Monday, December 29, 2008

Obama - Usurper in Chief?

Obama - Usurper in Chief?

We are quickly approaching the time when it is likely that the first Constitutionally ineligible person will attempt to be sworn in as President of the United States of America. There are two more obstacles standing in the way of the possibility that a Usurper in Chief will occupy the Oval Office:On January 6, 2009, the House and Senate will count the Electoral College votes. However, if one Senator and one member of the House objects, the process will stall. With a Democrat controlled House and Senate, it is unlikely that such an exercise in courage would block the Congress from proceeding to say that Obama won the election.

On January 9, 2009, the Supreme Court of the United States will bring up in conference the case of Berg v. Obama to decide if the wish to hear Mr. Berg's allegations that Obama is not a "natural born" citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. It will take an extraordinary amount of courage for the Court to perform its duty and take a serious look at the possibility that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirements to hold the Office of the Presidency. I pray they do, but I'm not holding my breath.

However, all will not be lost. In the event, Obama is sworn in as President, a steady stream of lawsuits will be forthcoming challenging every law he attempts to sign.

A few weeks ago Dr. Vieira wrote a very informative article that everyone should read in its entirety. I agree with most of Dr. Vieira's article, especially the part dealing with any of Obama's laws that impact on the rights of the criminally accused. In the case of a Criminal Defendant,standing would NOT be an issue.

...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... ..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.... 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...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 actionIn 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]...Continue Reading Dr. Vieira's article.

CitizenWells is starting a new series of articles called “Constitution Hall of Shame.” This new series looks like it will be highly informative and useful should people decide to contact their Representatives in the House and Senate.Dr. Orly also has an open letter to the members of Congress up that is of interest.So where is the media? AWOL as usual. Just as they have been throughout the election, they remain Obama's cheerleaders. Just as they ignored Larry Sinclair's allegations that he and Obama used cocaine and engaged in consensual sex in 1999, the media continues to ignore anything that cast Obama in a negative light.For me personally, Obama will not be my President unless he proves that he is eligible to hold the Office. I will owe no allegiance to him or his policies until he shows that he respects the Constitution of the United States enough to comply with its provisions.

http://zachjonesishome.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-usurper-in-chief.html

6 comments:

Ted said...

Challenge, can anyone prove this wrong?:–

1. Constitution Article II requires USA President to be “natural born citizen”.

2. BHO’s website admits his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when BHO was born.

3. BHO is therefore not a “natural born citizen” (irrespective of Hawaiian birth or whether he may be a 14th Amendment “citizen” of USA) — as confirmed in the Senate’s own McCain qualification resolution agreed to by BHO.

4. Supreme Court has already docketed two upcoming conferences, 1/9/09 and 1/16/09 — between dates Congress counts electoral votes (1/8/09) and Presidential inauguration (1/20/09) — to address Berg Case and fashion relief on BHO’s eligibility to be President.

5. Since no facts are in dispute, Supreme Court rules on Summary Judgment to enjoin BHO’s inauguration as President.

6. Therefore, BHO is not inaugurated as President.

7. Vice President Elect Biden is inaugurated Acting President under the 20th Amendment to serve until new President is determined — the procedure for which determination to be set out by Congress and/or the Supreme Court so long as in conformance with the Constitution.

Ted said...

MESSAGE TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:

When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama, not being an Article II “natural born citizen”, fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.

The preferable choice, at least for the Democrats, should seem obvious.

Ted said...

JUST ONE DAY BEFORE CONGRESS VOTES ON ELECTORAL 'VOTE' CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS HAS DISTRIBUTED FOR CONFERENCE DR. ORLY'S LIGHTFOOT CASE!

MESSAGE -- NOW RENEWED AS AN ALERT -- TO EVERY MEMBER OF CONGRESS:

When counting the electoral votes, either Congress finds by 1/8/09 that Obama — not being an Article II “natural born citizen” (father Kenyan/British, not American, citizen) — fails to qualify as President whereupon Biden becomes the full fledged President under 3 USC 19 (free to pick his own VP such as Hillary) or thereafter defers to the Supreme Court to enjoin Obama’s inauguration with Biden becoming only Acting President under the 20th Amendment until a new President is duly determined.

The preferable choice (especially for the Democrats) -- IN WHAT WILL BE THE MOST IMPORTANT AND HISTORIC CONGRESSIONAL VOTE SINCE THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR -- should seem obvious.

*SPECIAL AUDIO LINK MESSAGE TO JOHN MCCAIN:

http://www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?p=691

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sam Sewell said...

Post removed for rudeness and name calling.

Ted said...

The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.