Berg v Obama: Ph.D. Says "Standing" is not in The Constitution

Cross-posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

Conservative Edge has published a piece by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
Obama Must Stand Up or Step Down Now Thanks to Brian Goettl

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...

This is one you must read for yourself, and please, do not read the following as this blog speaking for Dr. Vieira - because I'm not. Here's my interpretion, and what I consider to be the short story:

Background: Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship has been questioned. A Philadelphia attorney, Philip Berg, filed suit in a Philadelphia Federal Court to require that Obama show proof of his natural-born status. The Court dismissed that case with Judge Surrick saying that Berg did not have "standing," meaning that he was not eligible to bring the case, and also that no injury had happened to the American people and until there was an "injury" there was no case.

Dr. Vieira has a differing opinion:

Vieira thinks Philip Berg has a case - meaning that in Dr. Vieira's opinion, America has the right to know that Obama is a natural-born citizen.

"Standing" - Not constitutional, but "judicial intervention"
Vieira says that the term "standing" is not to be found in the Constitution and is simply something derived within the legal system. He points to Article II, Section 1, Claure 4 of the Constitution, and says that "every American has what lawyers call 'a implied cause of action.' He goes on to say that the people have the implied cause of action "to require that anyone standing for "the Office of President" must verify his eligibility for that position, when "serious" allegations have been put forward. It appears that Vieira believes those serious allegations have been presented.

"Injury" - We have already, indeed, been injured.
Vieira believes that if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then "injury" has already happened - just as many of us have expressed. He mentions Hillary Clinton's lost White House bid and the States that illegally placed Obama's name on their ballots. Obviously, if Obama's White House bid is fraudulent, the entire country has been harmed, and as he says - it could destroy the country.

Ironically, Vieira points out that should any "usurper" ascend to the office of the President of the United States, Congress could not impeach him to get him out of the office.

He muses about the possibility of having an "outright usurper" elected...a "poser" in the Presidency. Vieira says this would set our country on a "course of judicially assisted political suicide." He discusses the crime of perjury or false swearing, and he says that every act committed under such a fraud would render every act by that person as a criminal offense.

I did not find in the article, Dr. Vieira discussing why it seems there is no Law requiring that candidates show proof of natural-born status before being allowed to file for office.

He points out what an exasperated populace has been saying: it is Obama's moral duty to produce the evidence of his natural-born status. I will add that if the Democrat National Committee has vetted this issue, and DOES know, without a doubt that he is qualified for the Oval Office...then it is unconscionable that they would not have gotten the message to America.

Is this the simple arrogance of Obama having the proof but refusing to produce it...just because he can. If so, why would the DNC and Congress do this to "the people?"

Read Dr. Vieira here.