If they are going to look at the constitutional details of the 25th Amendment, and abide by them, they should also look at the detals of the eligibility requirements for the two top jobs in the federal governement, i.e., the POTUS and the VP. And they wil find - oops - that K Harris has been occupying the office of the VP illegally, and by the same token, is not eligible for the top job either. I refer to the apparently inconvenient fact that the occupants of those two federal offices in particular need to be 'natural born' citizens. What is a nbc? It is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. (The definition is from the definitive tome of the day of the constitutional Framers on such nation-buildiing matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations;' with which the historical record shows that they were well informed.) NEITHER of Harris's parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.
How did we get into this constitutional mess? Primarily because the Republican base failed to call the Dem Party - and their own party leaderhip - on the fact that, back in 2008, BHO was ineligible for the office of president, on the same basis. Some semantic sleight of hand seems to have taken place, when all of the kerfuffle about his birth was made to concentrate on the issue of where he was born, with no major notice taken of his parental lineage. Big mistake. BIG mistake. And now, here we are; perhaps having to deal with this unfinished business, further down the corrupted road that the country has been on ever since that ill-fated venture into the territory outwith the rule of law - the country's Constitution.
Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.
ilona Trommler > Stan StanfieldNovember 18, 2021 at 6:20am
This is a converštion going on mostly since the POS came into the picture. His father not native born, but then no one really knows if the African was his father or if it was his mother's lover Davis? Then there was the question of his mothers marrige to the Indonesian Muslim, where by marriage the woman and her existing children automatically become citizens.......but Indonesian law doesn't allow dual citizenship, therefore prior to the marriage she and her children must give up any other citizenship. Lots of questions about his legality, yet he was elected for two terms and awarded incredible riches to live as he does since.
No one has anything concrete on "natural born", this was a puzzle never solved, the cause of many arguments in the groups. It looked like it finally came down to: born on American soil to at least ONE Citizen parent. American soil includes born in foreign lands to those serving on military bases, embassies, anything that is legally considered American soil. One would think that with so many constitutional scholars they would be able to satisfy this important question, but even back in the questionable Obama days they never could prove what the founders meant by natural born.
My only experience with "natural born" was when I studied for the test to become a citizen, there was a short list of what I was excluded from as a naturalized citizen. I could not become President (but my children born here could), and if I were to live on foreign land for any reason, I must set foot (able to show it occurred) on American soil at least once in five years. I'm okay with a child born to both parents born on American soil, to me that makes a lot of sense because of loyalties, but I wish someone could show a document that would bring an end to this serious question.
Stan Stanfield > ilona TrommlerNovember 19, 2021 at 12:46am
There really is no question here. Both of the major poitical parties of our day have simply tried to hide the fact, to suit their purposes. The fact, as clarified in E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations'. (Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up.) And that definition was understood by the constitutinal Framers. If any of those delegates weren't sure what they were voting on in this regard, alt they would have had to do was ask their elder and well-respected mentor, B. Franklin, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those proceedings; who, it is known, had three copies of the de Vattel tome, he thought so highly of it, as regards nation-building matters. Some confusion has crept in along the line to our day; but the bottom line is a) they knew what they meant by the term; and b) nothing trumps the Constitution - no court decision, or congressional Proposal, or whatever. The "document" is there. Whether it will "bring an end to this serious question" depends on We, the People. Living by the rule of law. Not the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
She to stuped to be VP , as well as a SCJ . What the hell is going on . There are no vaccines there anyway.
ilona Trommler > Ray E WetzelNovember 18, 2021 at 6:27am
There is no opening on the Supreme Court at the moment........am I missing something?
Also, how do they get rid of a VP?
Does she resign, what reason would they find that would be justified to force her out? Who would take her place? How do they chose the replacement. This woman was voted in so there should not be a person appointed, who would be next in line, let's say she got ill or died, who replaces her?
Replies
the only thing she gets out of is - someone's bed
That would be good, my only worry is who will replace her
If they are going to look at the constitutional details of the 25th Amendment, and abide by them, they should also look at the detals of the eligibility requirements for the two top jobs in the federal governement, i.e., the POTUS and the VP. And they wil find - oops - that K Harris has been occupying the office of the VP illegally, and by the same token, is not eligible for the top job either. I refer to the apparently inconvenient fact that the occupants of those two federal offices in particular need to be 'natural born' citizens. What is a nbc? It is a person "born in the country, of parents who are citizens" thereof. (The definition is from the definitive tome of the day of the constitutional Framers on such nation-buildiing matters, E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations;' with which the historical record shows that they were well informed.) NEITHER of Harris's parents were U.S. citizens at the time of her birth.
How did we get into this constitutional mess? Primarily because the Republican base failed to call the Dem Party - and their own party leaderhip - on the fact that, back in 2008, BHO was ineligible for the office of president, on the same basis. Some semantic sleight of hand seems to have taken place, when all of the kerfuffle about his birth was made to concentrate on the issue of where he was born, with no major notice taken of his parental lineage. Big mistake. BIG mistake. And now, here we are; perhaps having to deal with this unfinished business, further down the corrupted road that the country has been on ever since that ill-fated venture into the territory outwith the rule of law - the country's Constitution.
Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.
This is a converštion going on mostly since the POS came into the picture. His father not native born, but then no one really knows if the African was his father or if it was his mother's lover Davis? Then there was the question of his mothers marrige to the Indonesian Muslim, where by marriage the woman and her existing children automatically become citizens.......but Indonesian law doesn't allow dual citizenship, therefore prior to the marriage she and her children must give up any other citizenship. Lots of questions about his legality, yet he was elected for two terms and awarded incredible riches to live as he does since.
No one has anything concrete on "natural born", this was a puzzle never solved, the cause of many arguments in the groups. It looked like it finally came down to: born on American soil to at least ONE Citizen parent. American soil includes born in foreign lands to those serving on military bases, embassies, anything that is legally considered American soil. One would think that with so many constitutional scholars they would be able to satisfy this important question, but even back in the questionable Obama days they never could prove what the founders meant by natural born.
My only experience with "natural born" was when I studied for the test to become a citizen, there was a short list of what I was excluded from as a naturalized citizen. I could not become President (but my children born here could), and if I were to live on foreign land for any reason, I must set foot (able to show it occurred) on American soil at least once in five years. I'm okay with a child born to both parents born on American soil, to me that makes a lot of sense because of loyalties, but I wish someone could show a document that would bring an end to this serious question.
There really is no question here. Both of the major poitical parties of our day have simply tried to hide the fact, to suit their purposes. The fact, as clarified in E. de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations'. (Book One, Ch. XIX, Sect. 212. Look it up.) And that definition was understood by the constitutinal Framers. If any of those delegates weren't sure what they were voting on in this regard, alt they would have had to do was ask their elder and well-respected mentor, B. Franklin, sitting right there amongst them as a delegate himself to those proceedings; who, it is known, had three copies of the de Vattel tome, he thought so highly of it, as regards nation-building matters. Some confusion has crept in along the line to our day; but the bottom line is a) they knew what they meant by the term; and b) nothing trumps the Constitution - no court decision, or congressional Proposal, or whatever. The "document" is there. Whether it will "bring an end to this serious question" depends on We, the People. Living by the rule of law. Not the rule of men. Aka arbitrary law. Aka tyranny.
Good riddance
She to stuped to be VP , as well as a SCJ . What the hell is going on . There are no vaccines there anyway.
There is no opening on the Supreme Court at the moment........am I missing something?
Also, how do they get rid of a VP?
Does she resign, what reason would they find that would be justified to force her out? Who would take her place? How do they chose the replacement. This woman was voted in so there should not be a person appointed, who would be next in line, let's say she got ill or died, who replaces her?