Tuesday, January 6, 2009


Of all the writers who regularly contribute articles to The New American magazine, my favorite by far is the Constitution law scholar Edwin Vieira, Jr. Vieira has a way of attacking his subject matter by cutting through all the nonsense to go straight to the heart of the issue, leaving the reader a bit embarrassed that he wasn’t able to discern on his own what now seems so blatantly obvious. Vieira is like a bulldog with a bone: he’s going to gnaw on that thing until all of the marrow is exposed for everyone to see.

But does he really know his stuff? View his credentials:

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 country. 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

His latest work is "
How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary"

I recently posted a Blog Bit here about Barack Obama’s refusal to present his birth certificate, proving his Constitutional bona fides to assume the office of president of the United States (WHAT, IS HE FROM THE WOMB OF THE MOTHER SHIP SENT BY PLANET MALCOLM-X?)

Well, in the January 5, 2009 issue of The New American magazine is the following article written by Kurt Williamsen, which addresses this same subject, and in the final paragraph, the Constitution lawyer Edwin Vieira weighs in with some encouraging words for the few remaining Americans who still feel that “The Supreme Law Of The Land” should be obeyed and not broken:


On Monday, December 8, the Supreme Court unsurprisingly decided not to hear a case by retired lawyer Leo Donofrio claiming that Obama is not eligible to be president because Obama had dual nationality at birth, so he wasn't a natural born citizen as required under the Constitution to be president. The dismissal should have come as no surprise to anyone — not because, as major-media mouthpieces trumpet, that the case has no merit — because it was clearly evident that Donofrio would either be viewed by the court to not be a plaintiff in good standing or his claim would be found without merit because any child born in the United States, as Donofrio's case assumes to be true for Obama, is considered a natural born citizen — as millions of illegal immigrants who have had children in the United States can attest.

This case was doomed from the beginning because the Supreme Court was sure to agree with multiple findings by lower courts that an average citizen cannot contest a president's eligibility to be president; only those people who are legally "injured" by a presidential aspirant's candidacy — either monetarily, physically, or reputation-wise — may sue. The fact that such findings by the lower courts are absurd because the U.S. Constitution is a contract between the government and the people and contract law stipulates that any party to a contract has the right to enforce a contract was not going to be a reason for the Supreme Court to hear arguments in the Donofrio case.

Neither was the fact that the Constitution itself declares that the only issue to be determined by a federal court for a case to proceed is the case's constitutionality — not a plaintiff's standing — going to stop the Supreme Court from throwing out this case. (For an analysis of the constitutionally correct application of law in this case, see the article by constitutional law scholar Edwin Vieira, entitled "
Obama Must Stand Up Now Or Step Down.")

Similar to Donofrio's case, a case by lifelong Democrat Philip Berg that is pending before the Supreme Court is likely to face a quick death for lack of standing, though Berg is arguing that Obama was not born in the United States and, even if he was born here, his mother evidently renounced Obama's citizenship when she moved to Indonesia. During the four years Obama was enrolled in school in Indonesia, enrollment required both citizenship and a renunciation of citizenship in other countries.

At the present time, only one case about Obama's citizenship has a better than a one-in-a-million chance of making headway (only slightly better, in my opinion, because judges regularly find "legal justification" for ignoring the law, even the Constitution). That is the case filed by Alan Keyes, a 2008 presidential candidate for the American Independent Party, and Markham Robinson, a California elector. These men definitely have legal standing to sue. And despite protests to the contrary by many, good reason to sue.

The best reason to sue is to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land; the second-best reason is because Obama is hiding something. One doesn't, as Obama has reputedly done, hire three law firms to keep one's birth records and college records sealed unless one has something to hide. (It is speculated that Obama's college records will show that he applied for aid to foreign students.) Like I've said in another article on this topic, I have had on several occasions been required by employers to furnish original birth certificates and college records before they would hire me. To most people, such a request is simply no big deal. There's something wrong here.

Many in the major media, and even some moderately conservative news organs such as NewsMax, have verbally skewered lawsuits to verify Obama's citizenship, claiming that they know Obama is a U.S. citizen because Obama has posted his birth certificate online, an announcement of Obama's birth was in a Hawaiian newspaper, and members of Hawaii's health department have stated that Obama has an original birth certificate on file there. To say the least, I want these guys as my investigators if I ever pull a criminal caper. In truth, Obama did not post a birth certificate online, but a certificate of live birth (a document that would not even meet the standards of the average geneology society as proof of citizenship); the birth announcement merely said that the Obama's had a son (no hospital or place of birth was listed); and in Hawaii, parents of children residing in Hawaii may submit alternate birth documentation to the Department of Health and still be deemed to have "an original birth certificate."

But besides the lawsuits, there are other ways that Obama's impending swearing-in as president could be upset. First, on December 15, state electors will convene to vote for president (Obama is really not the president-elect yet; he has a couple of steps to go), and if the electors are swamped with voter demands to verify Obama's eligibility as president, they may withhold their electoral ballots until Obama proves he is a citizen. And on January 6, Congress must meet to certify the counts of the states' electoral ballots. At that time, any senator or congressman may challenge the ballots for a good reason. If that happens, the Constitution compels Congress to get to the truth underlying the complaint. Again a letter-writing campaign to Congressmen could end in an investigation of Obama's citizenship.

But at least in the short run, Obama's supporters probably will prevail, even though Obama's actions stink with suspicion and the proof given of his citizenship is not proof at all. They will succeed because politicians tend to either be spineless followers or unapologetic dealmakers — at both the state and federal levels (although a writing campaign to constitutional bulldog Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) could yield a positive result), and it is unlikely that congressmen, even if there is a congressional objection, will exert due diligence toward finding out the truth of the matter as they are constitutionally bound to do.

But in the long run, the chances that a federal court will demand that Hawaii allow a forensic inspection of Obama's birth records are better than one might assume. Edwin Vieira explains: "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.'" So as soon as Obama signs a bill into law that has a negative effect on an American, that American will have standing to sue Obama to find out whether Obama actually has the power to sign the bill. Things could get interesting.

Danged if that last paragraph containing Vieira’s assessment (which I highlighted in red) doesn’t give a fellow a wee bit of “HOPE” that he might see a real “CHANGE” at the White House.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy


  1. The Hawaiian Birth Certificate issue is a red herring.

    It wouldn't matter if Obama were born in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House, he is not eligible to be President since he is not a Constitutional Article II natural born citizen as he himself delcares on his website that his dad was Kenyan/British, not American, citizen when he was born.

    He may (or may not) be a full American citizen as under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution; but citizen is NOT the same as the unique requirement set by the Constitution's framers, that being natural born citizen, in order to be President of the US.

    Case closed.
    The US Supreme Court will not let him pass. No way!

  2. I wouldn't count on it. I think they do what ever they want regardless of law... Obama will get what he wants. We will have to fight him the whole way. He will take away our right to bare arms, or at least weaken it. The pompous supreme sluts running the judicial system will back him up as he already has two fingers up their skirt. Just the way I see it, but I hope if someone does file suit that it slows him down a little.

  3. Yo! Ted! Thanks for your input, Brother. You may be right, and I hope you are, but with all due respect, I don't think so:

    According to my understanding, an American citizen has ALL of the rights guaranteed to ANY American citizen under the U.S. Constitution.

    The exception being eligibility to run for president - this being restricted to children born to U.S. citizens (even if born in a foreign nation) and those individuals who are citizens as a result of being born on U.S. soil.

    In other words, as I understand it, even an "Anchor Baby" born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants would, as an adult, have a legal, Constitutional right to run for the office of president. (This is an outrage, of course, which clearly counteracts the Founders' intent. But the deliberate misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment after passage of the 1965 Immigration Act, thus making a child born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil a full-fledged American citizen is another subject entirely - and one in which you and I would concur, I suspect.)

    Another reason I believe your understanding of this issue may be incorrect is the fact that the Constitution scholar I quoted in this Blog installment, EDWIN VIEIRA, is a supersharp cookie when it comes to Constitutional issues, and if it were really such an easy, cut and dried case as you seem to think, I am nearly certain that Mr. Vieira would have stated so. Granted, Vieira could be overlooking something here, but I highly doubt it based on his previous articles which I have read. The man really knows his stuff!

    Ted, nevertheless, if you know of a very reputable internet source that explains this issue in greater detail, and which you believe supports your position on it, I would greatly appreciate it if you'd post a web address here for me to look into, as I am always eager to learn more. As Pike Bishop says in the movie The Wild Bunch: "What I don't know about, I sure as hell am going to learn."

    >>[Case closed.The US Supreme Court will not let him pass. No way!]<<

    Regardless of whether or not your understanding of this problem is correct, I'll say that you have a whole helluva lot more faith and confidence in the Supreme Court than I have! I can think of several reasons the court would choose to skirt this issue - none of them valid or honest. And I believe that unless some citizen does file a suit for damages as illustrated by Constitution lawyer Edwin Vieira in the article I posted here, we have no chance of seeing justice done in this matter. I tend to agree with my friend Br'er Marc (above): The powers that be will avoid doing justice if at all possible; they will fight it to the bitter end and pull out every trick in the book if they think it will help them look the other way.

    49 years have taught me not to put any faith in The United States Judicial System. I'll believe Truth, Justice and The American Way only when I see them manifested before my eyes.

    But again... I HOPE YOU'RE RIGHT, BRO.

    ~ STMcC
    <"As a dog returns to his own vomit,
    so a fool repeats his folly."
    ~ Proverbs 26:11>


All submitted comments that do not transgress "Ye Olde Comment Policy" will be posted and responded to as soon as possible. Thanks for taking the time to comment.