Author Topic: Let's discuss and prepare a rock solid legal offensive against Obama in Court  (Read 24241 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
On July 1, 2010

Barack Hussein Obama was reported as saying:

“Being an American is not a matter of blood or birth, it’s a matter of faith,"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/07/01/obama_being_an_american_not_a_matter_of_blood_or_birth.html

Or in other words...Obama is saying to all Americans:

"I don't have a US Long Form birth certificate, my Kenyan Father was not an American, I probably wasn't even born in America, and who cares...so long as YOU have the faith I am an American Citizen, that's all it takes."

This is important, especially if we are driven to a direct refusal to discard our Second Amendment Rights by Obama's illegal attempts to discard the Second Amendment by some 19 Executive Orders,  http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/biden-guns-executive-actions-86187.html    if that is indeed the case.  I have stated 12 Supreme Court decisions that puts us in the right on this issue to resist unlawful Executive Orders and unconstitutional revocations of our Constitutional Rights.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Although it may be argued by various attorneys for Obama 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  (1952) @ 585
, let me also state that the counter is also found in that decision, because Youngstown also states that any Executive Order must be based upon "specific statutory authority," and cannot be "based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces."

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)@180 states that
“a law repugnant to the constitution IS VOID. . . .” and
 “in declaring what shall be the SUPREME law of the land, the CONSTITUTION itself is first mentioned;
and not the laws of the United States generally,
but those only which shall be made in PURSUANCE of the constitution, have that rank.”


If articles of Impeachment are brought up on Obama on any attempt of his to Executive Order discard the Second Amendment, I hope they add more charges.  For example, even without the Impeachment over attempting to over-ride the second Amendment or discard the Article 1.7 role of Congress, just on the ineligibility to serve as President and lack of valid identification and proof issue, Obama can be charged with at least that of:

1. Perjury (18 USC. @ 1621)

2. Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 USC @ 371)

3. False Personation of an Officer or Employee of the USA (18 USC @ 912)

4. Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 USC @ 2388(a))

5. False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 USC @ 1542)

6. False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 USC. @ 911). as regards his NBC Status

(And this is just for starters.)


Something else we need to bring up more about:
Barack has apparently favored using a Social Security number of a deceased person in Connecticut,
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=3255
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Obama-tax-returs-and-e-verify_0003.jpg
which is (at the very least) felonious identity theft (and gives us the danger flag of espionage infiltration to the very highest echelon and office of our Government).

The seriousness of this concern cannot be under-stated, especially when you have someone in the Presidency who cannot even pass an E-Verify on his alleged Social Security Number
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Obama-tax-returs-and-e-verify_0007.jpg
 http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/affidavit-of-Orly-taitz-regarding-Obamas-SSS.gov_0004.jpg

it means he is lying about his identity.   And if he is lying about his birthdate only, which is a requirement for a successful e-verify, just what does that say about alleged birth document releases?  If either the birthdate or name is wrong, they are instantaneously proven frauds...and so is Barack Hussein Obama.



« Last Edit: January 15, 2013, 05:10:04 AM by Brianroy »

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Western Journalism introduced a good video piece reminding us that the Obama passport issue is NOT over.



THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE PRE-2008 RECORDS OF OBAMA HAVE ALLEGEDLY GONE MISSING HAVE BEEN SUSPICIOUSLY QUID PRO QUO LINKED TO WHITE HOUSE CHIEF COUNTER-TERRORISM LIAISON, JOHN BRENNAN

The Department of State was rocked by a scandal in the first 3 months of 2008. Instead of just "looking at" the "passport data" of Barack Obama only, the files regarding Barack Obama allegedly went missing in March of 2008, and there has been a virtual blackout on the news data since.

We know the factual data that pro-Obama private contractors breached State Department security on January 9, February 21 and March 14 of 2008,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/obama.passport/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003422.html


before a final theft of all Obama’s documents was “alleged” to have happened by pro-Obama supporters on a date of either March 21, or March 26, 2008. The CEO of Analysis Corp., the primary Passport breaching firm was John Brennan.

CNN reported:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html

"the three contract employees worked in three offices in the Washington area. One office does consular work and visas on evenings, holidays, weekends and overnights; another office issues passports; the third office scans and files materials." The likely suspect of the theft of the Obama Department of State files and passports, was the Analysis Corp. employee, "who has "extensive" experience..and has always worked under a State Department contract."


In a flagrantlt apparent Quid Pro Quo for stealing the Obama documents, the pro-Muslim Brennan
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/islam-helped-shape-cia-nominee-john-brennan-s-world-view
http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-brotherhood-operatives-barack-obama-and-john-brennan/
was made chief counter-terrorism expert at the White House and given an ethics waiver.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/white-house-grants-ethics-waiver-to-john-brennan/32798/

One of the other two who breached Department of State security, and was aware of what was in the Obama documents that were on file, was a 24 year old male who worked for Stanley Inc.; and was not long after shot dead in 2008 while allegedly “cooperating with authorities” over this very issue, and the telling of what data was in the lost files that someone else had allegedly taken.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/19/key-witness-in-passport-fraud-case-fatally-shot/

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/02/john-brennan-involved-in-obama-passport-breach.html

World Net Daily reported that:
Obama's files reportedly contained copies of passport applications, birth date, basic biographical information, records of passport renewal and possibly citizenship information.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100613


If you will carefully pay attention to the dating of Obama's passport which Obama supporters are tricked to fawn over



 you will notice based on the time-stamps on his passport in the video above, that Obama will have been issued a new Presidential Passport in late February 2009.

This approximately late February 2009 issue, about 1 month after his usurpation of the Presidency on January 20, 2009, would replace whatever fabricated one was issued following this State Department theft . That passport would have been issued no later than April or May 2008.

Notice the cut and paste zoom and zip tactics used in the video, used by those wishing to alter evidence, rather than laying out the book, doing a slow substantiated zoom in and out, and the patient turning of each page.  So much for honesty and transparency on their part.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
 
Something fishy is happening with Barack Obama as a registered voter. 

 https://www.dcboee.org/voter_info/reg_status/vic_Search_list.asp


Voter Registration Status



Voter Information Search Results
.
Registration Status   
    Registered Voter    YES
    Voter ID Number   120051658
    Date Registered   10/15/2012
 
Personal Information    
    Full Name    BARRY  SOETORO
    Party Affiliation   DEMOCRATIC
 
Address Information   
    Street Number, Street Name, Quadrant   1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW
    City, State, Zip    WASHINGTON, DC 20500
 
Polling Place Information    



The District of Columbia Board of Elections does thus with Barack Obama's info:
Voter Registration Status

The Board of Elections and Ethics does not have a record matching the information you supplied.
Please review the following input data for errors.
First Name   BARACK
Last Name   OBAMA
Date of Birth   8/4/1961
Zip Code   20500

For more information, please contact the DC Board of Elections and Ethics at the address below.

D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics
Attn: e-Government Division
441 4th Street, NW, Suite 250 North
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 727-2525


 Either he isn't legally registered under the name of Barack Obama, or he is AND he is also registered to vote as Barry Soetoro in Washington D.C., allowing himself to absentee vote for himself in Cook County Illinois AND in person in Washington, D.C. last election cycle. 


Question:  Why is Obama voting for himself in 2012 only as Barry Soetoro, but FOR Barack Obama? 

Question:  Can you legally vote yourself under one registered name for high office no longer legally viable, while under another name alleged to be legally viable without undergoing some legal name change in a Court of Law? 

And if not, why hasn't America heard about it?  Every vote for Obama technically might not exist if he NOW is only legally recognized as Barry Soetoro as of several weeks before the last election cycle.  A bit tenuous, but perhaps Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan ought to issue a legal challenge of Obama under Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ page 653 after all.   

A search of the Cook County Public Records  reveals NO Barack Obama or Barry Soetoro registered there under his name, birth-date and stolen SS# in which he files taxes with (from a person born in 1890).  http://www.cookcountyclerk.com/elections/voterprofile/Pages/default.aspx

 For anyone who bothers to truly vet Obama's identity and  biographical narrative, there are many problems that arise. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83951393/A-Catalog-of-Evidence-Concerned-Americans-Have-Good-Reason-to-Doubt-that-Putative-President-Barack-Obama-Was-Born-in-Hawaii-by-Atty-Mario-Apuzzo
   
However, the point is, is that Obama IS on legally on file as registered to vote under the name of Barry Soetoro in Washington D.C.   

[See screen capture at: Expose Obama
 http://www.exposeobama.com/2013/07/20/obama-alias-barry-soetoro-registered-to-vote-at-white-house-address/
and J. Christian Adams
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/07/19/barry-soetoro-has-registered-to-vote-at-white-house-address/       ]


The location the District of Columbia  Board of Elections lists that he is supposed to vote as of the last Presidential Election, as Barry Soetoro, NOT Barack Obama, is listed as:



Voter Registration Status



Voter Information Search Results
.
Registration Status   
    Registered Voter    YES
    Voter ID Number   120051658
    Date Registered   10/15/2012
 
Personal Information    
    Full Name    BARRY  SOETORO
    Party Affiliation   DEMOCRATIC
 
Address Information   
    Street Number, Street Name, Quadrant   1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW
    City, State, Zip    WASHINGTON, DC 20500
 
Polling Place Information    


[Then link followed to separate page info below] 
----------------------------------------------------------


Polling Place Locator

Polling Place Details
 
Ward Number    2
Precinct Number    2
School District    2
ANC/SMD    2A01

 


Polling Place Name, Address, and Accessibility Information
Polling Place Name    THE SCHOOL WITHOUT WALLS
Address    2130 G ST NW
Washington DC



So what are the legal ramifications of Obama signing all bills as Barack Obama, when he is legally registered as Barry Soetoro?

Is it enough to nullify everything he has signed?  Or will it only be enough to annul all orders and bills he signed as of October 15, 2012, when he registered to vote as Barry Soetoro in Washington D.C.?  So what is the legal name NOW, as of right now, of the profane one   occupying the Presidency of the United States?  The citizens of the United States of America have a right to know, and I believe it is a legal right to know.

Is knowing Obama signs under one name but legally claims another name as of October 15, 2012 enough, as well as his birth Identification Document Fraud, his stolen Social Security Number Identity and tax frauds, and all the other felonies he has committed over the years, even in his illegal occupation of the Presidency of the United States, to end his unConstitutional occupation of the U.S. Presidency when he clearly was never a United States Natural Born Citizen, nor can he introduce into a U.S. Court of Law legal documents to authenticate his birth identity and nationality or parentage because all he has are fakes? 

It is time that legal experts and Congress launch an investigation into the man who "claims" to now have (or still have)  the legal name of Barack Hussein Obama II, when it might be that he hasn't and isn't.  And if so, let's legally and peacefully demand an nullification or permanent erasure / overturn of everything Obama ever signed, whether is back to October 15, 2012 or a full reset back to January 20, 2009, demanding Obama's arrest and a full expulsion of Obama's entire White House Administration -- Joe Biden, every Cabinet Secretary, every Czar, every White House political appointee or partisan staffer -- now!  At the very least, America deserves a full exposure and legal examination of this legal technicality at length...one which might possibly install a Romney - Ryan Administration while suspending and annulling the current Obama Administration of someone in the 2012 election cycle  who was supposed to be legally recognized as Barry Soetoro as of October 15, 2012 and thereafter, and technically was no longer to be recognized under the other name.    Or so, it seems to me.

 Any help on this one?  Thanks in advance.

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Various case citations
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2013, 01:31:40 AM »
Obama, not being a United States Natural Born Citizen, as required by the United States Constitution, consistently sees the Constitution of the United States as a nuisance which he will avoid to the point where he sometimes does not recognize as even existing, sometimes so often, it seemingly is almost as if it is whenever he can.  It is not unlike his resisting any scandal as having any moral impact upon himself.  Cause people to die like in Fast and Furious or Ben Ghazi or running arms to Al Qaeda in Syria?  Cover it up, lie about it, through paper at it, prolong discovery, and call it a Republican distraction from the "real" issues.  What are the real issues?  Blame conservatives, destroy the Bill of Rights, raid the Treasury and practice cronyism, and ram Islam down America's throats.  And when you cannot get your way, dismiss Congress and take the Law into your own hands, outside the sphere of the Presidency, and legislate. 

The curious question is: where are all the lawyers?  Why aren't the attorneys themselves citing case after case of the many United States Supreme Court Decisions to take the opportunity to help educate and inform the citizenry of the United States?  You would think that more attorneys would care, or not be so blind and self-absorbed to be so dismissive of the corruption that is so blatant and fierce, they have no moral excuse, it seems to me, for resisting and hindering those of us sounding the alarm.  HASHEM will judge in His time. 

But meanwhile, let me share a few cases relevant to Obama.  First, the Court has already guided on this issue that Obama is NOT to go about legislating or making his own laws when Congress won't pass a law he wants passed.  In the recent Trayvon Martin issue, despite a George Z.  defending himself against attempted murder, Obama and Eric Holder wish to hold the George Z. who defended himself and was legally found "not guilty" to an unwritten code of Criminal Law, and punish him by stripping him of rights, and pressure black radicals until they finally kill the man (and make that a racial symbol of black power to trumpet about)   Ex Parte Milligan that guides us in how we should be responding in part with a rebuke of Obama respecting that current issue...where it says:


Ex Parte Milligan , 71 U. S. 2 (1866) @121

http://supreme.justia.com/us/71/2/case.html

“…the President…is controlled by law, and has his appropriate sphere of duty, which is to execute, not to make, the laws; and there is "no unwritten criminal code to which resort can be had as a source of jurisdiction."


But when Obama isn't self absorbed on promoting divisive black racism, or Islam, or certain social agendas, or taking a vacation and blaming Republicans for his laziness to create solutions instead of crises, he is looking to recreate law based on his immorality or perverse anti-Biblical morality, ignoring law to enfore Progressive Agendas and destroy the Constitution, rather than looking to legal purism and an obligation to have laws that do not impair it as the only one signed in the Presidency.


Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 12 Wheat. 213 (1827) @ 322, 337-338

http://supreme.justia.com/us/25/213/case.html

@332

The single question for consideration is whether the act ...is consistent with or repugnant to the Constitution of the United States?

@337

"The original obligation, whatever that may be, must be preserved by the Constitution. Any law which lessens must impair it.

All admit that the Constitution refers to and preserves the legal, not the moral, obligation of a contract. Obligations

Page 25 U. S. 338

purely moral, are to be enforced by the operation of internal and invisible agents, not by the agency of human laws. The restraints imposed on states by the Constitution are intended for those objects which would, if not restrained, be the subject of state legislation. What, then, was the original legal obligation of the contract now under the consideration of the Court?"


But since Obama is unConstitutional and an illegal Presidency, why should he care?  It seems that legal purism falls now to those of us whom are in the gun-sights of the elite, with their aim to destroy or take away our rights, and make them more above the law, and untouchable.  The Law is an equalizer for the poor against the rich, if they let it.  That's is why Obama feels it so necessary to be a divider; so he can disenfranchise and weaken the poor, while oppressing them and lying while pretending to champion the very ones he seeks to eventually fully enslave. 

Currently, Gun Rights and the Freedom to Worship, and Free Speech are most under attack.  Obama and his supporters don't care if it is by Treaty or simple majority legislation or by Executive Orders, they intend to ignore the Law and wink it into existence.  The Constitution requires that 2/3rds of Congress and 3/4ths of the States must pass and ratify any abrogation or change away from the Bill of Rights by Amendment to the Constitution.  Our legal resistance to those who would deny us our Constitutional Rights must also cite the following cases before any judiciary, member of Congress, or Law enforcement agency, or what have you, that would dare try to intimidate us.  No.  We need to cite the necessary cases and put THEM on notice of their sins and acts of sedition, treason, breach of the Law and breach of trust to the positions they have and hold and claim to "serve" from.  There are at least a dozen cited in the finest law schools in the United States, and these uniformly are:   

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)@ 180

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/case.html

"... in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned,

 and not the laws of the United States generally,

 but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution,

have that rank.

     Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle,

supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions,

 that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void,

and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."



Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/case.html

 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”



Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/266/

 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."



United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) @ 877

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/

 "But "no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution," Almeida-Sanchez, supra at 413 U. S. 272, "

[[[  This also extends to any "end-run" attempt made by Congress in ratifying a United Nations Small Arms Treaty that requires gun confiscation of its Citizens.-- Brianroy  ]]]



Doe v. Braden, 57 U.S. (16 Howard) 635 (1853) @ 657

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/57/635/case.html

 “By the Constitution of the United States, the President has the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. ... And the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.    The treaty is therefore a law made by the proper authority, and the courts of justice have no right to annul or disregard any of its provisions unless they violate the Constitution of the United States."



The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wallace) 616 (1870) @ 620

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/616/

 “The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States declares that

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
and all treaties which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

It need hardly be said that a treaty cannot change the Constitution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument."



Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 (1890) @ 267

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/133/258/case.html

 “The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the states.

It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the states, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.”  [Case citations omitted]



United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) @ 701

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

 “… as will appear by tracing the history of the statutes, treaties and decisions upon that subject -- always bearing in mind that statutes enacted by Congress, as well as treaties made by the President and Senate, must yield to the paramount and supreme law of the Constitution.”



State of Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) @432-433

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/252/416/case.html

@ 432 “It is said that a treaty cannot be valid if it infringes the Constitution, that there are limits, therefore, to the treaty-making power, and that one such limit is that what an act of Congress could not do unaided, in derogation of the powers reserved to the States, a treaty cannot do.

@ 433  … Acts of Congress are the supreme law of the land only when made in pursuance of the Constitution....” 



Asakura v. City of Seattle, 265 U.S. 332 (1924) @ 341

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/265/332/

     “A treaty made under the authority of the United States "shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."  Constitution, Art. VI, § 2.

      The treaty-making power of the United States is not limited by any express provision of the Constitution,

 and, though it does not extend "so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids..."  [Case citations omitted]




United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181 (1926) @ 208   

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/270/181/

“The decisions of this Court generally have regarded treaties as on much the same plane as acts of Congress,

and as usually subject to the general limitations in the Constitution….”



Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1956)@ 17

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/1/case.html

 "This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."



There are many more relevant case citations that we can put forth.  But they must be used at the appropriate time or as an appropriate crisis rebuttal in order to be effective.  If we lay ignorant of the case law and do not use them in response, we lose empowerment given us within the confines of the U.S. Constitution and current jurisprudence.  When your rights are threatened, and you have opportunity to use or share them, please do!   Thanks.   

Offline Brianroy

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Chief Justice Marshall, in
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264  (1821) @ 404
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/19/264/case.html
 stated that:
“Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and conscientiously to perform our duty.”
But in the words immediately preceding this, he also stated the solution inside of the problem.
“The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.” 

Obama has regularly stated that if Congress does not legislatively act on an issue that helps him subvert or abridge or remove certain Constitutional rights of U.S. Citizens, he will merely do a legislative end-run around them and create an Executive Order or simply put an action into motion as part of his Executive Policy anyway.  He has even stated this threat before the U.S. Supreme Court Justices attending front and center at the State of the Union Speech in which he has also reiterated such threats.

Obama as a M-level lecturer on the Constitution (M for Morons) with with the University of Chicago syllabus of which he spoke on how to subvert the Constitution via the 14th Amendment, for example, he appears oblivious to the Supreme Court's decisions in respect to his end-run threats.

Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1925) @177
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/case.html
“…MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, dissenting.
… The duty of the President to see that the laws be executed is a duty that does not go beyond the laws or require him to achieve more than Congress sees fit to leave within his power.”


He is to act within the confines of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, because the Constitution is a law, not a guide of recommendations.  The Constitution lists a Bill of Rights he must uphold, but Obama is apathetic to any admonition to this regard and the legal counsel. 

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) @ 491
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) @ 272
 "It is clear, of course, that no Act of Congress can authorize a violation of the Constitution."

But now, we kick it up a notch.

When the I.R.S. makes out its taxes for 2013 in 2014, Americans may do well to pay their normal taxes under the 2012 rate and deduct the extra Obamacare charge that may range from $695 per person to 2.5% of a person’s income, whichever amount is greater, what would happen if more than half of we who pay income taxes  flatly refuse to pay the added unConstitutional amount, because Obama is NOT legal?  The actual tally was only one lone Chief Justice that mandated Healthcare by inserting a form of legislation into the decision and calling it a "tax".

Huntington v. Worthen, 120 U.S. 97 (1887) @101-102
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/120/97/case.html
 “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it binds no one, and protects no one.”
 
 5 justices did NOT carry Obamacare, the vote was 4-4-1.  Yet, when we discuss it, it is treated as though the stalled opinion to pass the mandate by 4 against 4 is to be treated as though it were a majority opinion, even when it is not.  It is a 4-4-1 decision outright, and 8-1 against Roberts in re-legislating it as a tax from the bench.

 
Question:  Did the Healthcare Law regarding Part III-B (the mandatory purchase or pay the fine requirement) legally really pass United States Supreme Court Muster?
 
NO CONSENSUS as to what Constitutional Provision acted as the engine of Healthcare was ever decided upon in majority.  Tens of thousands of attorneys need to put down their paper, stop trusting hearsay, and read the decision carefully and thoroughly for themselves.  The Opinion of Roberts was just that, an opinion…and oddly enough, as regarding the Healthcare Law as only Constitutional when it is regarded as a tax was the opinion of 1.  Are we to take that the opinion of just one Court Justice now trumps the contrary opinions of the other 8?  No.  Of course we should NOT.
 
…Did the Court see to a Consensus of Affirmation  Aequam Servare Mentem (a Consensus of Affirmation keeping an even mind)?  No.  A minority opinion said that it can be legal if you rule that only this part of the Constitution over here is used, but not that part over there; while another minority opinion said, No, you must use that part of the Constitution over there but you cannot use this part of the Constitution over here.  Effectually, by majority, Healthcare as a mandate, when challenged by closer examination, I would argue, appears to have been more  struck down than not, regarding the forced purchase or pay mandate…despite claims to the contrary, even by what the Media has thus far gleaned from the syllabus and Opinion of the Chief Justice.
 
Syllabus:
[Page 3] “ CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III-B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable.”
 
  So let's have that discussion now.

 By refusing to pay the added "premium", we commit NO actual crime if it is an unConstitutional Act in the first place, do we not?  For the Court has stated in
Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1879) @376 -377
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/100/371/case.html
“An unconstitutional law is void, and is as no law. An offence created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous, but is illegal and void,  and cannot be a legal cause of imprisonment.”

And to add injury to injury, since Obama is NOT a United States Natural Born Citizen and has NO admissible in U.S. Court documentation to prove authority under Bute v. Illinois 333 U.S. 640 (1948) @ 653 and Nguyen v. INS 533 U.S. 53 (2001) @ 54, 62; then, he has no authority and no tangible office by which to prosecute except as a criminal in office acting under color of authority in a usurpation of power.  The question on Healthcare might be, whether like Ernst Janning, Chief Justice Roberts may be chargeable for crimes against the Constitution and Humanity at a time when his "leader" is toppled, because he acts outside the protection of the Constitution of the Sovereignty at the time. 

Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) 159 - 160
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/209/123/case.html
The act to be enforced is alleged to be unconstitutional, and, if it be so...t is simply an illegal act upon the part of a State official in attempting, by the use of the name of the State, to enforce a legislative enactment which is void because unconstitutional. If the act which the state [official] ...seeks to enforce be a violation of the Federal Constitution, the officer, in proceeding under such enactment, comes into conflict with the superior authority of that Constitution, and he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The State has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States. See In re Ayers, supra, p. 123 U. S. 507.

 The essential, is that Roberts, in the Judicial Branch, has no legal authority to mandate a tax upon any of us, because that power exclusively belongs to Congress in the Legislative Branch. 


A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935) @528-29
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/295/495/case.html
@ 495  “Extraordinary conditions, such as an economic crisis, may call for extraordinary remedies, but they cannot create or enlarge constitutional power.” 

@528    “Extraordinary conditions may call for extraordinary remedies. But the argument necessarily stops short of an attempt to justify action which lies outside the sphere of constitutional authority. Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power.      [Case Footnote: See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 71 U. S. 120, 71 U. S. 121; Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S. 426.  ]
 The Constitution established a national government with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in war and peace, but these powers of the national government are limited by the constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to transcend the
Page 295 U. S. 529
imposed limits because they believe that more or different power is necessary. Such assertions of extraconstitutional authority were anticipated and precluded by the explicit terms of the Tenth Amendment --
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." “

…Second. The question of the delegation of legislative power. We recently had occasion to review the pertinent decisions and the general principles which govern the determination of this question. Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388. The Constitution provides that
"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Art I, § 1. And the Congress is authorized "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers. Art. I, 8, par. 18. The Congress is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested. “


Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 (1886) @442
 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/425/case.html
 “…an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
 
 
 
Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968) @29
 http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/23/case.html
 “But the Constitution is filled with provisions that grant Congress or the States specific power to legislate in certain areas; these granted powers are always subject to the limitation that they may not be exercised in a way that violates other specific provisions of the Constitution.”
 

 
Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U.S. 270 (1885)  @ 290
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/114/270/case.html
"...the maxim that the King can do no wrong has no place in our system of government, yet it is also true, in respect to the state itself, that whatever wrong is attempted in its name is imputable to its government, and not to the state, for, as it can speak and act only by law, whatever it does say and do must be lawful. That which therefore is unlawful because made so by the supreme law, the Constitution of the United States, is not the word or deed of the state, but is the mere wrong and trespass of those individual persons who falsely speak and act in its name. "    

 By declaring you have powers and authority outside that granted by the Constitution and acting on that claim, you act and speak falsely in the name of the Government and under color of authority.

That means that Obama is prosecutable without statute of limitations and without protection for being a usurper, not being a Constitutionally qualified office holder without a U.S. Natural Born Citizenship (even as he votes as Barry Soetoro, citizen of Indonesia, for himself in the 2012 election with a White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue address, etc.); and that Chief Justice Roberts may also one day concurrently join him in prison as well, it seems to me.