[eDebate] obama must step down or stand up

Old Strega oldstrega
Wed Oct 29 19:53:48 CDT 2008

lawyer answers dallas jerkins on burden of proof claims.  the quote below is about half the argument.   you must visit the site to see its entirety.     again, the "transparency" ticket is a fraud without submission of the birth certificate in court.
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.October 29, 2008
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.
When your life is on the go?take your life with you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081029/8d423e98/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list