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: 4384
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 (1-61) not displayed.
.
.
.
#62. To: duckhunter (#60)
Imagine, A reporter found to be gay, with his own xrated graphic solicitation website, assigned to the WhiteHouse pool, enters the executive area after hours, and exits late, and seems to have extraordinary access to the inner sanctums.... Scandal? Crisis? Whatever.......
"relegated to a few website's with a few hundred posters."
Here is a little gif I would like to show Obama, McCain and all their supporters. It is truly a sad day in America when what most people have to choose from is one guy who was most likely born in Africa--if he wasn't why won't he show the vault form of his birth certificate?--and another guy who is probably a Manchurian Candidate and has never seen a military expenditure he didn't approve. They are both un-American to the core.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. I'll take a money bet on this if anyone is game...trying to save you guys from making fools of yourselves which you all done a pretty job of!
??
You think what? Ha! MSM have self-identified themselves as Democrat voters so why would they report on this issue which could end up disqualifying their favorite Pres candidate?
Many of us are the same fools who took the government 9-11 tale, asked questions, and demolished it (pardon the pun). If I were to dismiss most of the material I've been listening to on alternate radio, beginning w/shortwave years ago, I'd still be an R posting on the Free Republic. IMVHO, BO is a Marxist and therefore deserves a heavy dose of scrutiny. If not here, where?
If the government's star witness in the "Day of Terror" trial released an audio tape of his discussion with his FBI handler discussing his role in organizing,planning and executing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing for the FBI was a big deal, it would be all over the media. If the government's complicity in the mass murder of 168 Americans in the Oklahoma City bombing was a big deal it would be all over the media. If two of the 9/11 hijackers were living with a highly paid FBI asset was a big deal, it would be all over the media. If George Bush, Sr. dining with Osama bin Laden's brother on 9/10/2001 was a big deal, it would be all over the media. I don't think the media does what you think it does.
While it's true that both Obama and McCain's political policies are un- American, McCain is eligible to run for the Oval office. Voters can reject McCain if they don't care for his policies. But if Obama cannot prove his natural born US citizenship, he is then ineligible to run for President. And by filling out and signing a Statement of Candidacy, FEC form 2, with incomplete false erroneous information Obama would also be subject to penalties under 2USsection437g. Obama would be violating election law. He should not be throwing his hat in the ring. He should not be violating the trust of his party or the time of the electorate or showing such blatant disrespect for the US Constitution.
And if the fact that a pineapple bomb was what did the damage to the Murrah Building rather than an ANFO bomb that would be all over the media too. Nothing to see here, run along everyone.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. duckhunter: ?? I agree with you, duckhunter. Such arrogence and condescension from robnoel is pretty amazing. Just because we'd like Obama to show his original US birth certificate to the FEC to prove his eligibility to run for the Oval Office, we are foolish??? Who is the foolish one? Who is the dupe?
Do you think Michael Chertof DHS and the INS are just sitting by and watching this pass by unchallenged if he ain't a legal citizen then what is he a green card resident....get a grip!
Think I understand why the GOP is softpedaling this. Herr Schwarznegger, will you place your hand on the bible, please?
Good post. I agree with you on both points. People have the opportunity to reject McCain if they don't like how he has voted and at least he is eligible to run. Obama may very well be ineligible and if he were eligible I don't believe he would find it so hard to produce the documentation. Hell, I had to provide a birth certificate--that is, an actual AMERICAN birth certificate--to get a passport. Surely the documents necessary to prove you are qualified to run for President are at least as strict as they are to get a passport, wouldn't you think?
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. It's not quite that, is it? It's not being naturalized, which automatically disqualifies one, but the fact of his natural born status. If in US, A-OK. If not, Ineligible. Technically, according to the laws of that time, that's not strictly true, the birth mother has residency requirements to fulfill if the father was not a citizen, but why quibble. No one's questioning his citizenship. It's whether he's entitled to run based on the criteria of the constitution.
that's what i predict
My point was more a viewpoint of the extreme cynic. I don't think it matters whether Obama was born here or not. The truth is simply irrelevant as to whether these things become a "big deal" or not. The lyrics of a familiar song comes to mind; "When they own the information, the can bend it all they want."
Something tells me this would be a violation of Obama's civil rights and his affirmative action rights. The DNC may cover for Obama, saying ya know, lots of black "chillun" ain't never heard uh no dam birf certificate" plus what you sposed to do ifn you ain't entirely sho who does da daddy really be ???
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
Herr Schwarznegger, will you place your hand on the bible, please? Perhaps. But I think it's more likely that the GOP does not want to be tar and feathered by MSM and Obamaphiles that they are "swift boating a nice black college professor candidate" thingie.
It's a funny paradox, contradiction, sad, really that as we have been inundated with the Internet Paradigm, Information yearns to be free, it may yearn and we may have access but we(editors, viewers, readers) shut out more and more of it. Unless you have an internet connection and a desire to be informed, you would end up with no more than say, 50 years ago, "news" channels notwithstanding.
i guess we can conclude that you think that Edwin Vieira (constitutional lawyer) is making a fool of himself too? i'm surprised at your attitude on this, robby.
You would probably have more material, but less substantial content, unless you watched the comedy channels too.
The producer of Colbert or Stewart attributed one reason for their success to the abysmal job the newsnets have done.
"Comedians are the only people who are allowed to tell the truth"
I am not surprised, not after he called me a freeper earlier (or said something to the effect that that is where I should be posting).
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. You should know me by now I don't follow the herd or Edwin I respect him but yes I think he is causing a lot of folks to gets their panties in knot over a none issue I've looked at the documents if they fake they are very good ones....Edwin has time on his side to prove his point.....from now till Jan 20th ..... 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.
If in US, A-OK. If not, Ineligible. Technically, according to the laws of that time, that's not strictly true, the birth mother has residency requirements to fulfill if the father was not a citizen, but why quibble. No one's questioning his citizenship. It's whether he's entitled to run based on the criteria of the constitution. Bears repeating over and over again. It's not whether Obama is a US citizen. It's whether or not he is NATURAL BORN in order to be eligible to run for the Oval Office - naturalized citizens cannot run for President - natural born has very specific requirements - either Obama was born in the USA ( in Hawaii ??? and can produce his original birth certificate showing this to be true ) OR if Obama was born outside the USA/US military base was his mother eligible to pass on US citizenship to him at the time - the answer being no because she needed to reside in the USA for 5 years after age 16 and since she gave birth to Obama at age 18 she did not meet the requirement.
Do you suppose it could be defined as a bastard mulatto from Kenya ???
Where's your birth certificate Barack ?
The elevation of Mandela to Sainthood was a global media sensation, not that it was true. Most I know didn't buy the propagenda, nevertheless today he's adored everywhere, save cyberspace, where we know better. The parallels bet. him and Obongo are similar as are their politics.
Is that original or stolen????
No question about that chalk it up to white guilt I've said this before America deserves Obama
Doesn't need to be defined. Physically born in the USA. Second, if father not a citizen, then mother has to reside in the US 5 years after birth as noted above. The citizenship laws took this possiblity into account. Technically, legally, he's not eligible. It's the only elective office he's not eligible for. But as I say, why quibble.
You have a point, and I think if Obama is chosen, it will have a long term, positive effect. The quislings have been identified and fled, and those who remain on the side of freedom, will fight if there is no alternative. Now for some leadership.
Bottom line Philip Berg filed suit for documented proof that Obama was qualified to obtain office of President if elected. The case was dismissed based on Berg did not have standing ergo he now has a appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Who knows how long that will take I guess it will be well after Jan 20th 2009 ....so my question why is everyone getting so bent out of shape it's a worthless exercise
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.
It's some catch, that catch22, since the Secy of State of WA was denied the info. So who has the right. You are correct, it's irrelevant to most people out there, and since there is no TV scrutiny, no reality to it.
Been waiting for that for the last 20 years.
It's the second mouse that gets the cheese
Unfortunately, there are Obama supporters on this very thread whose attitude seems to be "Screw the Constitution!" I wasn't aware that they were such big fans of George W. Bush, but they have joined him in declaring the Constitution is nothing more than a "goddam*ed piece of paper". 4um Posters turning into NeoCons before our very eyes. Who would have thought such a thing possible??
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
Please name the OBama supporters?
Three United States District Courts have ruled that private citizens do not have standing to challenge the eligibility of candidates to appear on a presidential election ballot. Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Hollander v. McCain, 2008WL2853250 (D.N.H. 2008). In dicta in each of these cases, it was also opined that if the plaintiffs did have standing, the likelihood of success on the merits (which is part of the legal test for the issuance of a preliminary injunction) would be low. The opinion in one of the cases also cited to a statutory method[16] by which the eligibility of the President-elect to take office may be challenged in Congress.
Comments (102 - 201) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestbig deal
#63. To: swarthyguy, robnoel (#62)
Scandal? Crisis? Whatever.......
#64. To: eskimo (#56)
LOL! I like that.
Lord Acton
#65. To: duckhunter (#63)
#66. To: robnoel (#65)
trying to save you guys from making fools of yourselves which you all done a pretty job of!
#67. To: robnoel (#57)
if this was a big deal it would be all over the media
#68. To: robnoel (#65)
...trying to save you guys from making fools of yourselves which you all done a pretty job of!
#69. To: robnoel (#57)
(Edited)
if this was a big deal it would be all over the media
#70. To: James Deffenbach (#64)
It is truly a sad day in America when what most people have to choose from is one guy who was most likely born in Africa--if he wasn't why won't he show the vault form of his birth certificate?--and another guy who is probably a Manchurian Candidate and has never seen a military expenditure he didn't approve. They are both un-American to the core.
#71. To: honway (#69)
If the government's complicity in the mass murder of 168 Americans in the Oklahoma City bombing was a big deal it would be all over the media.
Lord Acton
#72. To: duckhunter, robnoel (#66)
robnoel: trying to save you guys from making fools of yourselves which you all done a pretty job of!
#73. To: honway (#69)
#74. To: scrapper2 (#72)
#75. To: scrapper2 (#70)
Lord Acton
#76. To: robnoel (#73)
(Edited)
a legal citizen
#77. To: swarthyguy (#74)
Herr Schwarznegger, will you place your hand on the bible, please?
#78. To: scrapper2 (#72)
Just because we'd like Obama to show his original US birth certificate to the FEC to prove his eligibility to run for the Oval Office, we are foolish??? Who is the foolish one? Who is the dupe?
#79. To: scrapper2 (#70)
And by filling out and signing a Statement of Candidacy, FEC form 2, with incomplete false erroneous information Obama would also be subject to penalties under 2USsection437g.
#80. To: swarthyguy (#74)
Think I understand why the GOP is softpedaling this.
#81. To: duckhunter (#78)
#82. To: robnoel (#65)
#83. To: swarthyguy (#81)
Unless you have an internet connection and a desire to be informed, you would end up with no more than say, 50 years ago
#84. To: duckhunter (#83)
#85. To: swarthyguy (#84)
The producer of Colbert or Stewart attributed one reason for their success to the abysmal job the newsnets have done.
#86. To: christine, robnoel (#82)
i guess we can conclude that you think that Edwin Vieira (constitutional lawyer) is making a fool of himself too? i'm surprised at your attitude on this, robby.
Lord Acton
#87. To: christine (#82)
(Edited)
#88. To: swarthyguy, All (#76)
t's not quite that, is it? It's not being naturalized, which automatically disqualifies one, but the fact of his natural born status.
#89. To: robnoel (#87)
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.
#90. To: robnoel (#57)
if this was a big deal it would be all over the media
#91. To: James Deffenbach (#50)
The idiotlogical twins,
#92. To: Jethro Tull (#90)
#93. To: robnoel (#87)
natural born Citizen
#94. To: robnoel (#92)
America deserves Obama
#95. To: swarthyguy (#93)
#96. To: robnoel, All (#87)
More from Vieira~
#97. To: robnoel (#95)
#98. To: Jethro Tull (#94)
Now for some leadership.
#99. To: swarthyguy (#76)
No one's questioning his citizenship. It's whether he's entitled to run based on the criteria of the constitution.
#100. To: mirage (#99)
#101. To: christine (#96)
.
.
.