Vanity: Constitutional Law

I want to be as respectful as I possibly can. The rumors are intense as of this posting whether or not Joe Biden is deceased or actively dying. This vanity post will address the issue of transfer of power.

On the event of death, is VP Harris, due to both her birth status and her parents birth status, able to assume the Presidency? Or will this pass to Speaker Johnson until January?

Since she has been Vice President, she must have 'passed' the Constitutional test as judged by "We, the People" in the election.

Indeed. /s

Between ballots, votes & electors, they have exposed the flaws in our system and capitalized on said flaws.

This is make or break for them and illustrates their nature of desperation with 7/13, though it appears to have been a rather pathetic plot, almost like they had someone in mind to pin it on...

It defines who a citizen is.

For the purposes of elections, this has been used for decades.

If the NBC argument was legitimate, it would have been taken through the courts a long time ago.

As much as I despise Harris, I do not feel that she has loyalties to Jamaica or India.

We need to move on from this.

—> If the NBC argument was legitimate, it would have been taken through the courts a long time ago.

Maybe.

If the court rejects a case we will know.

—> this has been used for decades.

Roe v Wade stood for too long.

Chevron stood for too long.

—> I do not feel

But you realize the Law stands apart from our feelings.

Best.

Thank you for referencing that article navymom1.

"On the event of death, is VP Harris, due to both her birth status and her parents birth status, able to assume the Presidency?"

Regarding NBC, I'm posting the following because it was one of the media lies (imo) from the Obama era, corrupt elite Congress complicit with the lie imo,

The Law of Nations (LoN) was international law when the Constitution was drafted, the drafters referencing it in the Constitution.

My problem concerning interpretation of constitutional qualifications for POTUS when Obama first ran is that the Obama-supporting media ranted that NBC was not defined in Constitution. NBC was eventually connected with LoN, but that didn't matter to Obama-supporting media because it still wasn't defined in the Constitution.

Regarding the significance of LoN with respect to Constitution, it turns out that John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, had officially noted that LoN was in fact one of the official laws of the U.S.

Excerpted from the writings of Chief Justice John Jay:

"That you may percieve more clearly the Extent and objects of your Inquiries, it may be proper to observe that the Laws of the united States admit of being classed under three Heads or³ Descriptions—
"1^st. all Treaties made under the authority of the united States.
2^dly. The Laws of nations [emphasis added]—
3^dly. The Constitution, and Statutes of the united States—"
—John Jay’s Charge to the Grand Jury, the Circuit Court for the District of Virginia, 22 May 1793

So regardless that media led us to believe that NBC is not constitutionally defined in the context of challenges to Obama's qualification to be president, Chief Justice John Jay left us a paper trail from the Constitution to the Laws of Nations as official founding law imo.

On behalf of Obama, while NBC is based on citizenship of both parents, while I'm inclined to believe that Obama's father was not a US citizen, I cannot prove that he wasn't. Democratic and Republican Trump supporters needing to support hopeful Trump 47 with a new, Constitution-respecting Congress in November.

This is make or break for them and illustrates their nature of desperation with 7/13, though it appears to have been a rather pathetic plot, . . .

I am becoming convinced this is like Henry II and Thomas a Becket. "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" King Henry II never specifically ordered anyone to kill Becket (Archbishop of Canterbury). He just expressed some frustration.

But some of his knights took it on themselves to be the 'Who' that Henry wanted.

I don't believe there was a great conspiracy to assassinate Trump. Instead, Cheatle just decided to put in a minimally qualified team, staffed with people who thought like she did. She didn't even have to talk with them about it. She just knew that they thought like she did (or the intermediaries did, depending on how many levels of bureaucracy there were between her and the actual agents on duty).

(I believe) No one talked to Crooks ahead of time. They just left the roof open and arranged the coverage so that no one really knew who had the duty to cover it. They just left gaps in the communication net so that after Crooks was observed acting suspiciously (or even more, was an imminent threat), no one with the ability to take effective action got the word. They just put in rules of engagement so that none of the counter-snipers could fire until there were shots actually fired by the would-be assassin.

What I wonder is how many of Trump's previous out-door rallies had similar gaps. I believe there were probably several and it was just a matter of time until someone took advantage of their deliberately sloppy coverage.

But no one told anyone to leave a gap, they just let it happen through sloppiness. No one told anyone not to stop a sniper, they just made sure that the rules of engagement ("In order to make sure that it wasn't someone from one of the supporting groups - you know how it is with those hicks from outside the Beltway, they never pay attention to the rules.") let the sniper have at least a few shots before being killed - and not coincidentally making sure that he could never tell anyone what his real motive was.

And then Biden says, "We need to put Trump in the Bullseye."

What did anyone *think* would happen, with all that unofficial and deniable opportunity embedded in their security plan?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.