Written Record For The Purpose

Dr. V

.

Who is Dr. Vazsonyi?  He was a Hungarian immigrant, a pianist and a political journalist. He was a Prof. of Music at Indiana University.  OK, so that is all terribly understated, he was much, much more.  For purposes of this post we will focus on his work that is relevant to the fight to define Article ll, section 1, clause 5.

During the last six years of his life Dr. Vazsonyi became a commentator in Washington D.C. on the state of American politics.  HE was the type of American Patriot that one would have liked to see much more prominent in our politics.

He passed away in 2003.

Was this incredible man the one “Gunning for the Constitution” in the title above?  No, in fact far from that he was a fierce defender of the U.S. Constitution as written.  He was wonderfully articulate and passionate, inspired and determined.

I’ll post a snip of the article that belongs with the above image, along with the link, at the bottom this post.  It’s a brief read, but powerful  – I hope you’ll take a few moments to enjoy it.

I will also post (below) the link to the statement Dr. Vazsonyi gave at a hearing before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 2000 – on a proposed Constitutional amendment To Allow Foreign-born Citizens To Be President.

screenshot

Title page JR 2000

Pink link to Joint Resolution FULL account- this will open your eyes!  And proves that our politicians are aware that birth in this country is a Constitutional requirement for the office of President

So, while our Founders “left little record for the purpose” of the “natural-born Citizen” Presidential requirement, those filing the Joint Resolutions (15 JRs at last count since 1974) leave no doubt of the purpose that drives them in their attempts to amend Art. ll, section 1 clause 5. 

To remove completely the restrictive term “natural born Citizen” from our Constitution, with the aim of ushering a naturalized citizen, specifically referred to as one born in a foreign country, to the highest office in the United States.

Here is the link to page 7 of the JR where you will find the prepared statement from Dr. V.  This man renews your hope in America in a way which no Cruz or Rubio can ever hope to achieve.

Page 7 2000 Joint Resolution: Mr. Vazsonyis’ statement (pink link)

If you scroll past that two page statement to page 22 (provided in the next pink link), you will find no less a personage than Barney Frank attempting to diminish and dismiss Mr. V’s historically supported case for rejecting the Joint Resolution.  It begins about half way down the page.

Page 22 2000 Joint Resolution: Mr. Vazsonyi and Barney Frank debate (pink link)

If you have the time, read the statement by Dr. Forrest McDonald (just below), a very respected Historian and Prof. at University of AL.  He also debates Mr. Frank (pg. 22, scroll just above the conversation between Frank and Dr. V)

Page 18 2000 Joint Resolution: Dr. Forrest McDonalds’ statement (pink link)

Below will be the short snip from the article titled, “Gunning for the Constitution” at the top of this post.    Pink link to full article, “Gunning for the Constitution”    While not related to the Presidential eligibility issue, it is nonetheless a revealing glimpse at a man who loved, and vigorously defended our U.S. Constitution.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco upheld the ban on semi-automatic weapons in California. Not surprisingly, Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote the opinion. So why even bother to comment about it?

Because every time Judge Reinhardt puts pen to paper, he aims to dismantle the very Constitution that gives him the power to put pen to paper.

In my book, “America’s Thirty Years War,” I presented a detailed analysis of Judge Reinhardt’s incompatibility with the American model. The basis for the analysis was a speech the judge had delivered before law students at George Washington University in our nation’s capital.

With disarming sincerity, he described himself as a Liberal judge. “How can you tell a judge is a Liberal?” Reinhardt asked. “It’s not that hard. Liberal judges believe in a generous or expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We believe that the meaning of the Constitution was not frozen in 1789. That, as society develops and evolves, its understanding of constitutional principles also grows. We believe that the Founding Fathers used broad general principles to describe our rights…because they were determined not to erect, enact a narrow, rigid code that would bind and limit all future generations.”

Translation: The law is what my political agenda calls for.

Fact: The Founding Fathers didn’t use broad general principles. They wrote a Constitution of laws. In the first ten Amendments, they specified rights. Judge Reinhardt’s description of rights, as reproduced in some details in said book, reveals either that he has not the slightest idea of what rights are, or that he has taken it upon himself to redefine the concept of rights as well as the U.S. Constitution.

Advertisements

~ by ladysforest on September 4, 2013.

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: