A Usurper President Can Not Void The U.S. Constitution

A Usurper President Can Not Void The U.S. Constitution

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on September 12, 2015 at 8:49 PM and September 13, 2015 at 1:01 AM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html

<<>>

Here is a succinct comment from Mario that was posted on his Natual Born Citizen blog on September 13, 2015 at 1:01 AM after Brianroy's and Sven's point-counterpoint, but I am putting it here as the intro to their dialogue and my comments that follow.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

If the Constitution is voided upon a usurper president assuming that Office, then the people cannot protect themselves from that usurper by resorting to that very Constitution. I do not think that the Framers would have create such a scenario.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy and Sven have an interesting discussion about the constitution, but, is there really a problem that needs to be resolved that is not protected by the line of succession?

Brianroy quoted what Sven wrote on his blog (see the last two sentences of the last paragraph):
>> http://conventionforamerica.blogspot.com/2015/08/article-ii-of-us-constitution-is-poison.html

"The U.S. Constitution is voided when an ineligible President assumes the highest office in the land to prevent the usurper from inheriting a functioning constitutional republic.

"After installing an ineligible President, the People must renew the constitutional republic with an improved national governing document ratified through a national referendum."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While Brianroy has many excellent points, it seems to me that the best rebuttal and refutation of Sven's assertion (the constitution is voided if the electorate selects an illegal POTUS) is that Sven has not adduced the line of succession to the U.S. presidency that implicitly protects the Union against an unconstitutional usurper.

Here is the line of succession from on Wikipedia:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

"This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

"The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."

1 Vice President of the United States Joe Biden (D)
2 Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
3 President pro tempore of the Senate Orrin Hatch (R)
4 Secretary of State John Kerry (D)
5 Secretary of the Treasury Jacob Lew (D)
6 Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (D)
7 Attorney General Loretta Lynch (D)
— Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell (D)[a]
8 Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (D)
9 Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker (D)
10 Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez (D)
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Mathews Burwell (D)
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro (D)
13 Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx (D)
14 Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (D)
15 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (D)
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald (R)
17 Secretary of Homeland Security

So, if the Vice President and the President Pro Tempore and the others in the line of succession do not contest the illegal president, is the U.S. Constitution still in effect or is it automatically voided, regardless of the line of succession?

It seems to me that the Article V authority of the legislatures of the "several states" to propose an amendment to rectify a constitution issue would also be voided if the Constitution were automatically voided by an illegal president.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

P.S.

On BirtherReport.com Pixel Patriot has a Emer de Vattel quote by Thomas Jefferson that is entitled VATTEL IS LAW, CITATION BY THOMAS JEFFERSON FOR VATTEL AS LAW, with the header, "Historic: Founding Father President Thomas Jefferson Cited Vattel In Handwritten Manuscript."
>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/09/historic-founding-father-president_8.html

Art

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Line of Succession is "Defacto Incorrect"

ajtelles said...

Brianroy,

The point is not the political party but the line of succession, so simply remove the party designation, as I did below. Also, it is not my line of succession, I copied it from Wikipedia, which says that the line of succession was "specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

"This is a list of the current presidential line of succession,[1] as specified by the United States Constitution and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947[2] as subsequently amended to include newly created cabinet offices.

"The succession follows the order of Vice President, Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the cabinet, which currently has fifteen members."

1 Vice President of the United States
2 Speaker of the House
3 President pro tempore of the Senate
4 Secretary of State
5 Secretary of the Treasury
6 Secretary of Defense
7 Attorney General
— Secretary of the Interior
8 Secretary of Agriculture
9 Secretary of Commerce
10 Secretary of Labor
11 Secretary of Health and Human Services
12 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
13 Secretary of Transportation
14 Secretary of Energy
15 Secretary of Education
16 Secretary of Veterans Affairs
17 Secretary of Homeland Security

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Brianroy, on September 13, 2015 at 10:04 AM you wrote:

"...[Y]our line of succession of Democrats...legal is de facto incorrect. ... As I understand it, there would have to be a process by which the Senate would have to nominate and vote in a new temporary President and Vice-President, disqualifying Biden and every Democrat who ever served in that usurpation from being a candidate for POTUS nomination and following the much the same as the Impeachment processes...."

Brianroy, why would anyone in the line of succession be disqualified? Would Vice President Biden, a Democrat, be disqualified? Why would the third in the line of succession, the Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner, a Republican, or President pro tempore of the Senate, Sen. Orin Hatch, a Republican, be disqualified?

The constitution does not contain within it the method of its demise, but it does contain Article V, an article designed to protect the integrity of the entire Constitution, including the line of succession, that remains valid even if the constitution is violated, either by accident or willfully, by a usurper president, senator, representative, or state nullification or secession. Article V would be invalidated if, for some obscure reason, the entire Constitution is voided because of the illegal activity of an officer, from the chief executive on down, the Vice President, the members of the cabinet, and on down to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

In his first inaugural address in 1861 President Abraham Lincoln said something in reference to the secession movement that started a few days after he won the general election as the first president who was a member of the new Republican Party, the second person to attempt election as a Republican, and the first Republican to succeed. Aspects of the speech can be applied (see my comments in brackets [] below) to those who assert that the entire constitution can be nullified and voided by the actions of one person in the presidential line of succession.

See part of Pres. Lincoln's first inaugural speech at ( OriginalBirtherDocument14.blogspot.com ), or read the entire address about the "perpetual Union" as clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861. See paragraphs #12-14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

"… and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself."

President Abraham Lincoln: 1861 First Inaugural Speech

“It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration [April 30, 1789] of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

“I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

“Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?”

~ ~ ~
One party to a contract may
violate it—break it, so to speak—
but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
~ ~ ~

“Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

“But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States [or a usurper president] be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

“It follows from these views that no State [or a usurper president] upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

“I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken [we can add that the line of succession is also unbroken], and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws [including the constitution and the line of succession] of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself [with Article V authority that is not voided.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Article V authority is not void because the U.S. Constitution is not void if a usurper president is chosen by the Electoral College contrary to its fiduciary duty on behalf of We the People. We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution created by the sovereign, or the Electoral College authorized by the Constitution created by the sovereign. We the People are not suicidal and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

We the People are the singular sovereign, not the Constitution, not the Electoral College set up by the authority of the Constitution, and not the executive that is chosen by the Electoral College. The U.S. Constitution can NOT be made void by a usurper president for the same reason that the constitution will NOT be made void by We the People even if a usurper succeeds in the effort to "OCCUPY" the oval office again. We the People are not suicidal (Article V is proof of that), and the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

~ ~ ~
One party to a contract may
violate it—break it, so to speak—
but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
~ ~ ~

Thank you President Abraham Lincoln. Your 1861 words about the secession of eleven states from the Federal Union were prescient and are a guiding light in the 21st century.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( OriginalBirtherDocument24.blogspot.com )

Read paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com about the "perpetual Union" as clarified by President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ).