RSSHow to End the Question of Eligibility
David L Lamon | January 28, 2011
1/27/2011
How to End the Question of Eligibility
David L Lamon
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares: “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In other words the power of the United States lies squarely with “we the people”.
First of all I personally am sick and tired of these communist or leaning communist Democratic judges telling us “we the people’ have no standing in the matter of his eligibility.
Two things should be done to settle the issues of Obama’s eligibility since the liberal courts keep saying “we the people” have no standing. One, find out who the lawyers are defending Obama’s eligibility and then proceed to investigate each and every one of them to find dirt. The want to play dirty so let us play dirty or put another way, if they want to use the sword they must die by the sword. Just by virtue of the fact a lawyer whose oath includes defending the constitution would sell out his/her country for personal gain or because they support elimination of or consider the constitution to be a living document meaning making change to it the constitution at their whim, this alone warrants and subjects them to an investigation by “we the people”. It does matter as principle who is participating in the overthrow of our constitution as Obama has repeatedly been doing by circumventing the congress with his “presidential directives”, which I might add is unconstitutional. Those lawyers representing him must be considered a party to the overthrow also. Since the constitution emphatically says “we the people” only can change the constitution we do have standing in the matter.
What is most disappointing thus far; no one in the media has even revealed who these lawyers are to include WND, Fox News to include Glenn Beck, Bill O’ Reilly nor Shaun Hannity or any other supposed conservative outlet for news to include conservative talk radio shows, which is a little surprising to me. But we don’t need to stop there, we also need to reveal the judges that are throwing out these suits based what they say as “not having standing”. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares: “We the People of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” If the American citizen has no standing nobody does in my opinion because as James Madison said, “In explaining the Constitution, James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks-no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea, if there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them. ”
In addition to Madison I would add what two other former presidents said, Teddy Roosevelt saw through this deception: “Patriotism means to stand by the country; it does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country.” “We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts, “said Abraham Lincoln, “not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” What has the high court said about this subject? U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson put it simply: “It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.” This justice’s comment is a far cry from what we hear from these “liberal lawmaking congressmen and judges” today.
The constitution’s power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, “… the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
Worth Noting: Just in case the issue should arise it is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]): The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution. In the case of Arizona amending their state constitution concerning the issue of immigration I believe they missed an opportunity to defeat Obama and his justice department by bringing up the fact “he has no standing” in the matter. How about that, the shoe on the other foot for a change.
Go for the Jugular of these reprobate left-wing Lawyers
Thus far every effort to get to the bottom of the issue of Obama’s eligibility has been snuffed so as an alternative method we should go after the jugular of the individuals defending this reprobate in the White House. After revelation of the identity of these lawyers that are hiding Obama’s qualifications then find the dirt on them to raise public awareness of them to discredit them. In other words, put them in the position of seeing their careers as lawyers put in jeopardy for defending this “Imposter” and watch them squirm and crawl about. I believe they would quit defending him in interest of self-preservation and the fact after two years of watching public opinion grow with doubt about his eligibility plus the majority of the public’s negative opinion of how he governs they will run for cover. After all, they have plenty of evidence from watching others in his administration leave such as the communist Van Jones in disgrace without the Imposter making any attempt to defend his good friend the communist.
It should be evident by now to anyone that any lawyer defending Obama’s eligibility at this point and time has a dirty laundry list just waiting to be exposed that will destroy their careers. By the way the conservatives on the court say they will hear the case should it reach them. Not only is Obama destroying himself but as the old saying goes misery loves company meaning he is dragging journalist and any other of his staunch supporters through the mud with him destroying their lives as well. This approach to removing the communist in the White House is the best because it will undo every law he signed and all these far-left wing judicial appointees will be removed from the bench.
Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2011 Carolyn HilemanShare on Facebook
Contributor's website: http://thevoice.name
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
