An Ineligible President of the United States Voids the Constitution

It is a common misconception that the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the final word on the interpretation of the supreme law of the land. Article VI. ("This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; ...") The People are sovereign and SCOTUS is a servant of the sovereign restrained by the US Constitution. SCOTUS opinion is authoritative until the People withdraw their consent for SCOTUS to have an opinion. The people withdraw their consent for SCOTUS to have an opinion when an ineligible President is sworn into office. The Federalist No. 78; The Judiciary Department; "There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Publius (Alexander Hamilton). The Declaration of Independence proclaimed the People are endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights. These rights include the right to withdraw consent to be governed by any government, not just the British government. The People do not formalize a declaration of independence and engage in war to withdraw consent to be governed by the US federal government. The People withdraw consent to be governed by the US federal government through the election of an ineligible President to be sworn into office in violation of Article II. Pursuant to Article VI, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; ..." The sovereign is immune from lawsuit for conspiring to violate Article II after they have been endowed with unalienable rights by the Creator. The sovereign cannot be enjoined by its servants to prevent violence against the Constitution. The servants cannot ignore a violation of Article II by a sitting President installed into office by the will of the majority at the ballot box. As a member of the sovereign, a native born US citizen may have dual allegiance at birth. Amendment XIV. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Allegiance is acquired a birth. The common law was that a citizen or subject could not renounce their allegiance without the consent of the sovereign. See Dyer, 298b; 1 Bl. Com. 370. "[The Fourteenth] Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other governmental unit." Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1665, 18 L.Ed.2d 757 (1967). The court said in Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 Fed. 556, 559. 22 L. R. A. 148: "As to whether allegiance can be acquired or lost by any other means than statutory naturalization is left by Congress in precisely the same situation as it was before the passage of [U.S. Rev. Stat, §§ 1999-2000, 1868]." A native born US citizen may naturalize in a foreign state to obtain dual allegiance. The servants of the People are powerless to stop them. See Kahane v. Shultz, 653 F. Supp. 1486 - 1987 - ‎Dist. Court, ED New York. In Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738 (1824): "A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights." The U.S. federal government is not authorized to define the term natural born citizen because it would enlarge the citizenship rights of some Americans and abridge the citizenship rights of other Americans contrary to the authority delegated to the U.S. federal government. The US federal government, including SCOTUS, is not authorized to prevent an ineligible President from assuming office. The U.S. federal government is not constitutionally authorized to ignore a violation of Article II by a sitting President. An ineligible sitting President voids the U.S. Constitution and terminates the authority delegated to the U.S. federal government. The People obtain independence from the U.S. federal government by electing and installing an ineligible President.