The United States does not have a President currently.
Some things are a matter of degree. And no Republic has ever stuck with full fidelity to its constitution, nor to the rule of perfectly objective law.
Such objections to absolutism in judgments aside, it can now be truly said and fair dinkum that the United States is no longer a free association of States (though this might seem rather old news.) But also:
THE UNITED STATES CAN NO LONGER BE SAID TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC.
It must be remembered that Saint Ron Reagan withdrew his Evil Empire accusation PRIOR TO the fall of the Soviet Union. This is a comparative call. A balanced call. And a fair call I think though Gorbachev was just a punk really.
And likewise nit-pickers can make the case that the US was never a constitutional republic. Of course it depends how high you raise the bar.
All this aside it is very clear now that:
THE UNITED STATES IS NOT A FREE ASSOCIATION OF SOVEREIGN STATES, IS NOT DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, NOR ANY NATION UNDER LAW, NOR ANY BODY WITH THE SLIGHTEST SEMBLANCE OF LEGITIMACY.
We here in Australia cannot, and therefore MUST NOT, rely on our former great, true and righteous ally. We cannot rely on her. And our diplomats ought only deal with her State Governors. Except when it comes to getting hold of advanced weaponry. And Likewise we ought not buy into this wicked EU. Filthy and wrong from the start, if too jaded to murder people in the millions quite yet.
When we die and must be rebirthed anew, how is it that we must regard a constitution? Supposing a high official position has been prescribed by this constitution? What if someone subjectively LOOKS ineligible?
A very stupid question was lately asked in this regard by a worse than stupid man. Here is the question and my answer to it:
Given the malign history of Republics, and given the HISTORICAL FACT that a democratic Republic is a thing with “short-legs”……… and given further the observation that democratic republics, that are founded on GOOD constitutional precedents, seem to have fallen foul in a slow tortuous downward drift, from that point at which they let the fidelity to constitutional law morph away……
…… Given all that, if a Presidential candidate showed up, and was something of a mystery, and supposing he INDEED!!!!! looked younger than 35 years……..
Well obviously any concerned citizen of the US would have the absolute and clear right to ask for at least reasonable convergent evidence as to the candidates eligibility.
The question is so stupid it answers itself. Think of the scenario. Think of the scenario where some fellow who looks like he hasn’t yet learned to shave, mystifyingly, and embarrassingly, appears to gain sway over an electorate. The electorate in question subdivided in four, between the wise, the overworked, the unrighteous and the stupid. Wherein the overworked and the wise would normally have a majority against this unknown cuckoo child, supposing the power of the pimping was so prodigious as to take half the overworked votes.
Well under that case you don’t know squat about this kid. He appears so young as not to be able to shave. The only connections you can find for this kid are bad………….
It stands to reason that any US citizen could challenge this hypothetical matter.