Recommended Posts

The three qualifications to be President are you must be 35 years of age, must have been a resident for 14 years, and you must be a "natural born Citizen" (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which no longer applies).

If you think about you can see it really just boils down to three qualifications. You must be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age or more, and be residing in the U.S. your whole life (which satisfies the residency even if you go on vacations abroad. Oh well, isn’t that still a qualifier?) So lets boil it down:

One. You must be at least 35 years of age. There is no upper age limit.

Two. You must be a natural born Citizen which includes children born to American citizens abroad. That frequently occurs with diplomats and military personnel.

Three. You must be a resident of the States for 14 years or you could have been General Dwight D. Eisenhower who was a general fighting WWII overseas.

Four. You must be elected.

Crap. Now I’m up to four requirements.
Peter

Notes:
From James Ho at The Heritage Foundation: The Constitution imposes three eligibility requirements on the Presidency—based on the officeholder's age, residency, and citizenship—that must be satisfied at the time of taking office. By virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, the qualifications for Vice President are the same. The Framers established these qualifications in order to increase the chances of electing a person of patriotism, judgment, and civic virtue.
First, Presidents must be thirty-five years of age or older. In contrast, Senators must be at least thirty years old, and Representatives no less than twenty-five years old. As Justice Joseph Story has noted, the "character and talent" of a man in the middle age of life is "fully developed," and he has had the opportunity "for public service and for experience in the public councils."
Second, the President must have been a "Resident" of the United States for fourteen years. By contrast, to be a Member of Congress, one must be an "Inhabitant" of the State one is representing. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison contended that "both [terms] were vague, but the latter [‘Inhabitant'] least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business." Then as now, inhabitant meant being a legal domiciliary, but resident could mean either a domiciliary or a physical presence. Perhaps the Framers desired a person as President who had actually been present in the United States for the required period and had developed an attachment to and understanding of the country, rather than one who was legally an inhabitant, but who may have lived abroad for most of his life. On the other hand, the distinction may have been one of style rather than substance. As Justice Story later noted, "by ‘residence,' in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States."
There is some evidence that the Framers believed the fourteen-year residency requirement could be satisfied cumulatively, rather than consecutively. An earlier version of the clause excluded individuals who have "not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U.S." (emphasis added), and historical evidence suggests that deletion of the phrase "in the whole" was not intended to alter the provision's meaning. This might explain the election of Herbert Hoover, whose successful 1928 campaign for President came less than fourteen years after his return to the United States in 1917. Others may argue that Hoover had simply maintained a United States domicile throughout his tenure abroad.
The third qualification to be President is that one must be a "natural born Citizen" (or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution). Although any citizen may become a Member of Congress so long as he has held citizenship for the requisite time period, to be President, one must be "a natural born Citizen." Undivided loyalty to the United States was a prime concern. During the Constitutional Convention, John Jay wrote to George Washington, urging "a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." Justice Story later noted that the natural-born–citizenship requirement "cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office."
Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401©. But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.
The Presidential Eligibility Clause does not explicitly cover those who serve merely as Acting President, a constitutionally distinct office. Although Congress has imposed by statute, 3 U.S.C. § 19(e), the same eligibility requirements for service as Acting President, that provision may not be required as a constitutional matter.
James C. Ho

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Peter,

I'm not sure the occasional gem from your archives is worth the million pages of stream of consciousness drivel that comes with it. Are you a middle school teacher or something? [from memory: the worst incessant drivelers to a sleeping audience]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike E. wrote: I'm not sure the occasional gem from your archives is worth the million pages of stream of consciousness drivel that comes with it.
end quote

Says your old man. Isn’t this site an attempt to get Carly elected? Whatever, dude. Now can you say the following literary gem won’t become a Saturday Night Live Infomercial for Carly?

Cribbed from Wiki How and other weird sites for humor. 10 must-do’s for Carly to become President of the United States.

1. Be a 35 year old man. If you can’t do that then walk like a man, talk like a man, but have a girly laugh. And look sexy, as in a “I’m always on top,” sort of way.

2. Get elected. It is a must that you have a squeaky clean criminal record. And enemies who can be nullified.

3. Get the look. The better-looking (and taller) candidate wins. So go put on your high heels and conservative make up, Carly. You'll need some nice pants suit, and some dresses too. The colors, red, white, and blue are best, and get some pressed khakis for when you pretend to chop wood for your Illinois log cabin.

4. Work on that smile. It needs to say, "You! Yes, you, Iowa farmer and you living free in New Hampshire! I'm doing all of this for YOU because I CARE."

5. Nail down the body language. From this point on, you're a politician. Whether you believe what you're saying or not, you have to deliver it in a convincing and reasonable manner. You can have the words on a piece of paper to cover what comes out of your mouth, or a teleprompter, but your body language will prove its really you.

6. Get yourself into UNcomfortable situations. After all, you're gonna be getting some heat -- you need to know how to handle a frying pan in the kitchen. The last thing you want is to be a second-rate version of Julia Childs, or The Soup Nazi from Seinfeld.

7. Work on that resume. In the last 70 years, every non-incumbent, major party presidential nominee has been either a sitting or former US senator, governor, vice-president or five-star general. Claim that being a CEO is just like being a five-star general.

8. Make friends. Lots and lots and lots and lots of friends. Specifically, make friends with people who have money.

9. You must be a mason and a secret member of the Illuminati. Or in your case, as a woman, you must be a member of The Order of the Eastern Stark, holding the rank of Worthy Matron.

(Aside: Don't read if you are Mike E! All Masons go through 32 degrees of the Scottish rite, and you worship every Egyptian pagan god, the gods of Persia, gods of India, Greek gods, Babylonian gods, and others. As you come to the 17th degree, the Masons claim that they will give you the password that will give him entrance at the judgment day to the Masonic deity, the great architect of the universe. It is very interesting that this secret password is "Abaddon". Revelation 9:11: They had a king over them, the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon or The 'angel' of the Abyss (Hell) is really the chief demon whose name is Abaddon.)

10. In free moments during the campaign you must chant, I will do this or I will die trying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're just trolling.

I'm convinced you belong to a public school teachers union. Won't you get some kind of hobby? I mean, where you actually do something, like hiking on slippery rocks near a raging river...

Link to post
Share on other sites

9. You must be a mason and a secret member of the Illuminati. Or in your case, as a woman, you must be a member of The Order of the Eastern Stark, holding the rank of Worthy Matron.

(Aside: Don't read if you are Mike E! All Masons go through 32 degrees of the Scottish rite, and you worship every Egyptian pagan god, the gods of Persia, gods of India, Greek gods, Babylonian gods, and others. As you come to the 17th degree, the Masons claim that they will give you the password that will give him entrance at the judgment day to the Masonic deity, the great architect of the universe. It is very interesting that this secret password is "Abaddon". Revelation 9:11: They had a king over them, the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek, Apollyon or The 'angel' of the Abyss (Hell) is really the chief demon whose name is Abaddon.)

I finally understand what historical American political party you represent...

Your ignorance is astounding.

You are now endeavoring to be rude and disrespectful to a private fraternal society of men like:

Booker T. Washington

Jimmy Dolittle

Samuel Colt

Ben Franklin

Henry Ford

Richard Gatling

George Washington

Edwin Jenner

Audie Murphy

Dr. William and Charles Mayo

Paul Revere

John W. Teets and

John Wayne

These men are my fraternal brothers and my fellow American citizens.

You owe them an apology.

By the way, your insult to our fraternal sisters did not go unnoticed.

The Daughters of the Eastern Star is an independent fraternal society of mostly women, however, my understanding is that men can join also.

Additionally, your unsourced prevarications about Masonic rituals is not worthy of a person who espouses a philosophy of rational thought and objective reality.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Peter's comments on the Scottish Rite to be only slightly related to the actual 33 degrees. He goes off the rails with the notion that all Masons learn the degrees. They don't. There is no agreement between what Peter writes and the actual process and contents.

Peter, I can almost understand the reason why you write material like that -- to be puckish, to be humorous, to poke fun at settled opinion and flabby dogma and tight-assed 'sensibilities.' But when you go wild with material you can at times come off as uninformed and even bigoted -- in the widest sense of the word ...

Adam, I can't comment on Masonry, having only known one initiate at the start of the process -- and finding it rather mysterious and god-ridden (though in an earlier delving into its mysteries, discovering that behind any mummery is an ethical system with strong and consistent morals).

While chastizing Peter for inaccuracy or stupidity is welcome, I just don't like the notion that we can't insult or criticize or make fun of any particular grouping -- at an extreme, setting Masonry aside as special or sacred seems a bizarre inversion of Political Correctness. I don't see why Peter should apologize to dead men and I don't see why he should apologize for offending you -- if offended you are.

I would like to see you correct Peter's woolly and uninformed pastiche of Masonry and its particular degrees and various national and subnational rites. But only if you have the time and inclination. I'd rather his irrational exuberance were clipped with reason, rather than with a "you have insulted a grand and noble tradition" kind of ploy.

But that's just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather his irrational exuberance were clipped with reason, rather than with a "you have insulted a grand and noble tradition" kind of ploy.

But that's just me.

William, I do not do ploys.

The OL record would show that I have repeatedly asked Peter, almost begged him to actually think before he launches his "brand" in a post.

It makes no difference.

Was this a thread on Masonry? No.

Was this a thread on cults and he argued that Masonry should be labeled a cult? At least we could have an intelligent discussion on that.

If anyone wishes to discuss Masonry they can contact me by PM or directly at my e-mail.

We have too many actual issues to discuss.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather his irrational exuberance were clipped with reason, rather than with a "you have insulted a grand and noble tradition" kind of ploy.

But that's just me.

William, I do not do ploys.

The OL record would show that I have repeatedly asked Peter, almost begged him to actually think before he launches his "brand" in a post.

It makes no difference.

Peter is incorrigible in some areas, sadly. He probably has no other place to hang out and discuss matters of interest to him. I put him on ignore a long time ago when he kept sidling up to the line of calling Angela a Nazi. He has since been let out of that cage.

I don't think my or your standing as long-time commentators here has any strong effect on others' behaviour -- when we hope by chastisement or pleading we can get the others to toe this line or obey this or that convention. Michael has an exceedingly light touch the great majority of the time (though he does bring the hammer down at righteous intervals). I can't assume owner/moderator duties, so when I get annoyed or stupefied, I just do my level best to lay out reasoned objections to this or that behaviour or argument, and then hope I might make sense to my readers.

I have learned about being a nag and a scold. I can offer a lesson back to you -- give yourself a break and put Peter on ignore. If you can't do that, then you are stuck, like me, with offering counter-arguments, critiques, ripostes, and so on. It is not the end of the world if Peter yammers on off-topic. He doesn't appear to give a shit about any correctives or suggestions or reactions.

If I were you I think I would do a cost-benefit analysis. Is it worthwhile engaging with him at all? Is it worthwhile getting frustrated with an incorrigible person? I guess it depends. I generally don't read Peter because the actual format of his posts is often rather forbidding. The copypasta data dumps from yesteryear are sometimes illuminating ...

If I were the boss here I would be very shitty at my job, I think. I would moderate, hound or ban so many people that there would be nobody left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were the boss here I would be very shitty at my job, I think. I would moderate, hound or ban so many people that there would be nobody left.

Lol - I agree that would be the outcome.

I have never, nor would I ever, use the ignore function.

And William, I do not take him seriously at all, nor do I get upset.

Argument to me is mental gymnastics.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. Niels Bohr

William wrote: I'd rather his irrational exuberance were clipped with reason, rather than with a "you have insulted a grand and noble tradition" kind of ploy . . . . He doesn't appear to give a shit about any correctives or suggestions or reactions.
end quote

Profound, William. Profound. I like to write comedy sketches and sometimes might be a bit exuberant but never irrational. Using my ability to reasonably classify human constructs, I maintain that Masonry is as cockamamie as Scientology. And it does mix ancient Christianity with pagan deities, so it is sacrilegious. If ever a group needed an inquisition . . . well, see the Da Vinci Code for inspiration. It is a brand of comradery for needy, low intellect types who play dress-up, use secret passwords, handshakes and illusions, much as did celebrity gay men back in the day of hiding in closets but everybody understood and tolerated their preferences and high-signs (like the euphemisms, telling looks, etc., used by Gore Vidal and Truman Capote.) It is full of fraternity level hazing and childish exclusivity. And the whole half assed tie-in to what real Masons do with bricks is an insult to the working man. So I am not surprised that Adam would be a PROUD Mason wannabe.

Most of my joshing is about Carly on this thread.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brilliant refutation by movie...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using my ability to reasonably classify human constructs, I maintain that Masonry is as cockamamie as Scientology. And it does mix ancient Christianity with pagan deities, so it is sacrilegious.

Really? Does your ability to reason also help you maintain the notion of differences between Scientology and Freemasonry?

If ever a group needed an inquisition . . . well, see the Da Vinci Code for inspiration.

A work of fiction helps you call for an inquisition?

It is a brand of comradery for needy, low intellect types who play dress-up, use secret passwords, handshakes and illusions, much as did celebrity gay men back in the day of hiding in closets but everybody understood and tolerated their preferences and high-signs (like the euphemisms, telling looks, etc., used by Gore Vidal and Truman Capote.)

Wow. Your prejudice is showing, Peter.

It is full of fraternity level hazing and childish exclusivity. And the whole half assed tie-in to what real Masons do with bricks is an insult to the working man. So I am not surprised that Adam would be a PROUD Mason wannabe.

While your ignorance of Freemasonry is understandable -- garbage in, garbage out -- what is your excuse for taking a low shot against Adam? I'll leave you with a suggestion from your alter ego, Reasonable Peter:

Proof. Evidence. Gotta have it.

If you want to check your prejudices against reality, take up Adam's offer: "If anyone wishes to discuss Masonry they can contact me by PM or directly at my e-mail."

I sent a backstage note to Adam, Peter, since he apparently does not want to discuss his Masonic interests or non-interests on list. Why don't you do the same? There is no evidence for your contentions ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

William asked me what was my excuse for taking a low shot against Adam? If a dumb dog barks at me I tell them to stop. And that’s not a low shot. It’s a non-lethal and deserved razzberry. Being a Mason requires such a low level of rationality that I am astonished anyone would admit it here in Oland. You have seen those Shriner’s hats haven’t you William? Childish. Weird. And yes, I have heard about their wunnerful, wunnerful hospital for wittle sick kids who think the Shriner’s look silly silly.

The subject deserves a brief moment in the light of day.

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter, in my books you are too-often ignorant and incorrigible -- and unequipped for a rational, reasonable discussion of Freemasonry. I have persisting differences with Adam on a number of issues, but I have not attempted to smear him by association as you have done here.

To what end do you insult Adam? I mean, what is the payoff for you personally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter is oblivious to any attempt to modify his behavior, it just starts his engine. It's all entertainment...

You may be right. I would settle for a rational discussion of Freemasonry and Scientology. It seems at this time to be unlikely -- I don't think Peter is interested in rational discussion of his claims as posted above. To my eyes, ignorant, baseless claims degrade this forum. But that is just me and my own prejudices, perhaps.

But, if I am wrong to have no expectations of reasonable discussion, I should try or test my assumption.

Peter Taylor, are you willing to have a rational discussion of the differences/similarities between Scientology and Freemasonry?

If yes, can you list say five aspects of Scientology that are found in the traditions of Freemasonry (eg, Guardians Office, Office of Special Affairs, Narconon, the Rehabilitation Project Force, the 'Chairman of the Board' David Miscavage, the tone scale, the cost of 'going up the Bridge,' the E-meter, the prophetic infallibility of L Ron Hubbard, the scandals exposed in the recent Gibney documentary, the 'hole,' the Sea Org, the Celebrity Centres, the opaque ecclesiatical authority, the status as a Church ...)? Do any of these items -- your choice -- correspond to similar aspects of the Mason traditions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter is oblivious to any attempt to modify his behavior, it just starts his engine. It's all entertainment...

"Those were the days my friend..."

postscript: I regret starting this topic.

With Carly's speech too?

--Brant

the posts not replied to die on the vine while the thread can go on

I don't think Peter's who derailed this discussion--not ostensibly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Carly. Freedom of speech. How much is it going to cost me? I’m not paying for Williams free speech. Debate? I prefer the art of the rif. As John McEnroe said, Debating Masonry is like discussing toenail fungus. REALLY! The state wants to establish a religion? The Church of England or Episcopalians? Is it my religion? If its mine OK, but I still won’t pay for it. Nor will I pay a penny to keep somebody else’s bloody state religion from being started. Mystical ties to oriental claptrap? State Religion which means religious suppression. Secret fraternity of illuminati. Hand shakes. Good old boy network. Clubs. Scottish Rites. At the conclusion of the meeting, the lodge might adjourn for a formal dinner, or festive board, sometimes involving toasting and song. Homohomohomocentric, so Carly is not allowed. Freemasonry describes itself as a beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. The symbolism is mainly, but not exclusively, drawn from the manual tools of stonemasons. The meaning of the symbolism is taught and explored through ritual. The lodges are inhabited by psychopaths with trowels, and shovels. Freddy Krugger was a 13th Degree Mason.

The Grand Lodge should be established by an existing regular Grand Lodge, or by at least three regular lodges. No one gets to start their own deviant lodge. So what is required per Wiki? A belief in a supreme being and scripture is a condition of membership. Initiates should take their vows on that scripture. Only men can be admitted, and no relationship exists with mixed lodges, so no negroes allowed. The Grand Lodge has complete control over the first three degrees, and is not subject to another body. All lodges shall display a volume of scripture with the square and compasses while in session. There is no discussion of politics or religion. Wink wink. "Ancient landmarks are revered.

Rocky: What do you say Bullwinkle?

Bullwinkle: Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat!

Rocky: Ugh, Bullwinkle. It smells like bull shit. Put it back in the hat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A belief in a supreme being and scripture is a condition of membership.

This is untrue.

I will get to the rest of the completely untrue statements as I have time for.

There are lodges that accept atheists.

I wonder how many practicing Christians Peter has had over for dinner in the last decade?

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam is the only one who seems to like this dance (and Peter). Why don't you ask that this all be broken off into a new thread? That would start about #125*.

Adam goaded/scolded Peter and Peter hit back, firing all his brain guns and laying down copious amount of word-smoke. Rationality has nothing to do with this biologically driven fight or flight. On the Internet, "flight" is not usually the best option, being, ironically, the hardest.

--Brant

*and we could get back to Carly (how's she doing?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter Taylor, are you willing to have a rational discussion of the differences/similarities between Scientology and Freemasonry?

If yes, can you list say five aspects of Scientology that are found in the traditions of Freemasonry (eg, Guardians Office, Office of Special Affairs, Narconon, the Rehabilitation Project Force, the 'Chairman of the Board' David Miscavage, the tone scale, the cost of 'going up the Bridge,' the E-meter, the prophetic infallibility of L Ron Hubbard, the scandals exposed in the recent Gibney documentary, the 'hole,' the Sea Org, the Celebrity Centres, the opaque ecclesiatical authority, the status as a Church ...)? Do any of these items -- your choice -- correspond to similar aspects of the Mason traditions?

Mystical ties to oriental claptrap? State Religion which means religious suppression. Secret fraternity of illuminati. Hand shakes. Good old boy network. Clubs. Scottish Rites. At the conclusion of the meeting, the lodge might adjourn for a formal dinner, or festive board, sometimes involving toasting and song. [...] Freemasonry describes itself as a beautiful system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols. The symbolism is mainly, but not exclusively, drawn from the manual tools of stonemasons. The meaning of the symbolism is taught and explored through ritual. The lodges are inhabited by psychopaths with trowels, and shovels.

Okay, so you choose not to engage in rational discussion of similarities/differences regarding Scientology/Freemasonry. You present as an incorrigible bigot and are apparently happy to so act. Fair enough. To the Ignore tank you go. Thanks for providing evidence of your bad faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

My last comment on Peter's issues on this thread.

I would be perfectly fine with a Trump-Fiorina ticket.

I am reasonably sure that Trump would not accept the VP if the reverse was in play.

Carley would be incredibly strong even after Evita withdraws for health reasons.

Not sure how this would play on the electoral map.

California is pretty much out of play for the Republicans.

Ohio would be in play though and Kasitch will be a good soldier.

I think it is time to see how that would play - I have to find that nice electoral map that is interactive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now