A Republic or a Monarchy?

“WE CAN RESIST”

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2012

King George III of England was ruler over the American colonies when the Revolution began over taxation without representation and other grievances.

(Nov. 9, 2012) — OK, listen up, all you patriots out there.  Yes, I am talking to those of you who voted for the adult running for president, not the “narcissistic amateur” who has (thus far) prevailed.  The obots who voted for Obama (and not likely reading this at The P&E…) now hold the undisputed, yet undistinguished title of the “Useful Idiots of the 2012 General Election.”  They must be very proud.  They also must believe that the battle was won and that the war is over.

They are mistaken.   This battle is not over yet.   Not by a long shot.

Earlier today, there appeared at The P&E a new post by one Leonard Daneman. If you are short on time to read what follows here, at least read the Daneman post, because it identifies in a much shorter article what follows here in more detail.  The article much more succinctly steals this post’s thunder and correctly focuses on one of the few remaining avenues available to the nation to defend against the coming onslaught of a second Barack Hussein Obama term in office.  That avenue is a challenge to certification of the electoral college vote results in Congress under a federal statute designed for that specific purpose, 3 U.S.C. § 15.

Invocation of that law, however, may be a long-shot, because it may be difficult to find any Senator or House member willing to come to the defense of the Republic and the Constitution.  Senators and House Members are, after all, politicians.  Implementation of the option will take courage on the part of at least one Senator (more would be good) and at least one Representative (more would be good), so the likelihood of success might be small, there being a sad deficit in that characteristic these days.  And even then, concurrence after debate may be lacking.

Still, the only way to assure failure is if no attempt is made at all, which is exactly what Obama, his minions and his extensive propaganda support group is counting on.  Given the catastrophically dark future now confronting the nation – one welcomed by the obots, of course, because they will not be called upon to foot the bill for the damage – all available options should be on the table.  “All” available options doesn’t mean only those that are “easy;” or “safe;” or “comfortable.”  It means “all” options.

Look at it this way: if they were here today and had witnessed what has happened to the nation over the past four years – let alone the past 213 years – Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Mason, Franklin, Hamilton and the rest of those guys would be advocating the same thing, only they would be screaming it in the streets rather than typing it out on a computer.

The core component of the long-shot, of course, remains the “eligibility issue” and the fact that, with a high degree of likelihood, Barack Hussein Obama is today just as constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of the president as he has been since his birth, wherever that was and whenever that was.  Obama could have garnered 100% of the popular vote (q.v., Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro) as well as 100% of the 538 Electoral College votes, and still, he would be, with an extremely high degree of certainty, ineligible to serve as president.

Federal law allows Senators and U.S. Representatives to challenge and object to the counting of Electoral College votes, which, if enough members of Congress would do, would guarantee the issue heading into the U.S. Supreme Court for the “eligibility” decision that the Court has thus far “evaded,” but could no longer avoid.  And even if the ultimate decision confirmed his eligibility (stranger things have happened recently, with “penalties” being redefined as “taxes”….), at least the question will have been answered and the fog surrounding his status will have been lifted.  And as a bonus, such a decision declaring him eligible will further confirm that this is now truly a nation of men rather than laws.

Curious? Got time? Read on.

As P&E readers and all rational adults holding an interest in the Constitution know, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of that document prohibits and precludes any person other than a “natural born Citizen” from holding the office of president of the United States of America.  These matters have been exhaustively discussed here at The P&E and elsewhere.

Moreover, people – including 100 Senators and 435 Members of the House who have previously been misled by the Congressional Research Service on the issue – need to get past the “red herring” of Obama’s place of birth as being dispositive of the issue.  Even if it were established with 100% certainty that he was born in Honolulu as he claims, even if the newspaper birth announcements are authentic, and even if a hard copy of his original birth certificate even exists….yet to be confirmed… that would not be sufficient to establish his eligibility as a natural born Citizen.  The existing Supreme Court decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) confirms this.

The fable that a “native born citizen” is the same as a “natural born Citizen” as claimed by various Congressional Research Service memoranda and reports has been debunked here; here; here and here, among other places.

Bottom line: since Obama himself concedes that his father, Barack Obama, Sr., was a citizen of Kenya and never a U.S. citizen, Barack Hussein Obama cannot properly be deemed to be a “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility purposes under either the U.S. Constitution or congressionally-enacted statutes.  Recall as well that while all natural born Citizens are also native born citizens, not all native born citizens are natural born Citizens.  While the former, smaller class of persons is constitutionally eligible, the latter class is not, no matter what Snopes.com or the Congressional Research Service or Chris Matthews say to the contrary.

As P&E readers are also aware, efforts to seek a redress of the grievance from the judicial branch of government – from state administrative law and judicial departments to the federal district courts and courts of appeals all the way up to the United States Supreme Court – have been thus far singularly unsuccessful.  All of the prior efforts have been turned away in a cloud of citations to cases on “standing” or “justiciability” or Internet websites supporting Obama.  Even Supreme Court Justices have stated that the Court is “evading” the issue.

On the other hand, as noted by Mr. Daneman, a challenge to Obama’s eligibility under 3 U.S.C. § 15, invoked in writing by at least one Senator and one Representative during the process of counting and certifying the votes cast in the Electoral College, will bring the issue “front and center.”  The gathering will take place in Washington, D.C. in early January, 2013, so there is no time to waste if the option is to be considered.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution, as modified by the Twelfth Amendment, provides that following a general election, the various electors from the states shall “… make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

3 U.S.C. § 15 then applies and provides, in pertinent part, that when the President of the Senate announces the results of the electoral college vote, he/she thereafter “… shall call for objections, if any.  Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.” (Emphasis added).

Thus, if at least one Senator and one Representative with the courage to stand up for what the Founding Fathers fought and died for….. perhaps the veil of secrecy that Obama has thus far successfully cloaked around him may begin to lift.  And since the statute says “shall,” Vice-President Biden will have no discretion to refuse to have the bodies proceed to address the challenge.

In Robinson v. Bowen, 567 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (N.D. Cal. 2008), the plaintiffs sought to challenge the presidential constitutional eligibility of Senator John McCain on the grounds that he was not a “natural born citizen.”  The facts established that Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 to parents who were both U.S. Citizens.  Citing both Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the court held (567 F. Supp. 2d at 1147):

“Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review—if any—should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.” (Emphasis added).

Accordingly, there is no question that the constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama could be put in issue and the matter debated.  And even if no agreement was reached formally recognizing that, under existing Supreme Court authority (Minor v. Happersett), he is ineligible, the issue could then be brought directly to the Supreme Court for determination.

Specifically, one of the other provisions of 3 U.S.C. § 15 states that “… if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted.”  Thus, if after debate, no concurrence between the Senate and the House is reached, if the electors have been certified by the State executive authorized to do so, the votes “… shall be counted.”

However, as soon as that happens, any Senator or House Representative still having doubts as to Obama’s eligibility would under the Bowen decision clearly have standing to bring suit in court.  And whoever lost in that litigation would have appeal rights, and eventually, in a matter of this constitutional gravity, rights of appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court unencumbered by the “dodges” of asserted lack of standing or justiciability.  Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to rule, one way or the other, on what, exactly, is meant by the term “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution in the context of a “ripe” challenge to certifying Obama’s election to the presidency.

Again, however, this course of action would take courage.  And character.  And a thick skin to weather the taunts and denigrations from not only the obots and a sycophantic media, but from a lot of people on the “friendly” side who have been so inculcated in the dogma that if one is simply born here, one is eligible to the presidency.  If that were the case, why did the Founders use a term other than merely “citizen” to describe the limitation on the presidency?

All indications point to an even more cataclysmic second Obama term in office.  We can decide to accept it, or we can resist.  There are plenty of good and viable reasons to resist if only one or two or, hopefully more, Senators and Congressmen determine that the Republic is worth saving.

As noted here and here, when Benjamin Franklin departed the final day of deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, he was asked by a lady: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”  Franklin responded: “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Readers of The P&E might want to consider contacting their respective Senators and Congressmen, educating them a bit on the issues, and then asking them whether they would prefer keeping the Republic, or abandoning it to something even worse than a monarchy.  And remember, January 2013 is less than two months away.  Happy Thanksgiving.

Print Friendly

5 Responses to "A Republic or a Monarchy?"

  1. Steven Pattison   Sunday, November 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM

    Meyerlm,

    We are no longer within the jurisdiction of the de jure government. By using their current U.S. Codes we are acting within the de facto which is the reason we do not have Standing. Do your research when the USC were created. We have to claim that we are within the Lawful Union State to have Standing.

    Yes they are acting under Sedition but we the collective sovereigns have to use Common Law because it is our law. Their law is Roman Civil Codes which is what the U.S. Codes are!

    Currently the de facto provides the people’s rights via the 14th amendment. That being true now read the 1957 Georgia Memorial – http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/georgia.pdf and what following is the first part of the document:

    “The 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress declares that the 14th Amendment is null, void and of no effect due to manifest violations of the Constitution of the United States of America, especially Section 4, Article IV of the Constitution.”

    “The document also reveals the unconstitutional overthrow of the federal government of the united States of America, and eleven Southern states in violation of the Constitution of the united States of America and the Constitutions of the eleven Southern States.”

    “Further, the document reveals that the de facto government existing since these unlawful and illegal acts appears to be a subversive organization in contradistinction to the claim that the U.S. government is an example of representative government in the world.”

    Do you understand that the 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress and its legal implications have never been refuted, and the document became an “aged document”, i.e., 50 years old and undisputed, on March 8, 2007 A.D. As a joint resolution signed by the governor it has the force and effect of law.

    This being true all you have to do is claim it by using Common Law. But it would be helpful if you have a group of the collective sovereigns as witnesses to your actions.

    Later on within the document it tells us of one of many Acts of Sedition which was never questioned – “Presidential Executive Order No. 7 **, issued July 28, 1868. 14th Amendment certified as in effect and ordered published. **Signed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State.”

    Where does it within any laws of the united States of America permit a ‘Secretary of State’ to sign a ‘Presidential Executive Order’?

    Everyone needs to understand that if we were all in China and one of us filed a Memorial like it was done in Georgia why would the Emperor have to refute it? As long as he is the Emperor and just like the De facto here in our country they don’t have to depute anything because we are all within their jurisdiction. Being in the de facto’s jurisdiction does not allow anyone to file a court case against the de facto and if someone does it usually always ends up with the one filing being told that they do not have Standing.

    Read my posting titled – Facts are Facts – http://www.thepostemail.com/2012/05/03/facts-are-facts/

    Read my posting titled – Who are the sovereigns? (Note the term sovereign is only capitalized if it is being used to refer to “a” king. We here in the united States of America are all collectively sovereigns.) – http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/29/who-are-the-sovereigns/

    If you really want to be of some service to our country then you should read these series starting here – http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/11/02/a-time-for-choosing-part-1/ No one has ever refuted them either!

    Whatever you do within the de facto is still de facto. Steven Pattison

    Yes, “WE CAN RESIST” and a lot of people have but please give us an example of anyone winning a case that made a difference.

    Read what I have posted here – http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/Pattison_You_Be_The_Judge.html:

    Congressman Louis McFadden, former Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee, and one of the strongest critics of the Federal Reserve had this to say, “The Federal Reserve Banks are one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the International Bankers . . . They have cheated the government of the United States and the people out of enough money to pay the national debt.

    Note – All wars and all depression were caused by the de facto that is under the control of the banklords.

    McFadden continues – The depression was not an accident, it was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so that they might emerge as ruler of us all . . . every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its power but the truth is – – the Fed has usurped the government. It controls everything in Congress and it controls all foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will . . . The Federal Reserve has never been independently audited and have resisted all attempts to be audited.”

    On May 23, 1933, Congressman McFadden, brought impeachment charges against members of the Federal Reserve Board and the heads of the 12 member banks. He said, “Whereas,

    I charge them jointly and severally with having brought about a repudiation of the national currency of the United States in order that the gold value of said currency might be given to private interest …
    I charge them with having arbitrarily and unlawfully of taking $80 billion from the United States in 1928 …
    I charge them with having brought about a decline in the prices on the N.Y. Stock Exchange …
    I charge them with having arbitrarily and unlawfully raised and lowered interest rates on money. Increased and diminished the volume of currency in circulation for the benefit of private interest …
    I charge them with having conspired to concentrate United States securities and thus having conspired to transfer to foreigners and international money lenders title to and control of the financial resources of the United States …
    I charge them with having published false and misleading propaganda intended to deceive the American people and to cause the United States to lose its independence …
    I charge them with the crime of having TREASONABLY conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S.”

    Congressman McFadden’s shocking indictment was moved to the Committee of the Judiciary. It still awaits reporting (61 years later) to the House floor to impeach both former and present members of the Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks for criminal conspiracy against We The People of the United States of America.

    All Rights Reserved,
    /S/ Steven Pattison

  2. Steven Pattison   Saturday, November 10, 2012 at 6:43 PM

    Hi everyone,

    There is only one answer to the question on how is all this happening if we have Republican Form of Government?

    The only answer is that we don’t have a Republican Form of Government which is guaranteed within the Organic Constitution. What we have is a a Government de facto:

    Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition page 697 –

    Government de facto. A government of fact. A government actually exercising power and control, as opposed to the true and lawful government; a government not established according to the constitution of the nation, or not lawfully entitled to recognition or supremacy, but which has nevertheless supplanted or displaced the government de jure. A government deemed unlawful, or deemed wrongful or unjust, which, nevertheless, receives presently habitual obedience from the bulk of the community.

    Therefore we are not defined as “We the People” within this de facto government meaning that we have no Standing to question anything within the de facto!

    Everything done in the de facto is still de facto. Steven Pattison

    I am attempting to explain to you that you cannot do anything in their jurisdiction because you don’t have Standing.

    Any more questions?

    All Rights Reserved,
    /S/ Steven Pattison

  3. slcraig   Saturday, November 10, 2012 at 9:37 AM

    Well, again, the focus of ‘eligibility’ is misplaced when it comes to “natural born Citizen”, ” … a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “

    Determining who is or is not a U.S. natural born Citizen is a Citizenship Question in the 1st instant.

    Attacking “eligibility” can only be successful by have the ‘Constitutional and legal definition’ of a U.S. natural born Citizen determined 1st.

    Asking the Courts, or a Senator & Congressman, to answer BOTH questions in the context of a specific individual turns the question into a “political question”, which have held off all Courts to date and will be a battle to large for just a couple or few Congressional members.

    I was an early supporter of the various State Challenge cases filed around the Country but there seems to be only one that produced any advancement on the legal front;

    Judge Thomas Anderson of USDC for the Western District of Tennessee Western Division in Case 2:12-cv-02143-STA; recently found in a Ruling on Motions in a Case at Bar;

    “… ANALYSIS .. It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama’s birth, the President is a “natural born citizen,” a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law. “ [pg 6/7]

    And;
    “…The federal issue presented is obviously contested in this case. Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial. With respect to the substantiality of the federal interest, the Supreme Court has considered four factors: “(1) whether the case includes a federal agency, and particularly, whether that agency’s compliance with the federal statute is in dispute; (2) whether the federal question is important (i.e., not trivial); (3) whether a decision on the federal question will resolve the case (i.e., the federal question is not merely incidental to the outcome); and (4) whether a decision as to the federal question will control numerous other cases (i.e., the issue is not anomalous or isolated).” The Sixth Circuit has stated that no one factor is dispositive on the issue of substantiality and that some factors may be more relevant than others in a given set of circumstances…” [pg 8 id]

    The ability to determine if a person is eligible to occupy the Office of POTUS is NOT possible without 1st determining the legal, (enforceable) Constitutional definition of a U.S. natural born Citizen, INSOFAR as Citizenship is concerned.

    Once that occurs then the propriety or in-propriety of any given individuals conformity to the transient political aspects of that definition, insofar as “eligibility” is concerned.

    The current status of the Constitutional “exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision”, A2S1C5, being loosely regarded set, in motion the prospect that an 18 yr old, (26th Amd), muslum lesbian girl, (14th,19th Amd) recovering from an abortion, (Roe v)who was born to two (2) alien foreign nationals within the jurisdiction illegally, (8 USC 1401), who had the medical costs paid by the State of birth, (various State & Fed benefits available to illegals), who had split her time living in both the U.S. and her parents homeland.

    Point is, if the basic natural born citizenship requirement stands undefined and unenforceable then what does the Clause stand for at all…?

  4. michaelsr   Saturday, November 10, 2012 at 12:11 AM

    Another more direct path might be taken. A court order or injunction to prevent the Electoral College from voting could achieve the same end. Much of the eligibility ‘leg work’ has already been acccomplished. Let’s use it.

    One attorney has turned this idea down for want of funds and energy to overcome yet another corrupt court or judge. Surely there are other attorneys who might have fresh perspective and energy.

    There is one very suitable court where such a proceeding as this might begin. That would be the Alabama courts and ultimately, the Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, Judge Roy Moore. He just won re-election as Chief Justice. If an honest and fair judge remains in America, it is probably him.

    If the GOP does not wish to see ALL of its’ PAC funds and donations go down the drain, perhaps that entity would lend some backing to this effort.

    We have until December to try.

  5. meyerlm   Friday, November 9, 2012 at 7:39 PM

    An exceptional and informative article stating obvious facts.
    Unfortunately the “BLIND EYES and DEAF EARS SYNDROME” again, applies here.
    IF, after four long years, hundreds of Lawsuits brought by those that “Do NOT have Standing?!”-(IF a “Sovereign Citizen”, as we all were when “ONE Nation, Under GOD, with Liberty and Justice for all” was created by our “Founding Fathers”, then, pray tell, WHO does have standing??
    Evidence these years and the 535 Traitor “People’s Representatives??”, who have ignored and been non-responsive to the written and verbal requests of the Citizens, that have probably been in the thousands, why, then would any ONE of them come forward and accept the responsibility of attempting to save our Republic??
    METHINKS, “DIRNUM WOOD, comes unto DUSANANE?, Messenger-where gott’est Thou that Gos’ed Look??

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.