Powered by

Article VI of the United States Constitution

(PID:31528071544) Source
posted by Michael Young alias thought107 on Tuesday 17th of January 2017 06:31:26 PM

( Photo from Black's Law Dictionary, (8th edition) ) The opinions expressed below, (and in connection with all my citations of this reference), are mine . They are not intended to represent or imply those of Black's Law Dictionary's editors or its publisher . . ( I miss Senator Robert C. Byrd ... ) . Here, in part on the basis of Article VI, i attempt to broaden and deepen an argument i have been forming that the United States Military has a right, (even an obligation, at this point in history), to intervene in the succession of the American Presidency . For background, please see the following posts on this stream : A Constitutional argument based upon Article IV Section 4 . A Madisonian argument based upon a letter to Thomas Jefferson . A futurist argument : "Regarding the Great Filter" "Go Erica !" . First i cite , [with adaptations for clarity] : Article II Section 2 Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution : "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court" I ask : Does the Senate's current, (majority), leadership construe "Consent" to mean that they can refuse to consider, as a body, whether they do Consent ; by holding hearings and scheduling a floor vote in a timely manner ? I now highlight, from Paragraph 3 of Article VI, (pictured in this post), the following : "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned [...] shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution" From the United States Senate website i cite the United States Senate's Oath of Office ; (active since 1884, it applies to all current members) : "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." In light of the above Oath, i ask : { Was not the Senate's intentional refusal to hold hearings and a confirmation vote for Merrick Garland, (President Barack Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court to fill the seat of Antonin Scalia), whose nomination was before the Senate for 293 days, (by more than 2 fold, the longest-pending Supreme Court nomination in American history), an act of subordinating their Oath of Office to (potential) partisan advantage, (or at least to the evasion of partisan disadvantage), on the part of the Senate's Republican-Party leadership ? Was it not, therefore, an act of Insubordination before the Constitution of the United States ; which, per Paragraph 2 of Article VI, above, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land" ? } By doing so, the Senate's Republican-Party leadership has, extra-Constitutionally in my opinion, compromised the working effectiveness of the United States Supreme Court during session(s) ; in the apparent hope of receiving a different nominee, from a different President, whom may be more to their political liking . . I now address the Debt Ceiling Crisis of 2013, and its accompanying government shut-down . It is my opinion that during this, the Rebublican Party leadership of the United States House of Representatives, (and rank and file, where they voted with the leadership on this issue), subordinated their oath of office, (under 5 U.S.C. §3331 ; quoted below and active since 1966) --- { “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” } --- to the pursuit of a partisan agenda ; (budget cutting) . In doing so, i believe that they, likewise, commited an act, (or acts), of Insubordination before the Constitution of the United States . My feeling is that, likewise, this is an impeachable offence . I note, however, that the House leadership has changed since then, (ironically, as i hear it and it appears to me, for reasons of the perception of their having insufficient partisan fervor), but much of the rank and file has not . . But even assuming that the above would constitute valid grounds for the impeachment and conviction of United States Senators and Representatives, one is up against the following : I cite Article I Section 2 Paragraph 5 : "The House of Representatives [...] shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." I cite Article I Section 3 Paragraph 6 : "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." As the Republican Party now controls both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate, there would seem to exist a conflict of interest if Republican members were to take up the task of considering the impeachment of their own party's Senate leadership, if not of majority-party members the House rank and file besides . A Gordian conflict of interest, (in my opinion) . Rightly or wrongly, i feel that, (in the foreseeable political environment, situations proceeding along their current paths), the probability that the Republican Senators and Congresspersons would be impeached by the Republican-led House and convicted in the Republican-led Senate, for subordinating the Constitution to the pursuit of Republican Party advantage, is close to 0 . Now, the situation proceeding as (i feel was) Constitutionally intended, the voting public would weigh this insubordination within our collective mind --- as advised by a neutral and inquisitive press --- and, if so persuaded, would vote in larger numbers for candidates other than those of the Republican Party in upcoming elections ; thus reversing this advantage and opening a more realistic path to the consideration of impeachment in the future . However, (as i have been arguing in the posts linked at the head of this post), i have no confidence that the official returns are sufficiently faithful to the expressed intent of the voters for such a Constitutional solution to seem viable to me . Indeed, i imagine that part of the (potential) partisan advantage gained, (intentionally or otherwise), by the unConstitutional refusal, (as i see it), to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland ... was the absence of a reliable center-left 5th vote in the case of a challenge to current voting-system methodologies --- particularly --- the use of computerized systems running trade-secret software on trade-secret hardware to record the vote in a manner invisible to the voter for counting in a manner invisible to the public . A vote, (and thus decision), which i feel would have upheld such a challenge . Thus, rightly or wrongly, i see this Gordian Conflict of Interest as a knot which the United States Military may be the only power left with the ability and the right --- as i see it, for they have not, (to my knowledge), subordinated their similarly worded oaths --- to cut . . As i see it, another hurdle which must be overcome is the following ; i cite Article I Section 5 Paragraph 1 : "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" Obviously in my opinion : In the hypothetical case that a majority in the U.S. House or U.S. Senate, (or both), would be or have been established, (in part), due to fraudulent election practices of which its leadership would be or have been, (hypothetically), aware ... a successful challenge to that majority, by questioning the election practices involved in establishing it from within the chamber, or through any process relying upon the approval of that chamber, would seem a very low probability event . In that context i find the following youtube video from 2004 interesting : Peter King, "We'll take care of the counting." I also find the 2010 South Carolina U.S. Senate race interesting ; particularly its Democratic Primary . The website verifiedvoting provides South Carolina polling place methodology information back to 2012 . If this methodology had also been in place for the 2010 Primary, the return may represent an exploitation of the vulnerability to representative democracy in America that i see or imagine, (involving computerized systems) ; one that would be, (in my opinion, or have been), worthy of investigation . It may or may not be worth noting that Jim DeMint, the Republican Party candidate whose campaign triumphed easily over the deeply flawed Democratic Party nominee-apparent, is and/or has been, (in my opinion), a notable figure within the Republican Party, and the right wing of American political culture more broadly . I do not know whether the Obama Justice Department dedicated resources to politely asking the voters in the 2010 South Carolina Democratic primary it they would, "voluntarily and please", reveal how the recall having voted ; but from a "lessons learned" perspective, i imagine this might have proven invaluable even if it was, (at the time, perhaps), against their better judgement to pursue a case to the Supreme Court over the matter . . Further hurdles are to be found in Article I Section 8 Paragraphs 11 and 14 ; condensed as follows : "The Congress shall have the Power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." "The Congress shall have the Power to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces." Under normal circumstances these are very beneficial paragraphs, intended to predispose the country to rule by the principle of representative democracy, (of which Madison may have considered the Legislative Branch the heart) ; rather than by the principle of military force . But, (as i argue in the Madisonian link at the top of the page), representative democracy is broadly vulnerable to misrepresentation of the expressed intent of the voters at the polls . Factional interest and personal ambition was always assumed ... but to the extent that misrepresentation of the will of the electorate may also be in progress, (i believe) we would face the prospect of rule, ultimately, by the principle of criminal interest(s) instead . Under almost any imaginable circumstances, i am certain that Congress would move with vigor to declare Military intervention which thwarts the Party-interest of its majority to be unlawful and treasonous . But so, in my opinion, would be the placement of disabling restriction(s) upon the Military as and if it sought to rescue representative democracy in the United States --- and in so doing, to honor the oaths of all its personnel --- if those legislators doing so knew that they were acting to preserve office-holdings and majorities in defiance of the will of the electorate . I believe that military intervention in the succession would precipitate a Constiutional crisis of proportions not seen since the Civil War ; (and it may, even, precipitate a Second Civil War) . But in my opinion, at least it would be honest to the extent that people would know what was happening . What i see or imagine i see is, instead, the death of the American Republic, in a manner that only insiders may know, (factually), is happening . IMG_8660

Merrick Garland Nomination,
Merrick Garland Nomination Blocked,
Merrick Garland Nomination Attorney General,
Merrick Garland Nomination 2016,
Merrick Garland Nomination Mitch Mcconnell,
Merrick Garland Nomination Ag,
Merrick Garland Nomination Precedent,

License and Use

This Merrick Garland Nomination - article-vi-of-the-united-states-constitution on image has 1024x683 pixels (original) and is uploaded to . The image size is 144744 byte. If you have a problem about intellectual property, child pornography or immature images with any of these pictures, please send report email to a webmaster at , to remove it from web.

Any questions about us or this searchengine simply use our contact form

  • Published 06.17.21
  • Resolution 1024x683
  • Image type jpg
  • File Size 144744 byte.

Related Photos


comments powered by Disqus