Category Archives: Constitution

Can We Overturn The 2020 Election?

As we scan all the usual places, we are hearing people that are saying that Trump will be back as the President by such and such a date. I hate to be the water on their great fire. However, alas, I must be.

You see there is this pesky little document called the constitution. And it tells us how the President is elected. A hint? It is NOT by the people. The states and their legislatures select the President. How they get there is up to them.  Their legislatures could simply say, here vote this way.  Or they could let the various house representatives choose. There is NOTHING in the constitution that says the people elect the President. (believe it or not, the President is supposed to be the least among the branches. he is only supposed to be the executive officer).

The constitution says the electors of the various states will elect the president by a majority of qualified electors.(it doesnt have to be 270 either). Then the senate will accept those votes from the electors and verify they are legal (no more) and declare the President. The senate is no more than that of your local electoral board. UNLESS, there is an issue where the electors can not come to a majority.(odd statement that huh???) It is at that point the house and the senate pick and choose the President and Vice President.

So given all this, there is no way to invalidate the selection of the President after the senate has approved it. (that I know of constitutionally).

Now would I like to get back to what the founders wanted? Yes I would love to get rid of this winner takes all from the states, and go back to each legislative district chooses their own electors. This may have the effect of disarming states that have cities that control the vote of the state. ex: NJ, where we have 5 or 6 districts that outnumber the votes from the rest of the state deciding NJ’s total vote. Yes the framers wanted this, why do you think we have the electoral college? they could have said each state gets 1 vote. No, they created the electors so that smaller areas would have the same say as larger ones. Parties get to control states by clumping all into one. I wish this would change. I know it wont.

Oh yeah,  let me answer the original question. Can we overturn the 2020 election? NO!

However if fraud is determined in the elections, congress and local representation could be changed and that might be more important.

 

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all 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 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 chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes 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. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United 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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

HR-5

Here we go again.

it seems the democrats have decided to throw out the constitution again.  After reading this bill I found that they are trying to throw out a scotus ruling (colorado baker religious freedom case) by making it unlawful to not do something based on your religious beliefs.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.

This says the baker would have no choice but to bake the cake that he refused to based on his religious beliefs. this is clearly unconstitutional as the 1st says congress shall make no laws on religion.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The democratic party clearly no longer believes that the constitution exists, nor that it applies to them.

For this reason, and the travesty of HR-1 which itself is unconstitutional, any congressman or President that allows this bill to pass should be thrown out of office and charged with violations of their oath to protect the constitution.

on what to do to stop the next mass shooting

I am sitting here and watching the news, and I have had a few thoughts here. I have watched over the last several years, and observed the aftermath of each of the school shootings. They all seem to say get rid of guns. Then I look at who did what and why and in each case you have a kid that has emotional problems, has learning disabilities, is unable to make friends, and is on or should be on medication. Then I look at when I went to school.

Yes I rode the short bus, no I wasn’t a window licker. I had issues that my parents struggled to help me with, and they did. Yes I was one of those that had trouble making friends, and no I never had a girlfriend in school. Luckily I never had to be on any medications or have to go thru massive psychotherapy. I was able to go to a special school that helped me learn how to learn. in all this I was lucky to have my parents backing as well as a few kids from the neighborhood to play with.All this is so you can understand my background so I can bring you  thru the next part of my monologue.

Let’s look at these kids one part at a time. They were for a lack of a better term, ?autistic? (mildly?). this leads to problems in the way they look at the world and the world looks at them. They are slower on the uptake if it is not given to them in the best way they process the information. (some need it visually , some in text, some need to hear it.) so this makes the world a little different for them than for you.

Because they have this issue, parents and doctors look for the easy way to help their kid cope with society. This typically involves some sort of pharmaceutical help. These drugs can actually make it worse for the kid to be “normal”, but it makes them easier to manage.

Then because the kid is different from the norm, he will get picked on by his classmates, and ostracized, and made to feel small. this all creates a smoldering anger that the kid thinks I’ll get them for being mean, they will learn.  that anger will build over the years and will never be shown to the world.

Now add in what we have today, the internet. the internet while it can open up a brave new world to this kid, also makes it much easier to be bullied and influenced. It can also make this kid more withdrawn into this cyberworld   with the games and stuff.  They will “make friends” in this brave new world but still be alone. then they go back to the real world and go thru all the emotions again. so they hide, ball up , in an attempt to block the hate. or they will strike out in anger (fights in school, animal abuse).  All this because no one hears them and they have no one to talk to.

what can be done? this is going to sound so left leaning it is not funny, but believe me it really isn’t, All it takes is some kid to simply include them in their circle and talk to them. I have heard that in the last shooting the trigger point was something about his ex girlfriend dating someone. ok, in normal’s lives when that happens you talk with you best friend and they blow off the girl as not being good enough for you and all that stuff. In his case who did he have to talk to? No I don’t think for the next 10 years or so it can change, as the age that anything meaningful and actually easy is not 14 or 15 years old. this has to start before the teen years.

How many stories have we heard that someone was contiplating suicide and it was someone that simply said hi to them or helped them with their books or something simple, and they decided not to kill themselves? yes it is that simple and yet that complex. If you want to stop these school shootings think not about taking away guns which are only a tool for the symptoms, much in the way taking pain killers for a bad tooth only masks the pain. But think about this, The guy that seems a little odd of slow, he may not be able to handle the world like you do, but if you stop and say hi or give them a hand, you could change his world or even help him to understand it better. and with that small change, you will have stopped the anger and the resulting problems.  If you haven’t helped your hurting, it all starts with you.

So to finnish off this diatribe that no one will read, may god be with you, and , well, Hey how ya doing?

 

Glenn

 

A post script note: after getting some reaction from some on this post,

No we are not asking for everyone to be fake nice. that wont help. what we are asking is for 1 kid to say hi, 1 kid to be nice, 1 kid listen to them, 1 kid to learn from them. 1 kid to NOT bully, 1 kid to NOT talk behind their back. 1 kid to include them where possible. 1 kid to help them. 2 parents to back them, 2 parents to show them the way. It doesnt take that much. It doesnt take the whole of the school or community. just 1 brave kid and 2 parents.

baker act and the 4th

the 4th amendment to the US Constitution

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Today we watch Mr. Trump in yet another meeting  with lawmakers  at capital . they were discussing ways tostop the next school shooter . there was a a bunch of ideas discussed  a lot of good ideas , and then while they were discussing  the Baker act , which is  await to put  someone that is  not psychologically stable  into the hospital for 72 hours  with or without their permission , president Trump said  something that is bothering a lot of us . he said that  if a person is Baker acted  they should st take their weapons and worry about justice later .

Now  since we know that  a person is going to do a school shooting is not in their right mind, once the person is Baker acted , law enforcement would go before a judge in an ex parte and provide compelling  evidence  either  by  the shooter’s writings  showing  that he will commit this act , or a doctors note staining the person is a danger to themselves or others . At that point the judge would then sign a warrant for the temporary seizure of his firearms until a full hearing can be held as to if that person can get the weapons back. As judges are on call for search warrents this should not be a big deal to be done with in the 72 hour period.

This is about the only way that this could be done legaly in my opinion. If this procedure is not in the bill it should be thrown out.

After The 2nd Failed Impeachment

After the last week there are some points I would like to make.

We have seen where the house and senate are run by 4 people. Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconell, and Schiff.

This last impeachment showed us that the parties are no longer interested in following their oath. They voted to bypass the constitution and the plain wording it proffers. In their anger, In the first vote, they decided that the constitution did not matter. they voted that a bill of attainer could be used against a private citizen. That when the constitutional argument they were using was meant solely to take an official out of the office after a serious legal issue, they disregarded the meaning of it. they disregarded the same argument that all the courts have been using to throw out any election challenge, that of Laches.  y6u see, the only remedy offered under the constitutional law they used was eviction from office, THEN the optional remedy of no longer being able to hold office again.

Article 1 section 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The way it is written, you must satisfy the first before you can do the second. . since President Trump had already left office there was no way to satisfy the first, namely removal from office.

Article 1 secton 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

BILL OF ATTAINDER, legislation, punishment. An act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attainted, and their property confiscated.
     2. The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder.
     3. During the revolutionary war, bills of attainder, and ox post facto acts of confiscation, were passed to a wide extent. The evils resulting from them, in times of more cool reflection, were discovered to have far outweighed any imagined good. Story on Const. Sec. 1367. Vide Attainder; Bill of Pains and Penalties.
Since President Trump was a civilian at the time of his trial, any finding by the senate would constitute a bill of attainer.

Next point. This trial was not run by evidence, as much as fear and hate. The prosecutions case relied on the members remembering the recent fear they experienced in the overtaking of the capitol building. they made sure to play hours of video showing the break-in and over taking of the building. they presented almost no evidence for what they charged. the prosecution presented a lot of hearsay, news reports, and doctored evidence. they changed the charges mid stream from the events of the day, to include everything from the day Trump came down the elevator. They even added charges in the middle of the trial, saying they were implied. However in any court case you can not charge someone with an implied charge, it must be written out.

Then we come down to the verdict, which clearly was known even before the trial. The members of the senate were told how to vote by their leadership.  The democrats were not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the charges. All they were allowed is orange man bad.

I do not know what President Trump did to make them so mad and hate him like they do. However there seems to be nothing but hate from the left. It has to be more than he beat her in the 2016 run.  As there was nothing but hate from before he even got off the stairs.

I am pretty sure we are in the midst of a giant cancel culture thing on this election. We are being told that what we saw is not what we saw.  There have been hearings, sworn statements, and even video’s that questioned the election. yet we are told there was nothing. We have a full county of commisioners that are getting away with disregarding the states attempts at verifying the election. And yes, I do understand that our election can influence the world. As the voting system that is being challenged is used world wide, and if proven to “shift” votes instead of simply counting them, it could topple some governments(???Burma???).

At this point, all I am sure of is this is a mess. Our government has forsaken its bible of the constitution. And we have 2-4 people running the country, instead of 457. That the judicial is as corrupt as the legislative, and our executive is a farce. I wish it otherwise. the point we are at??? We maybe at the end or in the very least ripe for takeover by a foreign country. We need to get it right.

Glenn

 

WOMEN AND THE CENSUS

Yes, here is another of those, saw a post and wanted to see something and found out another, posts from me.

Was looking thru the US Constitution again, and found something kinda funny. I will post the relevant articles below, but for now here is a weird thing.

Did you know that the Constitution says that representatives will be apportioned based on the number of whole persons(have to check on the meaning of that later) and that if any man is found to be able to not vote due to crimes and such, the apportionment will be decreased by that number of men not able to vote.

Note it says any man not woman, even the 19th only says that women can vote not that they are counted for representation. I have checked everything that I could and found nothing that gives any change in status for counting representation. So you can have 25k men incarcerated and that would change the number of representatives, but having 1 million women in jail would change nothing.

Here is the 14th amendment (replacing text from earlier in the Constitution)

  1. Representatives shall be apportionedamong the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

and now the 19th

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

 

CENSUS AND THE 19TH AND 26TH AMENDMENTS

Good Day;

There have been questions about putting a citizenship question on the census. After a lot of reading in the constitution, as a constitutional novice, I have come up with a better question that is in accord with the constitution. This question is a simple one that abridges no rights to any group. The question would be, are you allowed to vote in a federal election. This question is actually required by the constitution.  You see the way the constitution says it, you count everyone, and then take out those that can not vote in a federal election. simple huh?

With that being said, I have a question. Did the 19th and 26th  amendments change the 14th amendment? I ask this as with the census fast approaching it is needed to find out the actual enumeration in respect to representation.  I will post the section of which I speak  to help.

  1. Representatives shall be apportionedamong the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The section in bold is the section in question. As you can see it specifies male citizens of the age of 21.  With the 19th saying women have all the rights  as men, do they not then bear all the responsibilities?  Thus if you loose your right to vote in a federal election, you would then loose the right to have the representation in such an election? Similarly those that are 18 having received the right to vote for their choice of representatives would also loose that right?

My research thus far has alluded no answers to this important question. any help would be appreciated.

Thank you

Glenn

ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT

I am going to copy an article here as a start to the facts. then I will delve into the language and stuff.

From the website the daily signal, authored by hans von spakovsky. titled birthright citizenship: a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

  • What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

Originally published by Fox News in 2011

  • Now to read the actual text (not the text they show you in the school books) –
  • All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictionthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s break it down. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does this mean according to the original framers? the main word to concentrate on is under the JURISDICTION.  Those are the key words. you see to be under the jurisdiction in this case means that you have no allegiance to a foreign land. If you come in to our country and have not declared your citizenship then you are not under our jurisdiction.

The principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio — elucidated the meaning of jurisdiction in those provisions. The point was to stress “complete” jurisdiction, as in “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

When the original framer of this amendment created it, he said it was not for any foreigner, thus the word jurisdiction.(paraphrased) this amendment was originally created to give slaves official citizenship. It was never meant to create what the recent courts have done. Since the recent courts have gone well past the original framers intentions, a new court can over turn.

Now for a little sideways look at the rest of section 1. (going out on a limb in logic here).

According to this…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. a foreigner is not entitled to any of the protections of our laws or the protection of life, liberty and happiness. because as you see we have that pesky phrase again.  Or do we? well it might be interpreted like that, but the qualifier ,within it’s, so that means? in the country or territory? I can leave that one up to the lawyers. So you see it is all in the words and their meaning at the time as explained by the people that wrote them.

I am including a link to another article that helps understanding –

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/?fbclid=IwAR3etblp2h688lduH34ZbelPVdtgH4mv9G_mPER44hZIsEChESu627o0rqs

 

NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

 

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

 

 

Is the National Popular Vote unconstitutional?

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of February 2019, it has been adopted by eleven states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 172 electoral votes, which is 32.0% of the Electoral College and 63.7% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force.

By awarding the votes based on who ever gets more nationally this compact would virtually eliminate the electoral college. And allow 6 states to elect the President.

Now add in that this compact is unconstitutional. yup. article 1 section 10 says so. they need congress to approve it. I dare any good lawyer to take on these states when they eventually get this set to go against them.

article 1 section 10

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainderex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

And if that wasn’t plain enough there is this from the next paragraph

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.