record that his client is Constitutionally eligible for the job. Then, on what basis did members of the D Corporation swear to state election officials several months earlier, he was!) For as long as we side-step the issue of Barack Obama’s Constitutional eligibility for POTUS, focusing our energies (and money) on such novelty distractions as the CCongress of 2009, instead of figuring out how to compel state Attorneys General in applicable states, to enforce existing election laws; we provide neither the executive branch nor the legislative branch of government with any incentive to clean up its act.

We are so stupid.

Advertisements

11 Responses to THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE

  1. georgey says:

    You are pityful….

    georgey: The word is correctly spelled “pitiful.” ADMINISTRATOR

  2. citizenscott says:

    jbjd, Well said!
    Thanks

    citizenscott: You are welcome. (Are you referring to any specific portion of the post?) ADMINISTRATOR

    • citizenscott says:

      I liked this part the best. I think we have a good system of laws and government in place, if only people would educate themselves and participate in the process. Maybe that’s wishful thinking.

      “Attempting to conflate in the minds of the People, the inception and function of the present day CCongress with its illustrious namesake evidences either an odious display of hubris or a woefully inadequate knowledge and understanding of American History. At least in terms of democratic representation and results, this current iteration of CCongress bears little resemblance to that First CCongress in 1774.”

      citizenscott: Thanks for clarifying for me! Okay, you liked my editorial opinion; but boy, has this caused flack from some other ports! ADMINISTRATOR

  3. Papoose says:

    I hear you, jbjd, however, the original CC did not have access to the internet, 24 hour news, twitter, text messaging, daily newspapers, etc. They met in pubs, inns and taverns in rough territory constantly looking over their shoulders. A Revolution of the sort demanded secrecy so to permit survival.

    We are in a different day and age and the CC2009 are doing the best they can to at least “teach” us stupid people as to whence we came and where we are headed. These people care about us and are wiling to sacrifice their daily bread and personal freedom in confronting the transformation of our Government in the 21st Century. Are they responsible for the media black-out of Article 2? In my humble opinion, they face the same challenges of the Pony Express.

    Please feel free to correct my spelling and my grammar as I am stupid.

    Papoose: I do not question the motives of the people who were able to volunteer their time, money, and efforts toward the workings of the CCongress 2009. I merely point out that, by doing so, they do not replicate the standing of the original members of our Congress. No; these original Congresspeople were elected by their states, paid by their states, and told how to vote, by their states. In other words, unlike the attendees of the forum billing itself as the ‘Third Continental Congress,’ that is, the CCongress of 2009; the delegates of both the First (1774) and Second Continental Congresses (1775) could justifiably advertise themselves as representatives of all the people of their states.

    You wrote, “We are in a different day and age and the CC2009 are doing the best they can to at least “teach” us stupid people as to whence we came and where we are headed. ” Why do you claim to need the “CC2009” to teach you about the history of your country? What knowledge do they possess that cannot be obtained by reading a good history book? As to where we are headed; my blog ‘teaches’ you as much about current election functioning as you need to understand in order to prevent ineligible candidates from becoming President. And this ‘education’ is free to anyone with access to a computer. (As for contributions to my web site, no one has pressed that PayPal button yet!) Was the educational work that goes on here, discussed and debated there? Was the work that goes on here, even mentioned there? Were citizens urged to regain control of their state governments, which control functions like voting for federal offices, and enforcing the laws enacted by their citizens? No, of course not. Even these so-called states’ rights advocates know, there is no money in self-advocacy to avoid giving up our rights, but only in maintaining the ‘boogeyman’ status of the federal government, in trying to take our ‘rights’ away.

    Please learn that the original intention of the CCongress was not to form a Revolution. Rather, it was to discuss an appropriate response to the increasingly stringent edicts unilaterally levied on the Colonists by the British.

    Finally, keep in mind, I used the pronoun “we” in describing our collective stupidity. That my fellow citizens fail to comprehend how our government works and, as a result, how to fix it; leaves me no better situated to redress the wrongs of this 2008 election cycle, than they are; or any better equipped to prevent the same theft of office in the future.ADMINISTRATOR

  4. Papoose says:

    I hear you, jbjd, and respect you tremendously. A short walk in my moccasins would lead you to know that I am stupid and uneducated. Having been born in 1954 A.D. I have taken much for granted in these United States of America. Witnessed through the eyes of a child in the Modern Age, I have seen the global map change through the years; Popes, Presidents, Rock Stars come and go. I have been taught by the likes of Phil Donahue and Gloria Steinem in the early a.m. hours of Chicago IL prior to their national exposure. I have spent years and years in soup kitchens and tutoring children for higher education and dedicated my life with a burning desire to improve the lives of the disenfranchised. I have born into this world 4 lovely daughters. I am from Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and so hardly need a lesson in our founding. All I see is waste, collusion and corruption, I am hungry to clear my mind and get real. I yearn to honor our Patriots of this day. I am insulted that you referred to Drkate as a mere hydrologist, in parenthesis, no less, which hurt me to the core. Water.

    Thus, I am turned off. And I am sad that you would criticize in lieu of contributing to the cycle of improvement as respects flaws: Identify; Define; Implement; Monitor; Remove; Identify.

    I only graduated from 8th grade so I am sure you will are right about everything. I recall that you once, however, did ask for assistance. You wanted an Avatar to depict the scales of Justice to represent your Monicker. If an hydrologist is unworthy of your admiration, then I must be a complete jerk for even commenting on your blog.

    I have followed you since 2008 on No Quarter. I am humiliated.

    Papoose: Your comment illustrates precisely why the efforts to ‘out’ BO promoted on this blog, have been less successful than they merit: you have personalized the endeavor. Adding insult to injury, you have done so by introducing ‘straw dogs.’ That is, first, you misstate my original words; and then, you rebut your restated words.

    I mentioned no names; you did. Nor did I denigrate anyone; you only indicated I did. In a paragraph addressing the impossibility of creating an explanation of a term found in the Constitution, absent a federal court ruling; I put ancillary information in parenthesis. This included the fact that, the head of the committee charged with the task, was a hydrologist, along with the fact, 2 (two) speakers whose names were on the agenda, were scheduled to address the issue. (I did name those 2 speakers.) I explicitly stated, twice, both in the original post and in my reply to your comment on that post, I am not questioning the motivation of anyone involved in the CCongress 2009, notwithstanding I reject both the title of the gathering and the characterization of promoters of that gathering as having any resemblance to the experience of the Founders.

    You write, “And I am sad that you would criticize in lieu of contributing to the cycle of improvement as respects flaws: Identify; Define; Implement; Monitor; Remove; Identify.” Again, you illustrate precisely why I refer to us collectively as “stupid.” That you count my efforts to improve the greater understanding of the people as to how our government works – no provision of any law requiring vetting; vote binding states; ballot eligibility requirements vs. qualifications for office, etc. – and, thereby, empower them to change the government that does not work – 2008 letters to A’sG in vote binding states; model military complaint to gain standing in federal court; citizen complaints of election fraud to state A’sG, etc. – as merely criticism in lieu of contributions; evidences not my failure to contribute but your refusal to abandon personal interests in lieu of the greater public good. ADMINISTRATOR

  5. Hi jbjd! I have recently been made aware of the cc09’s work and these points you make are great ones to consider. Like you, I never doubted the motives of the people involved in cc09, but personally I always wondered why they choose not to work with existing state legislatures. Wouldn’t educating the legislators on the law (I know that sounds presumptuous, but I’m convinced many do not KNOW the law or choose to ignore it) and/or running for state office (affecting change from the inside out) be the way to go?

    Anyway, great point about representation. Much to ponder….

    Happy New Year and best wishes for happiness, great health and prosperity to you and your family!!!!

    snk: Your comment deserves more attention than I can devote at this time; I have a New Year’s gathering to attend and, I am bringing the ice. I will post this and elaborate on my return. ADMINISTRATOR

    snk: Okay, let me try to elaborate on my previous reply. I, too, believe the major obstacle encountered by those of us who have thoroughly researched the shenanigans that occurred during the 2008 election cycle, is ignorance. I will never forget my sudden realization in the summer of 2008 that 1) no provision of any law requires any government official to vet the candidate for POTUS for Constitutional eligibility for the job; or 2) the only way to keep an ineligible person out of the WH is to keep his or her name off the general election ballot. At the New Year’s Day open house I just attended, I sat next to an otherwise politically involved citizen – our friends hold this open house every year, so I see people I haven’t seen in a year – who had no idea that all of BO’s records, including even academic transcripts, are sealed. He had no idea that “pledged delegates” elected to attend the D Corporation Convention, only means what it says, in those states which have enacted laws containing such definitions, superseding the definition of the D Corporation (‘you must use your “good conscience”‘). I told him, he was in good company; Governor Rendell (D-PA) said on FOX News, just weeks before the Convention, there is no such thing as a “pledged” delegate.

    Either Governor Rendell did not know some states have these vote binding laws – PA is not one of them – or, he intentionally lied. I would rather go with your thinking that, elected officials are not as aware of the law as we might otherwise assume.

    You wrote, “Like you, I never doubted the motives of the people involved in cc09, but personally I always wondered why they choose not to work with existing state legislatures.” I cannot say. However, I am concerned that, the original CCongress was required because there was no construct for individual states to meet together to confront problems bearing on more than one state. Now, we have a Congress. If our elected officials are not living up to our expectations, we can vote them out of office. If other voters continue to vote them in then, we need to either accept that in a democracy our views will not always prevail or, if we believe in the rightness of those views, work to persuade these other voters to change their minds.

    Bottom line, I predict no federal legislator will be able to ignore the uproar to introduce Articles of Impeachment (to commence the investigation as to BO’s Constitutional eligibility for office) once the Attorney General in one applicable state, investigates the charges of election fraud filed by citizens of that state, against various members of the D Corporation, for swearing to election officials BO was Constitutionally qualified for POTUS without ascertaining beforehand he was eligible for the job. (One of the reasons I worked so hard to incorporate in those complaints, the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that supports these charges; was to ensure that, the A’sG could not avoid an investigation merely by asserting, the fraud laid out in these complaints could not have occurred.) ADMINISTRATOR

    • Thanks for your thoughtful response, jbjd. If there’s one thing I have learned in the past year, it is to take NOTHING for granted. Personally, I have watched the financial ‘experts’ on TV discuss the Fed and the economy, and have realized there is no guarantee most of them know more than any individual who spends a few days researching the topic themselves. It’s the same with government officials, isn’t it? There is no magic key anyone else has that you yourself cannot have–it is just a matter of putting forth effort and time to understand.

      No one thing (auditing the Fed, finding BO Constitutionally ineligible, pursuing other avenues where the law has been ignored) will solve ALL the problems we face in our country today. No one should assume the road is going to be short or that one group or individual will ‘save’ us. It’s just not true. We should all settle in for a VERY long haul and keep working on the puzzle pieces we have.

      jbjd, I really admire your grace under pressure and your ability to always focus on the issue at hand. I have to tell you that over the past year your style has been an inspiration to me. I hope people who are emotionally upset by your insistence on the principles of law will come around to see the logic and soundness of your method.

      snk: So many of the statements in this comment evoke my mental response. I will focus on one statement in particular for a written comment.

      You say, “No one should assume the road is going to be short or that one group or individual will ’save’ us. It’s just not true.” I have been saying this, in various ways, since the spring of 2008, when I began blogging about the issues of the 2008 election cycle. (I wrote a post entitled, “MESSIAH V. SAVIOR: A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE,” eschewing the tendency to look for a rescuer in this situation.) Always at the heart of everything I have done was personal activism, pursued either as an individual or, as a part of a group. But no Lone Rangers. Let me explain.

      I read some sharp criticism of my blog – well, the remarks were actually personal – saying things like, ‘Who is this jbjd, telling us to do things like file these complaints of election fraud with A’sG, just because she says so!’ In fact, I explicitly instruct people NOT TO FILE THESE COMPLAINTS UNTIL THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE FILING; and to ask as many questions as necessary until they understand. And this personal understanding is critical to me for at least these two reasons. First, the complaints are filed in the real names of the citizens of the state. And these are now public records. What benefit accrues if questions are directed to these individuals – from the AG, or perhaps from the press – and cannot be answered? Second, and arguably more important, is my expectation that, once we citizens look up our state laws (I asked readers to look up their state laws, to begin this process); contact our state officials (I asked readers to contact state election officials to determine who submitted Certifications of Nomination in their states); and request documents from those officials through state ‘freedom of information’ laws (I had citizens obtain the requisite documents in their states) we become empowered as sovereigns over that government. Stealing power from such a collective informed citizenry would be much too bothersome to attempt.

      We won’t have to expend so much effort in the future to maintain sovereignty over our government. (The learning curve was steep but it levels out!) We were complacent last time; and the people who would take advantage of that complacency had a multi-year head start. But we caught up; that is, as you say, the information we require to understand the ‘system’ is out there. We just have to find it and take the time to ‘get it.’ (Unfortunately, the same Corporation that stole the election is now stealing our money, too. So we had better learn fast how they are doing it!)

      Thank you so very much for appreciating not only the work that comes out of the collaborations on this blog; but also the challenge to produce this work in an even handed manner, notwithstanding the slings and arrows of my detractors. For the most part, I accomplish this by construing the criticism specifically aimed at me as a not-so-veiled attempt to derail this good work. ADMINISTRATOR

  6. drkate says:

    Wow. You know, as a ‘hydrologist’ who greatly appreciates and understands your work, I took your suggestion of making the States certify the NBC status of the citizens and injected into the CC2009. So, you are trashing your own work?

    Whether you believe it or not, you are not the only one trying to ‘change the status quo’. And you have offended thousands by your remark. So I thank you for showing yourself.

    I feel sorry for you. These were citizens from all walks of life, as were the founders, with maybe one attorney. I will have you know that Taitz presented very little, and was not on the NBC committee. I have been writing about this NBC long before you even got wind of it.

    Have I ever trashed your work? Your vision? Your analyses? And what did I do to deserve your wrath? And, if you dislike the work of citizens, what exactly is your plan, or do you plan to stay in the armchair this year? The credit belongs to the people who are in the arena, not the one who points out how everyone could have done better or that they did something wrong.

    The WTP has exercised on our behalf first amendment rights to petition on all of these constitutional violations. Just like the founders did–about 15 years. Its time now to take some action.

    I wish for you positive energy of every kind, in your heart and mind and soul and life. I wish you laughter and happiness, and a ‘joining’ with others in this great cause. Know that you are a victim too, your response as a lawyer is exactly what you’ve been trained to do–to discount the people and the Constitution.

    In the meantime, I also hope you exercise the philosophy, “first, do no harm”. Try not to destroy everyone’s enthusiasm with your own sour viewpoint. If you don’t have anything good to say, then don’t say it. I want some ideas on these Articles of Freedom, not just someone throwing rocks. Contribute, or, respectfully, shut up.

    “We’re so stupid”? Speak for yourself.

    As I doubt you will publish this remark, in full disclosure I will be posting it on my site. I am sorry for whatever ‘this hydrologist’ did to offend your sense of the law.

    drkate: Please see my reply to d2i’s comment, above, for my policy regarding responses to ‘straw dogs.’

    As to the remainder of your narrative, well, with statements like, “The WTP has exercised on our behalf first amendment rights…” juxtaposed with this edict to me, “Contribute, or, respectfully shut up,” your words speak loudly and clearly, for themselves. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. The Drafters of the U.S. Constitution created 3 (three) branches of government to act as checks and balances against each other: the legislative branch, to write the law; the executive branch, to approve and carry out the law; and the judicial branch, to interpret the law in accordance with the words in the Constitution. Surely the Drafters did not intend that this co-equal judiciary should be staffed by jurists unschooled in the practice of law. And, when the states ratified the Constitution, surely the people (through their state legislatures) trusted that the U.S. Senate would not consent to the President’s appointee to the federal bench predicated on factors that excluded the legal training and experience of the prospective jurist.

  7. d2i says:

    jbjd – Happy New Year! I sincerely wish you and yours a fruitful 2010. You deserve it.

    Over the last 18 months, I’ve had the opportunity to learn much from you and have valued your work and the passion you put into it. Trust that your efforts have not and will not go unnoticed. Thank you for your devotion to the law and providing us patriots the opportunity to address these extremely serious matters with our respective state A’sG.

    As you know, I took the lead here in Virginia to inform our state AG. Fortunately, he is retiring in two weeks and I’ll have a new shot at our new AG. Trust me, he will be hearing from me. My efforts are only just now beginning which you will be informed about at the appropriate time.

    In the meantime, I’d like to address two items in your post that concern me and the overall impression of your words. Because we have spent a countless number of hours together, I trust I can be candid with you.

    First, you end your post by stating “We are so stupid” but several paragraphs up you appear to dismiss Mr. Shultz for his efforts to raise our awareness about the abuses made to the constitution by our elected leaders. You can’t have it both ways. We were either not giving credence to Mr. Shultz’s concerns, as well as a plethora of others, or we chose to embrace them and tried to do something about it. Obviously, Mr. Shultz has dedicated 15 years or more of his life trying to shake us out of our coma. Were you listening to him? Did you take him and his efforts seriously? Something tells me you didn’t. I confess that I didn’t. Hell, I didn’t even know about him, but just b/c “we” or “many of us” have awoken in the last 18 months doesn’t make his efforts any less important than yours. I find your tone condescending and I’m hopeful you will correct me if I am wrong if this wasn’t your intent.

    Secondly, I would like to invite you to explain why on earth you would belittle the effort being made by the hydrologist regarding Article II. What, only an attorney could do this work? A judge? A professor of Constitutional law? What you fail to take into account is that this hydroligist holds a Ph.D in the hard sciences. This hydrologist has been taught the rule that nothing is a proven fact unless substantiated and tested by her peers. Her education and skill set is most appropriate to take on such a monumental effort. To be candid, and you’ve heard me say this before, it’s the lawyers that have screwed us and gotten us into this mess NOT the hydrologists. So my money is on you, Mr. Shultz and the hydrologist. But again, I invite you to elaborate a bit more on why you found it necessary to add that morsel of information to a post that in tone is awfully condescending. I’d welcome greater clarity and you are most welcomed to bitch slap me if you wish. It certainly won’t be the first time and hopefully, not the last.

    Please know that I will copying this and posting it over at the hydrologist’s site as well. I’m feeling pretty confident, call it a hunch, that she won’t be wandering over this way anytime soon.

    Cheers!

    d2i: Based on experience, I have come to assume that everything I write, whether here or in an email, will be re-posted elsewhere.

    I said we are stupid because I am a part of the whole; and the longer my fellow citizens expend their resources – time, money, etc. – to address what they have identified as problems with our political system in ways I believe are less efficient than others, the longer ‘we’ are subject to the inequities of that system.

    I will not respond to any more straw dogs. In other words, I will only engage in a rebuttal of anything I say, with those commenters who specifically site to what I said. ADMINISTRATOR

    P.S. I just thought of a specific example that illustrates the results of assigning the task of interpreting a legal document – the U.S. Constitution – to a person lacking the requisite legal training.

    Article I of the Constitution creates the Legislative branch of government. Section 8, which enumerates the specific powers of Congress, includes this provision: “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”

    The Ph.D. heading the eligibility committee wrote this on her blog (all mistakes are in original):

    The “Law of Nations” is a body of law that the Founders respected and understood to be a guiding body of law for all nations. Thus, the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ must also be found in that body of law called ‘the law of nations’.

    Then, in constructing the Resolution of the CC2009 on the issue of eligibility, she wrote:


    WHEREAS, the CC2009 finds that until the Supreme Court rules on the natural born citizen eligibility clause, or the Congress amends the Constitution, the acceptable definition of ‘natural born citizen’ is derived from that body of law referred to as the ‘Law of Nations’, referenced in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; and

    WHEREAS, the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I is a direct recognition that the Founders respected this body of law; and

    WHEREAS, in writing about that body of law, Emmich Vattel defined a natural born citizen[i]:

    To be a natural born citizen means one must be born on the soil of parents who themselves are citizens.

    A legal analysis of the Constitution would not only not yield this result but in fact would conclude persuasively just the opposite. That is, in interpreting the intention of the drafters of a legal text, judges will find that, where the drafters included specific qualifying language in one section of the text; their failure to include this language in another section of the text was intentional. In other words, if the Drafters of the Constitution had intended for us to rely on “the law of nations” to define who is eligible to be POTUS in Article II; they knew how to do that, given their use of those words in Article I to define the power of Congress to regulate crime between and among other countries on the high seas.

    Plus, the Ph.D. provided no basis given for interpreting the phrase “law of nations” as specifically referencing the text assembled by Vattel versus a generally accepted ‘law of nations’ as applied to conflicts on the high seas.

    I posted these views on that blog and was summarily dismissed with a plethora of straw arguments and personal insults. Still, no one could assail the soundness of my premise, courts interpret statute according to a particular protocol. Here is an exchange between you and me on that thread, which I am re-posting here, now, because it so comprehensively illustrates the exhaustive efforts I encounter to keep the work ‘the thing,’ and not the personalities of the people promoting this work.

    d2i said:
    “I’ve always found jbjd’s approach to this question troubling. It’s a circular debating style that seems to serve no genuine purpose other than to challenge us to think. …”

    Assuming that you have “always” found my approach “troubling,” one can only speculate as to why you withheld your dissent until now.

    I have never publicly expressed my beliefs as to what the Founders intended by the term NBC except in a brief concurrence with drkate on the last radio broadcast. Obviously, you missed this. I do occasionally offer alternative explanations as to what the Founders/Drafters could have meant because I am so troubled by the willingness of so many purported “patriots” to supplant reason with THEIR interpretation of the document those Patriots created. Of course, I have studied history; of course, I have studied the law. Naturally, I have opinions. But I am not the arbiter of the Constitution’s truth; and neither are you.

    drkate has stated that it is the intent of the CC to petition state governments to adopt a particular view of the Constitution. I not only object to such imposition of thought but I also object to the hubris with which lay people purport to bypass 200+ years of methodology in statutory construction and Constitutional scholarship, to tell us – me – what the document really means. I resent that the same people whose opposition to what can be characterized as self-serving interpretations of NBC propounded by the ‘opposition’; would now impose their own interpretations on us.

    I could not care less as to the individual interpretations people ascribe to the original intent of the Drafters; or whether they adopt a Constitutional methodology of original intent or ‘living document,’ to reach their conclusions. But I am as fearful of becoming enslaved by zealots on one side as on the other.

    And I am most afraid of people like you, d2i, who choose to characterize attempts to get people to see there is more than one side to their argument; as tantamount to saying, because there is another side to the argument, this means, their thinking has no merit. Or worse, who would denigrate the very act of stimulating thought, as serving no genuine purpose other than to “challenge us to think.” No; these are YOUR words, and not mine.

    Let me emphasize, just because a particular lay interpretation appears to make sense to lay people does not mean it could survive critical judicial scrutiny. (Keep in mind, many of the people involved with founding this government were trained as lawyers.) If I point to a flaw with the legal methodology, this does not mean, I am pointing to a flaw in the character. That people like you – and you are by no means alone – continue to label theories of statutory construction as ‘belonging’ to one person or another scares the hell out of me. Practically speaking, the meaning of the Constitution is only ascertained when the federal bench rules, this it what it means. This is why I seldom express my personal views as to what the document means; or engage in endless speculation as to what the Constitution means. I already did that in law school. And besides, I am too busy doing actual work that is required to change the status quo.

    Finally, I want to repeat my strenuous objections that anyone who expresses an opposing view would direct such dissent to the person and not the work. While there are few absolutes in interpretation, no interpretation is valid or invalid based only on who is espousing that view.

  8. drkate says:

    jbjd, (comment omitted by jbjd in its entirety due to name calling)

    drkate: Generally, the policy on this blog is to refrain from posting comments that contain only personal characterizations but that contribute nothing to the factual understanding of the issues. ADMINISTRATOR

  9. Follow the Constitution says:

    “”State delegates to the First Continental Congress of the United States, held in 1774 in Philadelphia, PA, were usually chosen by state assemblies (legislatures) which, when not in regular session, were convened by state Governors specifically for the purpose of electing these delegates. Sometimes, the selection of delegates was put to a popular vote. (Much of this process was carried out in secret, including where applicable the election of delegates, as opposing the Crown at that time, was unlawful.) Particular attention was paid to making sure to include both radical and conservative leaders in the state.The decision as to which issues these delegates would submit for discussion at the CCongress and, what were the state’s positions on these issues, were determined beforehand in consultation with the citizens of these states, through various means that included public meetings; distribution of pamphlets; and special votes of the assemblies.

    In other words, unlike the attendees at cc2009, individual delegates to the First CCongress did not obtain these positions just by volunteering. They did not meet with each other in the first instance at the Congress to determine what issues were of primary import to the people and then substitute their positions on these issues for that of the people. They certainly did not distribute the results of their work under the guise, since they – the attendees – resided in several different states this work necessarily represented the will of the ‘people.’””

    I see you have not bothered to look into how the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF 2009 came about. This was not just some case of group of people that took upon themselves to just show up and appoint themselves to this. If took the time to research their work you would learn that Mr. Schultz did exactly as you described to bring this together. Every delegate was in fact elected by the people in each of their States. They weren’t selected by the State assembly, but they were in fact voted in by the people through a valid election where all elegible delegates were all placed on individual State ballots and voted in by the people of their States.

    In fact, Mr. Schultz went to great lengths and detail to follow this process in the exact manner as the original. Perhaps you should visit their site and research the process they used to make this come about.

    Follow the Constitution: You wrote, “I see you have not bothered to look into how the CONTINENTAL CONGRESS OF 2009 came about. This was not just some case of group of people that took upon themselves to just show up and appoint themselves to this. If took the time to research their work you would learn that Mr. Schultz did exactly as you described to bring this together.” (All mistakes are in original; and all emphasis in bold, is mine. jbjd) Your comment erroneously presumes that my disagreement with the operation of the CC2009 stems from my lack of information about this group, notwithstanding in my original post and in follow-up replies to comments from my readers, I included several facts about both the CC2009 and Mr. Schulz which evidence my prior knowledge of both.

    I have to presume, you chose the screen moniker, “Follow the Constitution,” to proclaim to the public your strong support for that document, both in substance and in form. Let me point out, when the Colonists formed the First and Second Continental Congresses, the American states had no Constitution. Of course, this means, they had no Congress. The Continental Congresses were the precursors to our present day Congress. But once the Constitution was ratified by the requisite American states (through their state legislatures) and became the law of the land; the establishment of Congress – along with the offices of Senator and Representative and the qualifications for electing and holding those offices – became fixed in law. For Representatives, these qualifications include state citizenship, and numbers of citizens in that Congressional district.

    In other words, calling oneself representative of the people AFTER the establishment of the Constitutionally created Congress; by usurping the name of Continental Congress that preceded such event, does not translate into real representation. But there’s more.

    Mr. Schulz’s politics have been well publicized through his various endeavors over the past 15 (fifteen) years. Presumably, those people who expressed the desire to become actively involved in this latest project shared those politics. You supported your objection to my claims, the current iteration of ‘Congress’ lacks the real representation of the original; by saying, “Every delegate was in fact elected by the people in each of their States. They weren’t selected by the State assembly, but they were in fact voted in by the people through a valid election where all elegible delegates were all placed on individual State ballots and voted in by the people of their States.” (All mistakes in original; all emphasis in bold is mine. jbjd) I read your objection as, in fact, proving my point. That is, all like-minded people who had heard about Mr. Schulz’s latest endeavor, who wanted to become a part of it, and who could financially afford to attend the gathering, listed their names as ‘delegates’ from their respective states (or neighborhoods, or individual household). Then, other like-minded and similarly-situated people decided who from among their peers would represent them at the CC2009. As to your claim that the ‘election’ of these ‘delegates’ was “valid,” well, I cannot imagine how you define such term, both generally and, specifically as this applies to what you are calling the ‘election’ of ‘delegates’ to CC2009.

    Finally, let me repeat what I said in my original post and in several replies to comments based on that post. Namely, my rejection to the stated mission of the CC2009 and to its self-advertised favorable comparison to the original Continental Congresses (which body only met BEFORE Constitutional ratification), in no way indicates my personal views toward the motivation of the many people involved in Mr. Schulz’s campaign. ADMINISTRATOR

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: