Profile image
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:


Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:05
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Hamilton takes great pains in highlighting the fact that no one could ever be elected to the office of President without being “endowed with the requisite qualifications” due to “the “plan devised by the convention.”  Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 68.  The danger without the plan, Hamilton explained, is that men with “Talents for low intrigue,” and a propensity for “the little arts of popularity, [would] alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors” of President.  Id. 

No one can seriously argue that Obama had the qualifications for the White House.  In fact, any objective person would agree that he had NO qualifications for the job.  So, was Hamilton wrong?  Did the Framers give us a faulty document?  How did this man get elected with no background and no qualifications for being President?

In order to answer this question, we need to first examine “the plan,” as Hamilton called it, that the convention devised to elect the President.  This plan was known to most as the Electoral College, but it is not the Electoral College that we use today.  The way the Electoral College was originally designed to work, much like the election of Senators, was as a non-democratic institution.  In other words, it did not involve the democratic, majority rules principle.

Under the original plan, Hamilton explained, “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.”  Id.  Simply put, the electors were chosen by the states.  The number of qualified electors was equal to the number of congressional representatives from that state.  Once elected by the state, the electors were supposed to cast their individual votes for their choice of President. 

Their votes were then “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.”  Id.   These electors were expected to be politically savvy individuals, who understood the importance of state’s rights and the rule of constitutional government.  They were to be well versed in the politics of the day as well.  The average citizen does not have the requisite knowledge of such things.  As such, the Framers knew that the electors were less likely to be swayed by emotion and would exercise better judgment in who would qualify as president.

Obviously, this plan was not a democratic plan.  It was a republican plan, which is why it has been attacked over the years to the point that we now have something that more closely resembles a democratic plan.  Much like the election of Senators, this plan kept the power of the States intact.  Again, much like the plan for electing Senators, we no longer follow that plan.  Originally, the Electoral College met, without any influence from the popular vote, to cast their own, individual votes as they saw fit.  Today, however, the electors have no say in how they vote. 

Today’s Presidential election is a full-blown, three-ringed, winner takes all circus—whoever gets the 51% popular vote in a state gets all of the electoral votes.  The Constitution was never amended to change the electoral process to what it is today.  It simply changed in practice, over time, unconstitutionally, as democratic forces continued to erode our Republican constitutional form of government.  As such, 51% rules the day, and the President is now elected by a 51% majority, except in those rare cases where 51% of the popular vote is less than the total number of states holding the most electoral votes. 

Even in those rare instances, the individual electoral candidate still does not have a say in how he casts his vote as it is still dictated by the 51% majority vote in his own state.  Yet, the only thing we hear about during each Presidential election is that the Electoral College is outdated and should be abandoned.  In actual point of fact, we have abandoned the Convention’s plan in favor of a non-republican form of elections.

In spite of the talking heads telling you how outdated the Electoral College is and how it should be abandoned, no one ever tells you that this so-called outdated plan is not even the plan originally designed by the Framers.  Also, they do not bother to tell you that the net effect of this unconstitutional change to the Electoral College is that the states no longer have any power because the President is no longer tied to the States through the electoral process.  They especially will not tell you that what it really means is that President is now tied to the big money powers that paid for his campaign.

Since abandoning the Constitution in this manner, it has allowed us to “elevate” a man “to the first honors” of the Presidency without any of the “requisite qualifications.”  Granted, he is a man who can give a good speech but that is not all.  He most definitely has strong “talents for low intrigue” and a propensity for “the little arts of popularity.” Obama definitely needed to start the popularity rage to sweep him into office.  The real problem lies in his other “talents for low intrigue.”  Obama clearly has little regard for the Constitution.

According to Hamilton, some of the strongest criticisms by “writers against the Constitution” were aimed at the Executive.  Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 67.  These critics, Hamilton noted, were “calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy” to “enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States.”  Id.  In other words, they thought they could kill public support for the Constitution by claiming that the President’s powers under the Constitution were similar to those exercised by the King of England.

Since kings and their natural tendency towards the abuse of power was a huge concern for the early American Patriot, Hamilton devoted a great deal of time in several of his letters rebutting these attacks.

The King of England is a “hereditary monarch.”  The US President, by contrast, “is to be elected for FOUR years;”  Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Letter 69.   The President is “liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, [and] removed from office.”  Id.  The King is “sacred and inviolable” and there is “no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution.”

The President has a veto power over congressional legislation that can overturned “by two thirds of both houses.”  The King, on the other hand, “has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament.”

The President is to be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy.  This fact differs from “the British king” whose power “extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.”  Id.  In other words, only Congress can raise and support armies and declare war.

The President can only make treaties with foreign nations as long as “two thirds of the senators present concur.”  The King, on the other hand, “is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions.”  Id.

Finally, Hamilton explains that the President “can confer no privileges whatever”.  The King, on the other hand, Hamilton explains, “can make denizens of aliens,”  Id.  Denizen is defined as “a person admitted to residence in a foreign country; especially an alien admitted to rights of citizenship.”  Id.  Under the Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power “to establish an UNIFORM RULE of naturalization throughout the United States.”  US CONST. Art. I, §8, cl. 4.

How does Obama stack up against Hamilton’s contrast example of the US President and the King of England?  This is where the “talents for low intrigue” become readily apparent.

4 Years:  Currently Obama has been elected for two, four-year terms.  It remains to be seen if he is going to continue beyond 2016. A false flag event would allow him to remain permanently in office under the guise of martial law.

Impeachable:  The President can be impeached.  A king cannot.

Veto Power:  This is where Obama’s true motives start to come out.  The most blatant example of the abuse of this constitutional limitation is the Dream Act which Congress refused to pass.  Refusing to accept the constitutional limitations that prohibit the President from exercising ANY legislative authority, Obama went out and granted amnesty to more than 800,000 young people allowing them to stay here in the US illegally without fear of deportation.  Some have referred to this Executive Order as the “Dream Act lite.”

War Powers:  Obama’s talents for low intrigue are especially apparent in the theater of war.  He has constantly used drones to carry on death and destruction throughout the world killing thousands of unarmed men, women and children.  However, most recently he has illegally declared and waged war against ISIS insurgents in Syria without an official declaration of war from the Congress.

Treaties: When it comes to treaties, Obama does not disappoint us with his talents for low intrigue, especially in light of having Secretary of State John Kerry sign the UN Small Arms Treaty without the approval of the US Senate.  Since the Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the land, the signing of this treaty is especially important given the fact that it will directly undermine the Constitution’s specific language prohibiting the government from infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms.

Blanket Amnesty: Perhaps the most audacious abuse of authority will be the one granting blanket amnesty to millions of illegals living in the US.  It has been reported from more than one source that Obama is “considering a series of orders that would grant status to many of the 11.5 million people who are in the Country illegally.”  Granting “status” to these illegals most certainly qualifies as making “denizens of aliens.”  Not to be outdone, this is a power, until now, that has been exercised exclusively by the King of England.

Of the six core examples used by Hamilton to illustrate the distinct differences between the King of England and the US President, only two of them still holds true and the sixth one seems quite likely it will not hold after the first of the year.  These are pretty poor odds by anyone’s standards. 

This is the reason I have been predicting for several years now that Obama will never leave office in 2016.  He already exercises four of the six core powers of the King of England illustrated by Hamilton and is on the verge of assuming the sixth power of the Crown. 

He always has a “good” reason for assuming the powers of the King of England–reasons that will always be accepted by the 51%.  As I explained in a recent article about Obama’s lust for war in Syria, all it took was to convince the 51% that ISIS was the world’s greatest threat to security. 

As far as Blanket Amnesty for 11.5 million illegals, he has plenty of “good reasons”—humanity concerns being the foremost, but he has trotted out Holder onto the stage to tell everyone that this is within the executive authority to do so. 

Of course, like the prior ones, there will always be a “good reason” for staying in office beyond 2016—a reason that can be swallowed by the 51%.  Most likely, it will all come down to making us safer.

A false flag event creating a national panic would easily usher in the need to impose martial law.  The only way to legally stop this march to a completed monarchy is for the House and Senate to instigate impeachment proceedings before the false flag event.  Hopefully, it will not be too late to instigate impeachment proceedings, but Congress needs to act fast.

Historically, the 51% rarely turns against a crisis President.  If Congress waits too long and a false flag event does occur before impeachment proceedings are instigated, it will never happen after martial law is imposed especially given the fact that the 51% would be in support of their crisis President at that point. 

There is already enough lawlessness on the part of Obama to justify impeachment, but if he does go ahead and acts on his own thereby granting amnesty to 11.5 million illegals, there should be no doubt he needs to be impeached.

©November 2014 Making Denizens Of Aliens:  Only A King’s Prerogative, Madame Publius™

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.