What are the Qualification's to be President of the United State of America?
Article 2 section II clause 5 of the Constitution states:
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;
The Naturalization Act of 1795
An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.
SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
It must be clearly understood by you and all the candidates, including Senator John McCain that:
Only someone physically born within one of the States is lawfully qualified to be elected president, and that … In order for naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger and John McCain to be qualified an Amendment to the Constitution under Article V would have to be passed before a naturalized citizen could legally be elected President. It has been assumed incorrectly that children born overseas to US citizens are considered to be "natural born". They are automatically "naturalized citizens" as a result of their parents but they are not "natural born citizens". That misunderstanding is likely rooted in the Naturalization Act of 1790. First Congress, Session II, Chapter 4, pages 103-104, wherein the relevant part states:
"... And 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 use of the phrase "natural born" in the Act of 1790 raises the issue of it having been unconstitutional, since it was in conflict with the language of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 cited above. The Act of 1790 was not an Article V modification and could not lawfully change the Constitution. This act was repealed by The Naturalization Act of 1795.
John McCain was born on August 29, 1937 at the Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama Canal Zone was not a territory of the United States but was leased property subject to Panamanian law making John McCain a Naturalize citizen not a Natural Born Citizen. Thus John McCain does not meet the requirement's set forth under the Constitution of the United States to be a candidate for President! He is not eligible for the office!
The root of the natural birth requirement was that the States formed the federal government and they required that a person must be physically born in one of the states. Simply being born on US territory or commonwealth property overseas does not qualify you as being natural born. This is also a related source/reason for the Electoral College. The States elect the executive and not the people because we do not have a democracy but a republic. The two are not the same but are *antithetical*.
A good friend of mine, who's wife was born overseas to an Air force officer and his wife, both citizens. She was taught as was everyone else and they knew/know that if you are born overseas and not physically within a state, then the only limitation to your citizenship (it is automatically naturalized) is that you cannot be president. You can run for Senate or the House or be a judge but not President.
Unless and until the Constitution is changed with an Article V process that is still the law.
One cannot unknow what they know. Facts and actions have consequences.
So I say “no” John McCain is not qualified, because I'm a strong supporter of the original intent of the Constitution.
*Antithetical: of, relating to, or marked by antithesis. Being in diametrical opposition. (Antithesis: direct contrast; opposition: "hope is the antithesis of despair.")
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Democracy or Republic?
I am a Conservative and a Constitutionalist when it comes to preserving all that is good in our constitution and a Radical at removing all laws that undermine the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally denounce both the passions of the many and the prejudices of the few. I also refute any law, order, or resolution based on passion (Fear) or prejudice.
Any rule that takes away from one, in order to reward another, I repudiate and it is every citizens duty to remove from position of power any official who proposes, endorses or has a hand in passing any regulation, code, ordinance, statue or legislation that is based on emotion, if their actions do not meet the standards set forth under the Constitution.
On a daily bases we're constantly bombarded from all sides by propaganda. It seems every Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, and even the person on the street, tells us this country is a Democracy! Well, in my opinion, that is just not true.
Now that I've got your attention, and the smokes rolling out of your ears and your blood pressure is on the rise, let me explain.
Why is the word "Democracy" always used when someone or some group promotes a certain agenda? I've been asking myself that question for years. I've come to the conclusion that this is an effective marketing strategy developed during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The strategy is, use words that invoke an emotional response in people and if a word or phrase is used enough people will begin to believe it, even if it’s a lie. The Socialist Democratic Party (The Nazi's) in Germany of the 1930's perfected this strategy called Propaganda. Today, both Liberals and Conservatives use this same method to promote their agenda's, evoke an emotional response and repeat it over and over enough times and no one will question your motives...
What is the definition of a Democracy? There are as many definition of that word as there are ants on an anthill. I've boiled it down to just one.
Democracy: Majority rule. (Literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") Democracy is a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy, but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.
Now where does it state we live in a Democracy? Not in the Declaration of Independents, that’s for sure! Does the Constitution of the United States, or the Articles of Confederation tell us that? No, not in these two documents, either! If our form of government is not democratic, then what is it?
A country with a true democratic form of government can be compared to a ship without a compass and a rudder. Having no control over its course, with no means to determine which direction to take. The ship’s course is completely at the mercer and control of the wind.
The ship is the government, a compass is a set of core principles, the rudder is the rule of Law, and the wind is the people of that country.” True or simple democracy lacks a compass and a rudder and can only move in the direction and at a speed the wind dictates.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people, which results in mobocracy¹. And has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship." Sound familiar
To quote Thomas Paine, who wrote The Rights of Man. "Simple democracy is society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By engrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature."
So what system or form of government do we have? I was taught in school back umpteen years ago that our form of government is a Representative Republic.
The definition of a Republic is:
A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution, which provides for the election of:
1) An executive and
2) A legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3) A judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4) Certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy². Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to minorities and individuals.
Federalist No. 48 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-eighth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on February 1, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. This paper builds on Federalist No. 47. In that essay Madison argued for separation of powers; in this one he argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government must not be totally divided. It is titled, "These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other."
Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948) said, “One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.” This statement is truer today then when it was originally spoken.
There are many Individuals and Groups who daily erode the constitution. This erosion is being accomplished by the strategy I spoke earlier about. One example is the propaganda put out that the first amendment of the constitution says there is a separation of church and state. These five words do not appear anywhere in the first amendment. They are taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church in New England in the early 1800’s. You need to understand that groups and individual will take a few words from a sentence that they use to further their agenda and throw the rest of the sentence away.
Little by little our freedoms are being eroded away. It seems most people want to have someone else tell them what and whatnot to do and make decision for everyone, from safety to privacy in our homes. I don’t need you to protect me from myself! I don’t need someone to tell me that putting my head in a microwave and turning it on can kill me, if I don’t know the dangers of this action then my death will mean one less idiot you’ll have to worry about or put up with.
¹ The mass of common people as the source of political control or political control by a mob.
² Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Any rule that takes away from one, in order to reward another, I repudiate and it is every citizens duty to remove from position of power any official who proposes, endorses or has a hand in passing any regulation, code, ordinance, statue or legislation that is based on emotion, if their actions do not meet the standards set forth under the Constitution.
On a daily bases we're constantly bombarded from all sides by propaganda. It seems every Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, and even the person on the street, tells us this country is a Democracy! Well, in my opinion, that is just not true.
Now that I've got your attention, and the smokes rolling out of your ears and your blood pressure is on the rise, let me explain.
Why is the word "Democracy" always used when someone or some group promotes a certain agenda? I've been asking myself that question for years. I've come to the conclusion that this is an effective marketing strategy developed during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The strategy is, use words that invoke an emotional response in people and if a word or phrase is used enough people will begin to believe it, even if it’s a lie. The Socialist Democratic Party (The Nazi's) in Germany of the 1930's perfected this strategy called Propaganda. Today, both Liberals and Conservatives use this same method to promote their agenda's, evoke an emotional response and repeat it over and over enough times and no one will question your motives...
What is the definition of a Democracy? There are as many definition of that word as there are ants on an anthill. I've boiled it down to just one.
Democracy: Majority rule. (Literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") Democracy is a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy, but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.
Now where does it state we live in a Democracy? Not in the Declaration of Independents, that’s for sure! Does the Constitution of the United States, or the Articles of Confederation tell us that? No, not in these two documents, either! If our form of government is not democratic, then what is it?
A country with a true democratic form of government can be compared to a ship without a compass and a rudder. Having no control over its course, with no means to determine which direction to take. The ship’s course is completely at the mercer and control of the wind.
The ship is the government, a compass is a set of core principles, the rudder is the rule of Law, and the wind is the people of that country.” True or simple democracy lacks a compass and a rudder and can only move in the direction and at a speed the wind dictates.
Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people, which results in mobocracy¹. And has been repeatedly tried without success.
A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship." Sound familiar
To quote Thomas Paine, who wrote The Rights of Man. "Simple democracy is society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By engrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature."
So what system or form of government do we have? I was taught in school back umpteen years ago that our form of government is a Representative Republic.
The definition of a Republic is:
A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.
Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
A republic is a form of government under a constitution, which provides for the election of:
1) An executive and
2) A legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3) A judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4) Certain inherent individual rights.
Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy². Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.
A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to minorities and individuals.
Federalist No. 48 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-eighth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on February 1, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. This paper builds on Federalist No. 47. In that essay Madison argued for separation of powers; in this one he argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government must not be totally divided. It is titled, "These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other."
Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948) said, “One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.” This statement is truer today then when it was originally spoken.
There are many Individuals and Groups who daily erode the constitution. This erosion is being accomplished by the strategy I spoke earlier about. One example is the propaganda put out that the first amendment of the constitution says there is a separation of church and state. These five words do not appear anywhere in the first amendment. They are taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church in New England in the early 1800’s. You need to understand that groups and individual will take a few words from a sentence that they use to further their agenda and throw the rest of the sentence away.
Little by little our freedoms are being eroded away. It seems most people want to have someone else tell them what and whatnot to do and make decision for everyone, from safety to privacy in our homes. I don’t need you to protect me from myself! I don’t need someone to tell me that putting my head in a microwave and turning it on can kill me, if I don’t know the dangers of this action then my death will mean one less idiot you’ll have to worry about or put up with.
¹ The mass of common people as the source of political control or political control by a mob.
² Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)