eagle_template

Why an amendment is not needed for Arnold Swartzenneger to become the president.

There is another method which is more proper and should be utilized instead of an amendment which is both time consuming and very unlikely to succeed.

When a conflict exists between any contract and the basic premises upon which it is based then a person affected by it can present it to a court of law and have that conflict removed from the contract or they can also have all the contracts be deemed invalid by the court. All 260+ million of them.

The US Constitution is a compact which is a type of a contract. The conflict is Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the US Constitution. It states the following:

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 basic premise of the Constitution is that there is not a class system and that we are all born equal so we all have the same opportunities. This is so basic that it is not even in the Constitution (which is a compact, a type of contract between the American people and the US government.) That one clause stands in violation of this premise because it doesn't give Mr. Swartzenegger one of the rights that all native born citizens have. That is the right to become the leader of this country.

So, in effect two classes of citizens now exist in the US. Essentially they act the same as the classes known as 'royalty' and 'commoner' did 200 years ago. Back then if you were not born into royalty you couldn't become a ruler. It's not really different now. Again your birth determines whether or not you can become the ruler of the US. The only difference is that today it is where you were born and not who gave birth to you which determines whether or not you can rule. It's a class system never the less. The class system is what we were fighting against back then and here we are stuck with another class system. We can't get away from them.

It's also a workplace discrimination issue which violates not only the basic accepted principles upon which the constitution is established but also violates many United States laws and even violates many important Acts of Congress which fully adhere to those principles of equality. The clause which conflicts can be removed by a Federal Court upon the request of a person who is directly affected by it. Finally, after 200 years Article 2, section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution totally prevents Arnold Swartzenneger from any further advancement in his chosen field of employment which is politics.

Since it involves the basis of the United States the case should be heard by the United States Supreme Court at the earliest possible opportunity. As long as this conflict exists it puts into question the legality of the United States of America. An international court of law could actually find the United States to be an illegal nation and be given that status by the nations of the world.

The next most important issue is that most countries in the world base their constitutions on the legality of the Constitution of the United States of America. So this conflict puts in question the legality of many nations and that could result in world turmoil if it is not dealt with.

It is not just countries that are affected but other entities and this includes even the legality of the United Nations since the United Nations Charter is based on the US Constitution.

The method I described of taking this to court is very legal and simple. It does the same thing as an amendment would but it would be much more successful. I advise not tampering with a contract that has worked so well for over 200 years unless the change eliminates a conflict which I have clearly shown exists.

The conflict was known to exist at the time it was signed. It was placed in the Constitution as an emergency measure to stop a take over of the United States. It was placed before the clause could be properly written or an alternate solution to the problem that existed at the time be found and used.*

Here is an over-the-top example of a similar conflict. Though absurd it shows clearly that the same type of conflict could exist at a personal level.

You arrive at an airport and read a sign that says a company will rent you an electric car that will go 200 miles between charges for a really great price. As you are signing the contract the salesman says the cars battery is old and so it will only go 40 miles between charges. However, you are expecting to need it for only 10 miles a day so you just sign the contract. Guess what, things change and you suddenly get a great job offer that you were not expecting. However, you need to drive 60 miles there and 60 miles back. Suddenly you need the full potential of the car but you don't have a car that is equal to everyone elses. Beside this you just plain feel 'limited' by that car and everyone seems to sense that they have something that you don't.

Likewise when Arnold Swartzenneger accepted his citizenship it was with the assumption that it was the same as all other citizenships and that he could go just as far with his as everyone else could with theirs. Now that he has accepted the citizenship he finds out that in his particular case it's not really the same. He can not go as far as others can with their citizenship.

Compare the clause of the requirements for Representatives and Senators and you can tell what it should have been and would have been if the plot to take over the United States did not exist at the time of the signing. Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.

Clause 3: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Notice the amount of time that a person has to have been a citizen increased as the office went from Representative to Senator. It went from seven to nine years but there was not a requirement for being a citizen at birth. That birth clause was stuck in the Constitution right before it was signed so that it would make one dangerous man ineligible for the presidency. That is the only reason it was added. I would have intended for the Constitution to read approximately the following way:

Clause 5: No person shall be eligible for the Office of president who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen years a citizen of the United States

This way everyone could become president although they might have to wait a bit longer. This is how it should have been.

More details

The US Constitution is a contract. The very beginning of it shows this clearly by stating the two parties involved in the contract which are 'the people' and the 'union'. Even the structure itself is based on the same articles, sections and clauses as in many standard contracts and the elements are in the same order. It's similar to detailed indentured servitude contracts of the 1700's but more so to even earlier more complex indentured servitude contracts of 1400's England. More about how it was written can be found on my page written about it. Here.

It can be traced back continuously in English law records, as an unbroken chain, to around 1000-1200 AD. It can be traced from that point in time, in English records, back to shortly after the time of the Anglo-Saxon Invasion of England in about 450 but that chain has several breaks. Two breaks are between twenty and sixty years in length, one break is in the late 800's and one in the 600's. Before 450 AD elements of the Constitution including the establishment of rights of both men and women are found in both Germanic and a mix of Roman and English contracts then used on the isle.

Before that the legal basis for the constitution goes back in middle eastern civilizations to ancient Judaic contracts and some of the Sumerian contracts before those.

It's just a contract though. It's a nice one but I wouldn't change it by amendment, I'd have the conflict stricken. When it was signed the Constitution was not conflicted or in any way illegal. It was not until the first person was born, after it was signed, that the conflict was created.

That contract almost got Mr. Jefferson killed when he dropped his papers in a law library in England in front of a magistrate judge who knew who he was but the judge fortunately did not have his best glasses on at the time so he could not even see what Thomas Jefferson was writing when he graciously helped Thomas Jefferson who was illegally in England. The magistrate then picked up the papers of the US Constitution that Thomas was writing and handed them back to Mr. Jefferson. It's here

*There were plans by fur companies and Russia to buy the presidency and put their own man in. This was so they would have a monopoly on all the furs in the world. We knew all about the fur companies plans but did not think that Russia might be involved in it. We were not too worried as without Russia it was only a partial monopoly and we could handle that.

Continental Congress got very desperate when right before ratification they found out that Russia's Queen was in on the deal and that meant they would provide as much money as was needed to buy the U.S. presidency.

How did we find out? Catherine was putting together deals in Germany. They were exclusives and the German businesses being German and thorough requested information from the US about our role in the monopoly and they included the information about Russia's part in the monopoly! They did not realize that we knew nothing about Russia's involvement until then. We had thought it just involved North American furs. You can read more about this plot here.. I was still in France as the Ambassador at the time and congress ran out of time. They wanted my advice but the letters kept getting intercepted so they accused me of being shacked up with a French 'madam' which was not true at all. There was not one 'madam' among the 50 new virgins 'Mademoiselle's' every month that I was shacked up with but those gracious ladies never interfered at all with my work. Everyone in the states panicked so they edited the clause and changed it from this.No person shall 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 and a citizen.to this

I don't remember the exact words as I sent them. So I changed the above clause as it now appears in the Constitution so that it would work the same as what I sent them. Any way, damn it, my letter did not get to the US in time for the founding fathers to insert it. I actually think I wanted the constitution to read more like this:

Clause 5: No person shall be eligible for the Office of president who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five years, a citizen, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States
-Sub clause: Citizens not born in the United States are not eligible for the office of President unless they were a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

This way the 'sub clause' could later be struck by a court as conflicting and Clause 5 would still stand. Then everyone would have identical requirements.

My memories are a bit poor after 230 years so will you please excuse the following hodge podge of events? (They are likely not listed as they happened.) One letter congress sent, I think the first letter got through and it just explained to me that Russia was in on the 'fur deal' and what they could do about it. Then there was a second letter that had more information on it. Then in the third they asked me to make a modification in the constitution but that letter got intercepted by the English. It was encrypted and that meant two things to the English. They did not know what was in the letter except that it was important. They were good at deciphering letters and deciphered quite a few that they intercepted from other countries. (The code breakers would meet across the street at a pub after work and our 'people' would buy them drinks and find out what they could crack and that turned out to be nearly everything) They broke almost all codes then in existence and when they could not crack the encryption they knew it was very important and then someone arrived with my encryption device which I invented and the English stole from me in France and that set everyone off.