US Constitution Hall of Shame, 2008 Election, US Congress, Senators, Representatives, Constitutional crisis, Electoral College votes, Connecticut, Secretary of State, CT Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal

This is the kickoff article on a series called “Constitution Hall of Shame.”
It is clear that we already have a constitutional crisis in the country before
Barack Obama theoretically gets inaugurated. The US Constitution has been
ignored, misunderstood and trampled on during the 2008 election year. We not
only have a candidate, Obama, that is clearly ineligible, but probably is not
a US citizen, i.e, illegal alien. Barack Obama, who has sworn to uphold the
Constitution, has thumbed his nose at the rule of law and American public.
So, to add to the normal political bias and posturing and tradition based
election processes, we now have a total disregard for the US Constitution.

The US Congress will meet soon to count and authenticate the Electoral
College vote.

“January 8, 2009

Counting Electoral Votes in Congress
Public Law 110-430 changed the date of the electoral vote in Congress in 2009
from January 6 to January 8. This date change is effective only for the 2008
presidential election. The Congress meets in joint session to count the
electoral votes (Congress may pass a law to change the date). The President
of the Senate is the presiding officer. If a Senator and a House member jointly
submit an objection, each House would retire to its chamber to consider it.
The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes
(270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the
President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits
conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting
concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes
of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in
Congress.” Read more

Since the Electoral College vote can be challenged in Congress, we will focus
on senators and representatives that have made comments that clearly indicate
that they do not take their oath of office seriously. We will give them a
chance to respond and atone for their dereliction of duty. This will also
serve as a forum to educate and hold accountable their colleagues.

The first member of the Constitution Hall of Shame is not a congressman. It
is the state of Connecticut and includes the Secretary of State, Susan
Bysiewicz, State Supreme Court Justice Chase T. Rogers and State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal. Here is the damning paragraph in a
letter received from Susan Bysiewicz:

“On November 3, 2008 Connecticut State Supreme Court Chief Justice
Chase T. Rogers dismissed the case after hearing testimony from my
attorneys and State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the
Greenwich resident who filed the action.  The plaintiff, Cort Wrotnowski,
alleged that I should not have placed Senator Obama’s name on the ballot.
The court was satisfied that officials in Hawaii have stated
that there is no doubt that the Democratic presidential candidate
was born there and that the state’s health department possesses
Senator Obama’s original birth certificate.  This is now a matter
of public record
.”


Why Obama is not eligible

What Hawaii Health Official really said

From the Alan Keyes lawsuit

“A press release was issued on October 31, 2008, by the Hawaii Department
of Health by its Director, Dr. Chiyome Fukino. Dr. Fukino said that she
had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of
Health has Senator Obama’s original birth certificate on record in
accordance with state policies and procedures.” That statement failed to
resolve any of the questions being raised by litigation and press accounts.
Being “on record” could mean either that its contents are in the computer
database of the department or there is an actual “vault” original.”

“Further, the report does not say whether the birth certificate in the
“record” is a Certificate of Live Birth or a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth.
In Hawaii, a Certificate of Live Birth resulting from hospital documentation,
including a signature of an attending physician, is different from a
Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. For births prior to 1972, a Certificate of
Hawaiian Birth was the result of the uncorroborated testimony of one witness
and was not generated by a hospital. Such a Certificate could be obtained up
to one year from the date of the child’s birth. For that reason, its value
as prima facie evidence is limited and could be overcome if any of the
allegations of substantial evidence of birth outside Hawaii can be obtained.
The vault (long Version) birth certificate, per Hawaiian Statute 883.176
allows the birth in another State or another country to be registered in
Hawaii. Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question,
whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country. Therefore,
the only way to verify the exact location of birth is to review a certified
copy or the original vault Certificate of Live Birth and compare the name of
the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor against the
birthing records on file at the hospital noted on the Certificate of the
Live Birth.”

So, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal,
what is your excuse?

Ignorance
Apathy
Party politics
Fear

Please respond with your reasons for your behaviour.

An apology to the American public is in order.

ct3

A new page at the top of the Citizen Wells blog will be devoted to the
Constitution Hall of Shame.

7 responses to “US Constitution Hall of Shame, 2008 Election, US Congress, Senators, Representatives, Constitutional crisis, Electoral College votes, Connecticut, Secretary of State, CT Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, Susan Bysiewicz, Chase T. Rogers, Richard Blumenthal

  1. ROADMAP TO ADDRESS THE LOOMING CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS:

    Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II “natural born citizen” based on the Kenyan/British citizenship of Barack Obama’s father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a “citizen” born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen”.

    Moreover, each and every member of Congress should be notified that he or she is personally liable (can be sued) for his or her own failure, or the same in conspiracy with other members, to perform what is a ministerial and constitutional duty, that is, to require and/or insist that Presidential electoral votes only be counted for candidates who are “natural born citizens” under Article II of the United States Constitution, the failure of which creates a cause of action for deprivation of claimants’ constitutional rights (as allowed under the Bivens case) against employees of the Federal Government, in this case, to a lawful President and Commander in Chief, and therefore, for deprivation of adequate continuation of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. The constitutionally tortious conduct is not subject to congressional immunity and would be the jettison of Article II of the Constitution by failure to stop and/or object to the counting of electoral votes for Barack H. Obama who has admitted that at the time of his birth his father was a Kenyan/British citizen and not a citizen of the United States of America.

    Finally, if 1/20/09 comes and goes with a usurper in the Whitehouse (that is, Obama is definitely NOT an Article II “natural born citizen” — dad Kenyan/British citizen at BHO’s birth — albeit he MAY be a 14th Amendment “citizen”) with usurper enablers in Congress and the Supreme Court … God help us because many of the people will — rightfully and under our Constitution and Declaration of Independence — endeavor through other means to take back the Government from what is nothing less than a non-constitutional coup d’etat. (SCOTUS now does have the power to forestall that grim yet inevitable scenario, otherwise the blood and possible loss of our Constitutional Republic is SQUARELY ON THEIR HEADS.)

  2. The government really has NO idea what they are up against if this usurper is sworn in on January 20. Americans will NOT tolerate this and action WILL be taken…get ready!

  3. If anyone thinks that blackout in Obama’s Hawaiian island vacationland was unrelated to Obama’s need to produce birth documents, you are way too naiive. He is capable of some serious cover up activity and will do anything to get to power.

    And then he will do anything to maintain power, including declaring the Constitution unconstitutional and declaring martial law.
    At that point, folks, it will be too late to stop the man from totally ruining our country. And my gut feeling is that it would happen just weeks after taking office.

    Saddam Hussein had all the money while his people starved. Doesn’t anyone think it’s odd for SoetorObama to be renting a $9 million dollar home in Hawaii for a vacation? What does that say to the American people? “I realize many of you are hungry, homeless and jobless, but hey, I’m having a great time in this Hawaiian mansion strutting my manboobs in the surf!”

  4. Should Obama or McCain make it to office, this would be considered “Seditious Conspiracy” per U.S. Code § 2384.

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002384—-000-.html

    Note the item “or delay the execution of any law of the United States”. That means fines, imprisonment, or both for all involved in preventing the execution of Article II.

    I suggest we start to get legal council on this. It will be difficult to indict certain SCOTUS Justices, but they have sent clear signals they intend to do nothing about this. Bickell’s blatant obstruction of both Donofrio’s and Wrotnowski’s cases and lack of action to remove this SCOTUS clerk is clear evidence of impropriety.

  5. On the 715th Day of the 110th Congress (April 10, 2008), Senator McCaskill (D, Missouri) introduced Senate Reolution 511 for herself and Senator Leahy (D, Vermont), Senator Obama (D, Illinois), Senator Coburn (R, Okalahoma), Senator Clinton (D, New York) and Senator Webb (D, Virginia) recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen. It was considered and agreed to without amendment on April 30, 2008 in the Senate of the United States.

    The Senate also recognized that the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

    The Senate also that the term `natural born Citizen,’ as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States.

    Here’s where the Senate goes astray. The definition of ‘natural born Citizen’ was so well-known to the Framers, that it didn’t have to be defined by the Constitution. However, the Senate also understands that it means “children born to Americans,” because that is how they use the term in Resolution 511.

    Also, the definition used by the framers comes from Emmerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, a book that was in the library of the Framers to the Constitution (and in the Library of Congress), a definition used by the Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent to very important Supreme Court decision on American Citizenship, Wong Kim Ark (1898).

    [Please note that Chief Justice Fuller dissented in Wong Kim Ark, because it decided American soil transmits citizenship, and therefore Kim Wong Ark (1898) contradicts Senator McCaskill’s Resolution 511.]

    In order for the U.S. Senate to recognize that John Sydney McCain, III, is a ‘natural born Citizen,’ it has to agree with Justice Fuller’s dissenting opinion, which was NOT the ‘law of the land.’ (But, also, note who co-sponsored Resolution 511: Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.)]

    This is what Emmerich de Vattel wrote: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. [Note: ‘born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’]. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights [Note: ‘children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights’].

    However, by recognizing the positive, the Senate also recognizes the negative, and that the Framers intended to limit the right to serve as the country’s President to children born to Americans, and that such limits were not inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States.

    So, by helping John Sydney McCain, III, Senate Resolution 511 has stuck a dagger into the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama, II.

    Why? Because to make the argument in favor of John Sydney McCain, III, that ‘children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights,’ the U.S. Senate agrees with the British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5):

    “Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.”

    In other words, the latest thinking of the U.S. Senate on the interpretation of the ‘natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution requires the U.S. Senate (by the same logic) to recognize that Barack Hussein Obama, II, is One Hundred Percent (100%) British ‘at the time of his birth!’

  6. Pingback: Obama - Can He Hold The Office Of The Presidency? « ZachJonesIsHome - Helping to Keep an Eye on the Larry Sinclair Allegations

  7. We the people have voted these people into office. Let’s start a list to be circulated among all the voting population. We can, in numbers, stop such disregard for our constitution by not voting in these idiots. I am angry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s