MISSION STATEMENT

This website is dedicated as a place where fellow Americans may convene to share in the celebration of the magnificent heritage of our great nation. We recognize the need for eternal vigilance to defend against the constant threat from those who seek to undermine our God given rights as so eloquently inscribed by our Founders into the nation’s founding charter, the United States Constitution.

Monday, March 14, 2016

U.S. State Dept. Foreign Affairs Manual Scrubs Presidential Eligibility Section


U.S. Department of State
Foreign Affairs Manual
Scrubs Presidential Eligibility Section
7 FAM 1131.6-2

Breaking report by Pixel Patriot
March 14, 2016
 


The U.S. Department of State scrubbed the Presidential Eligibility Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 from the Foreign Affairs Manual as the highly contested Presidential primaries are heating up in which several candidates have been challenged based on ineligibility due to not being Natural Born Citizens; one of the 3 eligibility requirements in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

I discovered this by comparing previous versions of the State Department website between January 19th, 2016 and February 29th, 2016 using the Wayback Machine, a service of the Internet Archive.
 
 
According to the State Department, the deletion of the Presidential Eligibility Section 7 FAM 1131.6-2 was made on February 24th and the following section moved up. However, from the archived web page on February 29th it can be seen that the Presidential Eligibility section had in fact been deleted but section 7 FAM 1131.6-3 Non-Citizens by "Naturalization" remained in its original place contrary to CON-636.
 
 
Update 3/14/16 5:43 pm

After drafting my report this morning, I contacted Attorney Mario Apuzzo and asked if he knew if someone had already found or reported this deletion from the Foreign Affairs Manual and he said someone known as Mick did previously post a comment about this at his blog on Feb. 29th.
 
From Mario Apuzzo:

See Mick's comment and those that followed at Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a Natural Born, at Citizen http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that.htm:
Mick said...

7 FAM 1131.6-2 "Eligibility for Presidency" was scrubbed from the internet on 2/24/16

They did not even change the numbering!! They even added, in 1131.6-3, the statute that naturalized Ted Cruz (8 US Code 1401(g)), as some sort of basis that 8 US Code "citizen at birth benificiaries are "Not Citizens by Naturalization."

Here is the screen shot WAYBACK from Feb 20, 2016

https://web.archive.org/web/20160119170238/https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html

Here is the current version

https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html

Do you know how these entries are made Mr. Apuzzo?

I undestand that the INS is now the USCIS under Homeland Security. The question is why would the State Dept. want to help Ted Cruz?

Hmmm....

February 29, 2016 at 6:48 AM
 
~~~~~

Still do your report.
_________________________________________________________


So although we both found this independently, Mick does rightfully get the credit for finding it first.

The deletion of a section of the Foreign Affairs Manual on Presidential Eligibility is bad enough, but the State Department as Mario explains in his follow up to Mick, is replacing it with a misapplied definition of naturalization by statute leaving out the qualifier limiting it only to “this chapter.” 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

This statement is also not correct given the decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court. What the State Department should add is that the fact that someone is not considered to be naturalized pursuant to a statute does not mean that he or she is not naturalized under the Constitution.

February 29, 2016 at 8:03 AM

Mario expounds further in his most recent article how Ted Cruz is naturalized at birth by a naturalization Act of Congress without which Cruz would be an alien at birth, which precludes him from qualifying for the Office of the President of the United States which requires a Natural Born Citizen, not only a Citizen at birth.

 
 
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution is still operative...
...and the Law of the Land.
 
 
 
Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2016
(All rights reserved.)
 
 
 

Wednesday, March 2, 2016

DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION FROM USURPATION

DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION FROM USURPATION
EXPOSE: LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR.
 
 
 NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF TECHNICAL AND LEGAL HURDLES FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
Exclusive Report by Pixel Patriot
3/2/2016

A recent investigation into the official Congressional records for Sen. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. [1] who was born May 16, 1931 in Paris, France to American citizen parents; reveals that birth to American parents alone were not sufficient for Weicker to comply with the eligibility requirements in Article 2 of the Constitution; consequently, impeding his Presidential aspirations.  With current challenges to both Sen. Ted Cruz born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada [2] [3] and Sen. Marco Rubio whose parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth [4] [5], the historical relevance to Sen. Weicker’s aspirations for the Office of the U.S. Presidency are profound.

A chronological timeline compiled from the letters between Sen. Weicker and his constituents detailing his interest in running for the Presidency brings to light a startling sequence of events.  Weicker had declared his readiness to “legally” run for the Presidency as early as May of 1978, yet repeatedly conceded that his run for the Presidency was conditional.  And the conditions weren’t just limited to whether he could raise enough money or support, Weicker’s communications reveal there were technical and legal hurdles that must be overcome for him to be eligible.

It is May 2nd, 1978 and Sen. Weicker declares in Congressional correspondence “I have cleared the decks legally in the event I do decide to go for it.”  His assertion written in the past tense would indicate Weicker believed at that time he was legally eligible to run for the Office of the Presidency.

Then on June 13th he refers to his efforts in the present tense. “Right now, I’m simply concentrating on taking the technical and legal steps to be ready to go.”
 
 
So did something occur between May 2nd and June 13th causing Sen. Weicker to reassess whether he had as of yet met the requirements?  The tone of his correspondence markedly changed, and as we shall see; his uncertainty is professed publicly at a crisis point in American history.
 
 
 
 
Also among the archives comprising the “Papers of Lowell Weicker, Jr.” in the Special Collections at the University of Virginia include press clippings from the Presidential campaign of 1980.  These news reports in the context of the times they were written shed light on the challenges Weicker faced.   When cumulatively compared with the subversive tactics of today’s media and complete absence of vetting for prospective Presidential candidates; it is clear the Republic of the United States of America as it stands is in a Constitutional crisis of epic proportion.
 
 
 
 
In this news report, Weicker makes an extremely astounding observation: “It would be rather embarrassing to go through this whole process, be elected President of the United States and then find you’re ineligible.”

On the other hand, it is incredulous to believe Weicker having graduated from the University of Virginia Law School, founded by Thomas Jefferson; would need his staff to research his eligibility.  The following letter written by Thomas Jefferson on August 30, 1814 from Monticello lays out his recommended course for legal study. [6]  The manuscript in Jefferson's own hand writing, includes Vattel's treatise "The Law of Nations" (in the original French translation).  Jefferson doesn't just gloss over Natural Law either.  That would be studied every morning before 8am!  Therefore, it would be impossible for Weicker to graduate with a law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law and not know what a "Natural Born Citizen" is.
 
 
Next from the Weicker archives is a news report by Knight Kiplinger which is egregiously inaccurate and an epic fail in regards to the ideals of professional journalism which avow to seek truth and report it so as to accurately inform the public. [7]
 
 

“Weicker readily admits he doesn’t know for sure whether he is technically qualified, according to the Constitution, to be President.”

Kiplinger claims Congress and the courts have never really defined the phrase “Natural Born Citizen” which someone must be to become President.

In the defense of truth, here are four historical references he failed to mention:
 
1. Emer de Vattel, the Swiss philosopher, diplomat and jurist from his preeminent masterpiece The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns (1758):
Book 1, Chapter XIX
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
"The citizens are the members of the 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 than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." [8]

 
2. In 1866, Rep. John Bingham, the principal framer of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stated on the House floor:

"Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)) [9] [10]

 
3. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) defined “Natural Born Citizen” as children born of two parents who are United States citizens:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." [11]

 
4. In 1917 the World War I Selective Service Draft Registration Card [12] delineated between a “natural born Citizen”, a naturalized citizen and an alien.  This was after both the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Wong Kim Ark case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898.  The Selective Service Act of 1917 was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in the Selective Draft Law Cases in which the Solicitor General's argument, and the high court’s unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice White citing Vattel's “The Law of Nations” (1758).
 
As the report continues, Kiplinger says there are conflicting laws and court decisions; however, the only conflicting law that really matters is Article 2 of the Constitution which trumps any statute and implicitly requires a “Natural Born Citizen” for the Office of the Presidency.

Guidance for interpreting the Constitution is provided by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Johnson, Associate Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 1823:

 
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us 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." [13]


Kiplinger also puts forth another legal falsehood for a provision in the Naturalization Act of 1790: “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.  The claim here being, that because the statute was unchallenged; it therefore clears the deck for someone with dual-allegiance to be President.  He cites the historian Edwin S. Corwin, yet fails to include the exact source for Corwin’s claim with historical facts to support it.

The truth is, the Third Congress as assembled in Pennsylvania in 1795 included George Washington and other Founding Fathers who knew precisely what a “Natural Born Citizen” was as defined in the Law of Nations. And when they convened on January 29th they passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 explicitly removing with surgical precision the language of the Naturalization ACT of 1790 containing the provision “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replacing it in the 1795 statue with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” [14]
 
 
The entire statute of 1790 was repealed from U.S. Code.  It only took Congress 5 years, or 1 election cycle to realize the need to clarify the delineation between a “citizen” and a “Natural Born Citizen” in order to retain the exclusive class of citizen required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution to be President.  Congress is empowered to enact legislation for the purpose of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution enumerating Congressional authority.  However, Article 2 of the Constitution is shielded by Article 5 preventing Congress from altering the requirements of the Office of the President by a statute alone.  Only an Amendment to the Constitution ratified by three fourths of the states can do so.

The following year in 1796, George Washington delivered his farewell address to Congress [15] in Philadelphia in the very same place the Naturalization Act of 1795 was adopted with a warning:

 
“If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.”

It is abundantly clear from the historical evidence that the Founders and Framers never intended for the Constitution to evolve apart from the Amendment process.
If the errors in Kiplinger’s report weren’t bad enough, he then advocates subverting the rule of law and the Constitutional Amendment process in favor of a loosely interpreted evolving Constitution.  Such contemptible intent by a reporter and any news organization that publishes or broadcasts it must be repudiated.

When Ted Cruz in the same breath says that he is a Constitutional attorney and also relies on the Naturalization Act of 1790 to derive citizenship rights which would make him a “Natural Born Citizen”, he is being deceitful so as to mislead the American public from the truth about his Constitutional ineligibility.

History is replete with accounts of corrupt usurpations and our Republic has not been spared such violations. Chester Arthur was a dual citizen and British subject at birth because his father was not a citizen at the time of his birth, circumstances similar to those of Sen. Marco Rubio.  Arthur was 14 years old when his dad was naturalized and reportedly lied to conceal his Constitutional ineligibility. [16] [17] The Barack Obama saga is still unfolding. [18]  Article 2 of the Constitution has 3 eligibility requirements for the Office of President and Vice-President of the United States including age, residency and that one must be a “Natural Born Citizen”. This was the Founders way of ensuring sole allegiance to the Republic and providing a strong check against foreign entanglements and influence.  Having just fought a bloody war for their independence from the tyrannies of the King of England, they codified this single class of citizen for the President who would not only be sworn to uphold, support and defend the Constitution as its Chief Executive, but simultaneously lead the nation’s Armed Forces as Commander-in-Chief.

The Constitution is the law of the land, and though there have been several attempts in recent years to change the requirements for the Presidency, no sitting Congress has succeeded in getting the requisite votes to pass such an Amendment. Because the Founders recognized they could not foresee every controversy subsequent generations would encounter, they wisely established the Amendment process so the Republic could legally modify a law through its representatives and thereby evolve or adapt as society sees fit.

Defending truth, faithfully upholding the original intent of the Constitution and demanding enforcement of the Rule of Law without prejudice are all honorable goals, however these ideals are impossible to transcend beyond hope today without a legally binding vetting apparatus.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

14. http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.rbc/rbpe.2220020e      pp. 166-167
 
 

Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2016
(All rights reserved.)
 
 

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

VATTEL IS LAW - PART 1


VATTEL IS LAW
CITATION BY THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR VATTEL AS LAW
PART 1
Exclusive Report by Pixel Patriot
September 7th, 2015



Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)

The impact Thomas Jefferson has had on our nation is incalculable.  The legacy of this American Founding Father and statesman includes drafting the U.S. Declaration of Independence, serving in the Continental Congress during the American Revolution, President, Vice-President, Minister of France and Secretary of State, Governor of Virginia and founder of the University of Virginia.

A footnote in a biographical work is subject to the agenda and biases of the author.  However, when it is an autobiographical citation; you can be certain of its significance.  And when the autobiography is by Jefferson himself, the only conclusion an intellectually honest observer of history can reach is that his source for citation is significant, credible and evidentiary.

On January 6th, 1821 at the age of 77; Jefferson began writing his autobiography.
On page 35 of the draft version, Jefferson recalls a debate over treaty obligations for The Treaty of Paris, which was formally signed between America and Great Britain on September 3rd, 1783, though not finally ratified until it was signed by the Continental Congress convened in Annapolis on January, 14th 1784.  According to Jefferson, based on International Law; the validity of the instrument did not go into effect until ratification:

"On the contrary, it was argued by Monroe, Gerry, Howel, Ellery & myself that by the modern usage of Europe the ratification was considered as the act which gave validity to a treaty, until which it was not obligatory."1

1. Vattel, L. 2, § 156. L. 4, § 77. 1. Mably Droit D'Europe, 86.— T.J.

Citation by Thomas Jefferson for Vattel as LAW


Jefferson is actually citing two different sources. The first is Emer de Vattel, the Swiss philosopher, diplomat and jurist from his preeminent masterpiece Le Droit des gens; ou, Principes de la loi naturelle appliqués à la conduite et aux affaires des nations et des souverains 1758 (The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns):

Emer de Vattel (April 25, 1714 – December 28, 1767)


The Law of Nations, 1758


BOOK II:  §156. Treaties concluded by proxies or plenipotentiaries.
Sovereigns treat with each other through the medium of agents or proxies who are invested with sufficient powers for the purpose, and are commonly called plenipotentiaries. To their office we may apply all the rules of natural law which respect things done by commission. The rights of the proxy are determined by the instructions that are given him: he must not deviate from them; but every promise which he makes in the terms of his commission, and within the extent of his powers, is binding on his constituent. At present, in order to avoid all danger and difficulty, princes reserve to themselves the power of ratifying what has been concluded upon in their name by their ministers. The plenipotentiary commission is but a procuration cum libera. If this commission were to have its full effect, they could not be too circumspect in giving it. But as princes cannot otherwise than by force of arms be compelled to fulfil their engagements, it is customary to place no dependence on their treaties, till they have agreed to and ratified them. Thus, as every agreement made by the minister remains invalid till sanctioned by the prince’s ratification, there is less danger in vesting him with unlimited powers. But before a prince can honourably refuse to ratify a compact made in virtue of such plen-ipotentiary commission, he [194] should be able to allege strong and substantial reasons, and, in particular, to prove that his minister has deviated from his instructions.

BOOK IV:  §77. Instructions.
The instructions given to the minister contain his master’s secret mandate, the orders to which the minister must carefully conform, and which limit his powers. Here we might apply all the rules of the law of nature respecting procurations and mandates, whether open or secret. But exclusive of their being more particularly applicable to the subject of treaties, we may with the less impropriety dispense with such details in this work, as the custom has wisely been established, that no engagements into which a minister may enter, shall have any validity between sovereigns, unless ratified by his principal.



This is significant for the following reasons:


1. It’s in Thomas Jefferson’s own handwriting.


2. Vattel’s Law of Nations was already established internationally as a masterpiece on International Law and well known by the Founders. However, this reference by Jefferson transcends the work of Vattel to a level even greater than authoritative. He is referencing Vattel’s Treatise as LAW for determining when America’s international agreements with other nations become legally binding.


3. According to Jefferson in his autobiography, "ratification was considered as the act which gave validity to a treaty, until such time it was not obligatory."  This has to be compared to Article II of the Constitution in that upon ratification on June 21st, 1788; it became the ‘LAW OF THE LAND’ and as of yet has not been amended and no statute can render it superfluous or without effect.  Therefore, Article II is Constitutional LAW, obligatory and must be enforced.


4. It also signifies that other areas of Vattel’s Law of Nations are likewise considered as LAW.  The Founders derived the class of citizen they called “Natural-Born Citizen” from BOOK I CHAPTER XIX §212 Citizens and natives.

This singularly unique class of citizen was based on the principles of natural law to ensure sole allegiance to the Republic. “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”  This was the Founders way of providing a strong check against divided loyalties for the President or Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces. This is evidenced by the differing eligibility requirement for President in Article II, Section I which is limited to a Natural-Born Citizen, compared to the eligibility requirements for Representative and Senator in Article I, Section II and III respectively; which are only for that of Citizen. Legally they are not synonymous or interchangeable.

ARTICLE II SECTION 1 CLAUSE 5
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.


ARTICLE I SECTION 2 CLAUSE 2
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.


ARTICLE I SECTION 3 CLAUSE 3
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.


5. Barack Hussein Obama II has publicly admitted his father Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan native and a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948.  Barack Obama Sr. never became a U.S citizen. Therefore, Barack Hussein Obama II is not now and never can be a “Natural-Born Citizen” of the United States by virtue of his recognized allegiance to a sovereign foreign nation inherited from his father precluding him from eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States.  Therefore, according to Article II Section I Clause V of the United States Constitution as defined in the United States Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happerset 88 U.S. 162 (1874) which set binding precedent, the Office of the President of the United States was usurped by an ineligible candidate. Additionally, at least 3 Republican candidates currently seeking that office in the 2016 election do not satisfy the Constitutional requirement either.




Library of Congress Main Reading Room, Washington, D.C.

The Thomas Jefferson Autobiography Draft Fragment from January 6 through July 27, 1821 is part of the Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress
Created / Published: 1821-07-27
Series 1: General Correspondence. 1651-1827
Microfilm Reel: 052
Repository:  Manuscript Division
Digital Id:  http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mtj.mtjbib024000




Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2015
(All rights reserved.)


 
Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes