See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm
Published: Oct 29, 2008
Author: Edwin Vieira
Post Date: 2008-10-29 13:46:02 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 4079
Comments: 201
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-101) not displayed.
.
.
.
#102. To: James Deffenbach (#64)
I think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate too..
Vieira addresses "standing' here: 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.
There's an answer to the above: the judges tend to be anti-US American and, therefore, their views don't matter. Berg matters because he is pro-US Americans and he's an honest Hillarist.
Antiparty - find out why, think about 'how'
Judges have used this "crutch" which has no basis in fact, to avoid making a decision.
Edwin needs to push a movement to repel the 14th Amendment then...problem solved The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1] The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has been the basis of much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues. The other two Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). In The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), dissenting Supreme Court Justice Swayne wrote, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta
Or as a device to achieve pre-determined ends, which is really the same thing.
The word "standing" years ago in law replaced the word "who". Standing was attached as a person of note in the community etc etc. It was merely a word to differentiate between those of note and all others. It was a one size fits all method by lawyers/judges to avoid applying law in the justice system.
I don't recall ever seeing it before or hearing anyone else say it. I would not claim it as original because I doubt I am the first one that ever thought it or said it.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. NeoCon-Coms. Same thing, but with kicked up fascism and luciferian designs. Despite Obama's anti-constitutional positions recorded by his votes, his comments about race, his affiliations, associations, involvements, and secrecy of who he is, where he's from, what he really is, (if he knows), there are people convinced he is better than any alternative. And I wonder, what would be worse, what we know, or what we don't. It's apparent that people are willing to gamble all of our lives for political payback. Whereas, the positions McCain and Obama have held, until recently, are nearly identical. That said, the PTB have made their choice, and it's rather interesting, that the left having fully recieved a Congressional majority when Republicans repudiated the failures and send some packing, the NeoCon-Commies took full advantage of rolling out more and worse of the same. They must truly hate the soul of people. It's witnessed by the vicious attacks on Palin and her children. The hipocracy alone should be intolerable by any honest person, but we are not dealing with honest people. They can't take it when given to them on a silver platter, rather they feast upon the trust of their sheep, planning bigger fences to hold them should they ever wake.
The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling Dred Scott v. Sandford which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. The amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions and was used in the mid-20th century to dismantle racial segregation in the United States, as in Brown v. Board of Education. Its Due Process Clause has been the basis of much important and controversial case law regarding privacy rights, abortion (see Roe v. Wade), and other issues. The other two Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth Amendment (banning slavery) and the Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based voting qualifications). In The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), dissenting Supreme Court Justice Swayne wrote, "Fairly construed, these amendments may be said to rise to the dignity of a new Magna Carta None of that has a thing to do with the requirement that people be born in this country, or to American citizens no matter where they might be born, to be eligible to run for President.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Well then, we will consider it original and issue a patent on it.
Flint, leadership wasn't possible before. Just look to the people who we
recently considered comrades, only to learn they lean left. The current self
exile is difficult in the short term, but necessary in the long term.
One of the more ignorant statments I've seen from a presumed smart fellow. Okay, here's the thing. We have been lied to, and as such being victims of a fraud does not entitle someone to wish for our death, which is what you imply knowing Obama is going to be payback. Niiiiiiice. I should say, anyone as ignorant as this, deserves ebola, the clap and leperacy... starting with his d*ck, but I won't. I guess to boil down your statement futher, a victim of child abuse or domestic violence, deserves it. You married them, you didn't know what they were capable of, too bad. Is this how to save the soul of a nation? The sins of the 'evildoers' are all of ours to bear, and will be all of ours to bear. Let's make it worse shall we? Pefect slogan.
All persons born in the United States, except those not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government (such as children of foreign diplomats) are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Please put me on the "I think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate" list.
Don't take this as "gospel:" From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law) In the common law, and under many statutes, standing or locus standi is the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case. Edited: There are three constitutional standing requirements: Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury Causation: There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, so that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and not the result of the independent action of some third party who is not before the court. Redressability: It must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that a favorable court decision will redress the injury. I don't know what exactly the meaning of "injury," but if the election of a non-"natural citizen" is not an injury to the Constitutional rights of all, then what is it?
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
The Judge was a typical Judicial coward, sidestep the issue and let someone else make the decision.
Thanks for that cite. Gonna get more ammo.
...with the power of conviction, there is no sacrifice.
Let me put it into context Americans forced South Africans to accept a black president to cleanse its white guilt ...now you get to deal with it turn about is fair play...your other argument not with standing
So payback is a personal policy of targeted white hatred. That'll fix everything won't it. Rather than reveal the truth, you rather kill it and protect the true perpetrators. Ah, do you also write history books for the neo- cons? My other argument will stand for your children whether you accept it or not. When they find themselves fighting issues of survival not of their choosing, remember, you failed to tell them they have God given rights, despite the shame of their birthparents.
No but maybe it will wake people like you up to the real world
Vieira defines the injury with precision. this is an egregious affront to all americans.
You want me to get him on my show?
yes...and discuss this issue.
No problem I'll get in touch with him tomorrow...I'll let you know
I am quite awake, and don't think Luciferian blood sacrifice of innocents is right. But you apparently do. I don't owe Africa a thing. Nothing. And we are talking about America and Americans. You are blinded by hatred which will get you more of it. It is you that needs to wake up.
It was the American government that forced Rhodesia to deal with a "terrorist" called Mugabe and like wise it was the American congress that forced sanctions on South Africa you may not feel you owe Africa anything but it was American policy that has caused mass murder and now genocide in Africa so don't talk to me about "Luciferian blood sacrifice of innocents"
PS , the phrase "natural born Citizen" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself and its interpretation has never been the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Do you suppose it could be defined as a bastard mulatto from Kenya ??? Well ???
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
First, you say it ws the American Government that ... And you divert the blame to the people, which is NOT the government. Second, Obama supports Mugabe, which means, you support the actions of the Government. American policy has not been guided BY the American people for decades. Did you know that? Are you aware of the lies told to rally the people to war? And for that, you would incinerate more innocents and continue to leave the perps blameless. Helloooo?? No, if you know better and still want blood, you have a mental problem. This isn't payback you want, it's genocide. Payback is when you smack the person that smacked you first. So, why don't you suggest the Policy Makers pay the price?
I do too.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. First you are not paying attention where have I ever said I support Obama,second Obama does not support Mugabe and where have I called for blood shed and for the record in America I thought the people were the government McCain tells me that everyday...as for mental problems I suggest you look into a mirror
Really? American deserved Obama? Is that not an endorsement? second Obama does not support Mugabe Yes, he does. He supported funding Mugabe's government. It's a fact. and where have I called for blood shed you need to re-read your own posts. I thought the people were the government Then you haven't been paying attention to the facts. The rhetoric rocks the house, but we know different. McCain tells me that everyday As does Obama. WE are the change we have been waiting for. Sound familiar? as for mental problems I suggest you look into a mirror That's the best you have? You've been a hypocrite from beginning to end on this discussion. You need to look at what you are promoting, the facts, and get familiar with the truth. The truth is, it appears that nobody deserves the government they have. Now what? World depopulation or is that your overall position anyway?
Better get you facts straight on Mugabe if you can't do that I can only assume the rest of your arguments are just as baseless and to be honest mindless drivil Zimbabwe: Barack Obama Wades in, Backs Tsvangirai United States presidential hopeful, Barack Obama added his voice yesterday to the international condemnation of President Robert Mugabe, declaring that his regime in Zimbabwe "is illegitimate and lacks any credibility". He also expressed "deep concern" over opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai plight in the hands of Mugabe's thugs. The Democratic presidential nominee said that Mugabe's "campaign of repression and brutality" made it impossible for Friday's elections to be free and fair, Times online reported. "Indeed, it is the result of the abrogated March 2008 elections that represents the genuine will of the Zimbabwean people," he said.
Since when did KENYA become a part of "the United States"? You DO understand that that is the source of the conflict and the question about his citizenship or lack thereof, right? Now I don't know if it has changed or not but the last time I looked KENYA was in AFRICA. Has it been moved? Did Whore Hey declare it the 51st state?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Zimbabwe: Barack Obama Wades in, Backs Tsvangirai United States presidential hopeful, Barack Obama added his voice yesterday to the international condemnation of President Robert Mugabe, declaring that his regime in Zimbabwe "is illegitimate and lacks any credibility". He also expressed "deep concern" over opposition leader, Morgan Tsvangirai plight in the hands of Mugabe's thugs. The Democratic presidential nominee said that Mugabe's "campaign of repression and brutality" made it impossible for Friday's elections to be free and fair, Times online reported. "Indeed, it is the result of the abrogated March 2008 elections that represents the genuine will of the Zimbabwean people," he said. http://allafrica.com/stories/200806250139.html You better check his vote. Talk is cheap. Votes carry the cash. You have been unable to defend your position that America deserves Obama. Perhaps you would like to explain how innocent Americans who did not have a vote on policy should be murdered to 'learn a lesson' under Obama. So far, you defend corruption and genocide. Now, may we hear the justification for this outside of a political agenda?
You are on the list. I strongly suspect that all of us who have no use for the establishment are on one or more lists.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Produce the vote to my knowledge the Senate has not passed anything to support Mugabe since Obama has been there more BS you sucked up...I don't need to defend my position its only in your sick little mind that I said Americans need to be murdered...you are one sick puppy
I have a sick mind and you swallow Obama? You need to re-read your own posts. Scroll up. You rather Americans have an ineligible President holding the positions already on record to rule over us as payback. THAT is what is sick. Your loyalties are showing. You're pathetic but hardly pitiable. You invite what you wish for others to exist in perpetuity. There are lessons of history you refuse to learn by these actions. You are standing here lecturing Americans about what they deserve. Lecturing innocent people about their crimes, when you can't even recognize the real perps. You feel, you should decide what is fair? Who gave you that job? You just want more blood, and from that, more will be demanded. Thanks for playing the neo-con game. Nice little puppet.
Are you serious ?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
They both were (McBama). But which loser did they decide would 'win' ? I'd say the cabal might have one more twist in this drama.
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
It occurred to me about six months ago how funny it was all of us being "outside the mainstream" by wanting an Anti-Establishment President to preside over us, and how sad it was that most people actually agree but they're afraid to step outside the bounds imposed by the ruling clique they secretly despise and fear. Sad and funny at the same time.
And they write innumerable books; being too vain and distracted for silence: seeking every one after his own elevation, and dodging his emptiness. - T. S. Eliot
Comments (143 - 201) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestanother guy who is probably a Manchurian Candidate
#103. To: robnoel (#95)
#104. To: robnoel (#101)
#105. To: christine (#103)
Rather, the test for “standing” is almost entirely a judicial invention.
#106. To: christine (#103)
#107. To: Cynicom (#105)
Judges have used this "crutch" which has no basis in fact, to avoid making a decision.
#108. To: duckhunter (#107)
#109. To: Cynicom (#91)
Is that original or stolen????
Lord Acton
#110. To: mirage (#99)
4um Posters turning into NeoCons before our very eyes. Who would have thought such a thing possible??
#111. To: robnoel (#106)
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.[1]
Lord Acton
#112. To: James Deffenbach (#109)
I don't recall ever seeing it before or hearing anyone else say it.
#113. To: Flintlock (#98)
Been waiting for that for the last 20 years.
#114. To: robnoel (#92)
No question about that chalk it up to white guilt I've said this before America deserves Obama
#115. To: James Deffenbach (#111)
#116. To: Lady X, James Deffenbach, (#102)
#117. To: christine (#103)
(Edited)
#118. To: rack42 (#117)
#119. To: robnoel, christine (#101)
...private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates...
#120. To: OliviaFNewton (#114)
#121. To: robnoel (#120)
Let me put it into context Americans forced South Africans to accept a black president to cleanse its white guilt ...now you get to deal with it turn about is fair play...your other argument not with standing
#122. To: OliviaFNewton (#121)
#123. To: rack42 (#117)
I don't know what exactly the meaning of "injury," but if the election of a non-"natural citizen" is not an injury to the Constitutional rights of all, then what is it?
#124. To: christine (#123)
#125. To: robnoel (#124)
#126. To: christine (#125)
#127. To: robnoel (#122)
No but maybe it will wake people like you up to the real world
#128. To: OliviaFNewton (#127)
(Edited)
#129. To: robnoel (#95)
#130. To: robnoel (#128)
It was the American government that forced Rhodesia to deal with a "terrorist" called Mugabe and like wise it was the American congress that forced sanctions on South Africa you may not feel you owe Africa anything but it was American policy that has caused mass murder and now genocide in Africa so don't talk to me about "Luciferian blood sacrifice of innocents"
#131. To: Lady X (#102)
I think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate too..
Lord Acton
#132. To: OliviaFNewton (#130)
#133. To: robnoel (#132)
(Edited)
First you are not paying attention where have I ever said I support Obama,
#134. To: OliviaFNewton (#133)
#135. To: robnoel (#115)
All persons born in the United States
Lord Acton
#136. To: robnoel (#134)
(Edited)
Better get you facts straight on Mugabe if you can't do that I can only assume the rest of your arguments are just as baseless and to be honest mindless drivil
#137. To: Jethro Tull (#116)
Please put me on the "I think Obama is a Manchurian Candidate" list.
Lord Acton
#138. To: OliviaFNewton (#136)
#139. To: robnoel (#138)
I don't need to defend my position its only in your sick little mind that I said Americans need to be murdered...you are one sick puppy
#140. To: robnoel (#57)
if this was a big deal it would be all over the media not relegated to a few website's with a few hundred posters
#141. To: duckhunter (#58)
It won't because he has already been selected.
#142. To: James Deffenbach (#137)
You are on the list. I strongly suspect that all of us who have no use for the establishment are on one or more lists.
.
.
.