The Eligibility Question; How To Proceed by Francis Steffan
For many months now there has been a discussion concerning whether or not Barry Soetoro
aka Barry Dunham aka Barack Obama aka Barack Hussein Obama is actually a natural born
citizen as required by the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 1, paragraph
5: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the
time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
The facts known concerning this question of natural born citizenship raise serious doubts
that the current man occupying the office of President qualifies under the natural born
However, this article is not meant to convince you that the current man occupying the
office of President is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America or that
he is an illegal alien. If you want to investigate the facts and questions a good place
to start is at www.obamacrimes.com
which is the website of attorney Phillip J. Berg.
This article is written to present what I feel is the only legal way to go about getting
the many serious issues concerning the constitutional eligibility of the current United
States sitting president answered in an open public forum with the force of law enforcing
the demand for information, in other words, a court action.
Several attorneys have filed many different types of cases in several different legal
venues to no avail. The courts are ruling that the plaintiffs have no standing.
The idea behind these filings are to create an open federal lawsuit in which discovery
can be conducted with the production of documents requested being enforced by a federal
court. The belief, which I share, is that discovery would yield the evidence necessary to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Barack Obama, et al, is in fact not constitutionally
eligible to the office of President.
On its face this sounds like sound legal theory that should produce the desired results,
after all, what is being requested is only an opportunity to examine certain documents
which would serve to prove Barack Obama's natural born status or lack thereof.
Also, on its face, it seems entirely an outrage that the court would rule that an
American citizen has no standing in court to even ask that the President present evidence
that he has in fact fulfilled the requirements of the constitution to be eligible to the
office of President.
Prima facie or on its face is a fine place to start, however, it is not always the
way reality actually is. Things are not always the way they seem to be and lies that may
appear true need to be rebutted.
The fact is that this matter will not be resolved in the manner it is being brought to
the federal courts. Individual Plaintiffs will continue to rightfully be denied standing.
If a judge does mistakenly allow an individual plaintiff standing it will be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states
"failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted".
Before I can lay out the legal path to be followed if we are to have any success with
this case, I must first lay out the reasons why the court's ruling that individuals have
no standing is the correct ruling and why the current path of filing lawsuits in
federal court is wrong and will not yield the desired outcome.
For simplicity lets say there are two parts to the Constitution, the body and the Bill of
Rights. The Bill of Rights sets out the limitations of government concerning the rights
of the states and of the people. It actually has no binding upon the people, as it is a
restriction upon the federal government concerning its dealings with the states and the
people. The Bill of Rights is a protection for rights retained by the people that
predates the formation of government.
It is my belief that the federal courts are over used and usurp the sovereignty of the
states due to the utilization of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, that is a discussion
for another article. There are Fourteenth Amendment violations and Bill of Rights
violations against the people that create a damage. When these damages occur, individuals
file federal lawsuits. The plaintiff must be a damaged party and must be able to
specifically articulate and show evidence of the damage to have any expectation of
For instance, I cannot sue the government simply because I witnessed them violate their
constitutional obligations that resulted in damaging you. Only the damaged party has a
claim and as disturbing as it may be to witness such a violation I could not legally
articulate and show evidence of an actual damage to me, therefore I would have no
standing and no claim. Likewise I cannot sue based on possible future damages, such as,
if this happens or that happens I may be put in a position to be damaged. You have no
claim until you are actually damaged.
What has been so far described concerns constitutional violations of rights in reference
to a damaged party which is usually found within the Bill of Rights or the Fourteenth
Amendment. It should be obvious that the lawsuits concerning president Obama's
constitutional eligibility are not damaged party Bill of Rights or Fourteenth Amendment
filings. Therefore, we can dispose of any talk of damaged party complaints and if
you are not an actual damaged party you have no standing legally to proceed in this type
There is no damaged party.
Let us presume for a moment that President Obama is not eligible to the office of
President. The fact that he is holding the office as an other than natural born citizen
does not in itself damage anyone. Even if President Obama made a heinous decision against
the interests of the United States it could never be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
that the decision was caused because of the place he was born. Perhaps the people who
raised him, where he went to school, the groups he joined, or the books he read could be
shown to have influenced his decisions, however, there are no constitutional eligibility
requirements concerning who raises you, where you go to school, etc.
As stated before, there is a constitutional eligibility requirement of being a natural
born citizen in order to be eligible to the office of President that is found in Article
II, Section 1, paragraph 5. The Constitution as a whole, and the body specifically, is a
contract, and because it is between more than two parties it is referred to as a compact,
however these words are interchangeable. Since we have disposed of any damaged party
concerning the issue we are left with what amounts to a failure to perform contract
In a contract, only a party to the contract can complain of a violation of the terms of
the contract. For instance, Bill and Bob have a contract, I cannot successfully proceed
in a lawsuit against Bill for violating the terms of his contract with Bob even though I
witnessed it and can prove Bill is guilty. I am not a party to the contract and therefore
have no standing to complain.
The constitution is not a contract between people. It is a contract between the several
sovereign states whose agreement to compact created the United States of America.
Therefore, as ruled by the courts, if you are not a party to the contract, which no
individual is, as the states are the parties, you have no standing to complain. The
people created states and the states created "The United States by virtue of the
compact called The Constitution of the United States of America. Individuals do not have
standing to proceed with court actions concerning contract violations that they are not a
party to or constitutional violations that they are not specifically damaged by.
The only way to proceed in court concerning this matter is to do it though one of the
several states. I believe that the only way is to convince or compel a State Attorney
General to file suit in the United States Supreme Court in original jurisdiction and
proceed with a case that complains, as a party to the compact, that a specific provision
of the agreement is not being performed and to demand performance. I am not sure what the
proper vehicle would be for a state to use, Writ of Mandamus, Quo Warranto or something
else. I'm not certain that anyone knows for sure as this situation has never happened
We need to focus on the nineteen states that have a Republican Attorney General. We need
to provide them with the research that has been done that raises the serious questions
concerning the current sitting president's constitutional eligibility. We need to provide
them a list of the documents to be demanded to evidence eligibility.
This is yet another example that the solutions to this nation's problems do not lie in
Washington D.C. but in the several states of the union. The federal government is out of
control and the three branches have become one beast exercising unchecked and unbalanced
power against the states and the people.
Is it a surprise that D.C. has ignored a constitutional eligibility requirement for the
office of President? Ask yourself, who is in charge of this? How much was invested in
getting this man in the white house? Who did a background check of his eligibility? The
answer is a hundred million dollars and no one. Obama sits in the White House for the
same reason poison sits in your medicine cabinet and has been vetted the same way
pharmaceutical drugs are vetted by the FDA. They take the pharmaceutical internal
studies at face value. In other words, they take their word for it, until enough people
I am not proposing in this article that the United States Supreme Court has any authority
to remove a sitting president. What I am proposing is that the U.S. Supreme Court does
have the obligation to enforce the production of documents in a suit properly brought
before it where documents are germane to the case and are demanded by a proper party with
standing. If it is evidenced by those documents that the sitting president is not
eligible to the office then that evidence needs to be presented by a representative of a
state to the full Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.
In the unfortunate event that Congress refuses to act on the evidence, then it needs to
be presented to the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon by the complaining state and to be
demanded that they fulfill their oath and honor of office and remove the usurper.
If all that fails, the people need to enforce their rights as found in the Oregon State
Constitution, Article I, Section 1: "We declare that all men, when they form a
social compact are equal in right: that all power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and
happiness; and they have at all times a right to alter, reform, or abolish the government
in such manner as they may think proper.â€“"
For those of you who are saying, "but I don't live in Oregon," under the
"equal footing" doctrine and the "equal protection of the law"
clause, if the people in the state of Oregon have this right all the people in every
state also have this right. Claim the right and do not take no for an answer. Let's get
Francis "Frank" Steffan is the founder, owner, and operator of American Voice
Radio Network, also known as AVR, which is an alternative talk radio network with a
diverse variety of interesting programs.
Frank Steffan is also the host of a popular, long-running radio talk show called
"The Frank Report." This is a twice daily, one hour long call-in show which
airs afternoons and evenings weekdays on American Voice Radio Network, in which Frank
addresses current event topics from a hard-hitting and methodical point of view.
To learn more about American Voice Radio Network and The Frank Report, visit AVR's web
site at: www.AmericanVoiceRadio.com
With all of the great success you and I have had recently, our movement faces increasing dangers from organizations and individuals who wish to trade on Ron Paul's good name without actually having any connection to or endorsement from him.
To help guard against this problem, Dr. Paul has specifically asked me to bring one such situation to your attention. Many of you may have received letters from David James and The Liberty Committee asking for your support by generously using Ron Paul's name.
Dr. Paul wanted me to let you know neither David James nor The Liberty Committee have any affiliation or association with Ron Paul, Campaign for Liberty, Liberty PAC, or The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (FREE).
In less than a year since our founding, it has been incredible to watch Campaign for Liberty grow to include over 150,000 members who are taking action all across the country to reclaim our Republic.
On behalf of Dr. Paul, I want to thank you for your devotion to freedom and your support for Campaign for Liberty.
So much for a Second Amendment victory it didn't last long (Only the criminals and slave enforcement are allowed to defend themselves)
Chicago Law Banning Handguns in City Upheld by Court Link
A Chicago ordinance banning handguns and automatic weapons within city limits was upheld by a U.S. Court of Appeals panel, which rejected a challenge by the National Rifle Association.
The unanimous three-judge panel ruled today that a U.S. Supreme Court decision last year, which recognized an individual right to bear arms under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, didn’t apply to states and municipalities.
“The Supreme Court has rebuffed requests to apply the second amendment to the states,” U.S. Circuit Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote, upholding lower court decisions last year to throw out suits against Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Illinois.
The Fairfax, Virginia-based NRA sued the municipalities in June 2008, one day after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a hand-gun ban in the U.S. capital district encompassing Washington.
“We clearly disagree with the court’s conclusion,” NRA attorney William N. Howard, a partner in Chicago’s Freeborn & Peters LLP, said in a telephone interview. “The next step will be an appeal to the Supreme Court.”
“We recognize that this may not be the end of this litigation,” Jenny Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city of Chicago’s law department said, acknowledging the likelihood the NRA would seek further review. “We’re certainly prepared for that if this happens. We’re prepared to aggressively defend our ordinance.”
Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment reads in its entirety: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
In Heller, the high court struck down Washington’s 32-year- old gun law, which barred most residents of the city from owning handguns and required that all legal firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or under trigger lock. Six residents had challenged the law, saying they wanted firearms available in their homes for self-defense.
“Heller dealt with a law enacted under the authority of the national government,” Easterbrook wrote, “while Chicago and Oak Park are subordinate bodies of a state.”
Chicago’s law took effect in 1982, Hoyle said. While it allows ownership of long guns such as rifles, they must be registered annually with the city’s police department. Concealed weapons, semi-automatic and automatic weapons are not permitted.
Some exemptions apply to members of the military and law enforcement agencies.
Chicago U.S. District Judge Milton Shadur on Dec. 4 rejected the NRA’s request that he apply the Heller ruling to the Chicago and Oak Park laws, stating he was bound to follow a 1982 appeals court ruling upholding a ban by the Illinois village of Morton Grove.
That decision came from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, the same body that issued today’s opinion. The 15 judges of the Seventh Circuit hear appeals from the federal courts of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
Easterbrook, joined by Circuit Court Judges Richard Posner and William Bauer, said they, too, were bound to follow the precedent of a higher court, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its ruling on the Second Amendment not applying to states.
An appellate court departure from high court precedent “undermines the uniformity of national law,” Easterbrook wrote.
The judges rendered their ruling one week after hearing arguments.
A San Francisco-based federal appeals court, with jurisdiction over cases from California, Oregon, Washington and six other Western U.S. states, in April ruled the Second Amendment can be read as applicable to states and counties.
Still, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Nordyke v. King allowed to stand an Alameda County, California regulation that outlaws gun possession on county property.
Howard, the NRA’s lawyer, cited the Nordyke ruling as one of the reasons for his client’s challenge to the Chicago court outcome.
“This thing is headed for the Supreme Court,” University of Chicago Constitutional Law Professor Richard Epstein said in a phone interview.
“This is a question where you cannot run a split administration and there’s no way the circuits can resolve this amongst themselves,” he said.
The 7th Circuit case is National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago, 08-4241, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago). The 9th Circuit case is Nordyke v. King, 07-15763, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).