Go to: =>
What's New? Page;
Emmaus Ministries Page;
OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW
[COMMENT: This is a true exercise in Constitutional law.
Vieira is one of the best.
By Dr. Edwin
Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Oct 29, 2008
is facing potentially the gravest constitutional crisis in her
history. ...only a natural born citizen (may be"President (Article
II, Section 1, Clause 4). ...Obama’s...refusal to provide what he
claims is “his own” country with conclusive proof...compels the presumption
that...no sufficient evidence in his favor exists. ...he is (only being
asked to establish) 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?
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...unqualified individuals. ... Therefore, anyone who
claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must...establish his
disposing of the lawsuit Berg v. Obama (the) 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. ...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...has a
constitutional duty to vote against him.
judge...dismissed the case, not because Obama has actually proven that he is
eligible... but instead because, simply as a voter, Berg supposedly lacks
“standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility:
remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact.
*** [A] candidate’s ineligibility...does not result in an injury in fact
This pronouncement does
not rise to the level of hogwash.
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[ ].” The present
judicial test for whether a litigant’s claim constitutes a constitutional “Case[
]” comes under the rubric of “standing”—a litigant with “standing” may proceed;
one without “standing” may not.
however, is not a term found anywhere in the Constitution. Neither are the
specifics of the doctrine of “standing,” as they have been elaborated...to be
found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial
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 is actually anti-constitutional.
the doctrine of “standing” as abusive as the “immunities” judges have invented
for public officials who violate their (oaths) to support this
Constitution (despite) 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 judges) its
specifics can be changed as easily as they were adopted, when (found) faulty.
must be changed (so that) judicial ignorance.., and inaction are not to
endanger (our) form of government.
...the (installation) of (an ineligible person) as President, (thwarting the
Constitution), not only will render illegitimate the Executive Branch of the
(United States) Government, but also will render impotent its Legislative Branch
...the judge in Berg v. Obama (used an
absurd pretense) — ....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 “standing..."
(this) mean that no one in any group smaller than the general pool of America’s
voters in its entirety (will suffer harm from Obama’s illegal exercise of the
powers of the supreme magistrate of the United States of America)?
(It is a)
national disaster (to have) an outright usurper
purportedly “elected” as “President.” ...it is ..idiocy to claim, as did the
judge in Berg v. Obama, that a “generalized” injury somehow constitutes
no...injury at all. ...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...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!
judge to rule that no injury redressable in a court of law exists...because
everyone in America will be subjected to an individual posing
as “the President” but who constitutionally cannot be (and therefore is not) the
President, sets America on the course of judicially assisted political
Obama...has fraudulently seized control of the Presidency...this whole
country...likely will be, destroyed as a consequence. And...every American
(would) be harmed—irretrievably...including those who voted...for Obama...
American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand...that Obama
immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of
imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama
determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the
Constitution’s...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...
Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no
constitutional “Case[ ]” 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).
Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—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...
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.
some of those consequences?
if Obama is not...eligible...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). ...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...or acquiesces in his usurpation.
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...(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.
his very act of taking the “Oath...” will be a violation thereof! [E]ven 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.
his [“Oath”] 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:
color of any law...willfully subjects any person ...to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges, or immunities...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 ...or may be sentenced to death.
supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair
will be an act “under color of law” that...unavoidably [deprives persons of
rights] protected by the Constitution... —in the most general case, of the
constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving
as President, and the ...constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an
usurper pretending to be “the President.”
[as] an usurper...in the guise of “the President,” Obama [would] not
constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy... [and]
will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces.
...to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach
of military discipline... [N]o one in any civilian agency...will be
required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,”
“executive orders,” or “directives.”
Fifth...Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”,
...appoint Ambassadors, ...Judges... [Those] he purports to “make”
will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the
Senate [can't] authorize an usurper to take such actions... [P]erhaps
irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper...“appoint[s] * * * Judges...”
whose votes...decide critical “Cases” ...
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...shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President
of the United States.” Not to an usurper posturing as “the President...
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
[with Obama] posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him
because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from
Office... ...other public officials would have to arrest him—with
physical force, if he would not go along quietly ...this could
possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or
among the States and the people.
...if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and
the people acquiesced... , just about everything [done by] the Executive
Branch... and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the
Judicial Branch...would be...subject to being overturned when a
constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for
chaos, both domestically and internationally...is breathtaking.
underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans...and his
cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the
issue ... [I]nevitably the truth will out. For the issue
is too simple... Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen”
who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be
allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate...”
course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never
renounced his American citizenship...he and his henchmen have perpetrated
[election] frauds throughout the country... [H]is refusal “to be a witness
against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds
of the Fifth Amendment. [A]s a matter of criminal law
[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
© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All
He can be reached at:
Manassas, Virginia 20112.
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
Date Posted - 01/16/2008 - Date
Last Edited -