Home >> Politics >> PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, AS HELD, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS, AS HELD, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

 

I am now 66 years old, born on January 7, 1950. Every presidential election held in my lifetime has violated Veterans Day Parade 2013the Constitution. Now, before some of you get your panties in a wad let me quote directly from our founding document. This is copied exactly as it is written in the document, including capital letters and punctuations where I found them.

Article II Section 1 Paragraph 3 states: “…And they shall make a List of all of the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the Greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such a Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like manner Constitutionchuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Vote shall be taken by States, The Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President.”… It goes on to say that a tie will be resolved by the Senate in the same manner as the President is chosen. (I guess the founders didn’t know there were only 2 choices, a democrat and a republican)

The political parties, once established, didn’t like this so they modified it a bit with Amendment XII but didn’t change that much. I don’t see where the party-line ticket use was called for anywhere nor that only party candidates are allowed on ballots. They do this to shut We the People out of the process except for having their hand-picked party lemming as a choice, which isn’t a real choice in most cases. I believe this is why Trump folded and agreed to support the GOP nominee; he knew they would keep him off the ballot in enough states to make an independent run unfeasible.

Paragraph 5 states that only a natural born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to be President, rendering Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio ineligible. A Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875, defined a natural born citizen as one born of parents who are both citizens at the time of birth of the candidate. Rubio and Cruz aren’t eligible because their parents weren’t citizens when they were born. Cruz’s mother was but his father was a citizen of Cuba. I like Ted Cruz because I believe him to be an honorable man who would govern rather than rule but he isn’t eligible and therefore won’t get my support nor my vote. Are we to toss the Constitution out because liberals do?

READ:  The Election Of Nancy Pelosi Only Extends The Misery For The Democrat Party

In my lifetime every presidential election has been held with a Pres/Vice-Pres ticket, a take it or leave it option that does not comply with the Constitution. This is how we got fuhrer obama, along with the GOP Il Duce Obamarunning to lose. Dole, McCain, and Romney were all candidates the GOP knew were hopelessly inept and unacceptable to patriots and that is why the establishment pickedMITT-ROMNEY them then ran campaigns designed to elect socialist demokrats. The GOP is part of the NEW WORLD ORDER pushing the one world government from the United Nations. I believe we will see the same tactics in November, if obama actually allows an election but I don’t expect that to happen.. I expect to see martial law long before November and obama declaring himself “ruler for life”. We the People have been betrayed by those who promise to protect us then violate their promises and their oath of office immediately because they know they can get away with it. We need a mass hanging in Washington D. C. (De Cesspool) if we are to regain control of the federal dictatorship and return it to what our founders left us. Some people are championing a COS but I believe that is a pipe dream as I wrote previously.  Many people jumped on me without taking time to either read the entire article or were not capable of comprehending my concerns despite the fact that I laid out my reasoning very clearly. One even called me a low information liberal, which is beyond absurd.

As long as the NEW WORLD ORDER SOCIALIST PARTY controls America  through their donkey and elephant wings we will never again see liberty. The founders opposed political parties because they foresaw today happening, the country controlled by a limited group of self-serving despots and shutting citizens out of having any meaningful voice in government. Those who insist we vote for republicans to keep democrats out haven’t been paying attention to the gop treachery, or are too stupid to see how the gop is enslaving them by giving the socialist demokrats everything they want. Just a few days ago hillary clinton praised Democrat LogoPaul Ryan and Mitch McConnell for surrendering to barak obama with the “omnibus bill” that finances every despotic act obama has written edicts for. Of course, she didn’t use those exact words but she is obviously elated that the GOP is helping them destroy the nation. One very good suggestion made in response to my article about the Articlerepublican logo V convention of states is to reinstitute Citizen Grand Juries in every county in the nation. These panels are independent of judicial interference and are truly the will of the people. That was the best suggestion I saw. This nation needs desperately to do two things: 1) Get back to honoring God in all aspects of both private and public life, and 2) Get back to following the Constitution, the road map to greatness given to us by God and our Founding Fathers.

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

January 25, 2016

 

 

  I am now 66 years old, born on January 7, 1950. Every presidential election held in my lifetime has violated the Constitution. Now, before some of you get your panties in a wad let me quote directly from our founding document. This is copied exactly as it is written in the document, including capital letters and punctuations where I found them. Article II Section 1 Paragraph 3 states: "...And they shall make a List of all of the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed…

Review Overview

User Rating: 4.4 ( 1 votes)
0

Looking for more great news and commentary from a conservative perpective? Visit our homepage!

About Bob Russell

Graduated from Classen High School in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma in May, 1968. Enlisted in the U S Army on December 11, 1968, serving 3 years in the 7th Special Forces Group as a Heavy Weapons Expert, attaining the rank of Sgt. E 5. upon separation went to work at Southwestern Bell Telephone on January 17, 1972 and retired on August 31, 2003. Also spent 1 year on active reserve as a member of the 14th Special Forces Group. attaining the rank of Staff Sgt. E6. started and operated a business installing wiring for telephone, data, and video surveillance systems from October 2003 until December 2011. Suffered a debilitating stroke on August 19, 2014. Now recovering and doing volunteer work at the Claremore, Oklahoma Veterans Center. Attends church in Claremore at CedarPoint and LifeChanger churches. Married to wife Marsha since August 2, 1989 with 4 daughters and a deceased son, 12 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren.

6 comments

  1. Bob, I am a liberal on paper. I must say, your article and argument regarding the constitution is sound based on what I have read. I was not aware that both parents must be citizens. If true, this is unfortunate for Cruz but he should known this was coming. I voted for President Obama and often hear conservatives refer to him a dictator, ok, I get it. I do not see the President stopping or preventing an election, I believe your in feelings on that position. However, your suggestion about the gop being part of the New World Order is intriguing. But I have also heard that Trump is really a liberal who purposely deceiving conservatives only to hand the election over to the democrats. Regardless, this is a very eye opening article which invites me to objectively do my homework. I do believe Donald Trump will alter the Republican Party after this election. He will change political elections as well, in my view.

  2. Andrew W. Pearson

    Bob Russell……As President Reagan used to remind us about Liberals, “they know so much that ain’t so,” you seem to be so afflicted, based on this article. That is especially true with respect to your statement that ” A Supreme Court decision, Minor vs. Happersett in 1875, defined a natural born citizen as one born of parents who are both citizens at the time of birth of the candidate.” The ourt did no such thing. This lie is most commonly promulgated by Birther attorney, Mario Apuzzo, so I suspect that you’ve read some of his propaganda, or you’ve heard it from someone else.

    When the Supreme Court sets a precedent, it does not say something like, “we will use this definition for the purposes of this case, but there are other definitions also.” Instead, the Court simply adopts the definition it likes, and either doesn’t mention other possibilities, or it explains why the other possibilities are not acceptable.

    In Minor vs. Happersett, the relevant language of the Court is:

    “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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

    Using that definition in the instant case, because “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts,” does not set precedent as to the definition of natural born citizen. Any good third-year law student would know this, and I suspect that Apuzzo knows it also, but it’s important to his Birtherism.

    According to the US Supreme Court, in US vs. Wong Kim Ark, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal are all natural born citizens:

    The United States of America recognizes two types of citizen, and two only, Citizen by Birth, and Naturalized Citizen. We do not have a third class, called “Natural Born Citizen.” A Citizen at Birth is a Natural Born Citizen.

    I should point out that the Birthers also claim that both Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are ineligible to the Presidency, but that assertion is totally false, as the case of US vs. Wong Kim Ark makes clear. Ironically, the Birthers claim to set great stock in the case of Wong Kim Ark, despite the fact that it destroys their arguments as to Jindal and Rubio.

    Our Founders were concerned that some foreigner, particularly some member of the European Aristocracy might immigrate to our new nation, become a citizen, then become President, resulting in a Commander-in-Chief of our military having foreign loyalties. Accordingly, they accepted John Jay’s suggestion, and limited Presidential eligibility to natural born citizens.

    But, the Founders did not define natural born citizen in the Constitution, nor anywhere else in our founding documents, nor in our law. Why would they not do so? Most likely, because they thought everyone else would have the same understanding of that term that they did. At the time our Constitution was written, anyone born to British parents in the colonies, was a natural born British subject. That’s because the English Law provided that the children of British subjects, born abroad, are natural born subjects. The case of Wong Kim Ark, which the Birthers put such stock in, explains this quite well, and the Court stated that:

    “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words (natural born citizen), either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”

    And, under the British Common Law, as I’ve previously stated, a child of British subjects, born abroad (outside of England) was a natural born British subject. And, the Supreme Court goes on to say, again in Wong Kim Ark:

    “There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES IS NECESSARILY INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT ITS PROVISIONS ARE FRAMED IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW, AND ARE TO BE READ IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY.”

    AND 

    “Natural-born British subject” means a British SUBJECT WHO HAS BECOME A BRITISH SUBJECT AT THE MOMENT OF HIS BIRTH.” Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.”

    AND 

    “Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth.”

    AND 

    “Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . THE TERM ‘CITIZEN’ AS UNDERSTOOD IN OUR LAW, IS PRECISELY ANALAGOUS TO THE TERM ‘SUBJECT’ IN THE COMMON LAW, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”

    The Birthers will scream and shout that citizen and subject are two entirely different things, but as you can see from reading the Wong Kim Ark case, that’s a lie. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that the terms, “citizen” and “subject” are analogous.

    According to the Supreme Court, a natural born citizen is determined in the same way as a natural born British subject was determined. Just as a natural born British subject was someone who “HAS BECOME A BRITISH SUBJECT AT THE MOMENT OF HIS BIRTH,” a natural born citizen is someone who becomes a citizen “at the moment of his birth.” Ted Cruz, by virtue of his mother’s American citizenship, became a citizen at the moment of his birth, and both Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal, because they were born in the United States, became citizens “at the moments of their births.”

    Importantly, Vattel’s definition, that natural born citizens must be born in country to two citizen parents, is not now, and never has been, US Law..

    By virtue of his mother’s American citizenship, Ted Cruz became an American citizen at the moment of his birth. He has never needed to be naturalized, for that reason. Cruz was issued his US Passport, when he was in high school. Ted Cruz is a citizen by birth, by virtue of being born, or a natural born citizen. And, he is certainly eligible to serve as President of the United States.

    The vast majority of constitutional experts agree with me:

    http://legalinsurrection.com/…/natural-born-citizens…/

    http://harvardlawreview.org/…/on-the-meaning-of…/

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf

    • Andrew, you are so full of your “genius”, what do you think about Dr. Edwin Vieirara” opinion, or is he an uninformed moron like you seem to think I am just because you disagree?

      • Andrew W. Pearson

        Bob Russell……..I made no claim to genius, nor did I accuse anyone of being a moron, so let’s just drop the incivilities now. And, since you did not respond to any of my points, and Supreme Court quotations, regarding the presidential eligibility of Sen. Ted Cruz, I can only conclude that you are incapable of doing so. Apparently, you cannot defend your own argument.

        Instead of addressing the argument I presented, you are throwing up a question about someone named Dr. Edwin Vierara, whom I’ve never heard of. A Google search of that name did not result in any appropriate references.

        My guess is, however, that you were attempting to refer to Dr. Edwin Vieira, who has expressed his opinion on a number of Constitutional issues. If you would be so good as to cite the statements of Dr. Vieira to which you specifically refer, I’ll be happy to respond to them. Otherwise, I would just be guessing at your meaning, and it’s not a good idea for either of us to “guess” at the other’s meaning.

        • Andrew, your only “points” are sticking out of the top of your head. your bullshiite isn’t worth responding to and you can think whatever your demented mind allows you to “think”. go play your games elsewhere.

          • Andrew W. Pearson

            Bob Russell……It’s unfortunate that you apparently believe that snarky comments and insults comprise an argument. I can guarantee you that most who read these discussions are much more interested in factual arguments than in the number of insults you can post.

            After all, Socrates did say: “When the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

            Actually, since these posts are moderated, I’m more than a little surprised that Conservative Daily News approves your posts which contain nothing but insults. If that’s their policy, perhaps I should just unsubscribe, and abandon these discussions where ignorance and insults are allowed to substitute for rational arguments.

            What say you, Conservative Daily News?