Go to: => TOP Page; What's New? Page; ROAD MAP; Shopping Mall; Emmaus Ministries Page; Search Page
I am not a lawyer, and my expertise is limited, but law, as with most other "deep" subjects, is common sense. And if one begins with the right premises and the right documentation, even a layman can come up with reasonable arguments -- subject, naturally, to further revelations of law, fact, and logic. Here is my understanding of the "legal standing" issue in the matter of Barack Obama's eligibility to be president of the United States.
Lawyers Orley Taitz and Gary Kreep are representing several plaintiffs who are demanding that Obama provide proof of his eligibility to be president, or get out of the White House. Federal lawyers under the direction of our alleged president are stonewalling any attempt to bring Obama to account for his irrational and/or illegal behavior in refusing to show that he is indeed eligible to be president. They are using our own tax money (apparently well over $1 million) to scam us, the people over whom Obama presumes to rule as president, by denying the plaintiffs the right to present their case.
The standard reply of Obama's lawyers is that those bringing the suits do not "have legal standing" to do so, that they are not materially involved in a way to give them standing. Some say that one must have been a candidate, that candidates "have standing" because they are "materially involved", they have a substantial stake in the election. Alan Keyes was a candidate, but they say he did not get enough votes to qualify with standing.
That is not the case and is silly reasoning. Every citizen of the United States, and especially every voting citizen, is materially and substantially effected by the integrity (or lack thereof) of the election process.
The Constitution of the United States begins thusly:
We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.., and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We, the People of the United States, were the authors (through our representatives at the Convention) and the authorizers (through the states' acceptance) of the Constitution, and by inheritance are still so today. We, under God, called this nation into being and fought for it. We, under God, are commissioning some of our members to be the governors..., at our discretion. We, the People thus have standing in all matters relating to this covenant document which governs the relationship between us and those whom we choose to govern over us, to be our referees.
We do not elect them to invent laws on their own, we choose them to govern us according to the principles already established in the Declaration of Independence in which God is recognized as the source of our freedoms and rights, and in the Constitution. Civil government is instituted to protect and administer those freedoms, which are not invented or bestowed by the government itself, but already given by God.
Mr. Obama wants to call our standing into question, the standing of We, the People. Won't work.
We, the People, have higher standing than any of the officers which we elect. We, the People, as originators and custodians of the Constitutional Covenant, have a perfect right as individuals (in the courts) or as whole (at elections), to challenge the standing, legitimacy, or behavior of any elected officer. That right (indeed obligation) of individuals and groups is further established in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is no restriction in the Constitution limiting the freedom of a citizen of the United States to present a grievance, including against elected or appointed holders of the highest offices in the land. All those officers, elected or appointed, hold their position at the permission of We, the People.
The plaintiff must, of course, prove his case in court, to be assessed by the judge or jury, but any free and voting citizen has that "legal standing" to present such a case. Assuming due protection against frivolous law suits, that standing is superior to the authority of any elected or appointed Officer of the State to deny such a grievance. The standing of the officer is more readily questionable than that of any citizen. The standing of every voting citizen is the basis of the standing for any elected officer, and thus superior to it.
That principle is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of a limited government over a free people. If We, the People cannot discipline our government, we have no hope of keeping it on a constitutional tether. If we do hold it strictly accountable to the Constitution, we will not have a tyranny, but a servant government.
Pray that Judge David Carter, before God, and yes, at any cost to himself (the stakes are that high), will hold our government properly accountable in the case now being pursued in Orange County, California.
Pray also that We, the People, will hold our government accountable -- again, at any cost to ourselves because, again, the stakes are that high.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *