Concurrent Resoluting / Voiding out the Immediately Prior Congress's Unconstitutional Laws would be Supreme Court required

If Congress passes an unConstitutional law or series of laws, the tactic is to have a new Congress pass the Concurrent Resolution, and that passage of a Concurrent Resolution to nullify that which is unConstitutional by the immediately prior Congress. This Concurrent Resoultion gives the new Congress Article III standing in the US Supreme Court when there is just cause, such as a usurper like Obama, a non-US NBC as sitting in the Presidency unlawfully and signing things into law he has no right to do.


The Supreme Court has ruled that a President receives his executive authority “either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself,” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952).

Both the House and the Senate must pass something in declaration and challenge (an act of Congress as acceptable to the Court within the confines of 333 US 579, before ousting a sitting putative President on the grounds of his being unConstitutional, even a usurper.

Thereafter the Senate can self-elect a replacement. But before this later action can be carried out...the US Supreme Court must first hear the case that has been denied the Birthers and concurrent resoluted in Congress by both houses...denied not on its merits, but on Article III standing...and I am extremely confident that the majority decision will be to agree with the defendants (Congress) that anything signed by an unConstitutional President or Usurping Office Holder, is void and tossed out.

The Supreme Court would require the grass-roots will of the people to be exercised in this fashion, where the people rise up, vote in those who will so vote to void and defund unConstitutionality by the immediately prior House (and immediately prior / concurrent Senate) Congress, and make the correction themselves. The use of Marbury v. Madison goes to a reality where the US Supreme Court has a "second" stamp of approval or disapproval upon Congress visiting or revisiting Constitutionality adherence upon itself via corrective majority votes and corrective legislation to self-void what it later discovered to be incorrect.

The Obama Administration could either let the Concurrent Resolution void stand, or take Congress to the US Supreme Court, and lose in both circumstances because in Court, Article III standing is created in Congress by the will of the people who elected them and their expressed or desired interests to "void" unConstitutional purchases of goods and services they are being mafia strong-armed to buy violating several Amendments of the US Constitution.


All Congress need do is show that Barack Obama is NOT a US Natural Born Citizen, hence was unconstitutional and unfit to have even run for office, (as is easy enough to do via his non-citizen father, 40 relevant Supreme Court cases and various US Codes and other documents beyond those 40 to other that point, including laws stating that when a minor female marries a foreign citizen male, the dominance of the citizenship status transfers to the adult male). Hence, any child born to such a married couple follows the father in 1961, just as it would from the signing of the US Constitution to the Act of May 24, 1934 as Justice Bader-Ginsberg lamented about, during the oral arguments of Nguyen v. INS in 2001.


In fact, the internationally recognized natural born status of the child extends back from Biblical times (1551 B.C. ff. with the genealogies in first 5 books of the Bible, the dating I use of 1551 B.C. is confirmed to within 25 years by Patristic quotes Greek historians in antiquity) as being "paternal" in requirements, and more recently from the times of Plato (b. ca. 427 B.C. ) and his writings (generally ca. 390ish to 347 B.C.), and the use of autochthon and its association and attachment of multi-generation paternal lineage to the land upon which the great grandchildren through the sons (hence fathers) dwell. And it is from Plato and the Greeks to Vattel and even our present day, such as the laws of US and Kenyan and British Citizenships that we can also slam those wishing to argue International Law as arguing frivolously / incompetently at such a time.


Therefore, a new Conservative Congress after presenting the overwhelming data to the US Supreme Court that Barack Obama is NOT a US NBC, using info such as I have scribd and various birther lawyers and informed birthers have posted (as relevant and at that time presented in legal brief and argued); the US Supreme Court can then, at that time, then turn around and declare Obama unconstitutional and order him removed from Office, and so order that via the US Constitution, the US Senate can at that time vote for a new President of the USA according to their choosing.

So, I must disagree with those who might say this tactic would not work...because it will, if implemented. Again, yes, it is a tactic that legally WILL work...because the goal is to get the US Supreme Court to declare Obama unConstitutional, giving the same victory we otherwise would have already acheived had not so many conspired to protect their arch-criminal they themselves daily empower and enable.


OBAMA HIMSELF DEMANDED WE HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE

On May 21, 2009 Obama made his pitch and challenge while standing before the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, almost as if pledging after the manner of a legally binding utterance. Therefore, his words should be used against him in voiding his usurpation and unConstitutional takeover of the US Presidency.

http://cspan.org/Watch/Media/2009/05/21/HP/A/18855/Pres+Obama+Speech+on+National+Security.aspx

1) "I ran for President promising transparency, and I meant what I said. That is why, whenever possible, we will make information available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable.” @ 37:10-37:23 on the C-Span video link



2) “…whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions - by Congress or by the courts.” @ 37:54-38:07 on the C-Span link



3) “…in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers - especially when it comes to sensitive information.” @ 38:28 – 38:39 on the C-span link



4) “I will never hide the truth because it is uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don't know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why." @ 40:44 - 41:01 on the C-span link


All 4 times Obama lied.

1) He never allows for transparency, and demands America not hold him accountable unless it fits his Communist-Socialist Agenda or Public Relations/Propaganda push (such as unConstitutionally forced Healthcare and public options, etc.).

2) Obama releases top secret CIA and other high Intelligence info to our enemies, materially helping them.

3) Obama refuses to allow hucksters like Frank and Dodd or any in his Administration be criticized without turning around and trying to hit back twice as hard with smear campaigns and the Communist Saul Alinsky's tactics to isolate and destroy their public persona.

4) We still have no proof that Obama was even USA born. We have NO Obama Long Form BC, and other relevant papers or documentation (such as passports, US school and college transcripts regarding declared citizenship and financial status). He hides any 333 US 640 @ 653 accountability, and refuses to tell us why.


Obama lies habitually because that is his nature, and his spiritual mentors and advisors are also liars like himself who made Obama twice the child of hades as they were...only America likes to fall for the tricks he learned of being disarmed by being smiled at.


Obama in Dreams from My Father, writes and is heard in his own voice at ( http://www.khow.com/pages/caplisreport.html ):

"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned: People were satisfied as long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves. They were more than satisfied; they were relieved...." pg 94







If Congress passes an unConstitutional law or series of laws, the tactic is to have a new Congress pass the Concurrent Resolution, and that passage of a Concurrent Resolution to nullify that which is unConstitutional by the immediately prior Congress. This Concurrent Resoultion gives the new Congress Article III standing in the US Supreme Court when there is just cause, such as a usurper like Obama, a non-US NBC as sitting in the Presidency unlawfully and signing things into law he has no right to do. Both the House and the Senate must pass something in declaration and challenge before ousting a sitting putative President, even a usurper.


Thereafter the Senate can self-elect a replacement. But before this later action can be carried out...the US Supreme Court must first hear the case that has been denied the Birthers and concurrent resoluted in Congress by both houses...denied not on its merits, but on Article III standing...and I am extremely confident that the majority decision will be to agree with the defendants (Congress) that anything signed by an unConstitutional President or Usurping Office Holder, is void and tossed out.

The Supreme Court would require the grass-roots will of the people to be exercised in this fashion, where the people rise up, vote in those who will so vote to void and defund unConstitutionality by the immediately prior House (and immediately prior / concurrent Senate) Congress, and make the correction themselves. The use of Marbury v. Madison goes to a reality where the US Supreme Court has a "second" stamp of approval or disapproval upon Congress visiting or revisiting Constitutionality adherence upon itself via corrective majority votes and corrective legislation to self-void what it later discovered to be incorrect.

The Obama Administration could either let the Concurrent Resolution void stand, or take Congress to the US Supreme Court, and lose in both circumstances because in Court, Article III standing is created in Congress by the will of the people who elected them and their expressed or desired interests to "void" unConstitutional purchases of goods and services they are being mafia strong-armed to buy violating several Amendments of the US Constitution.

All Congress need do is show that Barack Obama is NOT a US Natural Born Citizen, hence was unconstitutional and unfit to have even run for office, (as is easy enough to do via his non-citizen father, 40 relevant Supreme Court cases and various US Codes and other documents beyond those 40 to other that point, including laws stating that when a minor female marries a foreign citizen male, the dominance of the citizenship status transfers to the adult male). Hence, any child born to such a married couple follows the father in 1961, just as it would from the signing of the US Constitution to the Act of May 24, 1934 as Justice Bader-Ginsberg lamented about, during the oral arguments of Nguyen v. INS in 2001.

In fact, the internationally recognized natural born status of the child extends back from Biblical times (1551 B.C. ff. with the genealogies in first 5 books of the Bible, the dating I use of 1551 B.C. is confirmed to within 25 years by Patristic quotes Greek historians in antiquity) as being "paternal" in requirements, and more recently from the times of Plato (b. ca. 427 B.C. ) and his writings (generally ca. 390ish to 347 B.C.), and the use of autochthon and its association and attachment of multi-generation paternal lineage to the land upon which the great grandchildren through the sons (hence fathers) dwell. And it is from Plato and the Greeks to Vattel and even our present day, such as the laws of US and Kenyan and British Citizenships that we can also slam those wishing to argue International Law as arguing frivolously / incompetently at such a time.

Therefore, a new Conservative Congress after presenting the overwhelming data to the US Supreme Court that Barack Obama is NOT a US NBC, using info such as I have scribd and various birther lawyers and informed birthers have posted (as relevant and at that time presented in legal brief and argued); the US Supreme Court can then, at that time, then turn around and declare Obama unconstitutional and order him removed from Office, and so order that via the US Constitution, the US Senate can at that time vote for a new President of the USA according to their choosing.


So, I must disagree with those who might say this tactic would not work...because it will, if implemented. Again, yes, it is a tactic that legally WILL work...because the goal is to get the US Supreme Court to declare Obama unConstitutional, giving the same victory we otherwise would have already acheived had not so many conspired to protect their arch-criminal they themselves daily empower and enable.