In my last blog I made reference to the Continental Army having terrible conditions during the winter break(s) in battle against the forces, both British and mercenaries, under the king of England.
I will not break faith with the soldiers of the Continental Army who fought and bled and died under George Washington in order to establish on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the principles of good government, under, not the rule of royalty or oligarchy or the rule of men - that is to say, arbitrary law; despotic law - but under the rule of law. As then became established by the Constitution of 1787, as duly ratified in 1788, officially declared the law of the land in 1789, and as ratified completely by its Bill of Rights in 1791.
At which point, the erosion began. And has been capped in our day. Not just with the candidacy and election, and even re-election!, of an ineligible person to the highest office in the land - ineligible according to the rule of law. But in checking on the constitutional eligibility requirements for the House and Senate as well, I find that almost immediately a problem arose, of the new nation living under its rule of law. The record says that one William C.C. Claiborne entered the House of Reps at age 22 in 1797. The report that I read says that "(t)he US Constitution originally required House members to be at least 21, but today that threshold is 25”, I have been unable to find any record of that change; any copy of the Constitution that I have ever seen lists the minimum age for a member of the House of Reps as 25. But that’s not the half of the problem: that reference that I came across - at dwdotcom - went on to say: “The minimum age for senators has always been 30, though this rule has not always been enforced. To this day, four Senators were sworn in at age 28 or 29, all in the early 1800s.”
Bad news. But at least I can’t criticize just our ‘modern’ politicians for letting the rule of law slide in these sorts of matters.
Like, the matter of the Usurper in Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. Though his crime - and that of both political parties of our day, who signed off on his illegal candidacy and election, and thus the hijacking of both the office and the attempted hijacking of this country thereby under his ‘tutelage’ - is of a degree far worse than just that of a year or two of age for a Senator.*
‘Age rules not always respected,’ the report is headed.
Well. They - and all other aspects of the rule of law - are to be now.
Before we put these sorts of training wheels behind. To learn to live by Law.
And enter our
New Day
under
a new Sun.
And Earth.
And dimension entire.
Those, of course,
who qualify.
By showing that they can live
by
Law.
--
* That is, not just in terms of the office per se, but in terms of one's undivided loyalty and allegiance to this country, by one being, and needing to be, a fully fledged 'natural born' citizen. Defined, at the time that it was codified in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for that particular office - and that particular federal office only; testifying to its intended special nature in the eyes of the constitutional Framers - as a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. And that definition was underscored historically by the fact that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those nation-building proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of a 'natural born' citizen.
And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary. I understand that there has been some attempt to claim that the definition was changed over the years. But that is a sophistic argument. The eligibility requirement itself still stands. And if some nuances of the Constitution can change over the years, nothing as fundamental and substantive as the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency can be changed without a duly qualified constitutional amendment.
This is not rocket science, people. This is straightforward fact. Deal with it.
--
* That is, not just in terms of the office per se, but in terms of one's undivided loyalty and allegiance to this country, by one being, and needing to be, a fully fledged 'natural born' citizen. Defined, at the time that it was codified in the Constitution as an eligibility requirement for that particular office - and that particular federal office only; testifying to its intended special nature in the eyes of the constitutional Framers - as a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. And that definition was underscored historically by the fact that Alexander Hamilton, as a delegate to those nation-building proceedings, made a proposal that the president need only be, quote, "born a Citizen" - and his proposal was SPECIFICALLY TURNED DOWN, in favor of the more stringent category of citizen, of a 'natural born' citizen.
And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary. I understand that there has been some attempt to claim that the definition was changed over the years. But that is a sophistic argument. The eligibility requirement itself still stands. And if some nuances of the Constitution can change over the years, nothing as fundamental and substantive as the eligibility requirements for the office of the presidency can be changed without a duly qualified constitutional amendment.
This is not rocket science, people. This is straightforward fact. Deal with it.
No comments:
Post a Comment