Free Republic

Jon Snow asks Benjen Stark, “Did my mother abandon me to show me mercy?”

Benjen Stark responds, “Uhhhh, okay.”

Jon Snow is covered in blood. His eyes roll back into his head and he ...

is startled when BenJen Stark appears and says, “Your mother’s name is Wylla!”

Jon Snow is covered in blood. His eyes roll back into his head and he ......?

The People have a right to alter or abolish the US Constitution. See Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton. An ineligible President cannot be removed or prevented from taking office because he is there by the will of the People. An ineligible President voids the US Constitution.

It is time to start organizing for the development of a national governing document. Email svenmagnussen@conventionforamerica.com to start a ping list.

The first draft of America’s first written constitution was introduced into the Continental Congress record as, “The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,” on July 12, 1776.

Article I. THE Name of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”

Article II. The said Colonies unite themselves so as never to be Divided by any Act whatever, and hereby severally enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, for the common Defence, the Security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general Welfare, binding the said Colonies to assist one another against all Force offered ...

---

The US Constitution repealed and replaced the Articles of Confederation.

What do we call Post-Constitutional America?

America survives an ineligible President. The US Constitution and the US federal government are voided by the installation of an ineligible President.

America is governed by a de facto unitary executive and the Vice President until a national governing document is ratified by the people.

The Articles of Confederation was the first written constitution ratified by the states. The states were sovereign and Congress served as a governing body to resolve disputes between the states, make treaties and alliances, maintain armed forces and coin money. Congress lacked authority to levy taxes and regulate commerce under the Articles of Confederation.

An amendment to the Articles of Confederation required all states to ratify the amendment. Each state’s contribution to fund the Continental Congress rest on the value of its lands and improvements. The Continental Congress was unicameral and a centralized institution of government. Each state had one vote and delegates were elected by state legislatures.

The inability of Congress to raise revenue and the improbability of an amendment to the Articles of Confederation led to a Constitutional Convention to repeal and replace the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution required nine states to ratify it. See Article VII. Two states ratified the U.S. Constitution after President Washington was sworn in.

Israel, New Zealand and Britain do not have written constitutions.

After 800 years, Britain finally asks: Do we need a written constitution?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/after-800-years-britain-finally-asks-do-we-need-a-written-constitution/2015/06/07/6097b50c-e908-11e4-8581-633c536add4b_story.html

Proposed Consitutional Code begins on Page 32, A New Magna Carta? at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpolcon/463/463.pdf

Robert Blackburn: "There is growing momentum behind a written constitution coming from different quarters, reflecting the different advantages it has to offer. After several decades of academic debate on the arguments and issues involved at our universities and political societies, it is now a more familiar subject with many accepting it is a less radical and more “do-able” proposition compared to what they originally thought. Certainly the main challenge is achieving cross-party co-operation in a highly adversarial system of politics, but the growing pressures and sense of crisis in our political arrangements may well provide the required motivation to party leaders to think and work positively together towards a change that would greatly enhance our democracy and the stability of the country."

Okay. If you can get Congress to pass a Congressional Act legislating a California born member of La Raza may request Los Angeles, Mexico printed on their US passports and the President signs the Act into law, then I’d support you’re demand to have Los Angeles, Mexico printed on the passport.

But if the President says, “I signed that Act into law under protest so I refuse to allow the State Department print Los Angeles, Mexico on US passports”, then I don’t want to hear an argument that passports are US foreign policy and the President has exclusive rights to develop and foreign policy.

Okay. If you can get Congress to pass a Congressional Act legislating a California born member of La Raza may request Los Angeles, Mexico printed on their US passports and the President signs the Act into law, then I’d support you’re demand to have Los Angeles, Mexico printed on the passport.

But if the President says, “I signed that Act into law under protest so I refuse to allow the State Department print Los Angeles, Mexico on US passports”, then I don’t want to hear an argument that passports are US foreign policy and the President has exclusive rights to develop and foreign policy.

The Sansa rape scene didn’t bother me at all to be honest.

Me either. Sansa is playing the game of thrones. That became evident in the Vale.

I have no idea what they are trying to achieve with this Jamie and Bronn to Dorne nonsense.

The Dornish are the only people to survive the Targarian Dragons. Rhaegar Targaryen and Ella Martell married to keep the peace and not because he loved her. Tryion did the right thing by sending Marcella to the Dornish even though Prince Oberyn knew it was Tywin Lannister who order the murder of Ella Martell. Now, Jamie is ruining it for the Lannisters. Woth the exception of Tyrion, the Lannisters are in freefall with Tywin.

According to the books, Greyscale is fatal. Princess Shireen was goner and Stannis cut her suffering to a minimum.

Anyone who objected to having Jerusalem, Israel as their place of birth on their US passport was given the choice to have their place of birth printed as Jerusalem on their US passport. Of course, the statist won’t stand for it. Choices lead to personal liberty and the statist would rather sue than allow that. Some US citizens will make their choices to make a public statement with their choice based on their First Amendment right to free speech. The statist will take to the Supreme Court to stop it.

You’ve been browbeat into submission. Free yourself and demand personal liberty.

Let’s be clear, a Congressional Act was enacted into US law by President Bush. President Bush, could have vetoed it, but chose not too. The law, signed into law by President Bush, gave US citizens a choice to have their place birth printed on their US passport as as Jerusalem, Israel or Jerusalem if they were born at that location.

Since the law provided a choice to a particular set of US citizens and SCOTUS found that providing a choice to those US citizens is unconstitutional, then its an attack on free speech and individual liberty.

It’s a step closer toward tyranny. It says Presidents can ignore sections of law they have signed into law if they disagree with the section, but sign it because they agreed with the other sections of the law.

If I was a U.S. citizen born in East Berlin in the 1950s, I wonder how the U.S. State Department would list my place of birth if I went and got a passport for the first time today?

The section of the law the petitioner and SCOTUS found unconstitutional stated the State Department will print Jerusalem, Israel as the place of birth for a US citizen if the US citizen requested it. Without a request from the US citizen, the State Department printed the place of birth as Jerusalem. It's an attack on an individual's liberty and free speech.

SEC. 214. UNITED STATES POLICY WITH RESPECT TO JERUSALEM AS THE CAPITAL OF ISRAEL.

(d) Record of Place of Birth as Israel for Passport Purposes.--For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.

After I was informed the FBI questioned Obama about naturalizing as a US citizen in 1983 and Obama admitted, I amended a complaint filed in the US District Court to include the FBI and Director James Comey in his personal and professional capacity. Further, I requesting a restraining order on the US government and other defendants with accompanying affidavits alleging threats made to myself and my witnesses.

I was ignored by the court and then informed by the IRS and others that I have had my personal date compromised and should begin to prepare for the consequences of ID theft.

My witnesses have withdrawn are afraid for their personal and financial safety. I’m concerned that providing public details about witness statements, dates of notification, details with respect to whistleblowers or anything specific will jeopardize their safety.

That why I said members of the public should contact Comey directly. Tell Comey what you’ve read, that it concerns you and you would like a competent, independent investigation.

A complaint was filed in the US District Court alleging Obama was born on Aug 4, 1961 in Hawaii, issued a CLN in 1968 while residing in Indonesia, returned to the US in 1971 to live as a permanent resident alien in the US until 1983 when he naturalized as a US citizen.

The court considered the allegations in the complaint as true and then dismissed the case as frivilous on a motion by the US government before allowing discovery to begin. An Appointments Clause challenge was raised in a timely manner to challenge the authority of appointees of Obama moving the court to dismiss the case before a challenge to America’s sovereignty could be addressed by the court. A new precedent has been set. Appointments Clause challenges are addressed by the court unless the complainant can prove the President is ineligible.

And no, I’m not going to give you the case number because I’ve already been the victim of ID theft and I don’t want to compound the problem.

America has not failed. The US federal government has failed after a usurper was installed in the Office of the President of the United.

America delegated limited rights to the US federal government to form a more perfect union. The US Constitution repealed and replaced the Articles of Confederation. Now the US Constituton must be replaced. A new, national governing charter must be established and presented for ratification by the people. The states don’t have the will, so it is up to the people.

Only an Obot and Orly Taitz would dismiss an eyewitness account as a lack of evidence.