Edwin Vieira – 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.

October 29, 2008
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

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

Page 1 of 7
Edwin Vieira – Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

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

Page 2 of 7
Edwin Vieira – Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

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,

Page 3 of 7
Edwin Vieira – Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

[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.

Page 4 of 7
Edwin Vieira – Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

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

Page 5 of 7
Edwin Vieira – Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

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

Page 6 of 7
Edwin Vieira – Obama Must Stand Up Now or Step Down

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.

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:

13877 Napa Drive
Manassas, Virginia 20112.

E-Mail: Not available

Page 7 of 7