“…(E)very government ought to contain in itself the means of its own preservation.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 59; italics his)
The gentleman from New York and his cabal labor mightily to have their way. They constantly talk about principles as they pervert them. For they no longer favor democracy because of demography.
Can someone “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” and then “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” when he has stated his intention to do otherwise—repeatedly? (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 & Article II, Section 3) The answer is no. For he has said, “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” That includes “the complete power to pardon” and claims of absolute immunity. Finally, his threat to seek the “termination…of the Constitution” strip bare any shred of legitimacy.
Assertion and repetition do not equal truth nor constitutional law. Thus, the Chief Traitor is ineligible, despite a favorable Supreme Court ruling regarding Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits anyone who has taken an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same” from holding Federal or State office. For the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land” and the acts of the three branches must be made “in pursuance thereof.” (Article VI, Clause 2) But, to some, that does not matter.
On July 25, 1787, at the Federal Convention, James Madison said that Supreme Court involvement in the election of the President was “out of the question.” Yet in 2000, the Court—in an act of judicial usurpation—stopped the counting of ballots in Florida. Is a repeat of such a thing acceptable? The answer is no.
Should the Chief Traitor lose the election, he and the GOP have contingency plans. If they control Congress, the results will simply be ignored. The President will be chosen by the House of Representatives where the voting is by State delegation, which happens to favor them. They will point out that that happened in 1800 and 1824, and they will be technically right and totally wrong. For they will not tell you that in 1800 Alexander Hamilton did not succumb to political shenanigans but worked hard to make sure Thomas Jefferson won because he was clearly the popular choice, even though he disagreed with him on a number of issues. (Jefferson and Hamilton: The Struggle for Democracy in America by Claude G. Bowers, The Historians’ History of the United States, Volume I edited by Andrew S. Berky and James P. Shenton, 363-381) In 1824, there were four candidates and, because no one had a majority, the election went to the House of Representatives, which chooses between the top three. The Speaker, Henry Clay, who was thus eliminated, threw his support to John Quincy Adams who subsequently made him Secretary of State. In effect, a coalition government was formed. Now their “secret” may have variations, involving a combination of the Supreme Court and the House of Representatives or a commission like the one in 1876, but, whatever the means, the ends will be the same—cheat.
This is a time for action, not apologies. Should the Chief Traitor “win,” can the President of the United States just standby? The answer is no. The situation demands a firm response.
First, grand jury investigations of a possible conspiracy to defraud the United States of America, which may involve six radical Justices. (Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 371)
Second, because of the threat to national security, the Executive must wield “the sword of the community” and invoke the Insurrection Act to destroy armed gangs that dare to call themselves militias, contrary to the constitutional definition. (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 29; Article I, Section 8, Clause 15-16; & Article II, Section 2, Clause 1)
Third, there is precedent. After the attack on Fort Sumter, President Lincoln took decisive action to preserve the Union, as the government possessed “the means of its own preservation.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, No. 59; italics his)
For Lincoln delayed the convocation of Congress from April 12, 1861,
when Fort Sumter was fired upon, until July 4 lest rigid constitutionalists
on the Hill try to stop him from doing what he deemed necessary to save
the life of the nation. In his twelve weeks of executive grace, Lincoln
ignored one law and constitutional provision after another. He assembled
the militia, enlarged the Army and the Navy beyond their authorized strength,called out volunteers for three years' service, spent public money without
congressional appropriation, suspended habeas corpus, arrested people
"represented" as involved in "disloyal" practices and instituted a naval
blockade of the Confederacy--measures which, he later told Congress,
"whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what appeared
to be a popular demand and a public necessity; trusting then as now thatCongress would readily ratify them." (The Imperial Presidency,
Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., 58; emphasis his)
Lincoln
met the standard and passed Locke's test.
“For prerogative is nothing but the power of doing public good
without a rule.” (Second Treatise of Government, Chapter 14, 166) And Congress approved his actions.
In 1630, America’s role was described by John Winthrop on the Arbella. “We must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”* And now the world waits—adversaries pleased with darkness—while allies keep careful watch to behold a beacon.
(c)2024 Marvin D. Jones. All rights reserved.
https://youtu.be/YHM_c831yv8?si=aA6cjALMhSx0DUp3
[VICTORY]
https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2021/01/an-effective-executive.html
[AN EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE]
https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/06/impunity.html
[IMPUNITY]
https://marvindjones.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-answer-is-no.html
[THE ANSWER IS NO]
*Ronald Reagan was not the first to use the phrase in a political context.
