|
http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
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."
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[ ]." 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 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 "standing" 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 "generalized"
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 President" 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."
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[ ]" 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 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 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
States" 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."
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 "orders" 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."
Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama
will have no conceivable authority "to make Treaties", 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 Senate",
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 "Bill"
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."
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 Citizen" who has not renounced his citizenship;
or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some
doctored "birth certificate" 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 Reserved
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard
College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on
constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he
successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark
decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers
Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck,
which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the
uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public
sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a
condition of their employment.
He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly
journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent
work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight:
The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States
Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence
of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional
perspective. www.piecesofeight.us
He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political
novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional
story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System,
and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and
Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...
|