Thursday, March 09, 2017

History Vindicates The Bell Curve - portent for the USA

Herrnstein and Murray predicted in their seminal 1994 book The Bell Curve, Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life that US society would evolve with little change in IQ differentials between Orientals (Asians), Caucasians (Whites), Chicanos (Hispanics), and Negroes (Blacks). And that has happened as they predicted, except that Asians have widened their gap from Whites.  That means you should read this book (click the above link for the pdf), and HEED its soundly mathematics-based lessons. 

As my favorite biodiversity pundit Steve Sailer pointed out 3 years ago, America has evolved toward a CASTE society, in keeping with The Bell Curve's predictions, such that the more cognitive elite merged with the affluent (small wonder) and became ever more isolated from the cognitively disadvantaged (no surprise) who have ever less likelihood of escaping the mire of their condition.  That might explain the relative inescapable, self-fulfilling sludge of ghetto and thug life in America's inner cities and newly spawned ghetto suburbs and exurbs.  And of course, there is NO WAY the powerful will yield their power to the utterly undeserving, cognitively inept masses.  As I have repeatedly pointed out, fully 25% of the US population has IQ below 85 and are too stupid to graduate from high school, while another 15% is almost as irresponsible, owing to terrible parenting, low IQ, and low ambition to achieve in a lawful enterprise.  Unlike the problem of low ambition and bad parenting, from which one can with effort escape through personal striving, no amount of striving will relieve a person of the affliction of innate stupidity.

In other words, All Men Are NOT Created Equal.

So, what do you expect an enlightened society in an advancing civilization to do about the population's burgeoning ranks of stupid and irresponsible underachievers?

I have said that eventually, the elite must confess the condition of the stupid as interminable, proliferating, and deadly to civilization, and ACT intelligently and benignly to correct it.  That means, in a nutshell, government must ultimately enact eugenics laws to outlaw procreation of stupid children (as a crime against humanity) and prevent unmarried people from procreating at all.  Why?  Because it goes without saying (and yet I'll say it anyway) that insufficient parenting equals bad parenting and single parents gravitate toward poverty which means their children get insufficient education in how to become an upstanding, responsible adult because the single parent constitutes such a bad example simply by having no spouse to share in the child rearing experience.  And in most cases, the single parent bears a serious grudge against the would-be spouse, and typically denigrates the opposite sex to the child in such a way as to poison the child's thinking about loyalty of spouses and parents to one another.  And NOTHING, absolutely nothing adversely influences a child more than the disloyalties of his adult associates.

Race statistician Richard Lynn revealed in his  book The Global Bell Curve - Race IQ and Inequality Worldwide (2008) that The Bell Curve's analysis and prediction applied worldwide, not just in the USA.  The bottom line:  people are created UNEQUAL, especially in intelligence, some being vastly superior to others.

One obvious fact should seem apparent without saying - that intelligence, as measurable by standardized IQ tests, is the primary, NUMBER ONE, factor of importance in individual socioeconomic achievement and in building an advanced civilization.  As much as proponents of Black Lives Matter, La Raza, and other race promoting groups hate to admit it, the USA exists because smart WHITE propertied men made it so.  They crafted the founding documents and organic laws of the nation, and met as state delegates to endorse the Declaration of Independence and Constitution after lengthy heated debates of the merits of nearly every single provision.

The founders and American leaders who followed in their steps acknowledged the contributions of white men to fulfillment of the American dream of what I call "Liberty for Responsible People."  Beginning in the 19th century, "Manifest Destiny" became the rallying cry for the US expansion to the west coast of the continent, an land acquisition effort that including the conquest or land purchase against England and Spain and Seminoles in Florida, France and England in Louisiana, Mexico in Texas, and Mexico in New Mexico, Arizona, and California, much other land north of those areas, against Britain in Oregon and Washington and other northern states, and against Britain in Hawaii and Russia in Alaska. 

What is Manifest Destiny?  It is the  doctrine or belief that the expansion of the US throughout the American continents was both justified and inevitable, and it definitely challenges the notion that all men are created equal. Although ideally people in non-US areas should petition for statehood, foreign adversaries learned that they must either sell their claims to the USA or Americans, meaning the white race,  would take it by conquest because it was their manifest destiny to have the land from coast to coast.  Wikipedia says this about it:

------ Manifest Destiny -----

This was a controversial proposition for two reasons. First, idealistic advocates of manifest destiny like John L. O'Sullivan had always maintained that the laws of the United States should not be imposed on people against their will. The annexation of "All Mexico" would be a violation of this principle. And secondly, the annexation of Mexico was controversial because it would mean extending U.S. citizenship to millions of Mexicans. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who had approved of the annexation of Texas, was opposed to the annexation of Mexico, as well as the "mission" aspect of manifest destiny, for racial reasons.[53] He made these views clear in a speech to Congress on January 4, 1848:

We have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.[54]

This debate brought to the forefront one of the contradictions of manifest destiny: on the one hand, while identitarian ideas inherent in manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans, as non-whites, would present a threat to white racial integrity and thus were not qualified to become Americans, the "mission" component of manifest destiny suggested that Mexicans would be improved (or "regenerated", as it was then described) by bringing them into American democracy. Identitarianism was used to promote manifest destiny, but, as in the case of Calhoun and the resistance to the "All Mexico" movement, identitarianism was also used to oppose manifest destiny.[55]Conversely, proponents of annexation of "All Mexico" regarded it as an anti-slavery measure.[56]


The controversy was eventually ended by the Mexican Cession, which added the territories of Alta California and Nuevo MΓ©xico to the United States, both more sparsely populated than the rest of Mexico. Like the All Oregon movement, the All Mexico movement quickly abated.

------------

Now, 170 years later, we know that a deluge of Mexicans and others from  IberoAmerica, the West Indies, Africa, and Muslim lands have brought people into the land, and ultimately the electorate, millions of non-whites who do not share the religious or cultural ideals of US whites, and to a large extent resent whites just for existing and being generally superior to and more highly productive than them. As La Griffe du Lion pointed out in his article Cognitive Decline, the Irreducible Legacy of Open Borders (2005), it is civilizationally suicidal to allow hordes of stupid people to immigrate. As the population becomes ever less white (whites no longer are the majority race of children born in the USA), it becomes ever less responsible because of lower intelligence of the bulk of those non-whites in the population, and because of their 3rd world, truly alien, cultural values.  Thus, the non-whites definitely constitute a threat to American civilization.

The big question:  what will the great white hope, President Donald J. Trump, do about it?  Will he show the leadership needed to block immigration of Muslims and dangerous or low-productivity people, and curtail the expansion and suffrage of the low-IQ population?  Or will he stand by and watch the expansion continue apace until the stupid and irresponsible swamp the will of a significantly more intelligent minority at the polls?

And here's another pesky question.  Does the USA still have the same "manifest destiny" it had in the 19th and 20th centuries to take other lands by purchase or conquest?  The nation has had plenty of chance to snatch and keep the Philippines, Cuba, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Germany, Italy, and Japan in the past century as the spoils of war.  That's a lot of people to force to make English their native tongue.  Maybe our nation's leaders learned a hard lesson from France and Italy, now swamped with non-whites from their former African colonies, and from our own travails as a consequence of permitting entry into the land of slaves from Africa and the West Indies.

It should come as no surprise that the average IQ of gene groups (such as in racial groups) correlates very highly with the value of productivity of the group.  Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen analyzed national IQ scores in contrast to Gross Domestic Product and found very high correlations except when the style of government (such as the Communist government of China) interfered with productivity value.  See their paper Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

Also see Lynn and Vanhanen's  IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002) and IQ and Global Inequality (2006), and Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence (2015).

I also recommend the analytical articles by La Griffe du Lion: The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002) and Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag (2004).  These works by Lynn, Vanhanen, and duLion have angered politically correct liberal elitists who feel loathe to admit that average IQ markedly differs between nations or racial groups, and that even if they differ, they are not genetic in nature, and even if they are genetic in nature, they don't show one group as superior or inferior to another.  They'd prefer that we all just shut up about the subject and pretend it doesn't exist so they can impose a guilt trip on anyone who claims one racial group or nation is superior to any other for purposes of building an advanced civilization.  Too bad for them.  Attention MUST BE PAID to these very important issues because of the demonstrably high correlation between intelligence and value to civilization in terms of productivity, value of productivity, and ability to provide for one's family, community, and nation.  I personally believe American civilization's survival and advancement depend on these important principles.

The issue here has nothing to do with the skin color of Americans.  It has everything to do with the average intelligence of racial groups, and the necessary measures for elevating that intelligence so as to enable the groups to have a higher value of productivity and greater worth overall to society and to the American Civilization.  Skin color just happens to constitute a marker of average intelligence of the racial or gene group.  Regardless of race, all Americans should aspire to elevate the quality and capability of their own gene group so as to maximize its value to the advancement of civilization AND to give its members a decent standard of living. 

It should come as no surprise that the average IQ of gene groups (such as in racial groups) correlates very highly with the value of productivity of the group.  Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen analyzed national IQ scores in contrast to Gross Domestic Product and found very high correlations except when the style of government (such as the Communist government of China) interfered with productivity value.  See their paper Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations.

Also see Lynn and Vanhanen's  IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002), IQ and Global Inequality (2006), and Richard Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence (2015).

I also recommend the analytical articles by La Griffe du Lion: The Smart Fraction Theory of IQ and the Wealth of Nations (2002) and Smart Fraction Theory II: Why Asians Lag (2004).  These works by Lynn, Vanhanen, and duLion have angered politically correct liberal elitists who feel loathe to admit that average IQ markedly differs between nations or racial groups, and that even if they differ, they are not genetic in nature, and even if they are genetic in nature, they don't show one group as superior or inferior to another.  They'd prefer that we all just shut up about the subject and pretend it doesn't exist so they can impose a guilt trip on anyone who claims one racial group or nation is superior to any other for purposes of building an advanced civilization.  Too bad for them.  Attention MUST BE PAID to these very important issues because of the demonstrably high correlation between intelligence and value to civilization in terms of productivity, value of productivity, and ability to provide for one's family, community, and nation.  I personally believe American civilization's survival and advancement depend on these important principles.

When it comes to elevating the quality of the gene pool, such elevation can only happen through slaughter of inferior gene groups or widespread benign eugenics programs.  I prefer the latter, but history has a bounty of examples of the former when gene group leaders failed to do the latter.  The time has come for national dialogue on this very important subject of eugenics and how to implement it across the land while it is still possible.

--
Bob Hurt Signature

Bob Hurt
πŸ‘“ Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     πŸ“ž (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
πŸ”¨ Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

 

Friday, February 10, 2017

Bay Pines VA Improving Just Fine

My stay at the VA

Got sick the other day and waiter 8 hours in the ER waiting room. Wrote to Dir. Suzanne, she responded immediately, and an array of fixes are in the wind.

Sunday, January 29, 2017

Why a Muslim Ban Does Not Violate the 1st Amendment

Islamic Terrorism and Call for Banning Muslims

Nearly fourteen months ago, on 2 December 2015,  a pair of Muslim terrorists murdered and injured three dozen people at a social services facility Christmas party in San Bernadino California.  On 7 December 2015, Republican Presidential front-runner Donald J Trump called for a complete ban against Muslims immigrating into the United States until government can figure out what's happening.  That backed up his earlier call for surveillance of mosques and other Muslim hangouts. 

The Ban is Constitutional because...

The call for a ban put Democrats into a tailspin of course.  Trump's leftist detractors tried to shame him, but he told them he didn't care what they say.  They claimed a religious test for entry into the USA constitutes a violation of the US Constitution's 1st Amendment, which provides this:
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.
Banning Muslims has nothing to do with establishing a religion.  Anyone who can read should know that.  Apparently America's leftist and Muslim US citizens and others who find a ban on Muslims illegal obviously cannot read or cannot comprehend what they read.

Furthermore, Congress has already given the President the power to impose such a ban.  See 8 U.S.C. § ll82, which provides this:

"(f)Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline."

Islam is a Political System, Not a Religion

But most importantly, Islam is not actually a religion, even though it bears many of the trappings of a religion.  It is, in fact, a POLITICAL system diametrically opposed to the US Constitution-based republics of the USA and of its several states.  It operates behind the DISGUISE of a religion.

Begun in the 7th century C.E. in Arabia, Islam's political system known as  "Shari'ah" includes taxation, waging war against infidels, slaughtering apostates, and regulating society with laws permitting rape (unless three males attest to having witnessed, but not participated in, the rape), vaginal mutilation to prevent women from enjoying sex to the extent that they would run off with man other than husband, polygamy, and regulating many things such as executions by beheading, punishing robbery by chopping off the right hand, cleansing the body, praying 5 times a day in a public display, giving of alms to widows and orphans and the poor, "Ramadan" fasting during daylight hours for a winter month, making a pilgrimage to Mecca, and many other rules.

Islamic Law Diametrically Opposed to US Constitution

Shari'ah law also mandates a system of public education of males (but not females) centered on the Qur'an (or Koran), its supporting Sunna, or oral traditions of Muhammad which include the Hadiths (his practices) and Sira (his biography). Muslim centers of worship are called mosques. The clerics, known as Imams, interpret the law for less learned Muslims.

Shari'ah does not respect individual liberties, so it does not comport with the liberty guarantees of the US Constitution.

And interestingly, most Islamic governments are monarchies, theocracies, or other dictatorships. Of the approximately 50 Islamic majority states in the world, only five are republics.

The Bloody, Criminal History of Islamic Expansion

Historically, Muslims entering a land not governed by Shari'ah have become committed to use warfare or lawful but underhanded methods to alter the form of government to a Shari'ah-dominant government over everyone, making Islam the state religion and treating all non-Muslims as third-class citizens. That explains the propensity for Muslim thugs to turn the government into a dictatorship. 

Generally, the Muslim population starts growing through immigration and missionary or proselytizating efforts, remaining peaceable and subservient to the laws of the land, but as their population grows, they request or demand the right to govern their own community affairs under Shari'ah and under the religious leadership of their clerics known as Imams.  And as their population becomes closer to a majority, Muslims engage in political activities intended to convert the government to one practicing Shari'ah over the entire land. Usually such conversion necessitates insurrection, terrorism, and out and out warfare such as we see in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. 

India, the birthplace of Bhuddism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Sikhism, became an early target for Muslims.  Arab traders settled in western coastal areas in the 7th century, but invasion of Turkic-Mongols and their Muslim mughal leaders in the 12th century caused a Muslim population explosion. In time the Muslim population caused such unrest with other religious groups, principally Hindus, that the British separated coalesced India's many mughal satrapies into a fledgling nation, and then separated off Pakistan and Bangladesh as Muslim lands.  India suffers constant violence and unrest because of conflicts between Muslims and non-Muslims there.

In the 7th Century Muslims took over North Africa.  They expanded into Spain in the early 8th century and sent armies to within 90 miles of Paris before Charles-the-Hammer's forces defeated them in the Battle of Tours in 732.  Muslims ruled most of Spain until Ferdinand and Isabella expelled them in 1492, but the Spanish did not eject the last of the Muslim civilians until 1614.

In the past century, the foolish European, British, and Scandinavian governments have invited Muslims into their lands, believing they could absorb them with no damage to local culture.  The recent waves of so-called refugees contain many Islamic jihadists and terrorists bent on rape and plunder of those lands, and of course, converting the governments into Islamic oligarchies in due course.

During the years of the Ottoman Empire in the 14th through the 19th centuries, Muslim pirates and raiders from Turkey and North Africa terrorized coastlines of non-Islamic lands around the Mediterranean, the western Coast of Africa, eastern coast of South America, and as far north as Iceland.  Muslim Berber pirates became the USA's very first enemies after the US gained independence from the British monarchy. Only the power of American and European Navies finally quelled the Islamic piracy in the Mediterranean around 1830.  But Muslim pirates still represent a dire threat to voyagers near the Philippine island of Mindanao, and in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, the Persian Gulf, and anywhere else where Muslims predominate in the population. 

Furthermore, Islamic militants have done their best to slaughter Americans in the USA, Philippine Islands, Libya and other African nations, Iraq, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Syria in the past 120 years.  The USA has suffered at least 11 serious Islamic terrorist attacks including a variety of shootings and stabbings and the devastations of the Murrah bombing in 1995, World Trade Center in 1993, and the 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon by Muslim airplane hijackers on a suicide mission.

Islam Endangers American and Western Civilization

Thus, NO sentient, informed being can have any question whatsoever as to whether Islam is a religion or a political system with religious trappings.  It is not a mere religion.  It is a political system inseparable from its religious trappings.  And one cannot help but conclude that Islam as a political system and its Muslim adherents present a clear and present danger to the government, people, and property of the United States of America, and to Western Civilization in general.

Wherever Islam grows as a religion, intense and violent conflicts ultimately develop between Muslims and the natives.

Islam at its core has a distinctly ANTI-American nature.  Therefore its adherents should be banned from the USA forever, or until sensible governments forcibly separate the Shari'ah law and social regulation from Islam to make it into a religion of peace and good will.

The Ban on Muslim Immigration is Just

The United States Government should put Muslims in the same classification as Communists.  But it should label Islam as more dangerous owing to the deceptive nature of its religious trappings.  Both endanger the sovereignty of our nation and style of our national, state, and local governments.  Therefore, Congress should not permit them have employment in municipal, county, state, or national government, including educational institutions and the US military, and Congress should not allow them to vote in any elections.

Possibly, the US Congress can devise a method of requiring all Muslim US citizens to forswear loyalty to Shari'ah law and repudiate all Muslim requirements to obey social regulations. But until then, the US Congress should enact a law banning Muslims from immigrating, revoking the citizenship of naturalized US citizen Muslims, canceling residence permits of all alien Muslims, ejecting all alien Muslims from the USA, and putting all other Muslims in the USA, particularly their clerics and private school teachers, under continuous surveillance for evidence of subversive activities.

We should not allow our state and national leaders to ignore the lessons of history.  Islam endangers the American republic and civilization, so federal law should ban its adherents from the land.

     
Bob Hurt
πŸ‘“ Blog 1 2   f   t
Email     πŸ“ž (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
πŸ”¨ Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Obama's Farewell and My Suffrage Plan

The President's Farewell Address

Overall, I enjoyed Barack Hussein Obama's inspiring, emotional farewell address to Congress and the nation tonight.  I enjoyed his recounting of accomplishments and encouragement to others to participate in government.  Overall, I liked the speech and feel grateful to have heard it.

Obama has set an admirable standard for public manners, decorum, and humor that people of all races throughout the USA should aspire to match in their personal comportment.

I did not like his divisive references such as to the impoverished fighting for scraps while the rich wallow in money, as though government owes a better living to the impoverished without imposing any requirements upon them to demonstrate responsibility.

I did not like his reference to our nation/government as a "democracy," which I consider a vile justification for "mob rule."  I would have preferred to hear him refer to our "REPUBLIC" instead.

And I did not like his assertion that everyone should have a right to vote because he did not condition voting rights upon demonstrable responsibility.

Responsibility and Sound Suffrage

In the early days of the nation, states allowed only free white propertied men over 21 to vote. 

That was a responsibility test.  Being white was luck of the draw, but in those days most people were white and non-whites were  slaves, Indians, or Mestizos generally considered irresponsible.  Anybody who owned land or had disposable gold or silver was ipso facto responsible.  Anybody over 21 had already been working for a living or engaged in military service for several years, another element of demonstrable responsibility.   Such people had something to LOSE if government employees behaved badly.  So they could be trusted to vote wisely.

Nowadays, government lets all kinds of relatively irresponsible people vote, including  the abysmally stupid, drug and alcohol addicts, people on welfare, stay-at-home women who have no interest in government, homeless people, hopelessly indebted people, and in some areas even felons and aliens.  That is, simply, INSANE, that is what Obama wants and always wanted (so such fools would vote tax-and-spend Democrats into office), and it must change. 

The POINT.  While everyone should have some say in government, only responsible voters should sway elections.  In a related family paradigm, wise parents let children participate in the decisions of family government, but children never win when the parents' wisdom opposes them.  Children might vote for the kids to go for a joy ride in the car, but wise parents will override them and say NO, and then explain why.  That is one way parents can teach children their wisdom.

Limit Suffrage while Everybody Votes

I recoiled at the President's declaration that everyone should vote because I know that is idiotic, unless the President wants an irresponsible electorate. 

Nevertherless, I concluded that my general call for massive changes to the Constitution to limit suffrage to the responsible goes a bit overboard and ignores a fundamental truth.  People tend to care about what they have a hand in supporting and running.  Participation in government lets the stupid and criminal behave irresponsibly through their votes.  But when they have no say at all, they reason that they might as well hate and actually attack government and its ideals to get their fair share.

Therefore, I have decided to modify my call for denying suffrage to the irresponsible into a call to give limited suffrage to the irresponsible, sufficient for them to know they have a say in government, but not sufficient for them to overwhelm responsible people as they become an ever larger percentage of the population. 

I want the suffrage system to encourage people to become more responsible so that they might have more influence on government through their votes.

Thus, I recommend a system of scaled voting rights. 

Scaled Voting Rights

The least responsible and most ignorant should have the right to cast a minuscule percentage of a vote.  The most responsible and best educated should have the right to cast multiple votes or voluntarily to cast fewer votes or split his votes to cast some for one candidate or issue, and some for an opposing candidate or issue. 

A suffrage commission should study and set the scale and percentages for each level of voting rights, and establish a means of testing citizens to determine which level of voting rights they possess, and a means by which people can get a higher voting percentage by becoming better educated and demonstrating greater responsibility or by which people get lower voting rights by demonstrating less responsibility or failing to get high marks on knowledge tests. 

The most important test of knowledge should deal with the constitutions of the US and the State of domicile, followed by formal education, apprenticeships, work experience, and ad hoc education.  Since most issues upon which people vote have to do with government and civilization, people with the best educations in the ideals of good republican government and of advancement of civilization should have better voting rights.

Yes, many fights will break out over what advances and what retards civilization and what improves and what worsens government, but so what?  It needs to happen. 

Right now we have pathetic standards for voting rights. One must be a US or State citizen in most jurisdictions to vote, and must not be a felon to vote in most jurisdictions, and must not have been adjudged insane, and must be over age 18.  In time, the irresponsible will become the majority of voters, judging from immigration and procreation statistics.  We need to stiffen the suffrage standards with the scaling system.

Examples of Scaling

Here are some examples of scaling voting rights according to education alone:

  1. Minimum voting age to exercise one full right to vote should become 25 years of age, the age at which the brain becomes fully developed, and also the age by which most people will have had experience in work or military to give them some reasonable nexus to society and to government as a responsibility-bearing citizen.  Prior to that, people are too immature to take voting as seriously as a responsibility to provoke them to study the issues and Constitution and candidates.  
  2. To exercise one full right to vote one must have obtained a high school diploma with a minimum passing grade of C (70% or 2.80).  Citizens can pay for a retraining course and retake the tests to obtain higher grades and increase voting rights. 
  3. Obtaining an Associates degree would increase voting right to by .25,
  4. Bachelor's degree would increase by an additional .25,
  5. Master's degree an additional .25, and
  6. PhD, MD or equivalent an additional .25 vote.
  7. MD internship completion would add .25 vote
  8. Apprenticeship completion would add .1 vote

Instead of the above percentages of a vote added to voting rights, the single vote could be scaled down or up by a percentage factor based on marriage, legal separation, divorce, arrests, convictions, sentences, behavior in prison/jail, behavior in schools, going on or off of welfare, becoming indebted for luxuries, paying off debts, traffic and other accidents, drug and alcohol and gambling addictions, mental incompetence, being diagnosed with a mind-deficient condition (including depression), savings, investments, growth of savings and investments, constitution competence testing results, completion of marriage training, out of wedlock pregnancies, accidental pregnancies, academic performance of a voter's school age children, acts of heroism, military service including awards and type of discharge, and employment and social commendations.

Think Before You Slap

Before you slap your forehead and slam your fist on the table in outrage over my suggestion, consider that the founders of our nation gave voting rights based on DEMONSTRATIVE responsibility, and I merely recommend re-instituting, improving, and refining that tried-and-true requirement with the aid of computer technology that can track all of the above qualities of responsible citizenship. 

Remember that the electorate must improve in order for government to improve.  The scaled system rewards and encourages responsibility, competence, success, prosperity, education, wise handling of money, proper rearing of children, etc.  It improves the electorate while granting irresponsible a measure of limited opportunity to influence government, and it will thereby improve government.

Feel free to send me your comments or post them on my blog.  If you agree with the scaled suffrage system, propose it to your legislators.



--
Bob Hurt Signature

Bob Hurt
πŸ‘“ Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     πŸ“ž (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
πŸ”¨ Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

 

Sunday, January 08, 2017

Julian Heicklen's Final Tyranny Fighter Report

Julian P Heicklen <jph13@psu.edu>:

I read your report (attached) and enjoyed learning about your FIJA efforts. I write to comment on some of your comments.

  1. How to beat the Chief Judge.

    1. You can beat judges who prohibit handing out flyers by attacking them in with out-of state federal judges and with citizen initiatives and legislation.  You cannot beat them by getting arrested for handing out flyers UNLESS you can bring so many people to the courthouse that the deputies/marshals cannot possibly arrest them all.  Halloween is the best day for this is Halloween because in Florida (see Florida Statutes Chapter 876) that's the one day you can lawfully wear a disguise that hides your identity.  All protestors must leave their wallet and ID card at home, of course, and refuse fingerprinting if arrested.

    2. It is not illegal to hand out flyers on public property so long as you don't harass others in the process or impede the proper functioning of the court.  Meanwhile, nobody keeps you from dropping flyers from a drone or getting people to wear informative t-shirts and magnet signs on their cars, etc.
  2. Whether to beat the Chief Judge - this issue raises the question of why judges don't want jurors to get FIJA flyers.  To get to the heart of it you must do some research and use some reasoning. 

    1. Why Gov't Stripped Juries of Powers.  I proved that the Florida Constitutions changed in the civil war era to remove the power of grand juries to investigate all felonies (now they investigate only capitol crimes), and petit juries to judge the law as well as facts, and of crime victims to prosecute crimes personally ("private prosecution").  Nothing explained why those changes happened, but common sense points to a good reason:  Negroes having voting rights.  These days U.S. Negroes have an average IQ of 85, the level needed to graduate from high school.  Thus, one half of our Negroes are too stupid to graduate.  To me that means they are too stupid to vote or sit on a jury.  The OJ Simpson murder trial proved that it makes no sense for Negroes to serve as jurors without some restrictions other than failure to have registered as a voter.  The 15th Amendment gave Negro men the right to vote, the 19th extended that right to Negro and other women, and the 26th extended it to children 18 and over. 

    2. How to fix the problem. All of those amendments were completely stupid and should never have become ratified without imposing further qualifications such as having at least a high school diploma, having passed a constitution competency test, being financially self-sufficient (not subsisting on welfare), and being of good moral and ethical character.  When judges and lawmakers discovered that hopelessly ignorant and irresponsible voters could populate juries, they stripped from "the people" much of their jury rights.  And that is why it makes no sense to buck against the judges today without first getting legislation enacted to impose upon prospective voters the obligation to prove themselves responsible, educated, law-abiding, and well-informed.  I personally believe that we have  corrupt legislatures because we have a corrupt, incompetent, ignorant, and irresponsible electorate.

  3. Deporting Mexicans and Muslims -

    1. Trump Should Do It. This would be an excellent move on Trump's part.  I refer, of course, to deporting all Muslim non-citizens, alien and otherwise, whether or not refugees, and all undocumented aliens, Mexican and otherwise.  Illegal aliens have no valid reason to be in the USA and they take jobs Americans should have.  They also encourage a black-market economy which diminishes tax revenues.  Muslims, whether peaceable or violent, constitute a grave danger to the US and its people because all Muslims support Shari'a law and want it to supplant our constitutional republic, and they all give financial support directly or indirectly to Jihadists.  SO Muslims are enemies of our constitutions.  The President should hammer Congress for legislation requiring all Muslim citizens to swear an oath disavowing loyalty and support for any form of Shari'a, and also say "Hell NO" to anchor babies, and push the legislation through  Congress to outlaw it. 

    2. Deportation Difficulty Leads to Gas Chambers? - What an idiotic notion.  The USA is not run by a Nazi government like pre WWII Germany was.   Trump's desire to deport illegal aliens and non-citizen Muslims is practical common sense and it does not compare to Hitler's deportation of Jews out of racial hatred. Federal law enforcers CAN determine the country of origin of illegal immigrants and forcibly return them.  Congress should impose upon all foreign countries the obligation to pay for the deportation costs.  Routine deportation and the difficulty thereof does not lead to gas chambers.  In the US, prison or work camps constitute a practical alternative to deportation, if the Government has the spine for it.  No matter how you cut it, undocumented entry into the US is a crime and it should be prevented, not merely prohibited, and illegal aliens should be unceremoniously tossed out of the land.Protests do not cause laws to change unless the laws are practical and morally right, or unless the government is corrupt.

  4.  Prison Populations.  The US has a lot of people in prison because it contains a lot of stupid and criminal people, and many of them chose to sell drugs for a living instead of having lawful jobs. 
    1. Stupidity. 80 Million people comprising 25% of the population are too stupid to graduate from a proper high school and gravitate to crime and welfare abuse to get by, robbing the productive in the process.  The only solution is to diminish the percentage of stupid people in the population, and the only humane ways to do that are to sterilize the stupid (because only stupid people don't know that the stupid inherit their stupidity from parents), and meanwhile to encourage the average and smart to have large broods of children.  In its effect it seems racial because many Negroes and Mestizos would get sterilized because the stupid constitute such a large percentage of their gene groups.  But that is just tough titty, so to speak.  Remember though that the stupid in the USA comprise about 35 million Caucasians, 21 million Negroes, and 24 million Mestizos, so it includes a lot of "white" people too.  Bottom line, reduce the percentage of stupid people in the population and you reduce the prison population.

    2. Drugs.  The prison populations will not reduce until street drugs become legalized and taxed at a rate high enough to discourage use and low enough to make black market dealing unprofitable.  Slamming the borders and coastlines and airways shut to immigrants, and properly inspecting inbound cargos will help prevent the smuggling of drugs into the country.
  5. Guns and the 2nd Amendment.
    1. The 2nd Amendment guarantees to "the people" the right to keep and bear arms.  "The People" includes responsible people with a nexus to government, not every human being within the borders of the USA.  "The People" does not include felons, those adjudged mentally incompetent, children under 18 (16 in Vermont), or illegal aliens.  And "arms" does not include any destructive device one might want to carry, drive, or haul around.  Congress has specifically limited the meaning of people and arms with respect to the Constitution's 2nd Amendment.

    2. It goes without saying that public officers will not intentionally set up or allow a circumstance that will encourage destruction of government through armed rebellion or insurrection.  But in fact Congress has said exactly that in laws against rebellion and insurrection.

    3. Yes, Negroes and Islamic Jihadists (agents of AlQuaeda/ISIL) across the USA have increased their boldness in the outrageous murders of Negroes, law enforcers, and innocent citizens.  Felons, other irresponsibles, and Islamic terrorists commit most of those murders. 

    4. YOU, like an IDIOT, encourage  Americans to murder judges because you think all of them are corrupt.  But you offer no reason to believe that all judges are corrupt.  I personally believe most of them try their best to do a good job, and I denounce your efforts to get judges killed.

  6. Fix the electorate and Grand Juries.  Americans should work assiduously to propose and get legislatures to enact laws heightening the requirements of education, intelligence, self-sufficiency, sanity, and lawfulness for becoming a voter. strengthening the juries by restoring jury powers, and making it easier for citizens whom judges and prosecutors have abused to report the evidence and crimes to grand juries free of influence by the courts and prosecutors.  Americans should work to reinstate private powers of prosecution of criminal defendants when US Attorneys and State Attorneys and Attorneys General refuse to prosecute those in power who should be prosecuted.
Please stay in Israel.  America doesn't want you back.

--
Bob Hurt Signature

Bob Hurt
πŸ‘“ Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     πŸ“ž (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
πŸ”¨ Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

 

Thursday, December 29, 2016

What went wrong with the Electoral System

What Went Wrong with Our Electoral System

The Good of the Electoral System

Hamilton explained in Federalist 68 (appended below) the reasons for the electoral system in the Constitution for the United States of America (CUSA) - to prevent cabal, intrigue, incompetence, and attitudes disconnected from the sense of the people from effecting the election of the US President.  Such an intrigue included that from concentrated masses of people in urban areas.  The electoral system prevented urban populations from overwhelming the will of widespread provincial and rural populations.

The amended CUSA's electoral system requires that each state have a number of electors equal to the number of its representatives in Congress, and that responsible voters should choose them, and the state shall determine the manner of their casting votes for the President and Vice President.  The CUSA provides means for resolving ties in the electoral votes.  The system is not perfect, but sensible, informed people generally recognize that it does a pretty good job.

What Happens with an Alien as President

UNFORTUNATELY, our imperfect system allowed an abject imposter, Barack Hussein Obama, to ascend to the Presidency and to do many evils during his 8 years in office.

Fairness dictates that we admit certain benign features of Obama's Presidency.  The nations health insurance system needed overhaul, the armies in Afghanistan and Iraq needed to come home from their no-win wars.  Obama put those into motion.  And he has a nice smile and pleasant way of speaking.

But Obama also fomented and financed a war against the government of Syria as punishment for Assad's refusal to allow a Qatar gas pipeline to run through Syria, spearheaded the growth of ISIL, caused millions of Muslims with jihadist intentions or inclinations to invade the USA, UK, Europe, and Scandinavia (while blaming it on climate change), dramatically increased health care insurance premiums for productive Americans in order to give a virtual free ride to the non-productive, failed to protect the US borders from invasion through IberoAmerica and Canada and the coastlines, failed to eject illegal aliens, gave Iran the money it needed to by Boeing airplanes, and has continued the process of squandering billions of dollars through foreign aid, and encouraged Negro malcontents to riot and rampage across American cities by giving Negro crime a virtual green light through his support of thugs like Trayvon Martin.

And his family travel and vacations have cost taxpayers $85 million in the course of his Presidency.

The Natural Born Citizen Issue Solved

Obama is not a natural born citizen because he has an alien (British African) father, he was born in Kenya, and his US citizen mother had remained too long outside the USA to confer citizenship upon him at birth under US law at the time.

Clearly, the CUSA failed to impose upon any particular agency the obligation to verify the credentials of aspirants to the offices of President and Vice President PRIOR to their running or campaigning for office.  Both Mario Rubio and Ted Cruz campaigned to become the Republican candidate for President even though neither qualifies as a natural born citizen.

The value of the requirement of natural born citizen status consists of freedom from foreign influence on one's conscience and loyalty to the CUSA.  Natural born citizen status ensures that the citizen bears no conflicting pressure on his loyalty to the obligation to protect, preserve, and defend the CUSA against all enemies foreign and domestic. 

Conflicts arise by these factors: 

  1. Extended absence from the USA to live in a foreign land (other than as a consulate employee);
  2. Birth to a non-US Citizen parent;
  3. Birth in a foreign land. 
In all three of these circumstances, loyalties alien individuals, cultures, and governments constitute a grave conflict of conscience and tend to make a person feel more loyal to the alien influence than to the CUSA, especially when confronted with a choice that has severe consequences to the alien influence. 

For that reason, a "natural born citizen" is born on US soil of two US citizen parents, according to my thinking. 

Others like scholar Jon Roland harbor a differing opinion, saying we owe it to English law to accept "jus soli"  (law of soil) as the determining factor of a natural born citizen.  But I disagree for the reasons above. 

And, bottom line, if Congress has anything at all to say about one's citizenship status, one is not a natural born citizen because Congress only deals with naturalization.  As Ann Coulter wrote on 13 January 2013, "A child born to American parents outside of U.S. territory may be a citizen the moment he is born -- but only by "naturalization," i.e., by laws passed by Congress. If Congress has to write a law to make you a citizen, you're not "natural born." 

The Problem with Obama's Split Loyalties

Obama's alien loyalties to Islamic culture and religion and to alien governments, cultures, and people, including family members, of Kenya and Indonesia definitely conflict with his loyalty to the CUSA.

In spite of the awareness of Obama's political handlers about his split loyalties when he became an Illinois and US lawmaker, no one lifted a finger to verify his citizenship and birth status prior to his running for the Presidency.  This had nothing in particular to do with the electoral system, but it shows how irresponsible the electors and party apparatchiks were were in casting their votes for Obama.

Core Deficiency in Electoral System - No Investigative Power

However, Obama's lack of qualification for the Presidency reveals a core deficiency in the electoral system.  The electors operate as a loose array of individuals, possibly overseen by operatives of political parties.  They do not have an investigatory body to command nor a budget, other than for travel to the state capitol to cast their ballots.  And yet the burden falls upon them as the opportunity of last resort to verify the credentials and qualifications of the candidates for President and Vice President.

The CUSA's 25th Amendment (appended below) provides for the Congress to determine whether the President suffers from incapacity to perform duties, and to put the Vice President forth as President.  This was intended to accommodate an illness or mental dysfunction that made the President unable to perform.

A sentient Congress could use this as a final stop-gap means to strip power from an incipient President on the basis that his incapacity devolves from never having qualified to hold the office to begin with, owing to non-natural-born-citizen status which nobody bothered checking or protesting earlier.

All should demand of our legislators that they create a new amendment to the CUSA requiring an examination of credentials and full airing of related disputes, obliging the courts to weigh in with non-binding opinions.  The electors should have all that data available before casting their votes, and the CUSA should  prohibit interference with electors voting as they see fit.

As I see it, today's electors are just political hacks.  Nothing really guarantees that they are intelligent, properly educated and informed about the issues and candidates and candidate qualifications, and free of party interference prior to casting their votes.

THAT, in my opinion, needs to be fixed.


Exceptions?

One correspondent wrote this suggestion that an exception exists for Obama:
"Obama's legitimacy rests on the theory of implicit amendment by subsequent events which includes changes in law relative to the clause in question, but not implicitly repealing that clause.  The natural born clause seems to be inconsistent with the equal protection clause and the one kind of citizenship clause, but not necessarily.  There could be an exception to both general rules in the case of the President.  "
Surely someone before me has opined that the ambiguous provisions of the Constitution should not serve to undo, pervert, or subvert the features the founders obviously intended and enabled through the ambiguity. They intended the ambiguity to give flexibility, not to justify or facilitate subversion. They devised the electoral system not as an end unto itself but to keep enemies, traitors, aliens, alien agents, cabalists, etc., out of the Presidency with minimal disruption by side effects.  To the extent it fails to do that, some individual or group has subverted its function to serve people other than the responsible citizenry of the land.

That is why I explained my take on the principle underlying the natural born citizen restriction on aspirants to the Presidency.  By implication, first of all, a non-natural-born citizen should never be allowed to run for President or become a nominated candidate for President because he can never become President constitutionally.  So Congress must devise a means of verifying credentials and qualifications at the time a person signs up as nominee or candidate and again immediately prior to elevation to office.  Furthermore, a President must not have split or alloyed loyalty with respect to the US Constitution in contrast to alien constitutions, governments, cultures, geography, and people.

We must see the natural born citizen requirement in that light or its function becomes perverted or subverted. And that is the problem with Jon Roland's insistence on bowing to English authorities on the qualifications of the US President.  Such bowing results in a subversion of the principle against split loyalties in the Presidency. 

That is why a natural born citizen is and must be a US citizen who was born on US soil of TWO US citizen parents, not merely one US citizen parent and one alien parent, and he must not only have credible proof documents, but there must be no credible dissent (such as family members claiming they saw him being born in the Coast Hospital of Mumbasi Kenya).

And, that is also why the Constitution requires the President to have resided in the USA for 14 contiguous years prior to election - to reduce the likelihood of influence by alien loyalties.

There can be no exception to those rules. Ann Coulter wrote rightly that anyone who becomes a citizen by virtue of a law simply does not constitute a natural born citizen.

Beating a Dead Horse?


Another correspondent penned "Come on, get serious, Obama is legitimate and you cannot go back eight years."

No, Obama is not and never was a legitimate US President, because he was born in alien land to an alien father. We have had an alien President with alien allegiances for 8 years because nobody bothered scrutinizing his birth records and other credentials prior to allowing him to run for or ascend to the Presidency, and nobody bothered blocking him because he is an alien.  Obama's mother lacked the legal capacity to confer US citizenship upon him because of her extended absence from the country.  Obama is not even a US citizen, much less a natural born citizen.

This is not a dead issue and I am not beating a dead horse, so to speak.  Congress must enact a law to enforce scrutiny of credentials and denial of the right to run or serve for every elected and appointed officer of US government.
--
Bob Hurt Signature

Bob Hurt
πŸ‘“ Blog 1 2   f   t  
Email     πŸ“ž (727) 669-5511
2460 Persian Drive #70
✈ Clearwater, FL 33763 USA
Donate  to Law Scholarship
✔  Subscribe to Lawmen E-Letter
πŸ”¨ Learn How to Win in Court
Mortgage Attack to Beat the Bank

 



The Mode of Electing the President 
From the New York Packet. 
Friday, March 14, 1788.

HAMILTON

To the People of the State of New York:

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded.1 I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.

Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.

All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

The Vice-President is to be chosen in the same manner with the President; with this difference, that the Senate is to do, in respect to the former, what is to be done by the House of Representatives, in respect to the latter.

The appointment of an extraordinary person, as Vice-President, has been objected to as superfluous, if not mischievous. It has been alleged, that it would have been preferable to have authorized the Senate to elect out of their own body an officer answering that description. But two considerations seem to justify the ideas of the convention in this respect. One is, that to secure at all times the possibility of a definite resolution of the body, it is necessary that the President should have only a casting vote. And to take the senator of any State from his seat as senator, to place him in that of President of the Senate, would be to exchange, in regard to the State from which he came, a constant for a contingent vote. The other consideration is, that as the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the President, in the supreme executive magistracy, all the reasons which recommend the mode of election prescribed for the one, apply with great if not with equal force to the manner of appointing the other. It is remarkable that in this, as in most other instances, the objection which is made would lie against the constitution of this State. We have a Lieutenant-Governor, chosen by the people at large, who presides in the Senate, and is the constitutional substitute for the Governor, in casualties similar to those which would authorize the Vice-President to exercise the authorities and discharge the duties of the President.

PUBLIUS.

1 Vide FEDERAL FARMER.


PRESIDENTIAL VACANCY AND DISABILITY

TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT SECTIONS 1–4.

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principle officers of the 2285 executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.