WILL THE NEXT US PRESIDENT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

Will the Next US President be Unconstitutional?
by Jim Kouri

In spite of the fact that the presidential election is only a week away, some Americans are continuing their quest for access to Senator Barack Obama’s original birth certificate supposedly on file in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he and his campaign claim he was born.

So far efforts to achieve the obviously simple goal of viewing a presidential candidate’s birth records are being met with one roadblock after another. Making it even more suspicious is the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream news media are avoiding the issue of Obama’s birth certificate as if it were the plague.

Except for some radio talk show hosts, conservative bloggers and a few TV news people, the mainstream media — always willing to carry the water for the liberal left — are purposely ignoring the simple fact that Obama and his camp are stonewalling efforts to prove or disprove his being born a citizen, according to political strategists such as New Jersey’s Mike Baker.

According to the US Constitution:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. . .

“When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for — and won — the governorship of California, many in the liberal Republican establishment and the new media lamented the fact that he was not an American-born citizen and therefore was ineligible to run for president of this nation. Now it seems these same people are looking the other way to avoid exposing Senator Obama as an unconstitutional presidential candidate,” said Baker in an interview with NewswithViews.com.

One of the largest efforts to expose Barack Obama as an illegal presidential candidate was initiated by Philip Berg, an attorney in the so-called battleground state of Pennsylvania.

Berg, the Plaintiff, states in court papers that he is a lifelong Democrat who had always been proud of his party:

Plaintiff is a licensed attorney in good standing and has taken an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Plaintiff and many other citizens of the United States have donated money and time to Democratic Presidential candidates as well as to the Democratic National Committee, in reliance on promises and assurances made by the DNC in the Democratic Party Agenda. It provides that the Democrat Party’s goals, among others, are to “restore accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of government,” to “restore the Constitution and protect the civil rights and liberties of all Americans” and to “uphold the Constitution.”

To uphold the Constitution includes making sure that the Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of our United States Constitution and that such candidate runs a fair and legitimate campaign.

In vetting the Presidential candidate the DNC and FEC are required to ensure the eligibility requirements pursuant to our Constitution are met and the Presidential candidate, if elected, would be eligible to serve as President. To be eligible and qualified to run for and/or serve for Office of the President of the United States a person must be a “natural born” citizen. United States Constitution, Article II, Section I. The natural born citizen clause has prohibited many prominent Americans from becoming President, including Governor Schwarzenegger and former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger.

The DNC has nominated Obama as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States. There are many unanswered questions regarding Obama’s citizenship status:

1. Is Obama a “natural born” United States citizen?
2. Is Obama a “naturalized” United States citizen?
3. Is Obama a citizen of Indonesia?

Unfortunately, Judge Richard Barclay Surrick ruled that Philip Berg, an attorney in the state of Pennsylvania, lacked standing to bring such a suit. This ruling was a slap in the face of Berg, who once served as a deputy attorney general in Pennsylvania.

While Berg claims he will appeal Judge Surrick’s decision, it may be much too late should Obama win the November 4 election.

Berg said, “I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick’s decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don’t have standing, if you don’t have standing, if your neighbor doesn’t have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States — the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world — then who does?” he asked.

“So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned,” Berg stated in a press statement following the judge’s ruling.

“According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution,” Berg added.

Meanwhile, in Hawaii, the Obama campaign is being equally successful in preventing the examination of a legal birth certificate.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has denied efforts by mainland political columnist Andy Martin to obtain a copy of Barack Obama’s original Hawaiian birth certificate. See the full ruling.

Martin, a self-described “legendary Chicago muckraker,” issued a press statement several days ago to announce that he is in Honolulu to “investigate” Obama’s background in Hawaii.

Part of his examination was to include obtaining a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, verifying that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii and not out of country. To be qualified to run for president, candidates must be born in America.

“Obama has refused to release personal documents including his birth certificate, leading to suspicion among some voters that he’s covering up his true place of birth out of country,” Martin told the Hawaii Reporter.

Martin, who authored Obama: The Man Behind The Mask, is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com.

THUG TACTICS?
Besides blocking access to Barack Obama’s birth certificate and other documents, the Obama camp is using what are being characterized as intimidation tactics to silence opponents.

For example, the Obama campaign has threatened to sue media outlets in Missouri that air ads that are negative and misleading about the Democrat presidential contender. This in addition to flash-mobbing and phone spamming against David Freddoso because of his new book The Case Against Barack Obama, in addition to banning signs at rallies on taxpayer free-speech protected properties.

According to author Mike Parrish, Obama’s campaign workers asked the Department of Justice to prosecute the American Issues Project for telling the truth about the Senator and his political views.

“It appears they are little concerned with American values and much prefer community agitation a la Saul Alinsky, an avowed Marist. Perhaps they will be slightly more concerned about the higher profile response of Missouri’s Governor that brings this to national attention,” said Parrish.

This is the statement that Governor Matt Blunt’s office released.

Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideal of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts — not a free society.

In addition, NewsWithViews.com received complaints from rank and file police officers that they are being forced to help the Obama campaign by providing men and women in uniform to stand with the Senator during campaign stops.

“This is going on in cities and towns where the mayors or city managers are Democrats or weak Republicans,” said former NYPD detective and US Marine Sidney Francis.

While Obama uses cops as props and goon squads, the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of police officers in the US does not endorse or support Barack Obama.

In one incident Senator Obama’s campaign attempted to silence a sheriff in Florida who dared to utter Obama’s middle name:

Lee County, FL Sheriff Mike Scott never expected to create a firestorm when he used the full name of the Democrat Party’s presidential candidate “Barack Hussein Obama.”

At a rally in Estero, Florida, for GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the highly decorated law enforcement executive was the pre-rally speaker for the Palin appearance. As with most political rallies, the job of pre-rally speakers is to warm-up the audience.

According to GOPUSA’s Bobby Eberle whether the audience is cheering wildly or booing loudly, the pre-rally speakers are there to wake them up and get them going. So Sheriff Scott stepped to the podium and said, “On November 4, let’s leave Barack Hussein Obama wondering what happened.”

Apparently, saying “Barak Hussein Obama” in public might just get you a visit from the FBI. Just ask Sheriff Mike Scott who is under investigation for referring to Obama at a campaign rally by his full name.

Sheriff Scott responded to Obama’s goon squad by saying: “I absolutely, unequivocally don’t regret saying it,” Scott told the News-Press on Monday. “In order to be a speaker at this event, I had to give my full name — Michael Joseph Scott — to the Secret Service, even though I’m the sheriff of Lee County. So why would I apologize? Is there some kind of double standard here where I have to give my full name, but I can’t use his?”

“If Obama becomes president he will eventually be exposed as a fraud, but it will be too late. The Democrat Party will have control of both houses of Congress and the White House. And too many Republicans have become big-spending liberals who are willing to go along with a socialist agenda as long as they keep their jobs,” adds Mike Baker.

“These will be dangerous times, mark my words: the police and the military will be used against American citizens. Think of Waco, Texas, but on a national scale,” warns Det. Frances.

“An Obama presidency may be the beginning of the end of the US Constitution,” he said.
© 2008 NWV — All Rights Reserved

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN

Obama Must Stand up now or Step Down
by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

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 Reserve

Who Enforces the Constitution’s “Natural Born Citizen” Clause?

Who Enforces the Constitution’s “Natural Born Citizen” Clause?
by Mark J. Fitzgibbons

If you believe in individual rights and the notion that our Constitution is a document granting enumerated but limited powers to the federal government, then you have reason to be troubled by the recent dismissal in Berg v. Obama et al.

Philip Berg, Democrat and former Assistant Attorney General for Pennsylvania, brought suit alleging that under the “natural born citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution, Barack Obama is ineligible to be president. Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick recently granted the motion to dismiss filed by Senator Obama and other defendants, including the Democratic National Committee, on grounds that Berg lacked standing to sue as a mere voter.

The judicial doctrine of standing is important. It is a requirement that plaintiffs have a real stake in the outcome of a real controversy. This prevents, among other problems, persons bringing lawsuits simply to harass defendants. The judicial doctrine of standing is one of many judicial doctrines designed to limit the courts from being overloaded with cases that aren’t properly resolvable by the courts, such as ripeness (case brought too soon), mootness (case brought too late), lack of jurisdiction, etc.

When constitutional rights are at stake, courts have tended to give wider latitude to the standing of plaintiffs. The theory is that another person’s loss of constitutional rights may indeed affect one’s own constitutional rights.

Judge Surrick’s carefully worded opinion cites to cases where standing was at issue, including a similar case in which the eligibility of John McCain to be president was challenged. In deciding that “a candidate’s ineligibility under the “natural born citizen” clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters,” Judge Surrick writes in a footnote of potentially considerable consequence:

If, 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 Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring . . .

Here’s where I believe Judge Surrick’s decision breaks down from a constitutional perspective.

The enumerated powers of the respective branches of government are set forth in the first three articles of the Constitution. Article III states that the judicial power is vested in the courts, and “shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution . . .”

A case about whether a candidate is a natural born citizen seems quite clearly to arise under the Constitution, and thus within the exclusive domain of the courts. Under the language of the Constitution itself, there appears to be no need for Congress to pass a law authorizing individuals to file suit, or for courts to hear such challenges. In fact, there may be a separation of powers issue if Congress were to attempt to legislate broader or narrower access to the courts to hear constitutional challenges. That could infringe on the jurisdiction of the courts “to all Cases . . . arising under this Constitution.”

Secondly, the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I do not extend to dictating who may have standing to sue under the Constitution. One may argue that Judge Surrick relied on what some believe to be the catch-all “Necessary and Proper Clause” in Article I, Section 8[18]. That authorizes Congress:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Judge Surrick, however, never cites to that clause as his reason. Indeed, it would be inherently dangerous to our freedoms if Congress could dictate who can and cannot sue to enforce the Constitution.

So if the Framers established that courts “shall” hear cases arising under the Constitution, and failed to authorize Congress to otherwise establish who may sue to enforce the document, then where might we find conclusively that Berg has standing to sue?

The 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that the powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, remain with the states or the people. Therefore it seems that any state or any person has standing to sue to enforce not just the “natural born citizen” clause, but other constitutional requirements and rights, absent some expressly written bar within the Constitution itself.

Disputes under the “natural born citizen” clause are few and far between, so Judge Surrick couldn’t have been worried about his court being flooded with new cases. In this presidential election, however, both candidates of the two major parties were faced with similar challenges. Both filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing.

It’s a shame these cases didn’t get more attention and scrutiny based simply on how the candidates handled them. When faced with the potential for public reprobation before either acquired the ominous powers of the presidency, both candidates chose a path indicating preference for their own power over the rights of individuals.

Although the merits of the Berg case weren’t reached, Senator Obama has raised concerns in other contexts about his obscured and under-scrutinized views on “collective” rights as opposed to rights of individuals. His motion to dismiss for lack of standing doesn’t portend well for how he would view individual rights under the Constitution if he were elected president.

Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, said that judges have a duty to decide cases under our paramount law, the Constitution. I have lamented previously about how some judges tend to evade their duty to decide constitutional matters by resorting to court-made doctrines. Judge Surrick’s reliance on case law to dismiss Berg’s suit for lack of standing is reasoned from a lawyer’s perspective, but not heroic and perhaps evasive of his larger duty.

His decision to “punt” the matter to Congress creates, I suggest, a dangerous, longer and perhaps more painful constitutional quagmire than had he heard the evidence in the case. Even had the case lacked merit, the Constitution would not have been harmed.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is President of Corporate and Legal Affairs at American Target Advertising, Inc., Manassas, VA.

Barack Obama Born in Kenya?