A “Right” To Vote, Maybe Not What You Think
By Francis Steffan
Remember that time we had a president elected and took office that many believed was not a natural born American citizen?
His name was Barack Hussein Obama, or that's what were told because he actually used many names, he also used many different Social Security numbers that is one reason I believe he was and is a CIA operative.
Used many different names, used many different social security numbers, was never charged for this, supposedly attended Columbia University, a known CIA recruitment/cover operation masquerading as a university yet no other students remember attending any classes with the future President of the United States. If you attended a class with someone who later became President of the United States wouldn't you remember him?
However, that is not the focus of this article.
This article will focus more on the challenges that people, the people, made within the US court system and were formally told that they had no standing.
The US Supreme Court, Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, has developed a three point standard necessary to possess "standing."
1: The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3: It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
Now we may be able look at this and say, well that's because none of those people had any "injury in fact," except that "voting" is considered by most as a "legally protected interest,” but is it?
Most people believe that "voting is a right" and if they take our right from us we have been injured, our rights, our property, has been damaged.
The question really is, do you have a right to elect the President?
In a presidential election it appears that you do not. At the very best, you may have a right to pretend to be voting for President of the United States. The right to participate in a poll. Your "opinion" is requested however your "vote" decides NOTHING.
Article two section one of the United States Constitution states, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that grants the privilege or recognizes the right of any of the people of the general population to cast a "vote" for president of the United States.
When people cast their vote, they are actually voting for a group of people called electors. A total of 538 electors form the Electoral College. Each elector casts one vote following the general opinion poll.
In fact and law, only seven (7) people vote for the President and Vice President of the United States within the whole State of Oregon.
To be a "registered voter" is not the same as an "elector."
As a matter of fact, people do not and are not required to “register” to exercise their “rights,” but one is at times required to “register” in order to receive or exercise a government created and granted “privilege.”
The old adage, “if you don't vote you have no cause (standing) to complain” is absolutely one hundred and eighty degrees opposite the truth, you should be getting used to this.
The US Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
The Oregon Constitution states in part, “We declare that...all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority…and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.”
In this nation consent of the people is required to carry on lawful government operations and they, the people, may remove that consent at any time and in any manner they may think proper.
A little sidebar, the Oregon Constitution states that “We declare that...all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority.” Did you notice that when it states “founded on their authority” the constitution does not say “it's authority,” nor does it state “it has” at all times?
“It” would represent a singular body or entity, while, “they” and “their” represent singular men and women within a group or entity.
Each man or woman must consent, in “their” singular sovereignty to be lawfully subjected to State governance. This is free will, a natural, unalienable, God given right that we are all blessed with.
It is my position that by your voluntary act of “registering” to vote you, at that time, consent to anything decided in that election and everything those elected do in their official State capacities.
If the Constitution does not bestow a general privilege for the population at large to cast a vote for president and no right to do so is recognized by the United States Constitution then the court's ruling that none of you have any standing to complain about the results or even how the presidential election is conducted is legitimate and justified by law, how's that feel.
It is an imaginary injury to you or damage to claim something has been stolen from you that you were never entitled to in the first place. This explains why the courts refused to hear any cases about Obama not being a natural born citizen which the evidence is compelling that he isn't, but if you have no standing you have no voice to complain by law because you have no right or privilege to be engaged in a presidential election.
Remember your vote is cast for “electors” NOT the president.
But now let's scoot up to 2020 and the election of Donald J Trump.
Donald J Trump is the man who was running for president of the United States of America. Donald J Trump felt, based on the evidence, that the election was not conducted fairly, that improprieties were present, and that his clear victory was stolen from him through illegal and unlawful acts.
Donald Trump is the man who is specifically injured in fact as he is qualified to be President and therefore has a right to pursue that office. Donald J Trump satisfied all the elements needed for standing according to the US Supreme Court in 1992.
Throughout the history of the United States an injured party has always had standing in court to sue a party that has caused them injury or damage to their property.
However, the courts have used the same device, no standing, to prevent Donald Trump from being afforded a day in court to redress his grievances against the governments corruption of the election.
Donald J Trump, the man, who claims, by compelling evidence, that the election was stolen and that his right or privilege to remain in the office of president of the United States was unlawfully infringed upon, and therefore caused injury and damage to said Donald J Trump.
What's up with that you might ask, I mean here's a guy who ran for president who was pulling at over 50% approval rating who was leading in nearly every state late into the night and then all of a sudden bing bang boom is losing badly and the elections over so sorry goodbye. Hard computer data evidences this actually happened.
Now maybe you aren't a Donald Trump supporter, maybe you're glad he isn't president, that also is not the point of this article.
Even if you are a Democrat and even if you hate Donald J Trump, do you not believe that every man or woman in the United States is entitled to a fair unbiased judicial hearing when they believe their rights or privileges have been unlawfully infringed upon?
Most of us used to believe that, and one of the founding principles of this nation commands it.
I have another little sidebar for those of you that do not believe that, your next, that's right, when you support or even allow your government to abuse anyone's rights they will abuse everyone's rights and that includes you.
This all seems like a very bad deal, it seems like the courts are unmanageably corrupt, and while it is true that the US court system, at every level, has become a corrupted money driven rubber-stamp of tyranny, in the particular case of Donald J Trump being ruled not have any standing may not be an example of the current and particular corruption of the US court system.
In fact, it is evidence of a corruption that occurred long before any of you were born and a lie that has been fed to the American people since the creation of this so-called independent and “free” nation.
Remember that time we had that thing known as the American Revolution?
Remember how we been told how we beat the British down and created our own free nation, free from the tyranny of the British Empire?
Turns out that's mostly a lie.
Now I already know you're going to want to argue with me, I already know you're not going to want to believe this, I don't care, I'm telling you anyway, and I have evidence, what do you have? A feeling?
I would suggest that you look up The Treaty of Paris September 3, 1783 and read it, well okay there's really no need in reading the whole thing, just read the first paragraph where it specifically states, "It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the Hearts of the most Serene and most Potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch- Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc.. and of the United States of America..."
Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the United States of America? I thought we defeated the King?
The Prince-electors of the Holy Roman Empire were the members of the electoral college of the Holy Roman Empire, having the function of electing the Roman king or, from the middle of the 16th century onwards, directly the Holy Roman Emperor.
The heir-apparent to a prince-elector was known as an electoral prince. The dignity of Elector was extremely prestigious and second only to King or Emperor, to whom the prince elector chose.
The Holy Roman Empire was in theory an elective monarchy, but from the 15th century onwards the electors often merely formalized what was a dynastic succession within the Austrian House of Habsburg, with the title usually passing to the eldest surviving son of the deceased Emperor.
Despite this, the office was not legally hereditary, and the heir could not title himself "Emperor" without having been personally elected. Doe this sound disturbingly familiar to you?
I have no problem with the electoral college election system, it is a reasonable attempt to safeguard against direct mob rule democracy, however, I do have a huge problem with the King or Queen of England choosing the US President and THAT is exactly what the “Prince Elector of the United States of America” does.
Not that this alone proves anything but, have you noticed when a US President is elected he travels to England to kiss up to the Queen? Just a courtesy I'm sure, although, they don't do that for France or Spain or anyone else.
The term arch treasurer refers to a chief treasurer. Commonly, it is specifically used for the great treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire.
As an adjective, arch can describe a principal or chief or something mischievous or sly.
So, the King of England, now the Queen, decides who will be President of the United States as “Prince Elector” and the Queen is also the great treasurer of the United States. Perhaps this is why us peons are forbidden by our “beloved” constitution from ever questioning the debt of the United States.... “The validity of the public debt of the United States...shall not be questioned.” 14th Amendment. hmmmm.
You may all conclude this to be just my opinion, however, my opinion is supported by the law of the land, grammatical, historical and current events that evidence my opinion to be true, what do you have?