Potential Constitutional Crisis

Reader Ms. J Kulig has sent me a link to Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr.'s excellent post concerning a potential crisis following the possible election of Barack Obama (hopefully a non-event):

Vieira notes:

>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.

Dr. Vieira is absolutely right. The quality of our courts have deteriorated to the point where the courts have become ringleaders of a democratic lynch mob. Vieira goes on to slice, dice and execute the judge's competence. What gives the court authority? If it is not the Constitution, then why should anyone pay attention to the courts, other than their potential threat of violence? And if that is all the courts have to offer, then perhaps honest, God fearing Americans should consider constituting a Lockean militia and removing the judicial thugs from office and sending them down the Delware River in tar and feathers.

Vieira adds:

"In fact...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."

Read the whole article here.

Ms. J Kulig asks:

"Have you received a response back yet from the FEC regarding BO's BC?

"I am extremely concerned that this is going to cause a constitutional crisis. And here's an interesting question that no one is asking: "If I vote for Barack Obama am I disenfranchising myself, aiding and abetting, committing felony treason and other crimes if Mr. Obama is not eligible to hold office?"
I thought you would enjoy reading this artcle written by a Harvard JD/Constitutional Attorney. Maybe you could post it on your blog."

My response:

I am enjoying Dr. Veira's article. I have received one rebuff after the next from the FEC and the state board of elections. I would call our election system a mismanaged sham. It is as bad as the judicial system.