What was the Founders’ Intent in Creating the Electoral College?

What was the Founders’ Intent in Creating the Electoral College? – “Great Compromises Were Made” – Part 1 of 3 | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Apr. 1, 2019) — Over a number of years and increasingly within the last several weeks, political candidates, state legislatures, members of Congress, and some average Americans are calling for a bypassing or abolition of the Electoral College and for the establishing of a “national popular vote” to elect the president.

Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, whose constitutional eligibility as a “natural born Citizen” is in question, has said she is “‘open to’ discussing eliminating the Electoral College,” while candidate and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has enthusiastically advocated for it.

Former Texas congressman and Democratic candidate Beto O’Rourke has said that he “sees ‘a lot of wisdom’ in abolishing Electoral College.”

In 2017, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN9) introduced a bill to eliminate the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote.  As this article was under preparation, NBC News reported that some Senate Democrats plan to introduce a constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College.

The Hill confirmed the report, stating that Rep. Brian Schatz (D-HI) will introduce the measure this week, supported by Democratic presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand and two other U.S. senators.

Presidential candidate and Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) also supports abolishing the Electoral College.

The Electoral College was implemented by the Framers as a method of indirect popular election of the president. Set forth in Article II, Section 1, clauses 2, 3  and 4 of the U.S. Constitution, the system utilizes “electors” chosen by the states who cast their votes for president the month following the quadrennial presidential election.

In September 1804, clause 3 was amended by the ratification of the 12th Amendment, passed with the intent of avoiding a tie vote by state electors, which would then send a presidential election to the House of Representatives.

Today, the political parties choose the electors who will represent them when the Electoral College meets.  No one serving as a federal office-holder at the time may serve as an elector.

The number of electoral votes assigned to a state is based on both population, which determines the number of congressional districts, and the constitutional provision of two U.S. senators to each state, regardless of size or population.  Electoral-rich California possesses 55 electoral votes due to its two senators and 53 members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The 23rd Amendment awarded three electoral votes to the District of Columbia, which is not a state.  With a total of 538 electors nationwide, 270 electoral votes are required for a candidate to win the presidency.

As of 2016, 29 states and the District of Columbia have laws requiring presidential electors to vote “for the presidential candidate for the party they were selected to represent.”  Forty-eight of the 50 states utilize a “winner-take-all” method of awarding electoral votes, with Maine and Nebraska utilizing a “proportional distribution” method.

The electors meet on “the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election” in their respective capitals to cast their votes for the president and vice-president on separate ballots. The vote tallies are then communicated to Congress and the National Archives.

On January 6 of the new year, or another date that month if amended by Congress, the current vice president publicly counts the votes and officially announces the winner of the presidential election and vice-presidential election.  Constitutionally, the vice president is required to ask if there are any objections to the election prior to certifying the vote counts.

Detractors of the Electoral College object to the very real possibility that a candidate could win the Electoral College but lose the popular vote.  The phenomenon has occurred five times in U.S. history, most recently with Donald Trump in 2016.

Regarding presidential elections, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) states:

The Electoral College is a unique method for indirectly electing the president of the United States. It was established by Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution and modified by the 12th and 23rd Amendments.

The Electoral College consists of a total of 538 members, one for each U.S. senator and representative, and three additional electors representing the District of Columbia. Each state has a number of electoral votes equal to the combined total of its congressional delegation, and each state legislature is free to determine the method it will use to select its own electors.

Currently, all states select electors through a popular vote (although how that vote works can differ), but that was not always the case throughout American history. In many states, the state legislature selected electors, a practice which was common until the mid-1800s.

On the topic of Electoral College “reform,” the NCSL offers:

In the years since the highly controversial 2000 presidential election, bills have been introduced in every state in the country to change the process for selecting electors. During the period of 2001-2006, most Electoral College reform bills proposed switching to the district system. None of these bills passed. In the years since, attention has largely shifted to the National Popular Vote (NPV). This is an idea that would allow states to bypass the Electoral College without amending the U.S. Constitution. When a state joins the NPV Compact, it promises that it will give all of its electoral votes to the party that wins the national popular vote, rather than the party that wins the state popular vote. For instance, if the Democratic candidate won the popular vote in California, but the Republican candidate won the popular vote nationwide, California would be required to send the Republican slate of electors to the meeting of the electors. The NPV has not yet taken effect; states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes must join before it can function. Read more about the National Popular Vote.

The idea of abolishing the Electoral College and instead electing the president by direct popular vote comes about every few years. Abolishing the Electoral College requires an amendment to the US Constitution. There are two ways to do that:

    • Congress can propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote of both chambers. The amendment then has to be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. All existing amendments to the Constitution were made in this manner.
    • The legislatures of two-thirds of the states can petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention. At a Constitutional Convention, any part of the Constitution could be amended; action is not restricted to the sections governing the Electoral College or any other part of the Constitution. Again, any proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. This method has never been invoked.

The National Archives characterizes the Electoral College as “a process, not a place.”  It explains that “The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.”

The organization “National Popular Vote” has reported a building movement on the part of the states to endorse election of the president by enacting “legislation” to bypass the Electoral College and create an “interstate compact.”  Indeed, such public figures as American historian and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have endorsed the plan, apparently without proposing a constitutional amendment to enact it.

An amendment to the Constitution requires ratification by two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and the legislatures of three-quarter of the states (38), a process that has taken years in the past to complete.

As of this writing, the NPV initiative reports that 14 “jurisdictions,” including the District of Columbia, have entered into an “interstate compact” in which their respective governors and mayor have agreed to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote for the presidency.  “The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections,” the website states.

Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution states, “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility,” Although the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that in apolitical matters such as disputes over boundary lines, states may uphold such agreements, whether or not the NPV interstate compact must have congressional approval is an open question.

A 2008 analysis by a Connecticut legislative fellow of an Electoral College interstate compact, which the state’s legislature voted to join last year, states, in part:

Advocates of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact point to the constitutional right of states to choose their electors to demonstrate the constitutionality of the proposal. The manner of conducting presidential elections is covered in the U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . . ” (U.S. Const., Article II, Section 1, Clause 2). This standard has been reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the clause “cannot be held to operate as a limitation on” the power to appoint electors, assuring that the mode of appointment belongs exclusively to the states by the Constitution (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 25 (1892)).

Critics, however, see the Compact Clause as a roadblock to the proposal. If the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is considered a “political compact” under the Compact Clause, then the Constitution requires congressional consent, and the compact would need to receive federal approval. The power to appoint electors is exclusively granted to the states, but that power is still subject to other provisions of the Constitution. Accordingly, the court must analyze the appointment of electors under other provisions of the Constitution, including the Compact Clause (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892)).

Is the National Popular Vote Really a Compact?

The first question is whether the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is an “interstate compact” as defined by the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has construed the meaning of “compact” broadly: “The legislative declaration will take the form of an agreement or compact when it recites some consideration for it from the other party affected by it” (Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U.S. 503, 520 (1893)). The term “compact” includes “all forms of stipulation, written or verbal, and relating to all kinds of subjects; to those to which the United States can have no possible objection . . . as well as to those which may tend to increase and build up the political influence of the contracting states” (Id. at 517-8).

NPV reports that in early 2018, a “coalition of law firms, organizations, and professors” was responsible for filing lawsuits in California, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and Texas challenging the “winner-take-all” method of assigning presidential electors’ votes.  The NPV opposes proportional assignment of electoral votes, claiming that it “fails when evaluated against the criteria of whether it would make presidential elections more competitive, whether it would accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote, and whether it would make every vote equal. In short, allocating electoral votes by congressional district would make a bad system even worse.”

According to research by The Daily Signal, George Soros-affiliated groups and individuals are funding the NPV effort, with support from some Republicans and “conservatives.”

In 2001, Georgetown University Professor Emeritus Walter Berns wrote an in-depth essay on the Electoral College in which he contended:

…the issue that ought to engage our attention is the one the framers debated over the entire course of the constitutional convention, from May 1787 to September, namely, what way of election is more likely to produce a president with the qualities required of the person holding this great office? In all the years I have been engaged in this debate, in all the times I have testified on this issue before a House or Senate committee, I have yet to encounter a critic of the Electoral College who argues that a president chosen directly by the people is likely to be a better president. And that, surely, is the issue.

On March 28, The Post & Email interviewed New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo on his thoughts about the present system of electing the president and calls to change it.  We brought to his attention the “interstate compact” which reportedly plans to activate once states representing 270 electoral votes are pledged.

In an in-depth response, Apuzzo said:

This is a very complicated and involved area; there are a lot of moving parts to it.  There is a constitutional basis to the Electoral College.  Some would say it’s anachronistic, but it’s not, because the same concerns that faced the Founders face the nation today.

How to elect the president of the new nation was decided at the Constitutional Convention, where great compromises were made in order to bring the union to fruition. You had large state and small states.  The small states would not have joined the large states if they were to have lost their influence, their power to operate as a sovereign state.  Yhe compromises are very important, and that leads to the Electoral College, which I submit was also a compromise for the small states.

We have a constitutional republic, not a democracy, and we also have a federalist system where the states are guaranteed their independence except to the degree that they gave power to the central government.  The federalist system has worked well for us because it allows the states to operate, and all the control does not come from one place.  You have decentralization, so to speak, but we also need a national government, because that’s why they came together to form the union.  ….  continue reading the rest of Part 1 of this excellent article at:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/01/what-was-the-founders-intent-in-creating-the-electoral-college/

ALSO everyone discussing the reason we have an Electoral College should read this: For the complete explanation directly from one of the founders and framers as to why the founders and framers in writing the U.S. Constitution created an Electoral College to elect the President and Commander in Chief, instead of a nationwide popular vote, read Federalist Paper #68:  http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-68.php

Update 02 April 2019 – link to part 2 of this article: http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/02/what-was-the-founders-intent-in-creating-the-electoral-college-part-2

Update 04 Apr 2019 – link to part 3 of this article:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/04/04/what-was-the-founders-intent-in-creating-the-electoral-college-conclusion/

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

P.S.  Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

Advertisements

Former Perkins Coie Partner, Obama White House Counsel Details Release of “Long-Form” Birth Certificate Image

Click on the Image for Details about Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate and Selective Service (Draft) Registration Form

Former Perkins Coie Partner, Obama White House Counsel Details Release of “Long-Form” Birth Certificate Image | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Mar. 5, 2019) — On Monday, former White House Counsel Robert Bauer, also formerly of the law firm Perkins Coie, published a lengthy article at The Atlantic arguing that former Trump personal attorney Michael Cohen last week made a compelling case that Donald Trump is both a “con man” and “a racist.”

The article is titled, “Michael Cohen Reminded Us Why Trump’s Birtherism Matters” and invokes Trump’s demand, voiced early in 2011, that the White House release proof that Obama was born in the United States and was therefore presumably eligible to the office of president, to demonstrate Trump’s alleged racism.

Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.” While much controversy has ensued over more than a century as to the exact meaning of the term as intended by the Framers, nearly all Americans understand that a person born outside the United States and later naturalized as a U.S. citizen cannot serve as president.

Some legal scholars go further, insisting that a birth on U.S. soil is not enough to qualify and that a candidate’s parents must have been U.S. citizens at the time of the child and future candidate’s birth. That view is supported by the 1875 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Minor v. Happersett wherein the majority opinion stated that it was “never doubted” that a person born in the country to U.S.-citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.” As to other situations, the court wrote, “there have been doubts.”

Some reportage during Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign suggested he was “an immigrant” to the U.S. amid a myriad of contradictory reports as to his place of birth and citizenship status which were never reconciled.

For a number of years, and contrary to a number of credible news reports as well as a 1991 biography released by Obama’s first literary agent, Obama has claimed he was born in Honolulu, HI on August 4, 1961 at the Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children. In the early stages of his 2008 presidential campaign, at least three sources reported him as having been born at Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu, with some later amending their reports to say he was born at Kapiolani.

In addition to questions about his birthplace, Obama has claimed a father who was never a U.S. citizen. On his 2008 campaign website, “FighttheSmears,” Obama claimed that he “became a citizen at birth under the first section of the 14th Amendment” in response to the “lie” that he was not a “natural born Citizen.”

As Bauer noted in his article, he was White House counsel when an alleged “long-form” birth certificate image, reportedly obtained in the form of two certified copies by Judith Corley, Obama’s personal lawyer and also of Perkins Coie, from the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) on April 27, 2011.

The event was widely reported by the mainstream media.  During a press conference following the release of the image, Obama stated that the White House had “provided additional information today about the site of my birth.” He did not hold a document in his hand, nor was one displayed in the background or held by anyone else as he spoke.

Within hours and the following days, a number of published experts in the field of computer graphics and Internet engineering declared the “long-form” birth certificate image to be a forgery.  Those claims eventually led to a request from 242 constituents of then-Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio for an investigation to protect the integrity of their votes in the 2012 election in the event the reports of forgery proved accurate. …

Continue reading the entire article at:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/03/05/former-perkins-coie-partner-obama-white-house-counsel-details-release-of-long-form-birth-certificate-image/

 # # # #

My observation and comment about a point Attorney Robert Bauer said in his new article:

DrPollandForgedObamaCOLB-withforgerystamp
Obama’s short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document posted online in June 2008 is a computer generated forgery

I noted that Bauer in his article put great weight and emphasis on the earlier released short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document. That document was only shown in June 2008 to the general public as a computer image. It was also proven to be a computer generated forgery. That statement by Bauer is interesting since to my knowledge Hawaii officials have never validated in any way the short-form document or the image of it shown online in June 2008 … nor have they even ever stated or verified that they issued a short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth document to Obama or his attorneys or agents in the spring of 2008, as was claimed by Obama as to when he got it. When one’s story is a lie, as is Obama’s early life narrative and which is parroted by his various Consigliere, it is very hard to keep all the claimed “facts” in agreement over time. This has happened with Obama statements time and time again. Bauer is now claiming that the original forged short-form CERTIFICATION of Live Birth form released in June 2008 is more official and important than is the long-form CERTIFICATE of Live Birth released in April 2011. That in itself, over and beyond the images being computer generated forged images, is an untruth unto itself.

Collection of evidence that Obama’s long-form and short-form birth documents are forged, along with other Obama key ID documents: https://www.scribd.com/lists/3166684/Birth-Certificate-and-Other-Obama-ID-Docs-Forged-Expert-Reports

Obama Draft Registration Card Backdated and Forged. Click on Image for More Lists of Evidence and More Details

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be  “born a  Citizen” of the United States depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military. Adjectives mean something. Especially in terms in the Constitution and must not be ignored.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

EulerDiagramVer4-6
A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” Can Constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. Click on Image For More Information.

Other politicians aspiring to high political office who are also not constitutionally eligible: Kamala Harris (D), Ted Cruz (R), Marco Rubio (R), Nikki Haley (R), and Bobby Jindal (R) are not a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S. to constitutional standards.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour,
” The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

P.S.  Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf

Why Didn’t McCabe Open an Investigation on Obama? – The Post & Email | by Sharon Rondeau

Click on the Image for Details about Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate and Selective Service (Draft) Registration Form

Why Didn’t McCabe Open an Investigation on Obama? THE “EVIDENCE IS IN PLAIN SIGHT” – The Post & Email | by Sharon Rondeau | @ ThePostEmail.com

(Feb. 20, 2019) — In an interview Tuesday with NBC’s Savannah Guthrie, former Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe said that in 2017 he and “members of his team” made a decision to open an “obstruction of justice” investigation into Donald Trump stemming from what McCabe said was  “an articulable basis to believe that a threat to national security or a federal crime may have occurred”  on the part of the President of the United States.  …

… [however] …

…  Neither Comey, McCabe nor anyone at the FBI has ever issued a statement about the forgery of a document belonging to the then-sitting [defacto] President of the United States [Obama] who was credibly reported, before and after his first presidential run, to have been born outside of the country, which would have placed his eligibility in question.

The lead detective of the five-year investigation, Mike Zullo, declared last August that two U.S. intelligence sources told him that it is “an open secret” in Washington, DC that Obama was born outside of the United States and therefore could not meet the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 1, clause 5 requirement that the president and commander-in-chief be a “natural born Citizen.”  Zullo has also said, “There is no original certificate; there never was.”

Perhaps ironically, Guthrie is the sole reporter to have claimed that on April 27, 2011, she “felt the raised seal” on the copy of the Obama long-form she purportedly received.  Photos she reportedly took of the seal and posted on social media are no longer available.

Zullo has said, however, that a reporter in the off-the-record session with Bauer correctly noted that no “original” birth certificate was shown to reporters.

Early in the investigation, Zullo revealed that not only was the long-form image found to be fraudulent, but also Obama’s purported Selective Service registration form, an issue which then-Selective Service System Director Lawrence Romo suggested be presented to the FBI if Arpaio believed a crime had been committed.

On July 18, 2012, an FBI spokesman told this reporter that he watched the entirety of Zullo and Arpaio’s second press conference the day before, during which Arpaio implored Congress and the FBI to open an investigation into what he saw as a “national security” issue given the falsification of a sitting president’s official government documents. …

Read the entire article at:  http://www.thepostemail.com/2019/02/20/why-didnt-mccabe-open-an-investigation-on-obama/

# # # #

Obama Draft Registration Card Backdated and Forged. Click on Image for More Lists of Evidence and More Details

Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a “born Citizen” of the United States depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military. Adjectives mean something. Especially in terms in the Constitution and must not be ignored.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, can a “born Citizen” be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military.

EulerDiagramVer4-6
A Simple Euler Logic Diagram Shows Logical Relationship of “natural born Citizens” to Other Type “Citizens” of the United States. Only a “natural born Citizen” Can Constitutionally be the President and Commander in Chief or the Vice-President. Click on Image For More Information.

Other politicians aspiring to high political office who are also not constitutionally eligible: Kamala Harris (D), Ted Cruz (R), Marco Rubio (R), Nikki Haley (R), and Bobby Jindal (R) are not a “natural born Citizen” of the U.S. to constitutional standards.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour,
” The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

 

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists
http://www.protectourliberty.org

P.S.  Other suggested reading and viewing on being a “natural born Citizen” of the United States:

1. A chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.

3. Read this essay regarding the constitutional term “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. “Natural born Citizens” are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. Adjectives mean something. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

4. A Euler Diagram which logically shows the kinds of U.S. Citizens and their set and subset relationships: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

5. The “Three Legged Stool Test” for being a Natural Born Citizen: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/

6. Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html or https://www.scribd.com/document/161994312/Article-II-Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

7. Watch these videos (Parts I and II) by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

8. Read, download, and print a PDF copy of this White Paper by CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) about the “natural born Citizen” term and presidential eligibility clause in Article II of our U.S. Constitution here: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-NBC-Term-in-Constitution.pdf
Presidential-Eligibility-Facts

First We Had Obots (Obama Online Bots & Trolls) – Now We Have Hbots (Harris Online Bots & Trolls) — Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation and Gas Lighting Tactics Used by the Far Left & Its Allies in the Main Stream Media

First We Had Obots (Obama Online Bots & Trolls). Then We Had CruzBots (Ted Cruz Supporters Tried It Too ), But Were Not As Good At It As the Far Left. Now We Have the Far Left Hbots (Harris Online Bots & Trolls). But They All Use the Same Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation and Gas Lighting to Change the Meaning of Language to Push Their Agenda — Especially to Change the Meaning of Words and Terms in Our U.S. Constitution.

Twenty-Five rules of Obot & Hbot online disinformation specialists — aka “Gas Lighting” and in more erudite propaganda-pushing marketing circles, more euphemistically known as “Perception Management”.

Source: Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:   The Rules of Disinformation  (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney — http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.  Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor,  etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen,  and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.  Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus  on side issues which can be used show the topic  as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the  ‘How dare you!’ gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.  Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public  can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make  yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.  Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.  This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’  ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’,  ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’,  ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others  shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet  and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning — simply make an accusation or other  attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal  agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent  is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.  Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.  Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.  This requires creative thinking unless the crime  was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys  listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can  ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule.  Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant  and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body which is in your pocket. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable  events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid  the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinformation players/teams by one or more of seven distinct posting traits: 1. Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input … ;  2. Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach … ;  3. Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions … ;  4. Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams … ;  5. Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ [and are quick to label anyone opposed to their view as a conspiracy nut and other put-down names] … ;  6. Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance … ; and 7. Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives.   Click here for the full review and discussion of these frequently used disinformation traits of the far left, and the new 8th one, commonly used by Obot [and now Hbot] operative quick response teams:  http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html

# # # #

Click on image for an example of the Gas Lighting technique portrayed in this 1944 movie
Click on image for an example of the Gas Lighting technique portrayed in this 1944 movie

Also see Gas Lighting, another disinformation term to describe the orchestrated confusion of reality to confuse the target … which in Obama’s and the far left’s case is the American electorate … all enabled by a cowardly and complicit U.S. Congress and an enabling and complicit main stream media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

And …  Perception Management – The Far, Far Left Obama and Now The Harris Teams are Masters of It:   https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/12/10/perception-management-the-obama-team-are-masters-of-it/

In addition, read more about Kamala Harris’ lack of constitutional eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, or the VP, in this detailed report here:  http://www.scribd.com/lists/22182725/Some-Politicians-Seeking-High-Office-Who-Are-Not-A-Natural-Born-Citizen-of-U-S

When will we return to the rule of law and enforce the original intent, purpose, and understanding of the founders and framers for Article II Section 1 Clause 5 , the natural born Citizen clause, of our U.S. Constitution as to who is constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of our military?  The “natural born Citizen” clause is a “national security” clause!

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/user/52640192/protectourliberty/lists