Republican Serial Hypocrisy: Eligibility to be President

by stratsure

The term “conservative,” a touchstone of the modern Republican Party, has been redefined, a technique common to propaganda. The new “conservative” term, let us call it NewCon, reminds us of the “Ministry of Truth’ in George Orwell’s 1984:




Mirriam-Webster (online) advises that conservatism is “a political philosophy based upon tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change….” NewCon, the new purported constitutionalism, justifies international intervention, increasing federal control of the citizens and states, presidential wars, “crony capitalism” (oligarchy,) and an overt disregard of the Constitution.  NewCons tout the Constitution the same way Elmer Gantry did the Bible.


Messieurs Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, currently candidates for the Republican presidency selection, individually puff themselves up as the real conservatives; yet, each of them supports creating and using federal powers to enforce personal beliefs and establishing control over peoples lives through government mandate – for the common good.  How do socialistic organizational concepts become “conservative?”

The transition begins with “conservative” being redefined to mean – having strong, traditional, patriotic, and personal moral instincts. Then, this meaning, a political/emotional one, is subtly substituted in the place of the proper meaning of the philosophical term “conservative.” In this way, true conservative concepts, such as protection of institutional due process, are overwhelmed by the NewCon demands for the promoted end, one usually promoted by fear. Thus, if one believes having a certain life style and sexual morality is “conservative,” it, then, follows, it must be conservative to create a federal department to promote that morality.  The end justifies the means.

Promoting NewCon “values”  requires collecting taxes, hiring bureaucrats, passing laws designed to modify actions, funding various causes and businesses.  Police are trained to assure the “good-think.“ The NewCon impulse to good-think overwhelms the conservative instinct to retain due process and individual rights. Mainstream “Republicans” find themselves wading in the definitional illogic Aristotle warned us against and purposely ignore Voltaire’s advice to “define your terms.” To wit:

Half a loaf of bread is better than nothing

Nothing is better than heaven

Therefore, half a loaf of bread is better than heaven

The desired NewCon end, usually emotionally presented, now, justifies the means. The means, then, become NewCon and are called, intentionally misleading,  “conservative.“ To the contrary,  a conservative is properly concerned with conserving due process and Constitutional protections and rights. A short hand way to visualize this proposition is to think of this in historical terms, including gangs, kings, dictators, some football coaches, and so on, who typically use an “ends analysis” of events. Our Constitution was designed to end this human instinct by forming a social contract depending upon “means analysis.” see James Madison, “Federalist Papers No. 10. Daily Advertiser, Nov. 22, 1787.

If you play the game Monopoly according to the rules inside the cover, it is an interesting and enjoyable game where players use their skills to compete. If you feel rules are too inflexible and do what you can get away with, then the game disintegrates. In life, that game disintegrates into gangsterism where social cooperation dissolves as players focus on personal safety and hiding property. Our founders wrote superb instructions for us, having witnessed the gang warfare of European history.

History tells us gangs compete until times are so bad a warlord surfaces and most people are happy to have the “security” of a dictator, who is usually a front for an oligarchy, that is, the political and economic ruling class. As some historians see it, the dictator is followed by an admired military leader who saves the day and establishes a benign despot, despots have children and they are not benign, so gang warfare returns. History usually follows this cycle.  We can look to the “Arab spring” for a modern episode of the continuing saga.

To achieve a republic is an unusual event where time, place, sophistication of the people, and a communal spirit result in an agreement as to a “means analysis,” an agreed code of laws, that is designed to block tyrannical impulse. Once in place, the republic is a wonderful country, if, as Benjamin Franklin put it, “you can keep it.“ The new compact always depends upon people controlling themselves, not bowing to troops, and keeping faith with the social contract.  The cycle of history is always at work and dislikes a republic.

A republic falls by the internal seduction of those who promise good “ends” without a concern for the means; the people welcome a cancer into their republic. Thereafter, rules become a tool of manipulation. Leaders and the wealthy deconstruct society so that it transfers wealth to them and controls the serfs.

“Conservative” hypocrisy is far more dangerous to America than any direct assault because it is only a valid conservatism, not the provenance of any party, that will defend America from internal subversion. The Constitution was specifically written to protect us from oligarchy, plutocracy, and tyranny, but it requires a deference to the rules and eternal vigilance.  Deference requires understanding, which, in turn, would suggest the need for competent schools.

The Republican Party portrays itself as conservative, but it is NewCon and believes in “ends analysis.” A critical example of the “new conservative” hypocrisy is present in naked clarity, as was the nakedness of the “Emperor’s New Clothes.” Today, the establishment mocks the little boy who will express amazement at the nakedness. The mind altered by propaganda repeats: the boy is a “kook.”

Governor Jindal and Senator Rubio, Republicans, are touted as candidates for vice president, but are not eligible. The last GOP candidate, Senator McCain, was not eligible.  A true conservative would understand this and not dissemble in an attempt to promote a candidate.  Only a wise populace, responsible for their own actions, will understand  that their rules must be protected without modification by desired ends.

The Constitution’s Eligibility Requirements

The requirements to be eligible for president are simply stated in Article Two, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Twelfth Amendment added an important thought:

No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of  Vice-President of the United States.

The point of this addition is readily understood. We should not elect a twenty-five year old to the Office of the Vice President as that person could be called upon to assume the office of the President when clearly ineligible. Similarly, we should not elect a Vice President who is not a “natural born” citizen. The term “natural born” was selected without argument over Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion of “citizen.” John Jay was insistent that the leader of our armed forces be natural born, a term well-defined in the minds of the founders. It was not a vague, happy face notion. Some citizens are naturally born, some are native-born, and others are naturalized.

Since the term “naturally born” has been cleverly redefined, as was the term “conservative,” there now exists conflicting and critical opinions as to what it means. This vagueness is intended to allow popular people to become president.  The vague consensus opinion is new. In 1916, Ambassador Breckinridge Long wrote, during a presidential campaign, an article considering: Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” within the  Meaning of the Constitution?

 …Whether Mr. Hughes is, or is not, a ‘natural born’ citizen within the meaning of the Constitution…presents an interesting inquiry… He was born in this country and is beyond question ‘native born.’ But is there not a distinction between ‘native born’ and ‘natural born?’ At the time he was born his father and mother were subjects of England…The day after Mr. Hughes was born his father had a right, as an English subject, to go to the British consul, at New York, and to present his wife and infant and to claim any assistance he might need from the consul as the representative of the English government. If war had broken out between this government and England this government would have had a right to interne the father, the mother, and the son as subjects of an enemy power.  Chicago Legal News, 1916, Vol. 146-148, pp. 220-222. (Available on the Internet.)

To understand “natural born,” a good starting place is to understand “native born” as the two are confused today, often purposely. A person can be born in the United States to parents who are not American citizens. The de rigueur argument is that this person is “natural born,” but this makes neither historical or logical sense.  It is clever double-talk that does put the average reader off.  As discussed below: natives are those born in the United States and include the subset of natural-born. The terms are not equal. It they were there was no reason for Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A person who is native-born, today,  can be the subject of a foreign nation. (Not so for a native, natural-born.)  For two hundred years, the rule was: “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government. House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874. This traditional view was altered by  Afroyim v. Rusk where the Supreme Court found no power in Congress to “expatriate” a citizen where that person has a dual citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk   387 US 253 (1967). In the end, this means the tradition has no enforcement which appears to mean there is no longer such a tradition. However, this does not alter the analysis, here.

The allegiance one has to a nation entitles one to the protection of that nation. If Governor Jindal’s parents, at the time of his birth, had any trouble in the United States, they could seek the protection of their nation, India. Indeed, it would have been possible for India to have drafted the Governor’s father. The parents could turn to India or the United States for any matter regarding their son, an India citizen. Allegiance and protection are mutual obligations. see, below, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). The postulate being, when Governor Jindal was born he was protected by India as one of its citizens and, in return, he owed an allegiance to India.

If there is no distinction between natural-born and native-born, then there should have been no laws or cases regulating dual citizenship and the Fourteenth  Amendment should not concern itself with former slaves born in the United States. However, the distinction was clear:

 ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’” United States v. Rhodes 27 F Cas 785 (1866) [Circuit Court]  [Note: using the common law of England is not well-received. It is often rejected as inappropriate.]

This section must be carefully examined: “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States” has to be read in terms of 1866 when there was no dual citizenship  considered. Therefore, one was natural born when one’s sole allegiance was to the United States, the home of the birth and citizenship of the parents. The position submitted, thus, is not altered by Afroyim. The decision in Rhodes does not translate to the post Afroyim era where dual allegiance could exist.  What can be said is that Mr. Jindal had an allegiance to both India and the United States, at birth. India, indeed, reasserted his Indian citizenship in its Indian Citizenship Act of 1955. The Rhodes decision, under the language of its time, determines Mr. Jindal did not have allegiance to the United States, as he was a foreign citizen.

A touchstone in the analysis of the categories citizenship is presented the similar cases of Senator Rubio and Governor Jindal. As shown below, they are not natural-born. The Republican position du jour is that anyone born in the United States is natural-born, even those born of an allegiance to another nation. Therefore, Republicans are saying, these days, there is no such thing as native-born, that it is just another word for natural-born. That is, the end justifies the means since we all like the end.

The matter of Senator McCain can be put aside for this examination, adding only that he was born, according to his birth certificate issued by the Panama Canal Health Department, at 6:25 PM on August 29, 1936 in Colon Hospital, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. I will add the obvious. Panama is a foreign country. So, the position of the Republicans, the NewCons, who declared he was a natural-born citizen, is that anyone born of citizens is natural-born, no matter where they are born. This is alleged because of an assumption that English common law so dictates. This discussion, however, is off the narrow subject.

However, In a 2008 New York Timesarticle reporting upon a Professor Chin’s analysis that Mr. McCain was not eligible to be president (based upon another ground) there is a commentary that is profoundly disturbing:

“No court will get close to it, and everyone else is on board, so there’s a constitutional consensus, the merits of arguments such as this one aside,” said Peter J. Spiro, an authority on the law of citizenship at Temple University.” Adam Liptak, “A Hint of New Life to a McCain Birth Issue,”  New York Times, July 11, 2008.

Mr. Spiro has it exactly, the consensus agrees to put the Constitution aside.  It is amazing apparently serious people state the future is at the hands of  what a “consensus” feels about the meaning of  the Constitution. Many have accepted mob rule and popular “feelings” rather than the rule of law.

Consensus must lie to support its point. For example, there in an article about “natural born” one finds the intentionally misleading statement by Nancy Salvato, identified as President and Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, that “Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.” It does not. Presidential Eligibility: What is a ‘Natural Born Citizen?’ The section defines “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.” Beyond this misrepresentation, there is more distortion in the assumption the Congress has authority to make such definitions. It has no authority, if one cares to read the Constitution as to matters of naturalization.  Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 4.

Fourteenth Amendment

A place to start an examination of citizenship, to place Messrs Rubio and Jindal in context, is to consider the Fourteenth Amendment which starts:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.…

The amendment was designed to make it clear that freed slaves born on U.S. soil are citizens of the United States, as were those naturalized, the term used regarding foreigners who become citizens. Some argue this provision was not intended to reach beyond the freemen. Notice there is no mention of the word “natural” in this provision, as it did not apply.

The Amendment did not start: All naturalized persons or naturalized….” which is exactly what NewCons claim. The desire is to say there is no special category as “native,” though the use of the words “All persons born…” means exactly that. Mr. Jindal and Mr. Rubio are, according to this Amendment, “are citizens”. That is what it says, the rest is noise.

The Fourteenth Amendment did not offer a new definition of “natural-born,” which is a popular NewThink. It assured those born on U.S. soil, native American and those naturalized have the privileges of citizenship, that is all – citizenship. Not all citizens can be president. Recall, Ambassador Long’s didactic essay was written in 1916.

Representative Bingham of Ohio is credited with being the father of the Fourteenth Amendment. He stated on the floor of Congress, when discussing the Amendment,

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” [Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)].

He is saying people born of foreigners on U.S. soil are different. They are not natural-born.

Discussing the same issue in 1862, he gave the same explanation,

“…all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” [Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)]

The amendment mentions “naturalized.” The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive authority to make law as to how one can become an American citizen who is neither native or natural-born. Thus, Congress has determined how an “alien,“ as Americans say, can become a naturalized citizen. Article 1, Clause 8, Section 4. However, Congress has nothing to say about who is natural-born or who is native-born, though it has attempted to do just that.

In 2003 Republican Senator Orrin Hatch attempted to have the “Arnold” bill passed so Arnold Swarzenegger could be president (not making this up.) The proffered legislation was a despicable attempt to avoid the Constitution by passing a law.  Mr. Hatch, essentially, proposed a revision of the Constitution by legislation. Hardly a conservative action:

Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

It is critical to understand what Mr. Hatch was doing in order to justify the desired end in the face of the prohibitive Constitution. The passage of his proposed law depended upon an ignorant or compliant citizenship, a good estimate. Consider what he did in another way: how would you react to a Senator offering a bill that says: “…any group or institution that has existed for twenty years is not ineligible to be funded by the Congress by reason of being religious?”

Look back and notice Mr. Hatch’s clause states: “not being a native born citizen.” The use of “native”  rather than the Constitution’s term “natural born” is an intentional distortion to blur the distinction between native and natural.

There have been, at least, eight attempts to amend the Constitution by a law in order to overcome the Constitutional “natural born” requirement. In the end, these attempts are intentionally subversive – even when authored by Republicans. Congress doth protest too much about the Constitutional requirement, thereby proving them.

Minor v. Happersett

Only a few Supreme Court cases discuss the nature of “natural” born as it was a commonly understood term that did not need definition:

…The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts….           Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), 167, 168

Those who would jump at the last phrase must temper their enthusiasm. There is no “decision” on the matter in the case, the idea was raised by “some authorities,” and there are doubts about such a proposition. Today, these authorities include FOX News, now that they have fired Judge Napolitano.

The Happersett case concerned the Fourteenth Amendment, previously mentioned,

…The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had. No new voters were necessarily made by it…. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 171 (1875)

There is no new definition of citizenship in the Amendment, as NewCons opine. Rather, those born in the United States were assured of the rights of citizenship, lest there be any confusion caused by the conditions of slavery. The language extends beyond the freemen and covers anyone born here, even “anchor babies.”

Recently, legal resource, was caught intentionally deleting the Happersett case references from its database of Supreme Court rulings – exactly as the Ministry of Truth would do. There is no space in this article sufficient to define how pernicious this act was. What the site was doing was removing Happersett’s inconvenient holding from the view of legal researchers by tampering with Supreme Court reports!  In 1984 The Ministry of Truth always changed the means to fit the end.  Now discovered, the site has rendered itself useless to any serious lawyer.

The internal logic of the Constitution concerning citizenship is clear, but for the sea of doubters, there are some textual assurances as to the nature of a “natural born” citizen.  In Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter XIX, first published in 1752, we find the chapter entitled: “Of Nations Considered In Themselves:”

§ 212. Citizens and natives. The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights….

Revisionists focus on the use of “native,” here, but that is thoroughly disingenuous. Those natives. the section says “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” In the world of sophistry, consistency is not relevant. If one says this section means “natives” of 1752 are “native-born” and, thus,  are “natural-born,” then no one born in the United States of foreign parents before the Fourteenth Amendment was a citizen. It would defy all previous thought and law.

 All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

David Ramsey, a member of the Continental Congress and historian, gives us an understanding of why we use the term “natural” born,

“The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those how have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” Ramsey. A Dissertation On The Manner of Acquiring The Character and Privileges of A Citizen Of the United States. (1789).

Before looking at another case, there is a modern statutory reference to the dichotomy of natural-born and native-born. As mentioned, Congress has exclusive power to regulate “naturalization.”  Article 1, Clause 8, Section 4. It has done so, creating provisions in the U.S. Code. One provision in the Code concerns the restoration of citizenship lost by marriage.

In an interpretation of the code section by the U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (an executive office of government) there are two references that demonstrate the government is very clear about citizenship:

“…The repatriation provisions…apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman…;” and “…shall be deemed to be a citizen of the Unites states to the same extent as though…and restore the statue of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”  Interpretation 324.2(a)(3) and (a) (7). 

Weedin and Wong Kim Ark

While there is not much case law concerning the nature of “natural born,” a few cases exist.  Let me introduce two cases by showing how John Dean lied about them in order to neutralize Clause 5. As an aside, John Dean was President Nixon’s White House Counsel and went to jail for his part in the Watergate coverup. Dean took the readers for dolts in 2004 when he misrepresented the Weedin v. Chin Bow case. see The Pernicious “Natural Born” Clause of the Constitution: Why Immigrants Like Governors Schwarzenegger and Granholm Ought to be Able to Become Presidents.

Dean thinks the natural-born provision of the Constitution is pernicious, justifying any lie, one gathers, to get the desired end. What he wrote demands a separate paragraph:

Weedin “holds” that “at common law the children born abroad were always natural born citizens from the standpoint of this government.”

Not only did the Weedin case NOT hold what Mr. Dean alleges, but what he quoted as the Weedin holding was, in fact, a Weedin restatement of the DISSENT in the United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649 , 18 S. Ct. 456 (1898).  A “dissent” is the opinion written by the losing position.

Actually, the Wong Kim’s holding was described in the Weedin matter:

The majority in that case, as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the government and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless, under the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the amendment.

Thus, the case recounted how a person becomes a “native” born citizen by virtue of being born in the United States, jus soli, lately called an “anchor baby.”  There is no contortion possible to say the amendment was discussing “natural born“ outside of NewCon propaganda. [It is curious to note Mr. Charles Evan Hughes, the subject of Mr. Breckinridge’s article above, represented Mr. Bow. He may have been pleading his own case!]

Heading toward a conclusion, we must take note of the two excellent men being touted as candidates for vice-president who are assuredly native-born citizens. Mr. Jindal was born of Indian citizens who came to the United States so his mother could receive an advanced education. Mr. Rubio was born of Cuban citizens who were refugees in Florida. Of these facts, there is no dispute. They are both very popular. They are, in the broad sense, under the Fourteenth Amendment, native Americans.

Both natural-born citizens and native-born citizens are native Americans, the Fourteenth Amendment made certain we understood this. Both are subsets of concept “native” and, thus, are grouped when contrasting “naturalized” citizens, over whom Congress has authority.  However, within the set of “natives,” the subsets are not equal. While it is true only native American can be President, it is not true that all natives can. Only those in the subset of  “natural-born” may be President or Vice President.

Ends Analysis

We are becoming a nation of “ends analysis,” except when we are arrested or want to keep our rifles. Then, we are suddenly concerned about due process. Avoiding the Constitution just to field a strong team of candidates is to destroy the Constitution as a viable social compact. NewCons do not understand what happens when half of the people realize their trust is silently mocked and abused by the others. Leftists, Marxists, and so on, do understand.

Saul Alinsky, in the Rules for Radicals, restated the Machiavellian precept that the ends justify the means with clarity:

The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles…

Our nation is an agreement documented by a document that established the means to seek the desired, yet fearful, end of establishing a useful central government. The founders, specifically, did not want men of action establishing tyranny. The Constitution was intended to block the human tendency toward oligarchy by establishing fierce controls, the means of a republic.  Indeed, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution even though many thought it was superfluous. Wiser men knew the tyrannical nature of man. The means, as described in the Constitution are, in the end, the ends, themselves.

This is why the means are under constant assault. A true conservative would defend our noble means. A revolutionary need only negate our trust in our traditions and ourselves.

In the end, all that we have become, the richest and most secure nation in history, is the result of a respect for due process, especially as defined by the separation of delegated powers. Americans for all their faults and foibles had one unique aspect that separated them from history. We trusted our leaders and our government. This trust is disappearing because our leaders subvert the Constitution they were elected to protect, which, in turn, protects the citizens. Without the Constitution, we return to dustbin of oligarchical history. Accepting that the end justifies the means, ultimately, is a vote for serfdom. Saul Alinsky understood how to be a revolutionary, but he did not understand that his was the way of tyranny:

Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true question has never been the proverbial one, ‘Does the End justify the Means?’ but always has been ‘Does this particular end justify this particular means?’

An Alinsky principle:

The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment

Those who promote the Constitution, a bible of restricting tyranny, and, yet, defile it in action are hypocrites of the most dangerous order. They sit in judgment of law that restrains them.  They are the enemy within.

Recent history has seen Republicans walk behind the banner of the Constitution, but this has been a successful illusion. Republicans have been happy to go to war without a declaration, this being a “conservative” foreign policy, happy to permit the army to arrest American citizens in the United States and hold them without the right of habeas corpus – which, according to the Constitution, can only be suspended in time of war, which according to the Constitution, must be declared. The Constitution is dusted off only when it can rouse voters’ emotions to applaud some unpleasant government action; it is not of much use during governance. Worst of all, Americans are losing hope in the Constitution.

Always remember, as you watch U.S. officials scurrying about creating laws, regulations, or enforcing them, when those officials were hired, they swore or affirmed an oath of allegiance. In the past, people believed when you took an oath, you were calling upon God to witness your statement. God being out of favor, people can now swear to the truth of the statement under the penalty of perjury, rather than the loss of your soul, a somewhat more serious punishment. Our officials, nonetheless, bind themselves, under, at least, the penalty of perjury, a crime, to promote and protect the Constitution without a purpose of evasion:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Those who swear to defend the Constitution and routinely abuse it are either malicious or ignorant hypocrites. Either way, they are desecrating that which they have sworn to defend; they rely upon the ignorance and trust of the voter. Without the immaculate conception of principles, they pursue no government save an oligarchy controlling mass opinion.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive – CS Lewis


Eugene Cunningham, M.A., J.D.

Strategy Assurance

Gene Cunningham currently may be reached by Fax: 1 877 866 0453

This paper may be readily linked to or used with attribution.