Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $55,972
63%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 63%!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by SvenMagnussen

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • It Is Mathematically Impossible To Pay Off All Of Our Debt

    05/22/2015 5:19:22 PM PDT · 2 of 115
    SvenMagnussen to fhayek

    An ineligible President assuming the Office of the President of the United States voids its debt. It’s the reason Obama was installed.

  • What If We Didn't Have a Constitution?

    05/21/2015 1:22:09 PM PDT · 29 of 43
    SvenMagnussen to Jacquerie

    An ineligible President voids the Constitution. The Supreme Court appointments made by an ineligible President are void. The entire Constitutional Republic has collapsed.

    A new national governing document must be established.

  • What If We Didn't Have a Constitution?

    05/21/2015 12:45:44 PM PDT · 26 of 43
    SvenMagnussen to Kaslin
    What if all this is happening right under our noses? What do we do about it?"

    Call for a convention to establish a national governing document. The US Constitution was established with competing plans, presentation, compromise and ratification.

  • Jeb Bush says there's 'not a shred of evidence' NSA surveillance violated civil liberties

    05/21/2015 10:30:16 AM PDT · 6 of 76
    SvenMagnussen to jimbo123

    Jeb Bush says there’s ‘not a shred of evidence’ NSA surveillance violated civil liberties .... because it’s been cleaned and whistleblowers have been silenced.

  • About that rape scene in 'Game of Thrones'

    05/21/2015 9:10:59 AM PDT · 65 of 67
    SvenMagnussen to sharkhawk

    Yes, the books and the TV show are different.

    “In the A Song of Ice and Fire novels, the Sack of Winterfell takes place in a different manner.”

    http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Sack_of_Winterfell

  • About that rape scene in 'Game of Thrones'

    05/20/2015 11:57:01 AM PDT · 49 of 67
    SvenMagnussen to sten
    "for those that did not watch the episode..." And to this I would add ... Ramsey horribly tortured and mutilated Theon Greyjoy. Ramsey was led to believe Theon returned to Winterfell, a house that adopted and raised him as one of their own, to sack it. Theon captured, murdered, burned and hanged two children to send a message to others. A case could be made that Ramsey gave Theon what he deserved ... slow torture followed by castration.
  • Senator (McCaskill - MO) leads boycott of Game of Thrones over shocking rape scene of Sansa [tr]

    05/20/2015 7:30:51 AM PDT · 20 of 40
    SvenMagnussen to drjimmy
    "I happen to believe that their criticism of the scene in question is off the mark, but they have every right to express their displeasure."

    I agree. Sansa is playing the Game of Thrones. Ramsey controls Winterfell and will be named warden of the North after his father, Roose Bolten, if Sansa doesn't intervene.

    Ramsey likes to victimize people under his control. Sansa is playing the victim to appease him. Ultimately, I think Sansa will take control of Winterfell with the help of Theon.

    Cersei Lannister: "When you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground."

    Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: "You know what I learnt losing that duel? I learnt that I'll never win. Not that way. That's their game, their rules. I'm not going to fight them: I'm going to [redacted] them. That's what I know, that's what I am, and only by admitting what we are can we get what we want."

  • Liberal Academic Says America’s Founding Document Outmoded

    05/19/2015 9:33:14 AM PDT · 66 of 78
    SvenMagnussen to Academiadotorg

    Obama naturalized as a US citizen in 1983, the year Obama transferred to Columbia University. A naturalized citizen is ineligible to assume the Office of the President of the United States. Nevertheless, the will of the American people cannot be denied. Consequently, Obama assumed the Office of the President even though he is ineligible. An ineligible President voids the US Constitution.

    Columbia University is now trying to establish themselves as a leader to re-establish a national governing document. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. Now, the US Constitution must be replaced after an ineligible Obama assumed the Office of the President of the United States.

  • A Government That Breeds Contempt

    05/15/2015 2:53:20 PM PDT · 7 of 12
    SvenMagnussen to PoliticallyShort

    There is a precedent replacing a dysfunctional governing document. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

    The US Constitution was initially ratified by nine of thirteen States pursuant to Article VII. The US Constitution became binding upon those nine States, 1788. Notice of this ratification was received by Continental Congress on July 2, 1788.

    On September 13, 1788, Congress adopted a resolution declaring that electors should be appointed in the ratifying States on the first Wednesday in January, 1789; that the electors vote for President on the first Wednesday in February, 1789; and that “the first Wednesday in March next [March 4, 1789] be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution.” On March 3, 1789, the old Confederation went out of existence and on March 4 the new government of the United States began legally to function, according to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (Wings v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420).

  • Texas House passes Convention of States application

    05/14/2015 6:06:54 PM PDT · 41 of 69
    SvenMagnussen to Repeal The 17th
    The 27th Amendment was originally proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992. Article V is a disaster.

    The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. Now, the US Constitution must be replaced.

  • Texas House passes Convention of States application

    05/14/2015 5:46:49 PM PDT · 36 of 69
    SvenMagnussen to colorado tanker
    "You haven’t considered the courts, most of which the liberals control."

    The Article Ver's aren't telling the complete story. A fully ratified, proposed amendment must be authenticated, published and archived before the US Constitution is amended.

    Who authenticates a fully ratified proposed amendment? The President or one of his federal officers authenticates a fully ratified proposed amendment. A court challenge would ensue if the President or one of his federal officers chose not to authenticate the ratified proposed amendment. It is likely a liberal court would agree with the President.

    If authenticated, the proposed, fully ratified amendment must be published by an official federal government printer. Who controls the printer? The official government printer is an appointee of the President. The President can fire an appointee at will. It is likely a liberal court would agree with the President.

    Finally, the fully ratified, proposed amendment must be archived with original signatures and witness statements. Who controls the Archivist of the United States? The Archivist is an appointee of the President. The President can fire the Archivist at will. It is likely a liberal court would agree with the President.

    Article V will be a disaster.

  • Family pictures of young Barack and Michelle Obama are fake

    05/14/2015 11:07:56 AM PDT · 59 of 103
    SvenMagnussen to MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
    "The really important story here is WHY this level of deceit to get this man elected and who is behind it?"

    An ineligible President voids the US Constitution, all US law, rules, regulations, treaties, and debt. The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution will have to be replaced with an updated, national governing document.

  • Yes, birthers, Ted Cruz IS a natural-born citizen of the U.S.

    05/14/2015 10:54:39 AM PDT · 25 of 230
    SvenMagnussen to Josh Painter

    Jay was a diplomat for the Continental Congress when his children were born in France. Jay wrote Washington about natural born citizens because he was concerned his children would be excluded from eligibility because they happened to be born in a foreign country while their father was in diplomatic status. Jay’s children were natural born citizens of the United States because their father was in diplomatic status.

    Foreign born children are foreign citizens until they use the US Code to naturalize as a US citizen. Naturalized citizens are eligible to be President of the United States.

  • Against Progressivism: Whatever the Label

    05/14/2015 6:20:06 AM PDT · 15 of 15
    SvenMagnussen to don-o

    Complaining is an excellent way to plass the time, but its unproductive. Time would be better spent planning a national convention to replace our national governing document.

    The US Constitution replaced the inadequate Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation were to be amended, but that proved too difficult. The Articles of Confederation required 13 of 13 states to ratify an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. Consequently, the Articles of Confederation was replaced with the US Constitution. Article VII of the US Constitution set the number of states required to ratify the US Constitution at nine to increase the probability of success.

    A new, national governing contract for the States and the People is required to maintain a more perfect union.

  • Vanity: What is the politics behind the failure of the Pacific Free Trade Agreement?

    05/13/2015 8:41:53 AM PDT · 17 of 60
    SvenMagnussen to Piranha

    Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States. Japan knows Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States and understands the implications of an ineligible President assuming the Office of the President of the United States.

    Japan must assume responsibility for defending itself militarily. America, as a constitutional republic, is being transformed. Obama is graciously offering to sell the military equipment Japan needs to defend itself. Since Obama is ineligible, any international agreements signed by Obama are subject to a challenge. If the challenge is successful, the agreement will be voided. Japan could spend billions on military equipment with no support or spare parts.

    Japan is between a rock and a hard place. Japan needs the United States military hardware and will have to pay dearly for it. They could get stuck will obsolete equipment without future support if Obama’s ineligibility is exposed and his agreements are voided.

  • The Convention of States Presidential Primary

    05/08/2015 11:52:26 AM PDT · 31 of 32
    SvenMagnussen to Hostage

    Check your history. The Articles of Confederation required all thirteen states to ratify an amendment to the Articles of Confederation. The Founders chose to void the Articles of Confederation and establish new national governing document, the US Constitution; which required 9 states to ratify pursuant to Article VII.

    You’re twisting yourself like a pretzel trying to comply with the dysfunctional US Constitution when a new national governing document is necessary.

  • Congress Tells Court That Congress Can’t Be Investigated for Insider Trading

    05/08/2015 11:34:14 AM PDT · 38 of 76
    SvenMagnussen to Brad from Tennessee

    The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The US Constitution can be replaced with new national governing document that holds Congress accountable for violations of the law.

  • The Convention of States Presidential Primary

    05/07/2015 8:00:46 AM PDT · 27 of 32
    SvenMagnussen to Hostage

    Your confusing a Convention of the States for amending the US Constitution with a Convention of the States for formulating a new national governing document. The number of States required for ratification of a new national governing document can be set at the Convention.

    Article VII of the US Constitution set the number of states required to ratify the US Constitution at 9. A new national governing document could set the number of states for ratification at 9, 26, 34, 38 or 50. It is wide open.

    I understand you’re determined to amend the US Constitution so the federal government can explain to us how ignoring certain amendments is necessary for our safety and security. I’m referring to a Convention of the States for a new national governing document where there will be accountability for anyone who ignores any part of the new national governing document.

  • The Convention of States Presidential Primary

    05/07/2015 6:46:07 AM PDT · 19 of 32
    SvenMagnussen to rarestia

    Prior to the ratification of the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation was the national governing document for the United States. In the 1780s nationally-minded Americans became increasingly disturbed by the Articles’ failure to provide the central government with authority to raise revenue, regulate commerce, or enforce treaties. Representatives of Maryland and Virginia met at Mt. Vernon to discuss trade problems between the two States and agreed to invite delegates from all States to discuss trade at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, in September, 1786.

    Delegates from only five States attended the Annapolis Convention and issued a call for a meeting of all States to discuss necessary revisions of the Articles of Confederation. Delegates convened at the Federal Convention on May 25, 1787, Philadelphia, PA. Thirty-nine delegates from Twelve States signed the US Constitution on September 17, 1787. Ratification by the States began soon thereafter.

    A Convention for a new national governing document is wide open. Term limits, balanced budget amendment, and the number of States required ratify the new governing document. Article VII of the US Constitution states, “The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.” There is no reason a a new proposed national governing document couldn’t set the numbers of States to ratify at 26 States.

  • U.S. Supreme Court seeks Obama administration's input on Oklahoma pot case against Colorado

    05/04/2015 3:28:41 PM PDT · 7 of 23
    SvenMagnussen to gwjack
    "The major Constituional issue is can one state (or two in this case) bring suit against another state for harm caused by its laws in a remote state?"

    No, the states are sovereign. The people are sovereign. The federal courts, the federal government and the Congress are servants of the states and the people.

  • Justice Department checked with White House before telling immigration judge amnesty already begun

    05/04/2015 12:16:37 PM PDT · 9 of 16
    SvenMagnussen to Elderberry

    The President is the nation’s Commander in Chief, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Prosecutor and Chief Defendant for the nation. The President can’t write an advisory memo to the Members of his Cabinet and then walk away with clean hands.

    The President issued orders for Amnesty in violation of a federal court order. The President should be held responsible for violating a federal court order.

  • Extreme secrecy eroding support for Obama's trade pact (Classified briefings in basement)

    05/04/2015 5:50:25 AM PDT · 8 of 16
    SvenMagnussen to All

    Article VII of the US Constitution

    The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.


    In 1787 - 1788, following the Constitutional Convention, supporters of the Constitution began the ratification campaign in a few states and then moved on to the more difficult ones.

  • Game of Thrones S05E04 discussion thread

    05/04/2015 4:30:47 AM PDT · 27 of 45
    SvenMagnussen to tbw2

    Robert Baratheon wanted Danerys assassinated. Ned Stark was against it. Through information from Danerys’ aide, Jorel, Robert Baratheon sent an assassin to poison Danerys. Jorel saved Danerys. Joffrey Baratheon, a protege of the Lannisters, inherited the throne and Danerys’ plot for revenge.

    Tyrion is accused of poisoning Joffe, so Danerys will probably turn on Jorel and provide Tyrion with protection.

  • Game of Thrones S05E04 discussion thread

    05/04/2015 4:30:11 AM PDT · 26 of 45
    SvenMagnussen to tbw2

    Robert Baratheon wanted Danerys assassinated. Ned Stark was against it. Through information from Danerys’ aide, Jorel, Robert Baratheon sent an assassin to poison Danerys. Jorel saved Danerys. Joffrey Baratheon, a protege of the Lannisters, inherited the throne and Danerys’ plot for revenge.

    Thyrion is accused of poisoning Joffe, so Danerys will probably turn on Jorel and provide Thyrion with protection.

  • Official Oaths. How They Differ. More honored in Breach than Observance. Mayday for Civics 101.

    05/01/2015 4:07:05 PM PDT · 4 of 4
    SvenMagnussen to All; concernedcitizen76

    Article. VI.

    All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

  • A Constitutional Convention Should Enact Judicial Term Limits

    04/29/2015 7:00:44 PM PDT · 27 of 41
    SvenMagnussen to Publius
    Implicitly forbidden:

    The Constitution of 1787 may not be abrogated and replaced with a new document. Article V only authorizes “a convention for proposing amendments to this Constitution”; therefore, the Constitution of 1787 is locked in place forever. Congress and an Amendments Convention have exactly the same Proposal power; therefore, neither Congress nor an Amendments Convention can start over. Both bodies can only propose amendments. To permit the drafting of a new constitution, this provision in Article V would first have to be repealed; it would be a two-step process.


    Implicit prohibitions are against the founding principles of the nation and a violation of the people's sovereignty. Laws, rules, regulations, and treaties must be explicit, an authentic representation of will of the people and published. The people willfully voided the US Constitution with the election of an ineligible President Obama. The Electors of the Electoral College could have prevented an ineligible President by voting faithlessly, but chose not to. President Obama is the leader of the nation until the people choose a new leader. The US Congress, the Federal courts, all US federal officers and the various State Legislatures have acquiesced to the will of the people in violation of Article VI of the US Constitution.

  • A Constitutional Convention Should Enact Judicial Term Limits

    04/29/2015 5:25:38 PM PDT · 17 of 41
    SvenMagnussen to RIghtwardHo

    An ineligible President voids the Constitution. A constitutional convention is all that is available to establish a national governing document. All options are on the table.

    Term limits, mandatory balanced budgets, state’s rights, abortion is unlawful, marriage is between one man and one woman, etc ...

  • A How-To When Changing the Constitution

    04/29/2015 4:19:22 PM PDT · 9 of 9
    SvenMagnussen to frog in a pot

    It’s not off-topic to discuss the election of an ineligible President when the topic is “A How-to When Changing the Constitution.”

    The sole purpose of the Electors in the Electoral College is to vote faithlessly if the people attempt to void the Constitution by electing an ineligible President. If the Electors choose not to vote faithlessly, then the Congress is powerless to prevent the will of the People. 3 USC 15 concerns objections if there is a misreading of votes, incorrect vote counting, or votes by Electors with authority according the state’s laws.

    Further, Congress is powerless to “enlarge or abridge” the citizenship status of a US citizen. That’s why you may see a resolution concerning the natural born citizenship status of a candidate and not a Congressional Act passed by Congress. Only the President can abridge the citizenship status of a US citizen within a limited set of circumstances by issuing a Certificate of loss of Nationality.

    Congress will always find a reason to dismiss the People when it means a loss of power or authority.

  • ANNOUNCING THE "GAME OF THRONES" PING LIST

    04/29/2015 10:30:42 AM PDT · 6 of 148
    SvenMagnussen to martin_fierro

    ping

  • A How-To When Changing the Constitution

    04/29/2015 10:28:23 AM PDT · 6 of 9
    SvenMagnussen to frog in a pot

    It is a common misconception Congress is constitutionally mandated to gather together to witness the counting of the votes by the Electors and object to how the Electors voted or why the Electors voted the way they did. Faithless votes by the Electors cannot be objected to or overturned by the Congress or the Courts. Congress is a servant of the people. Congress is not authorized to prevent the people from cancelling the Constitution when flaws become apparent as the Articles of Confederation were cancelled.

    Faithless voting by the Electors was intended to prevent an ineligible President from assuming the office based on the premise the Electors would support the Constitution faithfully and deny the popular vote for an ineligible President. In the case of the ineligible Obama, the Electors chose to fulfill the will of the majority. Congress and the Courts are powerless to prevent the will of the majority electing the leader of their choice, even an ineligible leader.

  • A How-To When Changing the Constitution

    04/29/2015 8:38:47 AM PDT · 4 of 9
    SvenMagnussen to MichCapCon

    The Constitution was ratified to replace the Articles of Confederation. An ineligible President voids the Constitution. Amending a voided document is a waste of time. A new, national governing document must be ratified by the states on behalf of the people.

  • Sen. David Perdue: Obama Runs ‘Country Without Congress’ [and....???]

    04/27/2015 5:57:04 PM PDT · 20 of 24
    SvenMagnussen to SvenMagnussen

    An ineligible President voids all US federal law, rules, regulations, debt, grants, and contracts. The Washington Elitist have put America into bankruptcy.

    The sovereignty of the People is granted by God. The People must establish a new, national governing document to form a more perfect union.

  • Sen. David Perdue: Obama Runs ‘Country Without Congress’ [and....???]

    04/27/2015 5:33:43 PM PDT · 17 of 24
    SvenMagnussen to markomalley

    An ineligible President voids the US Constitution which includes Article I (Congress) and Article III (Federal Courts). The People are sovereign. The People must form a new, national governing document.

  • Can America survive 8 years of Hillary Clinton?

    04/27/2015 10:10:54 AM PDT · 33 of 80
    SvenMagnussen to Freedom_Is_Not_Free

    An ineligible President voids the Constitution and not the sovereignty of the People. The People need to establish a new, national governing document.

    The US Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation because the Articles of Confederation were weak and the country wanted a more powerful, centralized federal government. Now the US Constitution must be replaced to curtail the federal government’s ability to continue spending regardless of the debt incurred and attempts to control the People through social engineering.

  • Questions about Barack Obama and Barry Soetoro rarely get answered

    04/26/2015 5:28:53 PM PDT · 30 of 31
    SvenMagnussen to Plummz

    Only a U.S. Citizen, U.S. National, or U.S. Resident Living in the U.S. can be a Dependent on IRS Form 1040 in 1973. In 1973, Lolo and S. Ann Soetoro filed a U.S. Federal Income Tax return as married, filing jointly, with one exemption. The tax table for determining tax owed for Married Filing Joint, 3 exemptions, 1973 Form 1040 for an adjusted gross income of $4,250 - $4,300, indicates the tax is $102.

    The Soetoro tax return filed in Hawai‘i for 1973 indicates one dependent named Maya. Maya, born in 1970, Jakarta, Indonesia, was the daughter of Lolo and Stanley Ann Soetoro. Obama was not a dependent Lolo and Stanley Ann’s 1973 tax return because Obama was a foreign national in the legal custody of Catholic Social Services, Hartford, CT and the physical custody of Madelyn Payne.

    http://svenmagnussen.blogspot.com/2013/04/only-us-citizen-us-national-or-us.html

  • Stand up and Assert Sovereignty.

    04/26/2015 5:00:49 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    SvenMagnussen to Vermont Lt

    Sovereignty is a God-given right and is not declared nor is it subjugated. The people have elected an ineligible President Obama with disregard for the Eligibility Clause of the US Constitution. Electing an ineligible President to dismantle the constitutional republic is a sovereign right of the people. An ineligible President voids the US Constitution. Members of Congress and federal judges understand an ineligible voids the US Constitution and are acquising to the ineligible President until a governing document for the States is ratified.

  • Questions about Barack Obama and Barry Soetoro rarely get answered

    04/21/2015 2:13:07 PM PDT · 17 of 31
    SvenMagnussen to All

    Lolo Soetoro was a permanent resident alien of the United States in 1965, the year Lolo and Stanley Ann married. Pursuant to his scholarship agreement with the East West Center and financed by grants from the US State Department, Lolo returned to Indonesia to fulfill his contractual obligation to obtain an education in the US and return to his home country for one year to assist the US in developing goodwill.

    On the advise of his mother-in-law, Madelyn Payne, Lolo filed a US tax return while a resident of Indonesia as a Non-resident alien. Filing as a nonresident alien while living in a foreign country automatically forfeits permanent resident alien status. Lolo’s ability to return to the US as a permanent resident was terminated.

    This prompted pleas from Lolo and Stanley Ann for reconsideration so that Lolo could return to the US. The INS investigated and found Lolo and Stanley Ann were legally married, but the “Barry” was the step-child of Lolo because the adoption began in 1965 had not been finalized.

    In 1967, the Soetoro adoption was finalized and Barack Obama’s legal name was changed to Barry Soetoro. Since Lolo was barred from returning to the US to live in the US permanently, the Soetoro’s moved to Indonesia. Angry that the US would not reinstate Lolo to a permanent resident alien after filing a Nonresident US Tax return, Stanley Ann notified the US State Department she would not be returning to the US in 1967.

  • Questions about Barack Obama and Barry Soetoro rarely get answered

    04/21/2015 9:19:10 AM PDT · 8 of 31
    SvenMagnussen to Oldpuppymax
    "Barry Soetoro, who is Barack after he was adopted by Indonesian Lolo Soetoro (1965)"

    The adoption process began in 1965 and was finalized in 1967. It takes two years to complete the adoption process.

  • The Living Law, by Louis Brandeis

    04/18/2015 8:40:55 AM PDT · 5 of 13
    SvenMagnussen to ProgressingAmerica

    Please put me on the ping list.

  • New “Article V Information Center” Helps Federal Reform Efforts

    04/17/2015 6:34:51 AM PDT · 5 of 15
    SvenMagnussen to cotton1706

    A proposed amendment does not amend the Constitution until it is certified by the Archivist of the United States and published as a slip law. The Archivist and the Government Printer, the official printer of the United States, are appointees of the President. Appointees of the President serve at the pleasure of the President.

    Any proposed amendment could be withheld by the President through the firing of the Archivist and the Government Printer. A new Archivist and Government Printer could only be appointed with advise and consent of the Senate.

    A constitutional convention is the only option after an ineligible President assumes the office.

  • Questions about Barack’s background never seem to end

    04/15/2015 12:54:10 PM PDT · 79 of 140
    SvenMagnussen to Nero Germanicus

    You have me confused with someone who believes an ineligible President cannot be chosen by the people by and through their electors or someone who believes that a person sworn in as President automatically becomes eligible because they were elected by a majority of the electors and have been sworn in.

    I believe the American people can choose whomever they want to be sworn in as President of the United States. If they choose an ineligible person to be President, then an ineligible President will be sworn in. Only the electors in the Electoral College can prevent the American people from having an ineligible President sworn in by voting faithlessly. If the Electors choose not to vote faithlessly to prevent an ineligible President from being sworn in, then an ineligible President is sworn in. The courts and the Congress, as servants of the people, cannot prevent the will of the majority when electing a President.

    Look to the recent NRLB v. Noel Canning SCOTUS decision as guidance. SCOTUS ruled Obama violated the Appointments Clause by recess appointments to the NRLB when the Congress was not in recess. Obama violated the Constitution and some of his appointees were removed from office. All of the decisions those appointees made after Obama violated the Constitution were voided. Obama wasn’t punished or removed. Obama made new appointments.

    It’s similar with an ineligible President. The ineligible President, a product of majority will of the people is not removed for violating the Constitution, his appointments, however, are voided. So are the laws, rules, and regulations enacted during his tenure. The Archivist of the US was appointed by Obama. Since the Constitution and all other US law is held in trust as evidence of law by the Archivist of the US, then the Constitution and all US federal law is voided. The chain of custody for the national governing document has been broken by an illegal appointment made by an unconstitutional President.

    A new President doesn’t right a wrong. Once the Constitution is violated it continues to be violated. The Constitution and all US law are voided by the seating on an ineligible President. It’s time to call a convention of the people to develop a new governing national document to submit for ratification by a majority of the states.

  • Questions about Barack’s background never seem to end

    04/13/2015 11:12:31 AM PDT · 21 of 140
    SvenMagnussen to Oldpuppymax

    The Articles of Confederation established the first governmental structure unifying the thirteen states that had fought in the American Revolution. They went into effect on March 1, 1781 and lasted until March 4, 1789 when they were replaced by the US Constitution.

    The Eligibility Clause of the US Constitution is not used to prevent the majority from electing a person they feel who is most qualified for the job. The Eligibility Clause is used by the voting American majority to void the US Constitution, fire Congress, fire the Sumpreme Court and all judicial officers of the lower courts and fire executive level federal officers who have failed the American people.

    Obama is ineligible to hold the Office of the President of the United States. The courts or the Congress is not constitutionally authorized to override the will of the people. It’s time for a new constitutional convention to establish a governing document for the nation.

  • Kansas Lawmakers Push Article V Convention

    04/13/2015 11:08:56 AM PDT · 27 of 27
    SvenMagnussen to cotton1706

    The Articles of Confederation established the first governmental structure unifying the thirteen states that had fought in the American Revolution. They went into effect on March 1, 1781 and lasted until March 4, 1789 when they were replaced by the US Constitution.

    The Eligibility Clause of the US Constitution is not used to prevent the majority from electing a person they feel who is most qualified for the job. The Eligibility Clause is used by the voting American majority to void the US Constitution, fire Congress, fire the Sumpreme Court and all judicial officers of the lower courts and fire executive level federal officers who have failed the American people.

    It’s time for a new constitutional convention to establish a governing document for the nation.

  • Kansas Lawmakers Push Article V Convention

    04/10/2015 9:16:20 AM PDT · 25 of 27
    SvenMagnussen to WildHighlander57

    The federal courts, members of Congress and all US federal officers are servants of the people and the states of the United States who have delegated some of their privileges and immunities and rights bestowed upon the people and the states by God. The Eligibility Clause cannot be used to prevent the people and the states from electing anyone they choose to be their leader. The Eligibility Clause describes a person who is authorized to continue executing the governing document entitled the US Constitution. The US Constitution cannot be used by the US federal government to prevent the American people and the states from firing them from incompetence or willful neglect of the US Constitution to establish a more perfect union.

    Electing an ineligible President voids the US Constitution, all federal laws, rules and regulations, all federal debt and other obligations, all purchase contracts, all grants, and all treaties entered into on behalf of the United States by the US federal government.

    Washington elitist and their supporters are quietly putting together a scheme to amend the voided Constitution through Article V in a feeble attempt to save their power, jobs and reputations. Ironically, Article VI demands all federal judges, US federal officers, members of Congress and members of the state legislatures support the US Constitution.

  • Kansas Lawmakers Push Article V Convention

    04/09/2015 1:56:45 PM PDT · 16 of 27
    SvenMagnussen to All

    The Archivist of the United States is the chief official overseeing the operation of the National Archives and Records Administration. The National Archives was established as an independent federal agency by Congress on April 1, 1985.

    The Archivist is appointed by the President and is responsible for safeguarding and making available for study all the permanently valuable records of the federal government, including the original Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Under Public Law No. 98-497, the Archivist also must maintain custody of state ratifications of amendments to the Constitution and it is the Archivist’s duty to issue a certificate proclaiming a particular amendment duly ratified and part of the Constitution if the legislatures of at least three-quarters of the states approve the proposed amendment. The Amendment and its certificate of ratification are then published in the Federal Register and the amendment is included in the United States Statutes at Large.

    Appointments by an ineligible President are void as a violation of the Appointments Clause by a sitting President holding the office in violation of the Eligibility Clause. The actions of an individual appointed by an ineligible President are voided. All federal documents held in trust as evidence of law by an Archivist appointed by an ineligible President are voided. The Archivist holds the original US Constitution in trust as evidence of law. An Archivist appointed by an ineligible President voids the US Constitution.

  • Kansas Lawmakers Push Article V Convention

    04/09/2015 7:55:49 AM PDT · 10 of 27
    SvenMagnussen to cotton1706

    The election and installation of an ineligible President voids the US Constitution. The Eligibility Clause describes an ineligible person for the Office of the President of the United States. The US government is not constitutionally authorized to prevent the American people from electing an ineligible President and voiding the US Constitution.

    The three branches of government are servants of the people and the states. Electing and installing an ineligible President is one way to fire the US government for incompetence. Government employees are reluctant, to say the least, to accept responsibility for their failure and refuse to leave office or recognize the US Constitution has been voided by the installation of an ineligible President.

  • Obama Was Hand-Picked & NOT a Natural Born Citizen - Congress Knew It & Protected Him

    04/07/2015 1:16:15 PM PDT · 151 of 158
    SvenMagnussen to WildHighlander57

    Some of us want to ignore the ineligible President and maintain the status quo because they believe the establishment would not allow them suffer the consequence of electing an ineligible President. Some of us want to negotiate with the voided establishment to seek affirmation and request compensation from a bankrupted entity that is many trillions of dollars in debt.

    You’re demanding that I look over my shoulder while I’m trying to move forward to recognize the will of the people and begin a campaign to re-establish a new constitutional republic. I choose not to look backward when there is so much to be done.

  • Obama’s Social Security Number Fraud Evidence Goes to Judge Who Blocked Illegal Amnesty

    04/07/2015 7:11:04 AM PDT · 82 of 85
    SvenMagnussen to Nero Germanicus

    It’s not illegal to vote for an ineligible President. The US Constitution was developed after a delegation of some of the sovereignty that was gifted to the people and the states by God. God did not bestow sovereignty upon the US Constitution or Congress or the Supreme Court. The people and the states delegated sovereignty, immunities and privileges to the US federal government and may cancel the delegation of authority by electing an ineligible President.

    The Eligibility Clause is not used to prevent the will of the people. The Eligibility Clause is used to determine if the people have cancelled the delegation of authority granted to the US federal government by the American people.

    Review the Noel Canning Apppointments Clause challenge in the courts against the NRLB. The courts ruled Obama violated the Appointments Clause. Obama wasn’t removed from office for violating the Constitution. Obama was put in office by the will of the people. The courts are not authorized to terminate the will of the people. The courts are authorized to terminate the appointments made in violation of the Appointments Clause and rule all of the actions by those appointees are voided.

    With a violation of the Eligibility Clause, the ineligible President is not removed. The courts and the Congress are servants of the people. The appointments, bills signed into law, and all others actions of the ineligible President are voided because the people have voted to install an ineligible President and move forward with new, national governing decree.

  • Obama Was Hand-Picked & NOT a Natural Born Citizen - Congress Knew It & Protected Him

    04/07/2015 6:30:52 AM PDT · 149 of 158
    SvenMagnussen to WildHighlander57

    How can there be government aggression when the people voted to void the Constitution by the election of an ineligible President? Men and women who used to hold positions of authority and standing choose not to recognize the will of the American people because they do not want to forfeit their positions of authority and standing are aggressive toward those who wish to fulfill the will of the majority and move forward.

    The Founding Fathers declared independence from a foreign state after recognizing they had a God-give right to terminate obligations in the form of taxes to the foreign state without representation in the foreign state government. The King ignored the Founders and sent in troops to capture or kill the insurgents. The vast majority of colonist didn’t want trouble and were fine with the status quo. A few bargained with the Crown to settle the matter and resolved to continue a dialog as long as the matter was pending.

    The Founding Fathers chose to establish a national governing document to be ratified by the states and defend themselves against tyranny.

  • Obama’s Social Security Number Fraud Evidence Goes to Judge Who Blocked Illegal Amnesty

    04/06/2015 4:38:03 PM PDT · 75 of 85
    SvenMagnussen to HomerBohn

    California attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz, provided notice and objection to President Obama assuming the Office of the President of the United States to the Honorable John Glover Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts was answering questions from audience members after a speech he had delivered earlier at the University of Idaho. Chief Justice Roberts presented himself as an executive level U.S. federal officer performing an unofficial act at a public function that was not a requirement of his duties as an executive level U.S. federal officer. At Chief Justice Roberts’ request, Dr Taitz hand delivered petitions of “half of a million Americans” objecting to the ineligible President Obama to Chief Justice Roberts’ protective detail consisting of U.S. federal government employees of the U.S. Secret Service on March 13, 2009. See “Birther Orly Taitz Confronts Chief Justice John Roberts,” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbl54phHfE8, site last visited on May 7, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts publicly announced he would read the documents submitted. To date, Chief Justice Roberts has not publicly announced the results of his investigation into the eligibility of President Obama pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine and the Ninth Amendment.

    Chief Justice Roberts was approached at a question and answer session after giving a speech at the University of Idaho. Dr. Taitz approached Chief Justice Roberts as an executive level U.S. federal officer of the U.S. Supreme Court to notify him President Obama was ineligible. Pursuant to the de facto officer doctrine, Chief Justice Roberts was obligated as an executive level U.S. federal officer to investigate the claims of petitioner or offer the petitioners an exemption from the laws, rules, regulations, executive orders and appointments of an ineligible president or hold a hearing to determine the eligibility of President Obama. A judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Id., at 356-357; Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall., at 351. All Article III judges waive Absolute immunity, Judicial immunity, qualified immunity or any other immunity, real or imagined, after ignoring notification of ineligibility and failing to offer exemptions or holding a hearing to determine eligibility.

    The election of an ineligible President has voided the US Constitution. Time for a convention to establish a national governing document.