OBAMA
MUST STAND UP NOW
OR
STEP DOWN*
by
Dr. Edwin Vieira,
Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
October 29, 2008
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 5).
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 5 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 5). 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 aids, 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 8). 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
* Edited for consistency with the Supreme Law Library by
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Private Attorney
General, 18
U.S.C. 1964(a)