Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW
or STEP DOWN

[COMMENT:  This is a true exercise in Constitutional law.   Vieira is one of the best.     E. Fox]

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Oct 29, 2008    http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

America 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?

"...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...unqualified individuals. ... Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must...establish his qualifications...

In 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.

The 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:

....the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. *** [A] candidate’s ineligibility...does not result in an injury in fact to voters.
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[ ].” 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.

“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...to be found there. Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.

...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 is actually anti-constitutional.

Neither is 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.

And they 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 (see below).

...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..."

...does (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!

...for a 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 suicide.

If 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...

Therefore...every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand...that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f...Congress 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).

[But] 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.

What are some of those consequences?

First, 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.

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...(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...” 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.

Third, 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:

[w]hoever, under 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.

[E]very 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.”

Fourth, [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” ...

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...shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” Not to an usurper posturing as “the President...

...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.”

Seventh, [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.

Eighth, ...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.

The 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...” 

...

Of 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 United States.

© 2008 Edwin Vieira, Jr. - All Rights Reserved

He can be reached at:
13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Politics - Obama;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  01/16/2008   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012