Obama Stop: Formal Request for Senator Inhofe (R-OK) To File Objection With Senate President

Title: Formal Request for Senator Inhofe (R-OK) To File Objection With Senate President 1/6/09

Poster's Note:

A copy of this same letter was sent to and discussed with the staffs of Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) and Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina). Both men know Senator James Inhofe very well. Inhofe's secretary, Kathie Lopp, is very close to Inhofe and I confirmed he got the letter I sent him and discussed with Mrs. Lopp. We pray Inhofe, Sessions and DeMint will do the correct thing in this matter

12/10/2008

For Senator James Inhofe [R-OK]

In Care of Kathie Lopp, Appointments Secretary

CC: Mark Shannon, KTOK Radio, OKC

From Patrick B. Briley XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Thank you Kathie for taking my call today. Please forward this email to Senator Inhofe and ask him to take the action I discussed with you and formally ask for in this email letter to you and him.

Enclosed please find an excerpt from Dr. Edwin Vieira's recent article. The excerpt specifically addresses the Congressional law enacted (on the books) to carry out the provisions of the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution for the selection of President after the counting of votes of the electoral college. Dr. Vieira is a friend of mine, has 4 degrees from Harvard including Harvard law school, and has practiced before the US Supreme Court.

This law describes a process (the actual words are included below preceded by **************** across the page) by which a US Senator such as Senator Inhofe can submit in writing an objection to the President of the Senate on Jan 6, 2009 immediately subsequent to the counting of electoral college votes in Washington. This objection must be resolved, by both Houses of Congress if need be, before a President designate can be sworn in as President.

The first part of the excerpt below sets up the description of the statue by first describing the Twelfth Amendment. Dr. Vieira fully discusses the legal ramifications of the law by which Senator Inhofe can submit a formal objection. However, if Senator Inhofe is going to do submit an objection in writing, he must be prepared to do it at the time and place prescribed in the law or otherwise forfeit his right to later do so.

By means of this email I am formally asking Senator Inhofe to submit an objection in writing (pertaining to Obama's failure to submit a verifiable, authentic birth Certificate) on January 6, 2009 to the President of the Senate. This is necessary to preserve the integrity of our election process and to avoid setting a dangerous precedent of not requiring verification of eligibility to assume office. Most citizens in most states are required to produce a verifiable authentic birth certificate to obtain a driver's license or a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Mr. Obama and any other elected Federal officials should be required to produce the same evidence for their eligibility for office required of ordinary citizens to prove their eligibility.

This issue also must be resolved in order to enable (or preclude) the ability of any Federally elected official such as President to effectively govern and lead especially now in our times of crises with terror and financial distress to our country. This concern is also discussed in Dr Vieira's article.

Senator Inhofe is a skilled, wise man who can raise this issue in a statesman like manner to guard against the possibility if Obama should later legitimately prove his eligibilty either by a valid birth certificate or by some other acceptable means. Obama's eligibility is an issue yes and there is a solid basis to question this [Dr. Jerome Corsi and WorldNetDaily have widely and thoroughly reported this] , but there is also a need to require all candidates to sufficiently prove their eligibility. We are a nation of laws or we are not. If we are not, the anarchy that will eventually ensue is something we must avoid by reinstating a respect for and enforcement of the law and Constitution. The political price for now taking the correct actions on this issue is far less than the price that will be paid by all and the country if the issue is not addressed or addressed too late.

Mr. Obama is not to be commended for putting the country through this uncertainty when he clearly has the means to verify his eligibility if he is eligible to be President and yet has avoided to this point all requests for him to do so. There are also serious questions of fraud raised by Obama's Selective Service Registration (article by Debbie Schlussel) and his funding at Columbia and Harvard by terrorists associated with foreign governments (conservative Republican Ken Timmerman, wrote a major expose about this in April 2008) and allegedly as a foreign student. I will be glad to send the articles about these matters to you in a separate email as soon as you ask me. I also want to stay focused on the action Senator Inhofe should take on Jan 6, 2009 by filing a written objection to the President of the Senate.

Dr. Vieira's short vita is at the end of this email. I can arrange for you and Senator Inhofe to contact Dr. Vieira at his residence if there is need and/or interest.

Sincerely,

Patrick B. Briley

IN THE SHADOW OF NEMESIS

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin186.htm

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

December 8, 2008


The next steps in the process of selecting a President are: (i) for the Electoral College to vote, and then (ii) for Congress to count those votes. The Twelfth Amendment provides (in pertinent part) as follows:

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President * * * ; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President * * * and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, * * * and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed * * * to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. * * *

The Amendment specifies no grounds, procedure, or standards on or by which any elector’s vote may be challenged for any cause, by either the Electors or Members of Congress. But Congress has enacted a statute that partially addresses this matter:

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer.

Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States * * * ; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted * * *, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses.

**************************************

Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified * * * from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. * * * [Title 3, United States Code, Section 15 (emphasis added)]

Even if this legislation is itself a constitutional implementation of the Twelfth Amendment under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18), it does not purport to provide for, let alone guarantee, a correct result:

First, without an objection “signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives” no inquiry at all can go forward. Yet the mere absence of an objection—particularly without any explanation—cannot preclude the possibility that an Elector’s vote ought to be the subject of an objection and may prove on examination to be objectionable. Indeed, in these times, the very absence of an objection may indicate only that “the good old boys” in Congress—Democrats certainly, and Republicans most likely, too—have “cut a deal” among themselves behind the scenes in order to suppress an investigation the inevitable and unavoidable results of which would demonstrate the utter bankruptcy, if not criminality, of the present electoral process—in that an individual possibly not “eligible to the Office of President” and his handlers may have managed to bamboozle, bribe, blackmail, or otherwise subvert, suborn, or silence both of the “two” major political parties, the big media, the pundits, and every public official with civil or criminal jurisdiction over elections throughout both the General Government and the States.

Second, although a correct result requires a complete inquiry into an objection, with appropriate findings of fact and law supported by competent evidence, the statute merely requires “a decision” each from the Senate and the House of Representatives. On what basis and with what formality and content these “decision[s]” are to be made the statute does not specify. For instance, are the Senate and the House to hold hearings, to and at which witnesses will be subpoenaed and documents will be required to be produced for inspection and analysis? What rules of evidence will apply at these hearings? Who will have the ultimate burden of proof? What will be the standard of proof—a preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? The queries are legion, the answers unknown.

Yet the Constitution demands that, if such an inquiry is held, it should arrive at the correct conclusion with sufficient evidence in support. After all, the question of Obama’s eligibility vel non is not within the discretion of Congress to skirt or to decide as its Members may deem politically or personally expedient. Even by unanimous vote, Congress cannot constitutionally dispense with the requirement that Obama must be “a natural born Citizen,” by simply assuming that he is such, or by accepting something other than what lawyers call “the best evidence” (in this case, his supposed original Hawaiian birth certificate, as opposed to some purported “certification of live birth” computer-generated only decades later).

Therefore, if no objection at all is made to any Elector’s vote for Obama—or if no objection to an Elector’s vote on the specific basis that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” (and therefore the Elector cannot constitutionally vote for him) is allowed—or if such an objection is allowed, but no searching and complete inquiry, or no inquiry at all, is had—or if partisan Senators and Representatives jury rig “decision[s]” that whitewash Obama on the facts or the law—or some other gross irregularities appear in the process—then thereafter the matter cannot be said to have been settled to a constitutional sufficiency. Congress simply cannot “waive,” or simply flub, the Constitution’s eligibility requirement “to the Office of President” by inaction, or incompetent action, or collusive action

In sum, if the statute does not guarantee (within human competence) that a correct answer to the question be had, then it cannot be deemed to be the exclusive remedy in the premises if (as will be discussed below) a better remedy is available. Moreover, even if the statute is employed to hear and decide challenges to Obama’s eligibility, the resulting “decision[s]” must provide assurances to a moral certainty that the correct answer has indeed been obtained in both fact and law—otherwise, further inquiry needs to be had in other fora. For the consequences of an incorrect answer on the ultimate issue, later exposed as such, are far too serious to allow for any lesser degree of surety. Never were the stakes from a game of “truth or consequences” higher than they are now.

Assume, however, that no inquiry, or only a perfunctory inquiry, or only an obviously tainted inquiry takes place at the stage of counting the Electors’ votes. Is the issue then forever foreclosed? Not at all. For a extensive class of litigants who absolutely do have “standing” to challenge Obama’s eligibility will come into existence, and demand relief as a matter of undeniable constitutional right and practical necessity, as soon as Obama’s Department of Justice attempts to enforce through criminal prosecutions some of the controversial legislation that the new Congress will enact and Obama will sign—such as statutes aimed at stripping common Americans of the firearms to which (in Obama’s derisive terminology) they “cling.”

For example, in a criminal prosecution under a new statute that reinstates the Clinton “assault-weapons ban” (or some equally obnoxious affront to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 and the Second Amendment), the defendant will undeniably have “standing” to challenge the indictment on the grounds that no statute imposing such a ban even exists, because the original “Bill which * * * passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” was never “presented to the President of the United States”, and therefore could never “become a Law,” inasmuch as the supposed “President,” Barack Obama, being constitutionally ineligible for that office, was then and remains thereafter nothing but an usurper. [See Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 and Article II, Section 1, 4]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution (2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com

His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional "Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

He can be reached at his new address:

52 Stonegate Court

Front Royal, VA 22630.