| No human being has the right -- under any circumstances -- to initiate force against another human being, nor to threaten or delegate its initiation. The Zero Aggression Principle (new link) |
| |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
October
27, 2008 In a press release announcing his decision to appeal Judge Surrick's ruling, Mr. Berg stated: "This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?" "What happened to '...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...' Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863." In my mind, the answers to Berg's questions are elementary and go to the vary nature of the Constitution. It also helps explain the standing issue raised in Mr. Berg's suit. The Constitution never established a "government of, by and for the people, as individuals." It established a government of, by and for the people, as States, because the Constitution is a compact or contract between the States. Article VII of the Constitution states: "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present." The words "between the States" were added by a special motion in the Federal (Constitutional) Convention of 1787 "to confine the operation of the government to those States ratifying it." If the Constitution established a "government of, by and for the people, as individuals," then why was it established "between the States?" Article VII also states the act of drafting the Constitution in the Federal Convention was "done by the Unanimous Consent of the States." If the Constitution would establish a "government of, by and for the people, as individuals," then why was their consent not required in the proceedings conducted by the members of the Convention? The author included this information because it answers the "who has standing to uphold our Constitution" question raised by Mr. Berg in his press release. As stated above, the Constitution is a compact or contract between the States. That is why the sole power of amending the Constitution rests with the States. Neither the federal government nor the people, as individuals, can amend the Constitution. Thus, the duty of upholding the Constitution has to be vested in the States because they are the only parties to the compact or contract entitled "The Constitution for the United States." [Note: the word "United" is merely an adjective."] Based on the Constitution, the structure of government established by that document and the Electoral College system, Mr. Berg should have brought the suit concerning Obama's eligibility to be president in a state court in Pennsylvania. Under the Electoral College system, the president is elected by state representatives called electors. The American people do not vote for or elect the president. The legislature of each State is authorized by Article II, Section I, Clause 2 of the Constitution to prescribe the mode for appointing its electors. At the present time, that method is a general election in each state. The electors chosen to vote for each State are those of the political party that wins a plurality of the popular vote within the State. For example. If the Democratic Party candidate, Barack Obama, wins the popular vote in Pennsylvania by one vote, then his party's slate of 21 electors are elected to cast 21 votes for the State of Pennsylvania. Because of the federal nature of the Electoral College system, any damage caused by Obama's ineligibility to be president, as far as Mr. Berg is concerned, is confined to the State of Pennsylvania, its citizens and its electors. When Mr. Berg casts his vote, assuming he votes, he will be voting for Pennsylvania's 21 electors. He will not be voting for the president directly. This is why Berg should have gone to state court in Pennsylvania. It's not too late, however, for Mr. Berg to correct his mistake. If Mr. Berg has documentation that shows Obama is not a natural born citizen as he claims, then he should immediately file suit in a state court in Pennsylvania. He should use Obama's ineligibility to attack the constitutional standing of the 21 Democratic electors to be elected in Pennsylvania and cast votes for a candidate who is not constitutionally qualified to be elected president. If they are seated and allowed to cast a vote for an ineligible candidate, then, in all probability, Mr. Berg and his fellow citizens will be damaged because Pennsylvania's 21 votes could be nullified at some time in the future. Thus, he should have legal standing in Pennsylvania to prosecute his case. Even if Mr. Berg is able to prove his case after the November 4th election, he can still win the day. The electors meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the general election. These meetings are called "colleges." This is why the electoral process is known as the Electoral College. When the electors meet, they are not required to vote for the individual who won the election in their state. For example. If Mr. Berg went to state court and proved Obama does not meet the natural born citizen requirement at any time before Pennsylvania's electors meet to cast their votes in December, they could reject Obama and cast their votes for another person of their choosing. Thus, just knocking out Pennsylvania's 21 electoral votes could defeat Obama because the election is projected to be close and it takes 270 electoral votes to win the election. The final day for Mr. Berg's research to help disqualify Obama is January 6, 2009. This is the day when Congress, in joint session, meets to tally the electoral vote. Any objection to the electoral vote must be raised at this time. The objection must be made in writing and state, clearly and concisely, without argument, the ground thereof and signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. If a member objects to the electoral vote, both bodies are required by statute to withdraw to their respective chambers and debate the merit of any objection. If Mr. Berg could prove his case in a Pennsylvania state court before this date, two members of Congress could force that body to consider the issue. Even if the Democrats hold their majorities in the House and Senate as expected, they would be hard pressed to allow the vote to stand for a candidate who is not constitutionally qualified to be elected president. [Note: Standing, at the federal level, to consider the constitutional qualifications of the president elect occurs on this day and is vested in the Congress. (See Section 3 of the 20th Amendment) Thus, I predict the Supreme Court will let the District Court decision stand.] In the
author's opinion, Mr. Berg should immediately file a case in a Pennsylvania
state court and force his home state to maintain the constitutional integrity
of its electors. Constitutional oversight of this issue rest with the
States, not the federal government or its courts. If the Democratic candidate
in Pennsylvania is constitutionally ineligible to be elected president,
then his parties' electors are constitutionally ineligible to be elected
to vote for him.
Your
comments and feedback are welcome!
Some other, related reading: The Flawed Second Amendment Debate The Second Amendment and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights Another Look at the Wording of the Second Amendment Tell me why the States needed the so-called "Collective Right" Second Amendment? The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court
Now Available! See Editor's review here. "The Bill
of Rights Does Not Grant You Any Constitutional Rights" $10.00-includes shipping and any applicable sales tax. P.S.C.S. Email any questions concerning the book/booklet to Bob at-govtnitwit [at] yahoo.com
Robert
Greenslade focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government
and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through
ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in
an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American
people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the
Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some
small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by
the Constitution.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Constitution, take a look at this book. I use it in many of my articles and it is the best book I've found on this subject. Bob Reprint of the 1868 edition. ''Perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the federal government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered.'' This review of Judge Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States is perhaps the ablest analysis of the nature and character of the Federal Government that has ever been published. It has remained unanswered. Indeed, we are not aware that any attempt has been made to challenge the soundness of its reasoning. The great vise of Judge Story and the Federalists consisted in desiring the clothe the federal government with almost monarchical power, whereas the States had carefully and resolutely reserved the great mass of political power for themselves. The powers which they delegated to the federal government were few, and were general in their character. Those which they reserved embraced their original and inalienable sovereignty, which no state imagined it was surrendering when it adopted the constitution. Mr. Madison dwelt with great force upon the fact that ''a delegated is not a surrendered power.'' The states surrendered no powers to the federal government -- they only delegated them. 160 pages. |
Please see the bottom of the page for Bob's book offer. Archives The 2004 Declaration of Independence The Constitution and YOU Part 1 The Constitution and YOU Part 2 The Constitution and YOU Part 3l Rudy Giuliani shows his Ignorance of the Second Amendment The Second Amendment is an Individual Right A Question For The Supreme Court The Second Amendment Question before the Supreme Court is Constitutionally Flawed and Dangerous It's Time To Break Out The Torches And Pitchforks! Constitution to Hillary, Obama and McCain Congress Makes the Laws not the President Do the American People really want Liberty and Constitutional Government? The Real ID Act proves the Federal Government is Not the All Powerful Oz There is no Legal Requirement for an American Citizen to have a Social Security Number The American People have become Servants to Government Employees A Republic, if you can Keep It Is Obama Ineligible to be President? The Game Changing Play John McCain and the Republicans Need to Win the Election Complete Archives for Robert Greenslade
|
|||||||||
 |
|
