The Constitution for the united States of America1 has explicit aspects to it and implicit aspects. The explicit aspects are the enumerated powers accorded to the (then new) federal government - its limited and delegated powers, under the federal form of government being created thereby; “few and defined,” in the rather authoritative words of Founding Father James Madison.2 The implicit aspects are those that can be read into the words of the contract. (Also having come to be known as 'strict construction' vs. 'broad construction'.) By either well-meaning people. Or charlatans.3 Both of which categories of men (and some women) have been represented in this Story of a Nation that has been the fate of said U.S. of A. all the way down through its history - and from its very beginning.
That’s another story from the specific one which I wish to address in this essay. Which is the one about some aspects of the Constitution having both explicit and implicit aspects to them, both together. One of which is the eligibility requirement for the office of the presidency for said occupant needing to be a “natural born citizen”.
What does that term mean?
This is not rocket science, or the need for a person to be a trained lawyer to ‘decipher’ it. It means what it meant to the constitutional Framers. And there is considerable historical evidence to denote what that meaning was (too detailed to go into here). It meant - explicitly - what the definitive tome of the day on such nation-building matters said it meant: a person, quote, “born in the country, of parents who are citizens” thereof.4 And thus, born with NO DUAL OR OTHERWISE CONFLICTING LOYALTIES OR ALLEGIANCES OR INFLUENCES. Who had SOLE ALLEGIANCE to the United States. And thus the implicit aspects of the term as well.
A citizen by virtue of jus soli - law of the land - and jus sanguinis - law of the blood.
As particularly befitting a person who would then as well become the Commander in Chief of the nation’s military forces. Which was the specific concern of the constitutional Framers, in putting that eligibility requirement in their contract for that particular federal office, and that particular federal office only.5
And that eligibility requirement for that particular office STILL STANDS, absent a constitutional amendment to the contrary.6
Why am I making such an issue about this travesty that has been visited on this country for the past 8 years??
For two reasons. One is that it has led to the turning of the Constitution fully into the just “damn piece of paper” that President George W. Bush characterized the Constitution as being. At least during his tenure, there was still some hope for the rule of law still to be operative in the country, with some of his administration’s highhanded attempts at overthrow having to go through a decent judicial process. But under the Usurper, the very office itself was compromised, beyond all hope of redress. As proven by the fact that both major political parties of our day signed off on the Usurper’s hijacking of the office; the Republican Party, the official opposition party, obviously hoping to drive their own ineligible candidate(s) through the same hole in the USS Constitutional vessel.7
And the other reason?
Because The Play is over. And there can be no untruth or dishonesty in the higher realms.
That is to say, beyond the lower grades of the school that we have been in.
Life being a school.
And the purpose being to graduate.
Which we are on the verge of.
As we speak.
That is to say: For many - most?? - of us.
The rest?
Ah, well.
That’s another story.
For them to have to go through. All over again.
Wringing all semblance of corruption out of what constitutes them. Then. In their new state of being.
To have another crack. At
Ascension.
Out of the lower grades.
And into the beautiful, pristine,
New
New World.
—
footnotes:
1 Not ‘the Constitution of the United States of America’. A part of the matter to be addressed herein. And by the citizens of this country.
But to continue.
2 To recap, briefly: Up ’til then the new nation, of the (loosely-bonded) American states, had been operating as a Confederation, under a set of rules called the Articles of Confederation; which did not give the central government much power, and which thereby resulted in acrimony between the States, over import taxes and the like, which unhappy (to many of the leading statesmen of the day) state of affairs occasioned the meeting, in the summer of 1787 (after the end of the War of Independence by Treaty in 1783), of what became known as the Constitutional Convention. It was convened under the color of coming up with amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but by then, many of the leading statesmen of the day, and particularly James Madison of Virginia (who subsequently became known to history, and for good reason, as ‘the Father of the Constitution,’ being a leading theoretician on such matters, and who kept detailed notes of the Convention’s proceedings), had seen the need for a more far-reaching change in the form of government, post-war its Independence from the Mother Country of Great Britain.
It was not all ’smooth sailing’ into The New, with a considerable number of other ‘leading statesmen of the day’ opposed to what they saw as the danger of, and dangers in, a strong central government. And thereby hangs the intriguing, and high informative, tale of this nation - informative, especially in the sense of how we all hold ‘pieces of the picture’ of our human experience.
But to continue.
3. Example. The Constitution gives the federal government power regarding what has come to be known as ’navigable waterways;’ the context being their influence with respect to interstate commerce. But under the Usurper’s administration, the EPA started claiming jurisdiction, under its ‘regulatory’ powers, over every pond and puddle on every farmer’s private property in the land. Under the pretext that the collecting of rainwater has an ‘effect’ on the ’navigable waterways’ of the nation, and therefore, well of course, the federal government should have control over it…
…and all other questions regarding turning more and more control of the land over to the federal government, and away from private property. Because of the likes of those poor desert tortoises, being crushed under the hoofs of privately-ranged cattle, and all, you see…
Yes, we see. And just so does Power wield its magic wand, mesmerizing Mankind. Turning a puddle on your private property - poof! - into a ‘matter’ of affecting “navigable waterways,” and thereby falling under the jurisdiction and control of the central government. ("The Congress shall have Power: …To regulate Commerce…among the several States…”) Sweet.
And pernicious.
But to continue.
4 Emer de Vattel’s ‘The Law of Nations’: Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. (You can look it up on the Internet. No Law School Library access, or schooling, needed. Just the ability to read English.)
This tome is even mentioned in the Constitution itself, as the basis for what is called ‘the law of nations’. Which ‘law’ was a bone of contention over the years, particularly in the beginning of this nation’s sailing on those seas; to the point of even being behind a subsequent war with Great Britain, during Madison’s time as president of the relatively new nation.
But to continue; not to get bogged down into too much detail in this particular essay. Just enough to set the scene sufficiently, and properly.
5 See, e.g., the letter from John Jay - a leading statesman of the day; and who, not so incidentally, became the first Chief Justice of the new U.S. Supreme Court - to G. Washington, in his role as Chair of the constitutional Convention proceedings, to this effect. (Letter dated July 25, 1787.)
6 Ted Cruz and his backers have tried to argue that the Naturalization Act of 1790 changed the definition of the term. But a) that Act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795 on ths very issue - the confusion it brought in regarding the definition of that term (with both Madison, then as a Congressman, and G. Washington, then as President, signing off on the repeal); and b) no Act or Proclamation or other action of Congress can trump the Constitution. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change the eligibility requirement itself.
Other apologists for a watering-down of this requirement have attempted to say that the constitutional Framers were going by English Common Law. But that speaks of natural born SUBJECTS. Which those men certainly were not any longer, and with the scars of a long and bloody War of Independence to show for it. They were sovereigns, in their own right, not subjects any longer to the Crown. No; they were clearly going by American Common Law, aka Natural Law.
And which we are about to get back to. After the country having been hijacked along the way of its history. Which is another aspect of the chicanery involved in this whole matter.
7 Both political parties tried a total of 8 times between them, between 2003 and ’08 alone, to get a constitutional amendment going through Congress on this issue - all of the proposals having this specific issue as their common denominator (and they failed each time even to get their proposals out of committee, such was the sensitivity around this issue, of attempting to let other than natural born citizens run for and occupy the presidential office). So: THEY KNEW. Have known, what they have been up to.
It has been a con job. Plain and simple.
And they both need to go down for it. Both of their authorities, tried - in a legitimate court of law; no more Admiralty law in this country, now (another story) - under RICO statutes, and, having been found guilty, fined, their authorities imprisoned, and the parties dissolved. For the criminal enterprises that they will have been found to be.
At last.
And before they can do any further damage to this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment