News

A modern day heroine from The Great State of Tennessee has posted a brilliant expose that clarifies the strict constitutional requirements for a person to be eligible for the office of The US Presidency called ...

HERE WE GO AGAIN.....Kamala IS NOT A Natural Born Citizen and therefore not eligible no matter how the constitutionally illiterate wants to distort the facts; the fact are the facts

Magnificent Republic has reprinted her article in it's entirety, unedited, as written with links intact:

“On every question of construction, (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.” Thomas Jefferson (Jefferson obviously knew people would stray from the original intent in order to fit a political narrative)

Well the Kamala supporters are running damage control for Kamala Harris as they did for Obama and their arguments do not hold up to the facts. The fact that Kamala is not a natural born citizen is starting to circulate and the left must shut down the truth and of course they are calling anyone that says she is not eligible is a “racist.” That is the lefts favorite word to shut people up even when speaking the truth. So the left is using 2 parts of the Constitution to “prove” that Kamala is eligible for the offices of VP and President. But there is a bit of a reading comprehension issue among the constitutionally illiterate. Plus they do not know the history of the Constitution and have obviously never read the Federalist Papers (which explain the Amendments) or the debates that took place back during the formation of the Constitution.

1. They claim Article II Sec. 1 of the Constitution which says: Article II, Section 1 of the 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” proves that Kamala is eligible due to the word CITIZEN in Article II, Section 1. But they conveniently fail to recognize 9 little words that follow: “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution” it does not say AFTER the adoption of the Constitution. This was a grandfather clause for our founders.

Quote from Joanna Martin, J.D (pen name Publius Huldah).: Remember! None of our early Presidents were “natural born Citizens”, even though they were all born here. They were all born as subjects of the British Crown. They became naturalized citizens with the Declaration of Independence. That is why it was necessary to provide a grandfather clause for them. The eligible citizens they speak of in Art. II Sec. 1 were our founding fathers and it pertains to no one else.

2. Then they cite the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment has 2 parts in the meaning of citizen and it is the 2nd part people conveniently elect to ignore (“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” which will be covered later in this post) Do you see the words NATURAL BORN CITIZEN in the 14th Amendment? No, you do not. It clearly says CITIZEN. The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War to give citizenship to the recently freed slaves. There is clearly a difference between being a citizen and being a natural born citizen because our Constitution makes it obvious. To be a member of Congress one of the requirements is that you only need to be a CITIZEN but in Article. II Sec. 1 in order to be VP or President you must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. The Constitution is a COMPACT/CONTRACT between the federal government and the states and the people of the states. It is NOT a living document that changes with the times. It is today what it was when it was originally written as are all contracts. Except for those that wish to make it fit an agenda by ignoring the original intent. SO, lets look at the meaning of NBC at the time of our founders.

In respect to the facts below... two legal conditions are critical to the matter

1. The meaning of a word or term that appears in any legal document, in this case, the US Constitution Article II, is the meaning at the time of the adoption, not the meaning 248 years later after decades of word-smithing by "experts" intent upon undermining the meaning and purpose of the term via politically motivated opinions.

2. The true meaning must be consistent with the true intent of the word or term, as it existed at the time of the adoption. The NBC term was placed in Article II for a very specific reason and purpose, which is known due to the recording of history at the time the term was placed in Article II as a condition for the highest political office in our land. The source of the term as it was added to Article II is also clearly recorded in history, The Law of Nations.

All three of the definitions below are "natural born Citizens" under The Law of Nations (a book used by our founders to help in the construction of our founding documents)

1. The natural offspring of a legal U.S. Citizen Father.

2. The natural offspring of a legal U.S. Citizen Father and Mother.

3. The natural offspring of a legal U.S. Citizen Father and Mother, born on American soil.

While all three of the above birth circumstances qualify as a "natural born Citizen" in the USA, they all meet the definition and purpose of the Article II NBC clause because in all three cases, the child is born to a legal U.S. Citizen Father.

1. “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.” – Section 212

2. “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” – Section 212

3. “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.” – Section 212

4. “These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers;” Section 213 pertaining to “inhabitants” or foreigners allowed by the state to settle and stay in the country. - END

As you can see in the days of our founders natural born citizenship was conveyed from FATHER to the children regardless of place of birth.

People can have their own opinion or lies but they cannot make up the own truth. Again, the constitutionally illiterate have not done their historical research. They are passing on the lies TOLD to them about the Constitution in order to push an agenda. Some members of Congress have tried 8 times to have the NBC requirement removed from the Constitution. The last time was when Obama was a Senator and of course he voted for the removal. Gee, I wonder why? He knew and those that supported the attempt to remove that requirement knew Obama was not a NBC and where he was born (if they truly understood the Constitution) was not the issue. The REAL issue was his father was a British subject. Both of Kamala’s parents were in the US on TEMPORARY foreign student Visa’s when Kamala was born. She is not eligible, nor was Obama, Haley, Ramaswamy, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Shiva.

HERE (Babies Don’t Provide Anchors) is a short article which includes a link to the US Senate debates of 1866 (go to the center column and start reading under the subheading of RECONSTRUCTION to the end of the 3rd column. The US Senate debate of 1866 explains the meaning of citizen very clearly. As Joanna Martin (retired JAG lawyer and a REAL constitutional expert) stated it is “fascinating.” You see you cannot understand the Constitution unless you learn the history of its creation and the meaning of the contract at the time the contract was written. A contract is NOT a living document and that pertains to all contracts. Read and comprehend clearly.

If you are truly interested in the truth PLEASE also read the article below that was linked in the article above. LINKED ARTICLE 1 (Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship: Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny) by Edward Erler of Hillsdale College.

Here is an important excerpt from that article which refers to the US Senate Debate of 1866

Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S. PLEASE take the time to read the US Senate Debate of 1866 above. This is just an excerpt.

Here is an excerpt from another article written by Joanna Martin (The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew which is also included as a link in Babies Don't Provide Anchors) regarding definitions:

Word Definitions:

Like clouds, word meanings change throughout time.  “Awful” once meant “full of wonder and reverence”; “cute” meant “bowlegged”; “gay” meant “jovial”; and “nice” meant “precise”.

Accordingly, if someone from an earlier time wrote of a “cute gay man”, he was not referring to an adorable homosexual, but to a cheerful bowlegged man.

So!  In order to understand the genuine meaning of a text, we must use the definitions the authors used when they wrote it.  Otherwise, written texts become as shifting and impermanent as the clouds – blown hither and yon throughout the years by those who unthinkingly read in their own uninformed understandings, or deliberately pervert the text to further their own agenda.

So!  Is Our Constitution built on the Rock of Fixed Definitions – those our Framers used?  Or are its Words mere clouds to be blown about by Acts of Congress, whims of federal judges, and the idiotic notions of every ignoramus who writes about it?

PLEASE SHARE WITH ANYONE THAT YOU CONSIDER IS CONSTITUTIONALLY ILLITERATE - Help them learn the truth and dispel the lies.

The End

NOTE: 

Our fundamental right to free speech cannot be abridged PERIOD 

 

One of the greatest Whistleblowers of our time is James O'Keefe, but there seems to be a growing trend to spill the beans on the Deep State.  We thank each and every person who stands up and boldly proclaims the truth against all odds.  We salute some publicized Whistleblowers in the month of September of 2024. May God continue to bless our Magnificent Republic.

Read more

On January 10, 1776, a pamphlet called "Common Sense" was anonymously published in Philadelphia.  Written by Thomas Paine, it argued the reasons why the American colonists should govern themselves. The time has arrived for "Common Sense II" and it has been written. 

America is based upon the world’s greatest success formula. In 120 years, this formula allowed six percent of the human family to become the richest industrial nation on earth. They created more than half the world’s production and enjoyed the highest standard of living in history. Americans became a generous people. No nation ever shared so much. Even when money was loaned to other countries, we often forgave the debt. The Founders found no government giving its people freedom, prosperity and peace. So they invented one. The American formula was a restoration of what Jefferson called the “Ancient Principles.”

See Founding Principles and Civic Virtues and Vices.

Even so, it was difficult to fit into a constitution. They swept away centuries of bad government to formulate a new structure based upon principles of human freedom. After several thousand years, the American charter of Liberty became the first successful attempt to build a whole civilization on the principles of freedom. Many of the Founders described the result a “miracle.” They agreed it required a number of coinciding circumstances. A homogenous population, a common language, a common set of basic beliefs, a number of remarkable leaders. All of these together produced the miracle which became America. Americans became the first free people in modern times. And Now After the first 120 years (1896) things began to change.

Government became larger and freedom smaller. Perhaps life was too easy. And perhaps, the American People were being misled by the FAKE NEWS of the Day

After the second 120 years (2016), the country is heading towards calculated and manufactured failure. If the destroyers of Liberty succeed then freedom will be lost. At the moment of this writing, Donald Trump claims to understand the problem and insists he can fix it. What do you think? Can he do it? Quickly enough?

The United States government …

• has 22 million employees (as of 2022) See Number of Governmental Employees In the US 

• has a budget of 7 trillion dollars (as of 2020) See Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?

• has our National Debt at at astronomically obscene 35 trillion (2024) and counting 

BUT, We the People need a license to own a dog, drive a car, work, fish or hunt.

Can we call that Freedom?

Our Founding Fathers expected the Constitution to be strictly interpreted. They knew it would adapt itself to changing times. The Constitution that they gave us dispersed power among the people and put chains on the excessive ambition and frailties of human nature. The Founding Fathers were committed to building a civilization that could become a model for the rest of mankind.

Thomas Jefferson said, “ . . . even when government shall tend to degeneracy, do not despair, . . . the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self government.” Quote from "The solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the principles of the Constitution of the US. of America & on the violations of them, December 24, 1825.

America breathed hope into the restless and oppressed in Europe. As the new country was beginning, people of all classes and nationalities were beginning to anticipate great possibilities in the new and exciting future of America. One such person was the French judge and political writer, Alexis de Tocqueville. He had spent two years in America. In 1848, he said, “For 60 years, they have increased in opulence. It is found to have been, not only the most prosperous, but the most stable of all the nations on the earth.” “ . . . the principles on which American constitutions rest, principles of order, of the balance of powers, of true liberty, of deep and sincere respect for right, are indispensable to all republics.” NOTE: Tocqueville did the American Republic a great disservice by naming his book "Democracy in America." By doing so, he completely ignored the Founding Fathers intent to "form a more perfect Union" by clearly stating that "Every State Shall Be Guaranteed a REPUBLICAN Form of Government in Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution."

William E. Gladstone, Prime Minster of England said, “It is the greatest piece of work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man”. 

Since the government was to be of the People, by the People and for the People, it will be up to the People to preserve it. It will be essential to be an “informed electorate.” Nothing is more remarkable about the early leaders than the breadth of reading and depth of knowledge concerning the essential elements of sound nation building.

Why should we study the Founders’ success formula? Because our ship of state is far out to sea, being tossed about in stormy waters. They thought we had all the tools needed for success. They would be alarmed to see how many of those tools have been usurped. The leap in modern technology is thrilling, but if humans get too far from basic cultural and spiritual moorings, our promising future could end badly. We must regain our footing, and begin exporting our formula for freedom, prosperity and peace to the rest of the world. It is what the Founders expected of us.

Discovery of the Ancient Principles Although Jefferson may have been the first to mention the Ancient Principles, many others were searching also. James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and others, were profound scholars and widely read. They all tried to put it together in the Constitution. They all felt their challenge was to find some method of structuring government which could eliminate usurpation and public functionaries who operate outside their limited delegated authority. Enough government to ensure order and justice, but not so much it would abuse the people. They had to set up a system where there was enough government, but not too much.

The American Founders knew they were pioneering new territory. In the past, 99% of humans had lived under a Ruler’s Law. We The People Must Continue This Work So That We The People Can Keep The Republic That Has Been Given Us.

MAKE JUSTICE BE DONE SO LIBERTY REIGNS FOREVER

"The power under the constitution will always be in the people. It is intrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period, to representatives of their own choosing; and, whenever it is executed contrary to their interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their servants can and undoubtedly will be recalled." - Letter to Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1787."  -George Washington.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controuls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to controul the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to controul itself. A dependence on the people is no doubt the primary controul on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Federalist Paper No. 51 6 February 1788 James Madison with Alexander Hamilton. 

"I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance [as the framing of the Constitution] ...should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that beneficent Ruler in whom all inferior spirits live and move and have their being". NOTE: Although unable to find exact source of this quote, here is a complete list of The Papers of Benjamin Franklin.

"Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes;"  Thomas Jefferson: Bill 79, "A Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge."  circa 1778 

Our History In the Beginning According to Barlett's Familiar Quotations, Sir Edmond Burke said "People will not look forward to prosperity who never look backward to their ancestors" From Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790. 

 

BECAUSE NORTON V SHELBY COUNTY CLARIFIES THE PRINCIPLES OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC LIKE NO OTHER CASE THAT WE HAVE SEEN TO DATE – THAT’S WHY!

Throughout the years of 1792 through to 1867, it was agreed that The Justices of the Peace were constitutionally delegated as the administrative government in local matters in each County in Tennessee.

This is vitally important because it clarified that only these Justices of the Peace were authorized to issue Bonds and to levy taxes on the people for the payment of these Bonds. 

Along came the temporarily-seated Tennessee State Legislature of 1867 who decided (for some unknown reason) that they had the delegated authority to establish a Board of County Commissioners by virtue of a piece of legislation that was passed on February 25th of that same year. In that piece of legislation (called the Act of March 9, 1867) a special tax was assessed to pay debt taken from the State that was then given to the railroad company.

Why did the Tennessee State Legislature feel compelled to transfer the Constitutionally-delegated authority to a Board that they created out of thin air?

Was it because somebody was getting a quid pro quo? Was it because the Tennessee public functionaries were "usurpers" who wanted to flex the outside reaches of their properly limited delegated authority?

We might never know the truth but thankfully the Tennessee State Supreme Court of 1870 and the U.S. Supreme Court of 1886 both seemed to understand that it was within their proper scope of authority to identify and to put a stop to this type of Legislative "usurpation".

In a case called Pope vs Phifer decided in 1870 (50 Tenn. 682), the State Supreme Court of Tennessee adjudged that the existence and authority of the County Commissioners was unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional because the Legislature had no authority to establish the County Commission and to transfer the powers of administration from the Justices of the Peace to the County Commissioners.

Although the Tennessee State Supreme Court did correctly adjudicate the Principles of the American Republic in Pope vs Phifer, they didn’t define the terms of the republican form of government guaranteed to each State by virtue of Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.

The case (Pope vs Phifer) was brought to the Tennessee State Supreme Court because the constitutionally-seated Justices of the Peace understood that these County Commissioners had “usurped” authority and that they had no right to bind Shelby County (and it’s tax payers) with a subscription to the railroad company so they wanted the Act of March 9, 1867, declared void and the bond issuance declared illegal.

They first took their case before a Chancellor’s Court for review. The Chancellor’s Court dismissed their case (again for some unknown reason), but then the Justices of the Peace took their case to the Tennessee State Supreme Court on appeal.

While the appeal was pending, payment was made to the railroad company and the bonds were issued by the Commissioners anyway.

Meanwhile (disregarding this State Supreme Court decision), a couple of other Tennessee counties tried the same trick – appointing Commissioners to “usurp” the authority of the Justices of the Peace.

The Governor of Tennessee also seemed to like this Act of "usurpation" so he appointed the same type of Boards of Commissioners in some of the other Tennessee counties. 

In February of 1871, the Tennessee State Supreme Court decided that Governors could not appoint Commissioners to “usurp” authority of constitutionally granted powers given to the Justices of the Peace either.

Even so, these temporarily-seated public functionaries in Tennessee continued to illegally seat Boards of Commissioners to "usurp" the authority of the Justices of the Peace, so, in June of 1871, another similar case, Butterworth v Shelby County, was decided.

In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court reiterated that the Act of March 9, 1867, creating the Board of Commissioners was unconstitutional, so those Boards were also declared illegal and the Warrants that they had issued were shown to be invalid. 

Once again it was determined that the Tennessee State Legislature had exceeded its constitutional duties in assuming to abolish the County Court (Justices of the Peace) and substitute in its place Boards of County Commissioners.

The Act of March 9, 1867, that originally gave the Board of County Commissioners the belief that they could issue bonds was declared a nullity.

The Board and its President had no more powers under the Act than if no law had been passed.

It was also declared that the County Court of Tennessee could not decide contrary to the State Supreme Court or counter to the Federal Constitution.

Apparently the "usurpers" continued to give illegal authority to these Boards of Commissioners that they had formed contrary to the State and Federal Constitutions (sound familiar?). 

So, it was in 1886, when the lynch pin case (Norton v Shelby County) was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it was correctly declared that the Federal Court held the State Courts as authoritative (so, in other words, once the Tennessee State Supreme Court had ruled that the existence of the Board of Commissioners was unconstitutional, the Federal Court could not adjudicate differently). That’s called States Rights.

The Supreme Court Justices recognized that conflicts between State and Federal Courts must be avoided, so the U.S. Supreme Court (in a 9-0 unanimous decision) held that there was no lawful authority in the Board to make subscription to the railroad company.

The plaintiffs (in support of the "usurpers") argued in this case (Norton v Shelby County) that even though “the Act” creating the Board of Commissioners was void, the Commissioners who had been appointed were still Officers “de facto” (which means that they could exist because they were there even though they had no official or legal status).

They wanted the Supreme Court Justices to decide that even though the Commissioners were not officers “de jure” (which means that they were seated in accordance with the Constitution or the Laws made pursuant to the Constitution), they should be allowed to have issued the bonds.

The plaintiffs (in support of the “usurpers") further claimed that the Legislative Act, although declared unconstitutional, might still create “an Office” and they argued that nothing further than its “apparent existence” is needed to give validity to the Actions of the Commissioners taken while seated in these decidedly unconstitutional Boards.

The Court stated that there can be no Officers, “de jure” or “de facto” if no Office exists to be filled.

The Court continued by stating that the law never recognized the pretension of persons believing they held Offices that didn’t exist by law. The Commissioners were held to be “usurpers.”

The US Supreme Court stated in Norton vs Shelby County the following:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed (this applies also to the actions of “usurpers” who might choose to exercise “undelegated” authority).

The Court brought forth the supposition that IF the government were to be entirely “revolutionized” only then can all its departments be “usurped” by force or by the “democratic” voice of the majority, BUT as long as the Constitution or “republican” form of government remains unaltered or Supreme, there can be no “de facto” department or office.

Acts that are not in agreement with the Constitution can only be regarded as valid when or if the government is overturned (which the US Supreme Court of 1886 did not want to see happen; they were simply stating that our government would have to be entirely overturned to cause our Republic to be transformed into a “democracy” and THAT transformation we still do not want to happen – contrary to what our present-day "usurpers" try to force down our throats on a daily basis)!

Generally speaking, Boards, Commissions, Special Counsels and Alphabet Agencies are nothing more than “Usurpers” if the Offices in which they wield their extraordinary power over the people are not established according to the Constitution.

When an Office does exist in accordance with the Constitution(s), all Officers (whether elected or appointed “de facto” or “de jure”) MUST STILL act pursuant to the Constitution(s).

So, again, why is this case so important TODAY?

Because all three departments of our governments, at all levels of governance ARE NOT ACTING IN ACCORDANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION(S).

They are NOT ABIDING BY THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THOSE CONSTITUTION(S).

And, these “Stare Decisis” cases give The People the Authority to REMOVE THESE USURPERS FROM THEIR ELECTED OR APPOINTED POSITIONS WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT.

We the People NEVER authorized these departments to grow like “branches” of a tree.

We the People NEVER authorized these department officers to contort our laws into a ball of yarn that is almost impossible to untangle.

We the People NEVER authorized the building of this awful “Hamster Wheel of Injustice” that our temporarily-seated public functionaries have built, contrary to the duties that we granted to them.

We granted our public functionaries limited delegated authority and we must start demanding that they constrain themselves within that limited delegated authority.

We have the Law on our side.

An action taken outside of the limited delegated authority that We the People granted to our temporarily-seated elected or appointed government workers is a "usurpation" of that authority, and their neglect of their properly delegated limited authority is a violation of their Oaths of Office.

The time has come to Reclaim Our American Republic. The Law is on our side; we simply need to learn it and use it.

Congratulations for finding your way to the Magnificent Republic movement. Now that you are here you can help us give to our children the Republic that was given to us.

Norton vs Shelby County, TN 118 US 425 (1886)