Chino Constitution Class
Monday Evening, 6:00 pm,
Archibald's, 15421 Fairfield Ranch Rd in Chino Hills (right off Central and the 71 Freeway)
Video that has gone viral poses an interesting question...
Flaw to the Gavin Newsom could become president without a vote being cast scenario: The President of the United States doesn't just "appoint" a new vice president. As per Amendment 25 the nomination by a President must be confirmed by both Houses of the United States Congress. Without a V.P. the Democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to get someone like Newsom in that spot. The vote would likely end in a deadlock tie. There have been a number in times in history where the V.P. spot remained empty. In the case that the Presidency is vacant and there is no V.P. to take that spot, the constitutional authority to choose someone to act as President would devolve to the House of Representatives, one vote per State based on the original Article II provisions. That said, one might argue that there is no specific language on how the presidency would be filled if we were to lose the President without a V.P. in place other than that vacancies that devolve upon the House would be filled by the House of Representatives "per state" vote. The debate would then revolve around if that scenario "devolves" to the House of Representatives as provided in Article II. With both Presidential and Vice Presidential seats empty some of whom I have conferred with have postulated that the line of succession would then kick into play, which could put Speaker Nancy Pelosi into the presidency. I still believe that the scenario would require the House of Representatives to fill the U.S. President vacancy, but if a majority of the cockroaches in Washington fall into the "line of succession" argument, Pelosi as President would then be a very likely scenario...that's if she is still Speaker of the House at the time such a scenario was able to work its way into the American political game.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Can the federal government own/ lease land and define how the land is used?
Article 1, Section 8, they may purchase (not lease) if by the consent of the State's legislature, and for the purpose of needful buildings which typically are facilities related to military or foreign trade.
Can the federal government take land from states and make them federal parks?
No. Unconstitutional. As previously stated, Article I, Section 8 requires all federal lands to either be created by constitutional means (i.e. Washington D.C.) or by the purchase, with the consent of the State legislature, for the purpose of needful buildings (buildings that enable the federal government to carry out constitutionally authorized powers).
Could the states challenge this authority and take back their land?
Yes. Kick them out and nullify any federal claims that are unconstitutional. The problem is, we have a federal government that thinks it is a national government and that it can push the States around any way it wants.
Really want to understand if the government can legislate how land is used by states?
No, they cannot. State land usage is only a State concern.
Douglas V. Gibbs, Mr. Constitution, will be on "The World Is Awake" today, 8pm Pacific/11pm Eastern.
Doug will be participating in a debate regarding the term "citizen" (it's meaning, and whether or not the 14th Amendment tarnished, created, or clarified what citizen truly means), what it is to be a Sovereign National and if becoming a sovereign is a legitimate tactic in the Freedom Movement, the Organic Acts of 1801 and 1871 so as to reveal whether the United States is a Corporation as per the incorporation of Washington D.C., and if people can erect their own sovereign entity within the boundaries of an existing entity. If the conspiracy theorists are correct then we are simply employees of a corporate faction who must sell ourselves away from slavery by stripping ourselves of anything and everything that makes us a part of the United States (or perhaps I should write THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA).
Or, could it be that the very foundation of the sovereignty movement and the corporation theory is flawed? Even worse, could it be that the movement that many of our friends, family and neighbors are chasing through State Assemblies and Sovereign National organizations is a PsyOp by the enemy? Doug has repeatedly argued against the theory that the Organic Acts of 1801 and 1871 made the United States (via the incorporation of Washington D.C.) a corporation and that as citizens we are nothing more than employees locked into doing the bidding of the elitist corporation owners.
Doug has been asked to debate the topic with those who would believe otherwise, and has accepted. The debate will occur on The World Is Awake on July 29 at 8pm Pacific.
8pm Pacific/11pm Eastern on July 29 on your The World is Awake showLive Stream Channels:
6:00 pm. Wednesday Evening. Siggys Restaurant
26820 Jefferson Ave.
July 29, 8 pm, The World is Waking Up, Debate "Is the United States a Corporation?",
KMET 1490-AM (www.kmet1490am.com)
Classic Podcast Page on SoundCloud (for pre-2022 episodes)
Call in Live during the Program!951-922-3532