Profile
Photos
Comments
by This is the most profound article I have ever read as it relates to
the Constitution for the United States of America and it's potential
impact on every American citizen past, present, and future.
In order to understand the enormity of the impact of a Constitutional Usurper being
falsely elected to the Office of President of the United States of
America and it's inevitable ginormous chaotic outcome, please take a
few minutes to read the article below in it's entirety.
For those like me who fully support the Constitution for the United
States of America and will never stand down against usurpers of said
constitution and their supporters, you will deeply understand the
magnitde of the potential Constitutional Crisis and the inevitable end
of the United States of America as we know it if a Usurper is
elected to office of President. Further, you will make every effort to
demand that the potential usurper, Barrack Hussein Obama, provide an
ORIGINAL copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, and any other PROOF as
requested, to confirm his eligibility to be elected President of the
United States of America.
If you chose to ignore this potential national crisis and write it
off as "conspiracy" because you blatantly refuse to do what is right
and put your country first over your dream of electing this individual
who is potentially a false citizen and do not demand that Barrack
Hussein Obama provide irrefutable EVIDENCE that he is eligible to run
for Office of President, then you are nothing more than an enemy of the
Constitution for the United States of America and an absolute disgrace
to American Truth, Honor & Integrity; the principles for which this
country was founded upon.
Laura/whereabouts
God Bless the USA
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
America
is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her history.
Barack Obama must either stand up in a public forum and prove, with
conclusive documentary evidence, that he is “a natural born Citizen†of
the United States who has not renounced his American citizenship—or he
must step down as the Democratic Party’s candidate for President of the
United States—preferably before the election is held, and in any event before the Electoral College meets.
Because, pursuant to the Constitution, only “a natural born Citizen, or
a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e]
Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President†(Article
II, Section 1, Clause 4). And Obama clearly was not “a Citizen of the
United States at the time of the Adoption of th[e] Constitution.â€
Whether
the evidence will show that Obama is, or is not, “a natural born
Citizen†who has never renounced his American citizenship is an open
question. The arguments on both sides are as yet speculative. But
Obama’s stubborn refusal to provide what he claims is “his own†country
with conclusive proof on that score compels the presumption that he
knows, or at least strongly suspects, that no sufficient evidence in
his favor exists. After all, he is not being pressed to solve a problem
in quantum physics that is “above his pay grade,†but only asked to
provide the public with the original copy of some official record that
establishes his citizenship. The vast majority of Americans could
easily do so. Why will Obama not dispel the doubts about his
eligibility—unless he can not?
Now
that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of
proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a
delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the
claim.†Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). And if
each of the General Government’s powers must be proven (not simply
presumed) to exist, then every requirement that the Constitution sets
for any individual’s exercise of those powers must also be proven (not
simply presumed) to be fully satisfied before that individual
may exercise any of those powers. The Constitution’s command that “[n]o
Person except a natural born Citizen * * * shall be eligible to the
Office of President†is an absolute prohibition against the exercise of
each and every Presidential power by certain unqualified individuals. Actually (not simply presumptively or speculatively) being “a natural born Citizen†is the condition precedent sine qua non for avoiding this prohibition. Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility
for “the Office of President†must, when credibly challenged, establish
his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence.
In disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama,
which squarely presents the question of Obama’s true citizenship, the
presiding judge complained that Berg “would have us derail the
democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of
people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of
the most hotly contested presidential primary in living memory.†This
is exceptionally thin hogwash. A proper judicial inquiry into Obama’s
eligibility for “the Office of President†will not deny his supporters
a “right†to vote for him—rather, it will determine whether they have
any such “right†at all. For, just as Obama’s “right†to stand for
election to “the Office of President†is contingent upon his being “a
natural born Citizen,†so too are the “rights†of his partisans to vote
for him contingent upon whether he is even eligible for that “Office.†If
Obama is ineligible, then no one can claim any “right†to vote for him.
Indeed, in that case every American who does vote has a constitutional
duty to vote against him.
The
judge in Berg v. Obama dismissed the case, not because Obama has
actually proven that he is eligible for “the Office of President,†but
instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks “standing†to
challenge Obama’s eligibility:
regardless
of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to
establish the existence of an injury in fact. * ** [A] candidate’s
ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in
an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical
constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the
candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the
primaries to the general election.
This pronouncement does not rise to the level of hogwash.
First,
the Constitution mandates that “[t]he judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution†(Article
III, Section 2, Clause 1). Berg’s suit plainly “aris[es] under th[e]
Constitution,†in the sense of raising a critical constitutional issue.
So the only question is whether his suit is a constitutional “Case[ ].â€
The present judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a
constitutional “Case[ ]†comes under the rubric of “standingâ€â€”a
litigant with “standing†may proceed; one without “standing†may not.
“Standing,†however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution.
Neither are the specifics of the doctrine of “standing,†as they have
been elaborated in judicial decision after judicial decision, to be
found there. Rather, the test for “standing†is almost entirely a
judicial invention.
True
enough, the test for “standing†is not as ridiculous as the judiciary’s
so-called “compelling governmental interest test,†which licenses
public officials to abridge individuals’ constitutional rights and
thereby exercise powers the Constitution withholds from those
officials, which has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution, and which
is actually anti-constitutional. Neither is the doctrine of
“standing†as abusive as the “immunities†judges have cut from whole
cloth for public officials who violate their constitutional “Oath[s] or
Affirmation[s], to support this Constitution†(Article VI, Clause
3)—in the face of the Constitution’s explicit limitation on official
immunities (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). For the Constitution does
require that a litigant must present a true “Case[ ].†Yet, because the
test for “standing†is largely a contrivance of all-too-fallible men
and women, its specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted,
when they are found to be faulty. And they must be changed if the
consequences of judicial ignorance, inertia, and inaction are not to
endanger America’s constitutional form of government. Which is
precisely the situation here, inasmuch as the purported “election†of
Obama as President, notwithstanding his ineligibility for that office,
not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the General
Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch (as
explained below).
Second, the notion upon which the judge in Berg v. Obama fastened—namely, that Berg’s “grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact,†i.e., if everyone is injured or potentially injured then no one has “standingâ€â€”is absurd on its face.
To
be sure, no one has yet voted for Obama in the general election. But
does that mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool
of America’s voters in its entirety has suffered specific harm from
Obama’s participation in the electoral process to date? Or will suffer
such harm from his continuing participation? What about the Democrats
who voted for Hillary Clinton as their party’s nominee, but were
saddled with Obama because other Democrats voted for him even though
they could not legally have done so if his lack of eligibility for “the
Office of President†had been judicially determined before the
Democratic primaries or convention? What about the States that have
registered Obama as a legitimate candidate for President, but will have
been deceived, perhaps even defrauded, if he is proven not to be “a
natural born Citizen� And as far as the general election is concerned,
what about the voters among erstwhile Republicans and Independents who
do not want John McCain as President, and therefore will vote for Obama
(or any Democrat, for that matter) as “the lesser of two
evils,†but who later on may have their votes effectively thrown out,
and may have to suffer McCain’s being declared the winner of the
election, if Obama’s ineligibility is established? Or what about those
voters who made monetary contributions to Obama’s campaign, but may at
length discover that their funds went, not only to an ineligible
candidate, but to one who knew he was ineligible?
These obvious harms pale into insignificance, however, compared to the national disaster of having an outright usurper purportedly “elected†as “President.†In this situation, it is downright idiocy to claim, as did the judge in Berg v. Obama,
that a “generalized†injury somehow constitutes no judicially
cognizable injury at all. Self-evidently, to claim that a “generalizedâ€
grievance negates “the existence of an injury in fact†is patently
illogical—for if everyone in any group can complain of the same harm of
which any one of them can complain, then the existence of some harm
cannot be denied; and the more people who can complain of that harm,
the greater the aggregate or cumulative seriousness of the injury. The
whole may not be greater than the sum of its parts; but it is at least
equal to that sum! Moreover, for a judge to rule that no injury
redressable in a court of law exists, precisely because everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing as “the Presidentâ€
but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the President,
sets America on the course of judicially assisted political suicide. If
Obama turns out to be nothing more than an usurper who has fraudulently
seized control of the Presidency, not only will the Constitution have
been egregiously flouted, but also this whole country could be, likely
will be, destroyed as a consequence. And if this country is even
credibly threatened with destruction, every American will be
harmed—irretrievably, should the threat become actuality—including those who voted or intend to vote for Obama, who are also part of We the People. Therefore, in this situation, any
and every American must have “standing†to demand—and must demand, both
in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.â€
Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,
[i]f,
through the political process, Congress determines that citizens,
voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility
requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws
conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters
do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg]
attempts to bring * * * .
Recall
that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]â€
because he has no “standing,†and that he has no “standing†because he
has no “injury in fact,†only a “generalized†“grievance.†This
purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that
constitutionally no “Case[ ]†exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing†to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming
the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those
individuals have no “standing� If “standing†is a constitutional
conception, and the courts deny that “standing†exists in a situation
such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the
Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them.
Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond
what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.†Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).
In
fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary.
Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of
actionâ€â€”directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the
Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of
President†must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when
serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and
he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that
should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]†is one
the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be
enforceable in such a “Case[ ]†in a timely manner, by anyone who cares
to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will
ensue if it is flouted.
What are some of those consequences?
First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen†or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President†(Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected†by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House
of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the
Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional
requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the
Members of the House purport to “elect†Obama, he will be nothing but
an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And
he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain
legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or
acquiesces in his usurpation.
Second,
if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation†of
office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,†he will commit
the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1,
Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he
cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United
States,†or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act
of taking the “Oath or Affirmation†will be a violation thereof! So,
even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other
way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,†Obama will derive no
authority whatsoever from it.
Third,
his purported “Oath or Affirmation†being perjured from the beginning,
Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President†will
be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242,
which provides that:
[w]hoever,
under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges,
or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than
one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed
in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;
and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * *
*, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any
term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Plainly
enough, every supposedly “official†act performed by an usurper in the
President’s chair will be an act “under color of law†that necessarily
and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of
[some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution * * * of the United Statesâ€â€”in the most general case, of
the constitutional “right[ ]†to an eligible and duly elected
individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional
“immunit[y]†from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the
President.â€
Fourth,
if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of
“the President,†Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of
the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United
States†(see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be
entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces.
Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “ordersâ€
will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme
circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.†In addition, no one in any
civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will
be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported
“proclamations,†“executive orders,†or “directives.â€
Fifth,
as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no
conceivable authority “to make Treatiesâ€, or to “nominate, and * * *
appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the
Constitution]†(Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any
“Treaties†or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]†he purports to “make†will be void ab initio,
no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither
authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor
thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what
further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even
with “the Advice and Consent of the Senateâ€, unconstitutionally
“appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court†whose votes thereafter
make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases†of
constitutional law.
Sixth,
and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper
pretends to occupy “the Office of President.†The Constitution provides
that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the
President of the United States†(Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not
to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,†but to
the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President
occupies the White House, no “Bill†will or can, “before it become a
Law, be presented to [him].†If no “Bill†is so presented, no “Billâ€
will or can become a “Law.†And any purported “Law†that the usurper
“approve[s]†and “sign[s],†or that Congress passes over the usurper’s
“Objections,†will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters
office†as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent
for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.â€
Seventh,
if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,†Congress
cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he
cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors†(see Article
II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to
arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in
order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this
could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government
itself, or among the States and the people.
Eighth,
even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s
hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend
to be “the President,†and the people acquiesced in that charade, just
about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in
office†by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General
Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps
the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject
to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally
installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and
internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is
breathtaking.
The
underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the
Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big
media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive
for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the
bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the
issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his
purported “Presidency.†And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too
accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizenâ€
who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be
allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificateâ€
generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this
important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is
accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected
to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent
investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced
by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party,
or other special-interest organization whatsoever.
Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be
unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his
citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally
responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.
Of
course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen†who
never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he
and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds
throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle
targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his
refusal “to be a witness against himself†is perfectly explicable and
even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever
justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and
inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his
eligibility for “the Office of President.†The Constitution may permit
him to “take the Fifth;†but it will not suffer him to employ that
evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.
© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserve