A Constitutional Minefield
By Judah Benjamin, Guest Author
Ladies and gentlemen, I keep telling you I’m not a Lawyer but that I have studied Law. Now one of the reasons I’m not a Lawyer is that I have neither read nor studied The Federal Code of Civil Procedure, I could never be bothered and never needed to because Law concerns me as it impacts certain Historical events or actions. Philip J Berg, Esq, on the other hand is a Lawyer and has read it. I direct you to:
http://www.americasright.com/
…where Jeff Schreiber has devoted all of his spare time to looking at the case. (Thank you beyond measure, Jeff, I don’t know where you get the time and energy. You are a hero, and Republican, or not, I hope you end up as Chief Justice.) Go to Jeff’s site, I don’t care if he’s a Republican, he’s the man who is in contact with the Court and with Berg and who breaks the news the minute it comes out.
Berg has struck back with a Procedural bombshell!
A motion requesting an immediate order deeming his request for admissions served upon Barack Obama and the DNC on September 15 admitted by default, and
B) A motion requesting an expedited ruling and/or hearing on Berg’s motion deeming the request for admissions served upon Obama and the DNC admitted.
These motions are based on Rule 36 of The Federal Code of Civil Procedure. This Rule, it seems, states that “a party upon whom requests for admissions have been served must respond, within 30 days, or else the matters in the requests will be automatically deemed conclusively admitted for purposes of the pending action.”
Needless to say, Obama and the DNC have NOT made any Legal admissions, or answers to the allegations, at all since September 15th, at least none of which Berg is aware and he should be if they have.
If Judge Surrick grants these motions, Barack Hussein Obama II is, at least temporarily, neither eligible for the Office of POTUS nor a Citizen of the United States, in Law.
They will counter with Rule 26(f), “A request for admission may only be served after the conference for the purpose of planning discovery” and 26(d) and 26(c), basically that a Motion for a Protective Order is a response to a discovery request and relieves the moving party from the obligation to respond until the motion is resolved by the Court. Or Obama and the DNC could file a motion to withdraw admissions which have been deemed admitted. In order to file a motion to withdraw admissions deemed admitted by default, a party must show (1) “good cause” regarding why there was no response and (2) that such a motion to withdraw would not cause undue prejudice to the plaintiff.
Frankly, these counters look solid until you examine the circumstances and their arguments to dismiss and their motion for a Protective Order.
Obama and the DNC have said three things. Examine their motions, I’m translating.
a) Everything Berg has alleged is “patently false”. (Motion for Dismissal)
b) There is no legal mechanism to enforce Article II of the Constitution of the United States and therefore Berg has no standing, or vice versa. (Motion for Dismissal)
c) Obama and the DNC claim, “with good cause”, that revealing the information requested by Berg through discovery would “cause a defined and serious injury.” to Obama or the DNC, raises “legitimate privacy concerns”, “poses a risk that particularly serious embarrassment will result from turning over the requested documents” and that Berg does not have standing to ask for it. (Motion for Protective Order). My major response to this consists of WTF!?!?!
Firstly nothing is “patently false” unless it is provably false by virtue of public, obtainable, widely known and demonstrable FACT. That is the definition of “Patent Falsehood” and there are NO public, obtainable, widely known and demonstrable FACTS about Senator Obama’s Citizenship at all, there are only assertions of unproven reliability. Assertion (a) is “Patently Untrue”.
On (b) Obama and the DNC MAY be correct but IF they are, explain what use the Constitution of the United States is, what purpose it serves and why people take Oaths to uphold and defend a meaningless scrap of paper.
On (c) I have this to say:
A Candidate for the Office of POTUS has, so far as I am concerned, so far as most thinking people are concerned, and as far as Berg is concerned, no Right to, or Expectation of, any form of Privacy Protection in Regard to matters pertaining to Eligibility for that Office. Not only does not have but by definition should neither Expect to have nor Claim to have. The mere assertion of such a Claim is in, and of, itself grounds for Supposition of Ineligibility. Any embarrassment, or harm, caused would be justifiable and self inflicted. This Motion teeters on the brink of an admission of guilt, in fact appears to be one, in and of itself.
Berg is asserting that in his September 15th Service on Obama and the DNC he SPECIFICALLY asked for ten Legal Admissions or Refutations and these have not been forthcoming. Instead, Obama and the DNC filed for Dismissal and a Protective Order, in other words, SPECIFICALLY refused to supply any information whatsoever. Obviously, Berg has been planning this because if Judge Surrick grants these motions, and until specific Refutation with supporting evidence is granted, Obama is Legally Admitting Ineligibility and that he is not a US Citizen, of any sort. It is ONLY a Technicality, BUT a technicality of devastating proportions. The DNC is admitting that they are fully aware of this, Legally.
I do not know what Judge Surrick will do and I’m glad I’m not him because this is a Constitutional minefield.
Obama’s Attorney is blocking every attempt to obtain information which any reasonable person would provide and could provide. The Protective Motion is a bar-room joke and the contention that the Constitutional Provision is unenforceable is an insult to the Framers and proof of my initial argument that this is an end run around the Constitution.
SEE THESE OTHER EXCLUSIVE TD ARTICLES:
Obama is Indonesian, Update by TexasDarlin (9/30/08)
Obama is Indonesian by TexasDarlin and Judah Benjamin (9/30/08)
*Breaking* Obama Admits Dual Citizenship by Judah Benjamin (9/25/08)
Photo Documents Barry Soetoro: Indonesian Citizen, Muslim Religion by TexasDarlin (8/13/08)
Kenyan Citizenship Report Debunked by TexasDarlin (8/13/08)
Obama’s Dual Citizenship Disaster by TexasDarlin (8/10/08)
The Paper Trail: Obama’s Indonesian Background by Judah Benjamin (7/29/08)
Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Citizenship Problem, Part 2 by Judah Benjamin (7/25/08)
Divided Loyalties: Obama’s Citizenship Problem, Part 1 by Judah Benjamin (7/25/08)
COPYRIGHT REMINDER: Copyright laws protect everything published on this blog. When quoting or citing our work, always provide a functional link back to this blog and cite the source, TD Blog. To re-publish any article on this blog in full, please submit a copyright request by leaving a comment.
JD,Yep
“b) There is no legal mechanism to enforce Article II of the Constitution of the United States and therefore Berg has no standing, or vice versa. (Motion for Dismissal)”
from Judah’s posting above interpreting the ObamaDNC filing
————————-
They may be correct. However, the 20th Amendment shows that it is the President elect’s duty to show qualification for the job, as it is says if the President elect cannot show qualification, then the Vice President elect shall be inaugurated :
“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; …”
My point is that the President elect has to qualify, and the onus is on the President elect to demonstrate qualification (being natural born), not for anyone else to prove that he is NOT natural born. But no means are shown for him to demonstrate qualification. This is where the contention will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. So if the Dems win the election, and the Electoral College votes for Obama, and the Senate declares Obama the President elect on 6 JAN, from 6 JAN to 20 JAN, Obama must show qualification. If not, Biden inaugurated until Obama can demonstrate qualification. Lord help us.
JLC
I’m so in love with you right now.
If not, Biden inaugurated until Obama can demonstrate qualification. Lord help us.
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! SAY IT AIN’T SO.
“LIBERTY CANNOT BE PRESERVED WITHOUT A GENERAL KNOWLEDGE AMONG THE PEOPLE, WHO HAVE A RIGHT, AN INDISPUTABLE, UNALIENABLE, INDEFEASIBLE, DIVINE RIGHT TO THAT MOST DREADED AND ENVIED KIND OF KNOWLEDGE, I MEAN THE CHARACTERS AND CONDUCT OF THEIR RULERS.”
JOHN ADAMS.
Happy Tuesday, 2 weeks to Election Day
Some of you got trapped in the Spam filter,not sure why, and I’ve tried to release your messages…
Battleground poll shows statistical tie. PUMAs and other McCain folks need to be vigilant and focused in battleground states: monitor for fraud and get out the vote. We shall NOT be suppressed.
I have no predictions for the results of the various legal actions in coming days, but believe in my heart and brain that they will ultimately prevail.
Please keep sending tips and feedback. Thank you, and have a great day.
And if Biden becomes president, wouldn’t Pelosi then be VP? Too hideous to contemplate . . .
You are doing a yeoman’s job, TD. Thank you, and others like you, for your staunch patriotism. We are much obliged!
Well well well – interesting to say the least.
Wouldn’t it be a riot if Obama got disqualified. Karma’s a bitch.
http://goldwatergirl.wordpress.com
Let’s see how far this gets….I don’t count chickens before they hatch anymore, esp. since all the crap on Bush…and all the crap so far on Obama….BUT…that doesn’t say I can’t hope…
Who’s the judge in this case>>
To JLC
XXth Amendment
“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; …”
It does not say he has to show qualification, it says he has to qualify. How can that be done, unless the qualification is challenged? Yes, people, it would mean President Biden! I’ve been trying to tell you that for months! Nobody was listening. Now think about who stands in 2012 if McCain-Palin lose and Obama wins but is disqualified. Biden will push for an Amendment changing Article II. Think about it!
Schreiber has posted a recent update. The FEC has filed a timely motion to dismiss for lack of proper jurisdiction.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Federal Election Commission Files Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Proper Jurisdiction
Just filed. I’m on it. As I get details, I’ll share them here.
http://www.americasright.com
Longtime reader and lawyer, but I’m lost. Discovery is usually only available after a court decides motions to dismiss. The defendant in this case hasn’t even filed an Answer yet and instead moved to dismiss. So, the court would never deem “requests to admit” as admitted before deciding the motion to dismiss (and i assume that Obama also filed a motion to stay discovery, which the court would have to rule on as well). Berg’s motion here is completely hopeless.
Then, if you are saying that the (b) reason is correct, and Berg has no standing, that’s ballgame. It doesn’t matter if Obama’s other arguments (the privacy argument, etc.) have no merit. The lawsuit will be dismissed. Berg looks like he’s going nowhere fast.
I’ve never seen such a prideful person as BHO.
“Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall”
The way I understand it, if a VP takes over for a P, he/she picks a new VP which must be confirmed by Congress, so the only way Pelosi gets P is if they both are gone simultaneously. All of the above scenarios scare the bejeezus out of me.
Obama’s radical Muslim ties EXPOSED AGAIN
Its just as you suspected. Check out this 4 part (35 min) interview and you’ll understand why the TD blog is DEAD ON about Obama!
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=AEC33E398F31DEC1
#13—mj
here we go again.
More technicalities blocking the truth.
When I tell my 86 year old mother why she shouldn’t vote for Obama, she says, “If that were true, it would be on the news?” I guess the country has changed in ways inconceivable to her.
It’s a disgrace.
If there is no legal way to enforce Article II, then it is effectively meaningless, which means then that anybody, whether a natural born citizen or not or even a non-citizen can run for POTUS. This case is clearly begging for a definitive Supreme Court ruling on the definition of who is a natural born citizen and how to enforce Article II.
XXth Amendment
“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; …”
It does not say he has to show qualification, it says he has to qualify. How can that be done, unless the qualification is challenged? Yes, people, it would mean President Biden! I’ve been trying to tell you that for months! Nobody was listening. Now think about who stands in 2012 if McCain-Palin lose and Obama wins but is disqualified. Biden will push for an Amendment changing Article II. Think about it!
———————————————————
Well at least it is very, very unlikely that the Dems will get 2/3 majority in both the house and senate, and that’s only the first step to a constitutional amendment. I find it even harder to believe that after that 3/4 of the states would ratify it. I believe we’re probably safe from Biden changing the constitution to allow BHO to run again in 2012.
What kind of backlash against the DNC will we see if it is shown that they knew of ineligibility and continued to let BHO campaign?
doug,
Not sure I follow you completely, but I do agree that “standing” is the central issue now. If the court agrees with Defendants on that argument, the rest of it is moot.
However, these issues on the merits will be heard one way or another, sooner or later. That’s my belief.
I also happen to agree with Judah that Berg should have standing, but I’m not confident the court will agree.
One question, though: If the court were going to dismiss based on standing, why hasn’t it done so already?
TD, Federal courts are slow. You could extend the delay on this ruling on the motion to dismiss 6 more months and it still wouldn’t qualify as out of the ordinary. The main part of my other point is that the court would never order requests to admit be admitted when the defendant has been fighting the idea that discovery is appropriate at this time and has filed a motion to dismiss on a standing issue.
The courts were never the way to fight this, it had to be done in the court of public opinion. People putting faith in Andy Martin (a serial frivolous litigant) in his new case in Hawaii will be similarly disappointed.
Direct from one of their sites, Radical Leftists planning violence, “Resistance” if McCain wins.
Note the circular, nonsensical reasoning, the “end justifies the means” non-logic. Do you sense the passion, the anger….the very real threat?
This is nothing but a threat, aimed at all of us, if the election doesn’t go as they want. Do not make the mistake of thinking this is just idle talk. Do some searches, you will find hundreds of similar articles and postings. They have been planning for months.
Read this, which is from one of their sites, and be afraid. Very afraid. Are these the kind of people we want to turn our government over to?
http://ridgeliner7.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/radical-left-planning-disruptions-resistance-if-mccain-wins/
[...] the possible citizenship/birth certificate problems of BHO. Today, Judah Benjamin has written a piece concerning Phillip Berg’s case against BHO in Philidelphia, in which Berg has filed a suit to [...]
Wow! The elitist oligarchy states that Article II of the Constitution is not enforceable! Wow! Arrogance above and beyond reproach!
But then again if the elitist oligarchy want to believe this, then I guess every single law (that most of us think unconstitutional) is not enforceable either? So my challenge to them is try and take my Bill of Rights amendments 1 through 10 away from me and see what happens….and oh by the way, the constraints you have put on them is null and void as well!!
PS: This is what we get when we keep re-electing these bozo’s due to the ‘not in my back yard’ sheeple mentality!!
Doug,
I fully expect the court to dismiss Bergs case, and I don’t know whether Berg himself will prevail with any court in this particular action, although I know he’ll appeal.
However, I disagree with you about use of the courts in Obama’s case. While I agree that the court of public opinion is fundamental, I also believe in the Rule of Law, and I maintain that there is a sound set of legal issues regarding Obama’s eligibility that should be resolved by the courts. At minimum, these lawsuits are important if they will help flush out the files of Obama’s life, which he has concealed.
The enemies or detractors of the United States would love to see the breakup of the Union and a second US Civil War.
If Obama had any respect at all for the country and democracy he would comply with the requests for his actual Birth Certificate and other records, before the election.
Does he really think his supporters will stand with him as he drags us into bitter internal disputes endangering our national security at such a crucial time?
Our biggest enemy is within.
via wiki:
and
By this reasoning, how can the FEC comply with or maintain campaign finance laws without proper and confirmable vetting of the candidate?
Pass the buck logic.
Call the Judge and ask why he hasn’t ruled on the Berg v. Obama Lawsuit. The more calls they receive the faster there will be movement on this pending case.
Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
601 Market Street, Room 8614
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Deputy clerk: Michael Finney (267) 299-7639
Secretary: Donna Donahue (267) 299-7631
To follow the case online, you will need to first call 1-800-676-6856 where you will get a PACER password/ID that you will use on http://www.ecf.paed.uscourts.gov .
If for any reason the Manchurian Candidate, Obama, is out, I’m cool with all the riots in the world, and all the Biden there is. Bring it on!
No-one want Obama ended more that me but:
1) This judge is not going to issue a landmark ruling throwing an election into turmoil over a technicality over a deadline if he has a way around it, and he does.
2) In the 20th amendment, the term “qualify” does not mean what most of you are taking it to mean. it does not mean meeting the requirements of Article II. It refers to elctoral college action.
That said, if this can get to scotus in time, I think they have to deal with Article II. They can’t very well say let’s just set Article II aside for this election. But they could let is slide past the election in which case, if Obama wins Biden gets inaugurated.
I think the Hawaii case has a much better chance of producing results before the election. Still, I think McCain is going to have to win at the polls not in the courts. I just wish the voters could know more about what is going on before they vote.
From the FEC answer, here’s the REAL reason Obama didn’t accept public funding:
“Although the Commission determines whether certain presidential candidates are eligible for public funding . . .”
TD – I wouldn’t get too excited about anything that Berg says. From what I’ve seen, he isn’t that great of a lawyer, particularly when it comes to these points of procedure
If anything big comes out of this morass before election day, it won’t be because of Berg. He doesn’t know what he’s doing. Even if he did, the courts, by their very nature, are a slow process. This is somewhat by design. (Seriously). They won’t even address the real issue before November 4, let alone resolve it.
The big revelation, if it happens, will not be a court order, but rather a discovery of fact. Maybe it’s Corsi in Kenya finding documentation there. Maybe it’s Martin getting his hands a Hawaii document, or bringing to light that none exists. Or, maybe it’s an as yet unknown party who’s been sitting on this for a while waiting to tip their hand. Whatever the case, it won’t be a court that keeps Obama out of the White House.
Now, here’s the tragic part… Assuming that it’s revealed that he’s not a citizen, I’m not sure that anybody that matters will care. Federal law enforcement and other agencies (FBI, FEC) have already taken a pass on the issue. Government is never compelled to act in a case like this. They’ll go along to get along. You know the Obama supporters won’t care. They’ll probably love him more and herald him as a true American success story. Worse yet, anybody opposing Obama, if they were vilified before, will then be demonized. By opposing Obama the illegal alien, we won’t just be racists, we’ll be xenophobes, too.
I know, I know… I’m a cynic.
Also, for whoever suggested that ousting Obama would result in a VP Pelosi; that’s incorrect. Speaker of the House is second in line for the presidency; that does not make them first in line for the vice presidency. In the case of a VP vacancy, the position would be filled by appointment. (See Gerald Ford)
Andy Martin is in Hawaii pursuing Obama’s COLB at this very moment. He is being met with the same road blocks by the Obamamaniacs. He has filed a lawsuit against the State of Hawaii requesting a copy of his COLB. I spoke with him via e-mail about an hour ago, and he is still digging away at Obama’s history. Why is Obama going through so much trouble to obscure his past from the America people, why all the lies, and secrecy? I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m really beginning to believe the rumor that Obama is the Muslim Trojan horse, trained from the cradle to destroy America. Biden is warning America in his own way, but I wonder if we are just too dumb to listen. Six months from now we may not recognize America if Obama is elected. Obama, aided by the sycophantic MSN has managed to hide his true agenda from America.
Get out and vote America, your country hangs in the balance!
I just read NoQuarter blog’s explanation about the “Whitey Tape” and why it won’t surface during this election. He said that his contact said that McCain saw it and decided not to use it.
This, to me, is the essence of the difference between McCain and Obama. McCain is not going to risk setting off a firestorm of racial discord in this country in order to win an election. As usual, he is putting his country first. On the other hand, I am certain beyond any doubt that if Obama had a tape with Cindy McCain railing against blacks (which of course she would never do) he would use it in a second. He has already demonstrated that he will pull the race card at every opportunity. This is the choice we have–the true patriot or the guy who will do ANYTHING (including forgery and thuggery) to win the white house.
I know this is off limits but I saw over at Obama files that API is making a deal with Fox News?
Oh, My, API is apparently not done jerking us around..
They now claim that they are in “serious negotiations” with FOX for release of the tape of Michelle Obama admitting Barack’s Indonesian citizenship on the same day it was reported she ordered a 2-lobster snack from the Waldorf Astoria (the snack story still unverified).
*Sigh*
Ya know, it would be wonderful if API ends up having a tape but the longer they wait to disclose it, the less impact it will have. And if they have it, why not release it on their own website as a copyrighted audio file?
Seems that we’re inching back towards that *twilight zone* again.
on October 21, 2008 at 3:37 pm
11 Judah Benjamin
XXth Amendment
“If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; …”
It does not say he has to show qualification, it says he has to qualify. How can that be done, unless the qualification is challenged? Yes, people, it would mean President Biden! I’ve been trying to tell you that for months! Nobody was listening. Now think about who stands in 2012 if McCain-Palin lose and Obama wins but is disqualified. Biden will push for an Amendment changing Article II. Think about it!
———————————————–
Judah,
Not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the correct suit would be one to block inauguration of the President elect because he hasn’t qualified himself. Clearly there is standing for this action, although the standing for Berg and Martin looks very doubtful.
My point is that there is no mechanism per the 20th amendment to disqualify a President elect, but rather only a means to prevent inauguration if he hasn’t qualified himself. The court entertaining this suit would evaluate the evidence presented by the President elect to qualify himself to decide if it is was sufficient to prove qualification (natural born citizen, age 35+, residence in US 14+ yrs).
Political realities prevent the amendment to the Constitution that you suggest.
JLC
Miri Comment #31
I like your thinking…did Obama decline public funding through the FEC because he could not qualify?
Anyone know what would qualify a candidate for funding and how that would have to be proved/presented to the FEC?
QUOTE: My point is that there is no mechanism per the 20th amendment to disqualify a President elect, but rather only a means to prevent inauguration if he hasn’t qualified himself. The court entertaining this suit would evaluate the evidence presented by the President elect to qualify himself to decide if it is was sufficient to prove qualification (natural born citizen, age 35+, residence in US 14+ yrs).
Political realities prevent the amendment to the Constitution that you suggest.
JLC
END QUOTE
BINGO! And that’s precisely what they are counting on!
Public funding is available to duly nominated candidates.
To be eligible for public funds, a Presidential candidate or a party convention committee must first submit a letter of agreement and a written certification in which the candidate or committee agrees to:
* Spend public funds only for campaign-related expenses or, in the case of a party convention, for convention-related expenses;
* Limit spending to amounts specified by the campaign finance law;
* Keep records and, if requested, supply evidence of qualified expenses;
* Cooperate with an audit of campaign or convention expenses;
* Repay public funds, if necessary; and
* Pay any civil penalties imposed by the FEC.
Primary candidates must additionally certify that they have met the “threshold requirement” for eligibility by raising in excess of $5,000 in each of 20 states (see “Primary Matching Funds,” above). A candidate may satisfy eligibility requirements and submit private contributions for matching payments any time after January 1 of the year before a Presidential general election. Actual payments are not made, however, until after January 1 of the Presidential election year.
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml
Since the OMSM is taking a pass on reporting these lawsuits, then it has to be up to either the McCain campaign or the RNC to get the word out. They don’t have to make any claims of fact. All they have to do is report this:
********
Lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts, requesting that Barack Obama prove that he is qualified to be President of the United States under the tests set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
To date, Barack Obama has not produced the documents that will prove his age, his place of birth, or his citizenship status.
Instead, he has sent lawyers to request dismissal of the lawsuit. Or to claim that the plaintiff does not have standing. Or to delay the case.
WHY?
Why do the mainstream media refuse to report about these numerous lawsuits?
Why do they dismiss the concerns of many ordinary citizens who expect Barack Obama to answer these questions about his qualifications?
If Barack Obama indeed passes the requirements, as set forth in the Constitution, then why won’t he prove it by supplying to the courts all requested documentation?
Ordinary people must present identification and proof of citizenship at many times throughout their lives.
Why, then, does Barack Obama apparently believe that the Constitution and our laws do not apply to him?
************
Today, I received two flyers in the mail. One from a state Republican committee and another from the RNC. Both did a fabulous job of laying out exactly who William Ayers and Bernadette Dorhn are and why Obama’s long-standing relationship with them MATTERS. These mailings are relatively cheap. Therefore, it’s crucial that they also send out a similar flyer, explaining these questions about Obama’s inability (or refusal) to prove (or not) that he is a natural born citizen.
on October 21, 2008 at 4:40 pm30 Shiloh :
…2) In the 20th amendment, the term “qualify” does not mean what most of you are taking it to mean. it does not mean meeting the requirements of Article II. It refers to elctoral college action.
————————————
Shiloh,
May I ask you for your references for this statement? I thought that “qualify” referred to qualifications specified in Article II.
JLC
buddy: It was speculated by many people that one reason why Obama refused public funding was because the FEC would ask him to prove that he qualifies to receive it.
If he’s not qualified to run for POTUS, and he knows it, and if he accepts public money, any taxpayer (probably, I’m no lawyer) can sue him for fraud. That’s what was put forward, anyway.
It’s interesting to see the FEC confirm their role in this. Perhaps BO’s people wanted to keep the FEC out of that aspect of his campaign. This may be ONE reason why he WENT BACK ON HIS PROMISE to accept public funding. I don’t remember, but I would bet that he made that pledge prior to all these questions surfacing about his birth certificate (or lack thereof).
The way I read it, the FEC ought to be up to their eyeballs in investigations of the amazing number of questionable campaign donations that he has accepted. (See previous threads concerning his “allegedly” illegal campaign monies.)
Perhaps the judge is going to run out the clock.
On another note, I want to wish Obama’s grandmother a speedy recovery. I heard that it was a broken hip.
You guys forget – Fox News is in negotiation to release the Michelle Obama tapes within the next two days – this is from API. Now you know they have more tapes then this.
Obama (nor Biden) will be President. I guarantee tat.
Speculating about the outcome of a lawsuit is much like speculating about the outcome of a coming ballgame between hated rivals. All we have to do is wait to find out the result. Just as there is no way to reasonably apply “usual” waiting periods to a case that is so obviously not usual, there is no was to predict what a court will do.
We’ll know when we know.
Decisions are decisions once rendered and not before (aren’t we saying the same thing about the election and “polls” — which are only an informed — many times misinformed — type of speculation).
And facts are facts when they are known. As in the case of the mythical (maybe) API and the infamous recording. It’s either there or it isn’t. It will come out or it won’t.
Same with the now infamous “whitey” tape. Appreciate Larry keeping up with this but, if it exists, I don’t think it would really be up to McCain whether or not it would see the light of day. He didn’t tape it. It’s not his. He does not have custody and control over all copies (or, if he does, nobody’s said so).
I have a theory, which I call the “Need to Tell” theory. There are some secrets that are conveyed on a “Need to Know” basis. I believe there are some secrets that are just so significant (and hot) that they’re impossible to keep under cover. Example: The notion that the entire LAPD, within minutes of discovery of the bodies of OJ’s ex and her friend had entered into a joint conspiracy to pin the killings on OJ (for reasons never explained) and that the fact of this grand conspiracy would never leak, ever. Not possible. This “tape” falls into the same category. There is a “Need to Tell” syndrome. Which is why you should always be careful when telling someone, “I’m going to tell you this but you can NEVER breathe a word to anyone.” You’re going to get something juicy, I imagine. But, then what. What if it’s so juicy that it’s impossible to keep a secret. The great lies always leak. There is not way such a tape, if it existed, would never surface simply because McCain had decided “not to use it.” Not saying that wouldn’t be his feelings (he’s almost too honorable for his own good — or ours). Only that its not totally his call unless he personally has the only copy of this tape taped into his underwear.
So, hey, things might come out, or not. Berg might get a ruling, could be good, bad, half good, 2/3 bad, who knows.
Meanwhile, my experience suggests that, if something comes out, result or fact, it will be something nobody’s focused on at the moment. Or not. That’s why they play the game, have the campaign, hold an election, to see what happens.
Is there a point?
Yes.
Speculation about Berg, Grandma, Hawaii and the rest is just that, speculation. Those leads are being followed. TD is on it. LS is on it. And others.
My question I try to ask myself each day:
What can I DO TODAY to help win this election.
The call for organizers to head out into the states has gone out from the campaign. Can you take a few days off? Have you done this before, anything like this? Can you help?
Can you contribute? Yes, money is very very important.
13 (or 14 depending on you you count) days until the election. How about $1 for each day, or $5 for each day ($65) or $10 for each day ($130).
Let’s DO something.
That’s what McCain and Palin do. Walk the walk.
Stand up!!!!
This question to Doug and all those knowledgable.
Why Berg does not have standing and what does it mean?
I think that the judge will purposely do nothing until after the election. Judges prefer not to have to decide anything. Trust me, I spent 8 years in family court with custody issues and anytime the judge didn’t have to be involved, he would push for a negotiation or some other entity to get put into the mix. I think this judge will see what the outcome of the election is. Why? If Obama loses it is a non issue anyway. The case disappears. No harm, no foul, legally speaking. Do I hope it is addressed before? Yes. I never want to see this happen again. Hopefully either way, we as Americans will vet the candidates and file these lawsuits much earlier and in every state! Judges want to be the last resort.
#41 Miri;
It has been reported
Of the 1,143,358 resident and active attorneys in the United States.
Obama selected Joe Sandler, of the Washington law firm Sandler, Reiff, and Young to represent him in this filing.
Sandler is the legal hit-man for the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
Sandlers role for CAIR has been to intimidate people who dare to expose the goals and actions of Radical Muslims.
Why would Obama hire a muslim lawyer IF he was a christian?
#47 DeppDogg,
Well said!
Can I play devil’s advocate here for a moment? I want Obama to turn over citizenship records, so my comment is not against Berg’s lawsuit.
God knows I know what it’s like to go up against the government, along with Senators, Congressmen and our Governor. I commend him for what he’s trying to do, but I’m concerned about who is behind his efforts.
Now comes the idea that will probably get me flamed, but just remember, I’m only concerned about the outcome of the election because of what Obama stands for, and because I am in a lawsuit that involves the current administration. I would gladly see them out of office because of their corporate ties.
What if these lawsuits/blogs challenging McCain’s and Obama’s citizenship is being done to disrupt the election process and keep the current administration in power? If there are challenges with both candidates, could the Bush administration put a hold on the election, pending the outcome of the cases?
Or, to challenge Obama’s citizenship to get him removed so Hillary can step in?
If so, wouldn’t that be an excellent strategy for someone like Hillary to put Berg up to? What about any PAC ties with Berg? Are there any?
I am not bringing these issues up because I want Berg to fail. I don’t. What scares me is how this election is so different from any other, that I think people will do whatever it takes to disrupt it.
Also, it’s to my understanding that Obama did answer Berg’s complaint in a timely manner. A motion to dismiss is an answer, isn’t it?
Can Bush step in and stop the election and stay in power?
Amazing New Audio Surfaces… Ayers Says Everyone In His Office Knew He Was Terrorist-Marxist
Not only did Obama lie about his relationship with Bill Ayers, he also was not honest about what he knew about Bill Ayers.
In this amazing new video, Bill Ayers says in 2002 that everyone he worked with knew he was a radical Marxist- that he didn’t hide anything:
READ MORE…PLUS AUDIO
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/amazing-new-ayers-audio-surfaces-he.html#comments
stevec: I think you know the answer to that one.
My understanding of the FRCP; Defendant has to respond within the time stipulated and answer to the specifics brought up by the plaintiff.
Along with the Answer, Defendant can file a Motion to dismiss and an Order for Dismissal.
However, Obama and the DNC, did not answer (respond) to Berg’s specifics no even affirmative defense.
My take on that move is that, they did not want to admit the truth; much less deny the truth that would hunt them back as the lawsuit moves forward.
They are just filing motions and see what sticks.
Another attorney here agreeing with doug above. Anyone pining their hopes on Berg is going to be disappointed.
DeppDogg: You say, “And facts are facts when they are known.” Right. As if there are “facts” anymore.
After our experience with this election, “Fact Check”, mutable “facts” in answer to “smears” on BO’s website, as well as the OMSM’s version of “facts”, do we need a new definition of the word? I think so.
Here’s an example of a mutable fact. It was reported today by somebody that his grandmother’s birthday is Saturday. Wikipedia says it’s Sunday. I just heard on FOX News that her birthday is “tomorrow”.
I also heard that he’s going “home” tomorrow. (Right. Where exactly IS home? Isn’t that what we have been trying to discover?)
Yet, didn’t previous reports say he’s going to Hawaii on Thursday?
It’s like with his mother. Some say that she was 57 when she died. Others say 54. It’s crazy. Someone’s birthday does not change. It is what it is.
Yet EVERYTHING about Obama is mutable, changeable, like a chameleon. Slippery like an eel.
Is there such a thing as a “fact” anymore? I wonder.
SharkGirl #52
My “troll” radar went off when I read your message but, never mind, I’ll address your “concerns” anyway:
No, Berg is not backed by any secret interests. He was/is a Hillary supporter and when he initiated the lawsuit, yes, I’m sure that he hoped to see Obama disqualified in time for Hillary to secure the nomination. But he is not backed by or affiliated with the Clinton campaign, or any other political interests.
Secondly, NO, Obama and the DNC did not respond to the substantive claims in the complaint. I believe that they assumed that their motion to dismiss would be granted in a timely manner and that they would not need to bother with answering the actual allegations.
Bethany,
I don’t think anyone is “pinning their hopes” on Berg’s lawsuit. We are watching it with interest, however, because it has merit. I have said over and over again that I believe the issues in Berg’s lawsuit will ultimately be adjudicated, whether it happens in a trial court, the Supreme Court, with a different Plaintiff, at a different time….All of that is within the realm of possibility.
I endorse DeppDogg’s message, and believe that people should be taking action to get McCain-Palin elected. That includes phone-banking, poll-watching, GOTV activities, etc. If you want to prevent an Obama win, each and every person must take individual responsibility for achieving that goal.
The reason why his mothers age of death is in question is how many jackal years = a human year?
As I looked at my Birth Certificate, I noticed my county of birth: Bronx, City of Birth: New York, Mother’s Name: Maureen. Then I saw an interesting line, RELIGION. Then I thought, where else might your ‘religion’ be documented? How about a College application? How about Scholarship applications? Medical Records. Certain paperworks which Obama and camp are refusing to release.
I don’t think Obama is constitutionally unqualified. I think he fears an admission to a certain religion will derail his campaign
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2111409/posts
Senator Obama Signed a CONTRACT WITH THE CHICAGO SOCIALIST PARTY
Yid with Lid | October 8 2008 | Yid with Lid
Posted on Tuesday, October 21, 2008 3:18:49 PM by American in Israel
Senator Obama Signed a CONTRACT WITH THE CHICAGO SOCIALIST PARTY
Everything on the Post Below is Hyperlinked to a site within the Chicago Democratic party archives, there is no conjecture, no guessing, The fact is that as recently as 1996 Senator Obama was an active member of the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party:
On their website the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) has a description of their political perspective called Where We Stand. It says, in part,
We are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo.
We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.
At least according to its newsletter called the New Ground ,Senator Barack Obama attended at least a few meetings of the Chicago Chapter of this group in 1996. And from the way he was described in the newsletter he “talked the talk” and “walked the walk”
New Ground 45
March – April, 1996
In July-August 1996 the Socialist Party celebrated Obama’s Primary victory:
Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis. Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration. Folks this is Scary. Barack Obama is not an extreme Liberal. Hillary Clinton is an Extreme liberal. Barack Obama is a Socialist. He campaigned on their ticket, signed their contracts and attended their meetings. Is that guilt by association, YOU BETCHA. But there is an old Yiddish saying, ” you lie down with dogs, you are going to get fleas.”
texasdarlin, I am on the same side of those that are concerned with Obama’s citizenship. I can assure you I am not a troll.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat and cross party lines to vote for whom I agree with. I can see many do the same, being a Democrat but supporting McCain/Palin.
I don’t claim to know how the motion to dismiss works, but it’s to my understanding Obama doesn’t have to respond to the complaint’s allegation until the court rules on the motion. I’m not trying to protect Obama, in the least. I’m just trying to understand the case.
Personally, I find it appalling that a lawsuit was needed to challenge this, and that a motion to dismiss was entered. I would rather he would have just submitted the proof and put everyone’s questions at rest. All his actions do is create more questions, at least for me.
I support McCain/Palin. I just have so many questions about this election, as does every one else.
By the way, thank you for answering my questions.
With regards to the actions of Obama, the DNC and now the FEC, what we are seeing here is essentially an amendment to the Constitution nullifying Article II by default simply by removing any way of enforcing it with their motions for dismissal on the grounds that no one has any standing to challenge a candidates’ eligibility to the presidency. The Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves in horror at what the Democratic Party has inflicted upon the nation with their violations of the Constitution.
Today, the NY Post said that their story on Michelle, about the room service lobster, cavier etc…wasn’t true. They are really ticked off with their “source” about the disinformation.
TD, You’ve got great radar when it comes to detecting BS.
Have any of you heard that Andy Martin is in Hawaii and according to an email that I got from Andy a few minutes ago? Andy said that Obama is going to Hawaii because the judge is supposed to make a ruling on Friday regarding Andy’s lawsuit . Andy has requested an emergency opening of the Obama’s birth certificate record.
Math Nerd
Regarding this part of your post:
Now, here’s the tragic part… Assuming that it’s revealed that he’s not a citizen, I’m not sure that anybody that matters will care. Federal law enforcement and other agencies (FBI, FEC) have already taken a pass on the issue. Government is never compelled to act in a case like this. They’ll go along to get along.
When the truth comes out, either prior to or after the election, I think the vast majority of Americans will be shocked and outraged. This will go down and history as the biggest fraud and cover up in American history. I think that his hardcore base . . . the heaviest kool-aid drinkers . . . will stay with him.
We’ve already heard threats of violence should Obama lose the election, and I think it would be worse if he actually wins the election and is later determined to be ineligible. Can you imagine how the extreme Obot would react if their Messiah actually wins the election, but is forced out due to some legal technicality and a little document called the Constitution?
I think the public outcry would be so massive that even the Democratic Congress would be forced to impeach, and his cronies in Congress would run away from him faster than the Road Runner.
I think the degree to which the country would be ripped to shreds depends a lot on how Obama himself handles the crises. Would he take responsibility for his actions and go gracefully – or would he play the victim and ramp up his supporters emotions even more?
Get serious – there is NO Hawaii Birth Certificate!
I was talking to an Obama backer and I asked – why doesn’t he just release it. After I swatted down a feeble COLB argument, he said – why should he have to show it?
Well, I say, don’t you think the fact that millions of voters believe he doesn’t have it and he is trying to become an illegal president enough reason? What possible reason can there be for not tamping down a huge controversy headed to the supreme court, with a simple act like verifying his birth?
There simply is no answer to this question, but I fear the election may actually come and go without the mass of voters thinking about it.
SharkGirl: I don’t think that you have to worry about W staying in the Oval Office. Up until this economic crisis, he seemed happier than I’ve seen him since 9/11. He seemed ebullient, probably because he is SO looking forward to passing the reins to someone else and retiring to wherever he’s going after Jan. 20, 2009.
Can you imagine what it’s been like for him over the past 8 years, especially since 9/11? It’s bad enough to have to fight stateless terrorists, on multiple fronts, without having to also take a daily beating from the MSM AND political opponents.
After what you’ve seen the OMSM dish out to every one of Obama’s opponents, including former media darlings Hillary Clinton and John McCain, do you now have even a tiny clue what Bush has had to endure?
And yet he has endured it. He’s taken a daily drubbing BECAUSE he has put his country and his duty to keep us safe FIRST.
He does not give a rat’s behind what the media thinks of him. Thank God.
I think that Biden’s “gaffe” yesterday was simply his way of warning everybody that Obama just might end up pursuing the EXACT SAME COURSE that Bush has followed since 9/11.
We can only HOPE that BO will not sell us out. Biden may be perfectly sincere in his belief that we can count upon Obama to keep us safe. I, however, do not want to take that chance. Nothing in his background is reassuring. Nothing that he’s said is reassuring. For God’s sake, he promises to meet with terrorists unconditionally and also to side with the Muslims. What else need he say? CAIR lawyer aside.
I don’t think this blog “flames” people. So far, this has been a forum where everybody has been allowed to speak his or her mind. If anybody will be flamed, it will probably be me for trying to defend Bush.
On another thread, I was defending John Ashcroft, who was also extremely unfairly savaged and mischaracterized by the MSM. The man is too good for his own good. That’s exactly WHY he put his country before his own career and accepted the probably illegal “election” of Mrs. Carnahan. He did not want to create a Constitutional crisis, either in MO or in the US Senate.
Think about it. Do you think that Hillary Clinton, John McCain, John Ashcroft, Sarah Palin, and Joe the Plumber are the only people that the MSM have mischaracterized and unfairly trashed?
You said, “What scares me is how this election is so different from any other.”
But it is NOT so different from any other. This situation has been creeping up on us since at least 2000.
ACORN has been pulling their stunts since their inception. In MO. In other states. They have gotten a slap on the wrist in previous cases because of political correctness on the part of (sometimes partisan) prosecutors and election officials. Do you think that Secretary of State in Ohio is an exception? People have looked the other way and ignored violations of the LAW, when it benefited their party. Now that their ox is being gored, they’re singing another tune.
As Joe the Plumber so aptly said yesterday, “principles MATTER.”
In many cases, numerous ACORN violations were simply ignored because for the most part ACORN is an African-American organization. ACORN counts upon people being afraid to be called racists, xenophobes, etc.
Elected officials, who are supposed to enforce the law, sometimes fear to because they might lose votes among certain constituencies. It’s blackmail, plain and simple. Something that people like Jesse Jackson and ACORN have honed to a fine point. Witness the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/subprime lending crisis, aided and abetted by BO.
BECAUSE these tactics have worked in the past, they have become more prevalent and more blatant every election. It’s like the old saw, “Give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
Can you explain to me why in HELL Hillary Clinton WENT ALONG WITH those caucuses being STOLEN from her, via ACORN/Chicago thug/SDS/Weatherman techniques? I’d love to know. Wouldn’t you?
Tony Stark #19,
I agree. It’s time for a Constitutional clarification on Article II.
To Doug
The key word in all that you have said is “usually”. This is not a usual case, by anyone’s definition, nor is it bounded by quite the same circumstances as the McCain cases. I’d say the FEC is absolutely correct in claiming it is none of their business and in fact I have always said it isn’t, at least I hope I have because I’ve always been aware that was the case. As for Berg’s standing to bring the Case, that is the business of Judge Surrick and I can’t second guess him and neither can anyone else. If he decides against Berg there will be an Appeal. Then another Judge will have to reach a conclusion. I believe it should go before the Supreme Court, but then again I’ve always believed that.
If you are an Attorney, I’m surprised you did not notice the mention of Rule 26, or exactly quote it yourself, Obama’s Lawyer will, for sure, because Lawyers are crawling out of the woodwork to cite same all over the blogosphere.
Important point here, I don’t agree with large chunks of what Berg alleges but I’ve never made the mistake of thinking he is in the habit of making basic mistakes on Law, even if he can’t read a calendar. If you think he is, I suspect you are in for a surprise. Berg’s record tells me that he is far from incompetent and not prone to give in. Good Trial Lawyers are always eccentric and Berg is no exception. You seem to think he is an idiot, rather than an eccentric. Would you go into Court if you thought you couldn’t make a case for Standing? Would you file a motion you were certain would fail? Why are Obama’s Lawyers playing a blocking game if Berg has no case or standing?
The mere fact that you think you can win doesn’t mean that you can, Berg knows that if anyone does. The case can be tossed and quite likely will be, but at least he’s fighting it. If Berg, or I, thought like you there would be no case at all. To paraphrase Robert E Howard’s Bran Mak Morn, in ‘Worms of the Earth’
“Ha! There are no legal weapons we would not use against Obama! Our backs are at the wall. By the blood of the fiends, has Obama fought us, or anyone else, fair in his whole life? Bah!”.
I have a long article coming up which you might care to read and comment on. I’d like a Lawyer’s opinion.
Two final questions, Do you believe Barack Hussein Obama II is a Natural Born Citizen of these United States, in terms of Article II of the Constitution? What do you think of Aleinikoff’s position?
To Shiloh
Actually ‘qualify’ here means both things, if you read up on the History of the period. If Berg, or I, accepted your overall view, or if Andy Martin accepted your overall view, there would be no Cases in progress. I agree with your specific view that Judge Surrick will probably try to find a way not to give a landmark ruling. However, I remember you telling me that this would NEVER get to the Supreme Court. You did so in exactly those terms, as I recall. I’ve always said it needs to go to the SCOTUS and we need to vote against him. I wouldn’t rely on Andy Martin’s Case to yield anything more than contributory evidence because it is exclusively designed to do that. Are you coming round to agreeing with my basic premise?
To Math Nerd
Actually you’re wrong about Berg’s record, its rather a good one up to the Truthers and Bush-RICO fiascos. Having said that, I personally think that, at the least, some of what was in his Initial Motion was absolute nonsense. Of course the Courts are a slow process and I, for one, never supposed that an action commenced August 21st could yield a definitive result by November 4th, anyone who thought otherwise would be wrong. However, a good interim result will do just fine. After all, if on Inauguration Day Obama has still failed to pony up any proof of Citizenship and the case is still in Court there would appear to be good XXth Amendment Cause for him to be unable to take Office.
To JLC
I agree, and I didn’t say an Amendment would be passed. I said Biden would push for one. Oh, and the 2012 Candidate I am talking about isn’t BHO II. If he loses he will not, repeat will not, still be on the political scene in the USA in 2012, of that I am sure.
To all
I wish Madelyn Dunham good health but her condition can’t be that bad or they wouldn’t have released her from Hospital last week. Don’t believe me?
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810210360
h/t “The Truth”.
Brenda #68,
Andy said in his release earlier today that he will be leaving Hawaii on Wednesday night. He said “Is Obama trying to avoid me? (We leave Honolulu Wednesday night and he arrives “Thursday.”) ”
Did he change his plans? I sent him an email suggesting that he reamin in Hawaii and welcome (surprise) Obama when he comes off of the plane.
#47 DeppDogg
The call for organizers to head out into the states has gone out from the campaign. Can you take a few days off? Have you done this before, anything like this? Can you help?
I flipped over to MSNBC this morning to see if they were covering the latest big Biden Gaffe. They were. But Chuck Todd comes on, and he emphatically states that the GOP has “no ground game” in any state. Although Todd didn’t give the source of this information, it was still distressing to hear.
In past elections, it always seems the Dems will beat the trash can lid with a club loudly and pretty much “talk” a good ground game – but when election day arrives it’s always the GOP voters who are more dependable, and their GOTV organization is always superior.
Is this simply more spin meant to demoralize McCain supporters? I find it hard to believe that the GOP would find themselves in this situation, given the fact that they had those extra months in the Spring while Hillary and Odrama battled each other.
TJ,
Great post and find!
A new poll has been released by the leftist Gannett News Service, that was done by the Military Times, which they own.
McCain is favored 3 to 1 over Obama!
http://tinyurl.com/5erag5
Hey Judah, a great investigatory job. Kudos to you!
But, there’s more information that you may wish to share:
Is Your Child a U.S. Citizen if Born Abroad?
Author(s): Michelle Kaminsky, Esq.
It is estimated that between 4 and 10 million U.S. citizens live abroad. And, some of these Americans have children in their current home country. Does being born in a foreign country mean these children can never fully enjoy Fourth of July fireworks, the right to vote, or the chance to become President?
Like many things, it depends on the circumstances. Typically, a child born in a foreign country with one U.S. citizen parent is entitled to American citizenship. Of course, Uncle Sam has set up more hoops in some situations than in others. Your local embassy or consulate is the best resource for answers about this bureaucratic circus.
And for those of you who think you aren’t affected by the information that follows, consider that you just may find be enjoying a nice overseas vacation when your new diaper-wearing traveling companion decides to join you.
First, let’s start off with a quick lesson on U.S. citizenship. America follows the English common law rule of “right of soil.” In short, citizenship is determined by one’s place of birth. As such, those born in the U.S. or its territories (like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam), are American citizens regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
What you might not know is the borders for citizenship. Those born within U.S. ports and harbors or within 12 nautical miles of U.S. borders are also American citizens. Even babies born on planes flying over the U.S. or its territories acquire U.S. citizenship. The ship or plane’s country of origin makes no difference regarding citizenship.
However, U.S. installations in foreign countries are not considered part of the United States. So, delivering a baby at a U.S. naval base or embassy in a foreign country does not entitle the baby to U.S. citizenship.
Although the “citizenship by birth” rules have been complex, the February 2001 Child Citizenship Act (CCA) simplified the process. Now, a child who is under the age of 18, was born outside the U.S., and has at least one U.S. citizen parent automatically acquires U.S. citizenship upon entry into the country as an immigrant. No further paperwork is necessary. The parent may request a Certificate of Citizenship and U.S. Passport for the child if proof of the baby’s American-ness is desired.
But this process only applies to children permanently residing in the U.S. If the child is under 18, was born outside the United States, but lives abroad in the physical and legal custody of a U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent, the parent or grandparent must apply for naturalization of the child. In addition, more criteria must be met.
The U.S. citizen parent or grandparent must have been physically present in the U.S. for five years before the child’s birth, at least two of which were after age fourteen. Further, the child must be temporarily present in the U.S. for the naturalization process and to recite the oath of allegiance. Of course, if the child is too young to understand the oath, this requirement may be waived.
At this naturalization ceremony, the foreign-born, foreign-resident babies gain not only a certificate of citizenship but also membership into an exclusive club. The Constitution rules that only “natural born” citizens can hold our highest office, so it seems these new Americans won’t grow up to be President either. The regulations suggest parents who contemplate baby’s future run for the White House may want to consider permanent residence in the United States after the birth of little George or Hilary.
As with other areas of immigration and naturalization in this post-9/11 world, the guidelines change often. As such, these rules only apply to those children born on or after the effective date of the CCA. The law in place at the time of the child’s birth governs immigration, so research carefully.
If you are expecting a child abroad and want to be sure of your baby’s citizenship, check with your local embassy for the latest laws. In any case, you should register your child’s birth with the embassy as soon as possible as the first step in establishing your child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth.
Also, you’ll be on your way to making sure you and your child can wave the Stars and Stripes next Fourth of July, vote together when the little one is 18, and perhaps, if you’ve thought ahead, tread the campaign trail.
See: LegalZoom.com , at: http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/born-abroad-child-still-citizen%20.html
Walid Shoeback explains in four parts on YouTube why/how Obama cannot possibly be a US Citizen; this is part 2, there are four parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJsJPjHbin8&feature=related
Walid Shoeback was training to be a terrorist; he became a Christian, and has on line a DVD that is entitled: What the West Needs To Know.
This guy is a must see!
Here is part 3 of 4 of Walid Shoeback on Barack
Does anyone know why the conservative media is not covering this for example Hannity or Rush Limbaugh? I watch and listen to these program daily and haven’t heard a peep.
This is part 1 of 4 of Walid Shoeback’s presentation about Barack Hussein Obama.
Listen to them all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWH9P57qg3k
and here is #4
Why does Obama need to appear in person in the Hawaii Supreme Court?
Can’t his lawyer do what is necessary without him?
Or, is there more to his being there? Was he issued a subpoena to appear? Must he certify some document as true?
Now, I’m not an attorney, but I do own a copy of Edward S. Corwin’s “The Constitution and What It Means Today”, 14th edition. As to Article II, Section 5 it states:
All Presidents since, and including Martin Van Buren, except his immediate successor, William Henry Harrison, having been born in the United States subsequently to the Declaration of Independence, have been “natural-born” citizens of the United States, the earlier ones having been born subjects of the King of Great Britain. The question, however, has been frequently mooted, whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural-born citizen” in the sense of this clause. Although the courts have never been called upon to decide the question, there is a substantial body of authoritative opinion supporting the position that they are. It should be borne in mind that the term used is “natural-born” and not “native-born”.
The footnote to this paragraph states:
…When George Romney announced his candidacy for the Presidency in 1967, he said the question had been studied by several law firms and there was no question that as the son of Americans he was a “natural-born” American even though he was born in Mexico. New York Times, Nov 19, 1967.
Now, as I said, I am not an attorney, but it seems to me from reading the above that Obama’s birthplace has been a non-issue from the start, unless only having one American parent makes a difference. If it is a non-issue, then all these lawsuits demanding the release of Obama’s birth certificate are likewise irrelevant.
I’ve thought from the beginning that the most likely event to cause Obama to not be an American citizen today was his 1981 trip to Pakistan because of the unlikelihood of his being granted entry with an American passport. Obama may have used an Indonesian passport for that trip, forfeiting his American citizenship. Learning the truth of that situation is, however, another matter, and may be impossible. Obama is not stupid.
Judah;
“Actually you’re wrong about Berg’s record, its rather a good one up to the Truthers and Bush-RICO fiascos.”
Having never heard of him two months ago, I’m going off of what I’ve seen following his motions and his interviews. In those, he’s confused standing with jurisdiction; an embarassing mistake for a 1st year law student, let alone an experienced attorney. He’s asked for delivery of documents on September 31st. His mistake on the perjury claim shows a total lack of research.
His original claim actually cited Wikipedia articles and “rumors on the internet.” That would get you laughed out of a 6th grade research paper. Claims of rule 11 actions might be overstatements, but I’d say he’d be seriously risking a claim for malpractice if he weren’t arguing the case pro se.
O’Reilly’s got a piece on that new Ayers recording on his show tonight.
81 mylittlejulyjaybird
I don’t have a clue, but I wonder about it too. I know for much of the MSM, it has been filed under the Internet Rumor category. Perhaps everyone was put to sleep on the issue by the factcheck.org article. Perhaps the GOP feels it is too late in the game for this issue to help their guy – so they are just going to hope McCain wins. And if he doesn’t, they will be patient while dirty truths gradually come out about Obama – and they will come back with a vengeance in 2010 and 2012.
But still, the fact that this case is pending, and the fact that Obama has done nothing but throw lawyers and motions at it, is newsworthy in my opinion.
Obama is not stupid, no, but he is dangerous simply because he is not stupid.
It is nice to know that the law of the land here in America no longer really matters as long as you are clever about what you do. I will keep that in mind.
This is definitely newsworthy, and I’m appalled that Fox hasn’t been “Fair and Balanced” in their reporting. They do not need to take sides on the issue just report the facts of the case. The public has the right to know. Among my family, friends, and neighbors not one person has heard of this case.
84 Disappointed
If Obama was indeed born in Kenya, his problem would be the 1952 statute that was in effect at the time of his birth. It stated that if a child is born outside the U.S. and only one of the parents is a citizen – that citizen can transfer natural born citizen status to the child – but only if the parent has been a resident of the U.S. for 5 years after the age of 14. Since Obama’s mother was 18 at the time of his birth, she falls short of the requirement to transfer citizenship status.
Somebody correct me if that is wrong.
I’m sure TD or Judah Benjamin could point you to the exact statute.
Here are links to two Law Reviews, one from BYU and the other from Boston University, both published in 2005 which analyze the law as it pertains to the Article II requirements for the Presidency.
The Presidency and the Meaning of Citizenship
NATURAL BORN’ IN THE USA: THE STRIKING UNFAIRNESS AND DANGEROUS AMBIGUITY OF THE CONSTITUTION’S PRESIDENTIAL QUALIFICATIONS CLAUSE AND WHY WE NEED TO FIX IT
SBD
Who is “Michael Signator?” Why is he being mentioned in a mysterious way? Is someone trying to leak something?
Does by BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE mean anything when the PEOPLE of a democracy have to go to court to get the identity papers of a candidate and that that candidate could even have the right to fight the issue. Is there not something very twisted to this?
89 mylittlejulyjaybird
Can you imagine how embarassing and humiliating this will be for the entire country when the world finds out we have nominated . . . or inaugurated . . . an illegal alien? The United States will look like a Banana Republic to the rest of the world.
Perhaps that issue is giving some media outlets pause.
All I know is that there will be A LOT of anger. Anger at the Dems for their complicity in the fraud – and anger at the MSM and GOP if they had this information but decided to sit on it.
The Canadians write already that they can’t understand how we could be so clueless that we have an invalid candidate. We already look stupid.
This entire election’season’ has been a bar-rrom joke.
But nobody’s laughing.
Its cool and rad to refer to a potential POTUS as the ‘teflon guy. No shit.
That it has taken thi long for a civil and decent demand for eligibility paperwork is a crime unto itself. Unto US.
What A Shame = wtf?
Show me, don’t tell me.
Pastor James David Manning says that Barack Obama is a hate filled liar because of his fractured family
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/10/pastor-james-david-manning-calls-barack.html
1st rough draft ^
lol, just get my drift.
What’s the big deal about your genuine birth certificate? For cripes sake, my golly. What if you wanted to sign up for a team at your ‘community’ playground? You need your orginal BC, your mother’s electric bill and a lease if your Mom rents. Big effin deal.
Cough it up, Big Shot.
Whatever about API, TD.
They proved that Ed Hale who carries that site (from the get-go) that makes your eyes bleed is a frugasi. That was like getting a little bit of customer service. That “open letter” was like wearing the ruby slippers. I know…my heart was racing and my brow was sweating…whatever.
Aloha to one and all. Hump Day tomorrow. Have a Happy One!
xoxo ~ Patti
Papoose, ROTFL !
disappointed,
In your post #84, you say
“I’ve thought from the beginning that the most likely event to cause Obama to not be an American citizen today was his 1981 trip to Pakistan …Obama may have used an Indonesian passport for that trip, forfeiting his American citizenship.”
How could he have forfeited his citizenship, if as a dual citizen, he traveled multiple times between Indonesia and Hawaii?
“Losing US Citizenship
Generally, to lose US citizenship, you must voluntarily apply for foreign citizenship and demonstrate intent to forfeit US citizenship. Conditions under which a person may forfeit his or her US citizenship include:
-Serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the United States
-Formally renouncing one’s US citizenship before a duly authorized US official, such as a diplomat or consulate
-Conviction for an act of treason against the US government
-Taking an oath or other formal declaration swearing allegiance to a foreign government or political subdivision”
I don’t see where traveling on a foreign passport forfeits one’s US citizenship.
(note: A slight correction: the document you are referring to was submitted on September 9th, not 15th. Sept 15 filing was proof of certificate of service.)
I am not sure about this. Here’s why:
*The specific request for admissions is in an October 9th motion in response to Obama’s motion for a protective order. This motion says obama has no protection under FRCP 26 and therefore should supply the documents requested in discovery on sept 9th.
Discovery and expedited discovery were requested on September 9th, as well as the appointment of a special master.
Because the standing issue hasn’t been ruled on, I just don’t think Berg can claim obama “admitted” the admissions requested on October 9th. In fact by Berg publicizing this he could get his a** handed to him by the judge in the case.
Maybe Berg knows the standing issue is a problem and is putting this out now to point out that even tho a procedural issue may block him, Obama has failed to prove himself.
THIS IS BONE CHILLING! Is this the Ayers connection to our new government under O?
http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/video.aspx?v=e4SUQukUIr
Weather Underground Plotted To Kill Capitalists
1980s documentary about terrorism, former Weather Underground member Larry Grathwol recounted hearing a conversation about the prospect of murdering 25 million “die-hard capitalists” were America to be overthrown.
Mitchell, thank you for the link to your blog…and btw, I checked out some of your archives and saw this interesting letter. Could you tell us what the letter you sent them said? So basically they are saying “if anyone has an objection, speak now or forever hold your peace” (but just in a 5 day time period) if I understand that right?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UydJkj0lCMQ/SLCliG7hw9I/AAAAAAAAAYM/fZTPNz3o5Fw/s1600-h/board+of+elections+IL.jpg
—
T J is that proof that Obama joined the socialist group or just that they endorsed him? To answer your other question, I’m not sure who Michael Signator is but I saw him mentioned on the hillaryclintonforum.net and a link from Politico. Since he’s a bodyguard and a driver, some were thinking that maybe he was Larry Sinclair’s limo driver. I wondered if they were hinting that Obama & Michael were lovers.
Will I get any sleep between now and two weeks from now? That is the question…I’m fraught with worry every day.
104 FullJoy, please go to the link in that post…it explains your question. I usually try to post a small part and then add a link to the entire article.
He has “NO compassion” for a baby that survives an abortion…how can anyone in their right mind think he cares about us …in general!
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=202523
Obama Caught on Tape Arguing Against Giving Medical Attention to Aborted Babies
“I suspect that doctors feel that they would be under that obligation, that they would already be making these determinations, and that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments, is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”
#90 Benjamin
Could you provide further information concerning the “1952 statute” that you referenced (link, statute reference)?
#91 SBD
Okay…You have provided two links to documents that argue that the “natural-born” provision of eligibility for the Presidency of the USA should be stricken from the Constitution (more or less) . Fine. The problem is, that hasn’t happened yet. It is irrelevant to the discussion of Obama’s current elegibility for the Presidency of the USA because the “natural-born” provision still exists (Although my reading tells me it wasn‘t an issue to begin with, pending a review of the “1952 statute” referenced above).
These cases, along with the information regarding Odingo/Obama is ignored (even by Fox).
Does anyone know why?
I found the following on the internet.
http://radiopatriot.blogspot.com/
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother’s side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father’s side. While Barack Hussein Obama’s father was from Kenya , his father’s family was mainly Arabs. Barack Hussein Obama’s father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father’s birth certificate even states he’s Arab, not African Negro).
Could Obama’s birth certificate show Arab and not African American? Could that be why he is hiding his birth certificate?
#101 palaminopinto
Palaminopinto, as I understand it (and I readily admit that I’m no expert on Indonesian law), during the period of time Obama lived in Indonesia and later traveled to Pakistan, Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. This means that anyone traveling during that period of time on an Indonesian passport was considered an Indonesian citizen, by Indonesia, and had by default renounced all former claims of citizenship to any other countries. The person in question does not have to inform their “former country” to make it official.
When we get right down to it, it is not an issue of legalities, it is an issue of loyalties. Any person, who has in the past, effectively renounced their USA citizenship (by claiming citizenship in another country and obtaining a passport from that country), should never be considered eligible for the USA Presidency. Plain-and-simple.
108: Indee
Because, Sir, the motto of Fox News is no longer “We Report, You Decide”. Rather, it is now “We Decide What to report to You”. What really angered me lately is when Shepard Smith decided that it was relevant that I know that Joe the Plumber’s first name is Samuel. It was at this time that I decided that Mr. Shepard Smith is no longer relevant, so I stopped watching him. As far as I am concerned, the only people on Fox News worth watching are Sean Hannity, Greta, Laura Ingram, and Michelle Malkin when she comes on, which is very rare these days it would seem.
Disappointed #110, I will add to your comments about Indonesian citizenship that Obama had to have traveled on his Indonesian ppt since during that time frame, the US didn’t allow travel to Pakistan. He couldn’t have gone there on a US ppt. I’m not even sure about this next question, but can an individual possess passports from two different countries at the same time? Since BO slipped and let the cat out of the bag with regard to traveling to Pakistan, I had hoped that someone would realize he couldn’t have done so as a U.S. Citizen. One simple question would have exposed him for what he is but no one has asked it or even raised it! Except on the blogs.
What could happen, if Obamas mother gave up her US Citizenship, when she married with Lolo Soetoro, who had Indonesian citizenship. If Obama was adopted, he became Indonesian too. Did his mother or Obama,reclame their Citizenship, after they retuned from Indonesia?
Disappointed:
It doesn’t matter what Indonesia thought about dual citizenship, or what Indonesia “considered” an Indonesian citizen to be. A US citizen did not “forefeit” US citizenship “by default” as a minor.
“When we get right down to it, it is not an issue of legalities”. Well, when we get right down to it, it IS a matter of legalities.
If your argument is true, then wouldn’t he have lost his US citizenship many years before 1981 had he traveled to Hawaii on an Indonesan passport? The Nationality Act of 1952 says otherwise.
Whether BO is “eligible for the USA Presidency” remains to be seen, but he did not “forfeit” US citizenship if he traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport in 1981.
To: Disappointed and Clara-
According to the U.S. Department of State-
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
“U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.
Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.”
“If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President.”
Why would he be either? If the highest percentage is Caucasian than he’s neither Arab or Black, he Caucasian.
If elected he would be the first Constitutionally ineligible President!
“No, Berg is not backed by any secret interests. He was/is a Hillary supporter and when he initiated the lawsuit, yes, I’m sure that he hoped to see Obama disqualified in time for Hillary to secure the nomination. But he is not backed by or affiliated with the Clinton campaign, or any other political interests.”
How do you know this to be true?
#112 Clara
Dual citizenship, with passports from each country, has been allowed by a number of countries in the past, and is allowed by a number of countries today. The U.S. allows it today, with a restricted list of countries.
The point is, Indonesia did not allow dual-citizenship at all during the period of time when Obama traveled to Pakistan in 1981. Nor did the U.S. allow dual citizenship with Indonesia during this time. To have traveled on an Indonesian passport in 1981, a person would have to claim themselves to be solely an Indonesian citizen.
In the greater scheme of things, it is about loyalties, not legalities. To what group does Obama feel loyal to? Is it the U.S., or something else? Do we want a person with undeterminable loyalties elected as POTUS? That is what we must decide.
Much as I would love to see Obama get disqualified by default, no judge is going to disqualify a presidential candidate based on a procedural technicality.
With luck, though, the course he could might would be something like, “You *will* produce your documentation in the next two days, or I’m ruling against you.”
Would appreciate comments, Judah and TD and anyone, on the following 14th Amendment consideration.
Face it, there will be nothing from Berg or any other suit before election. The decision will be made in court, should Obama win, after election and before Inauguration. And I suggest that at that point, Obama could come clean and deliver any and all documents and it wouldn’t matter, because his argument following election will be that the Article II Natural Born requirement is in conflict with (and is superseded by) the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection clause.
He will be glad to admit that he was born in Kenya, if he was, or that he was adopted in Indonesia and had an Indonesian passport, if he did, because he will divert the argument to whether the 14th Amendment has superseded the Article II Natural born requirement. With the weight of winning the election just behind him, and the pressing timeframe of Inauguration, the Supreme Court will have a heavy burden with a tilted playing field, deciding this loaded question.
91 SBD gave the following link ” The Presidency and Meaning of Citizenship” wherein the 14th Amendment and Equal Protection Clause are discussed vis the Article II “Natural Born” requirement for President.
http://66.135.39.97/WebCatalog/StoreBuilder/ArticleII/docfile/2005_BYU_L__Rev__927.pdf
See beginning page 16 in the above link a discussion of this question.
My point is that if he wins the election, he is not going to let some vault birth certificate or Indonesian passport derail him in Court. If he can’t blow by with just the HI Certification of Live Birth that has been posted already, he will stand on a much larger issue. And there are none bigger than the 14th Amendment. Imagine the fireworks if he were denied qualification despite claiming the 14th Amendment protects him.
Sure, he may qualify without anything showing up to prove him not Natural Born. Maybe the Am Samoa rep did a good enough cleansing and document ‘buyback’ in Indonesia and there is no real paper trail. But even if invalidating documents do come up, this will ultimately be a 14th Amendment question, and we all need to get ready for that possibility, which I consider the most likely outcome.
Anyone want to speculate on how the Supreme Court would rule on that?
JLC
“To have traveled on an Indonesian passport in 1981, a person would have to claim themselves to be solely an Indonesian citizen.”
But no one has ever presented any evidence that Obama held or traveled on an Indonesian passport, have they? People keep claiming that there was a travel ban on traveling to Pakistan. But there’s no evidence of that either.
35 Marie
“McCain is not going to risk setting off a firestorm of racial discord in this country in order to win an election. As usual, he is putting his country first.”
If McCain puts his country first, then he should do everything possible to prevent a duplicitous presidential candidate who is potentially a threat to the security of the United States from winning the election and ascending to the highest office in the land, even if it meant acts of violence from Obama’s crazed supporters.
TD, You make my day every day since I found your blog. All the Liberal spin makes me crazy. Your site is an oasis on the web where I can find the real facts on the subject most on the minds of Americans right now.
I am so in shock that about 50% of all Americans have been duped by this guy. It’s like they are saying “I WANT TO PAY A LOT MORE TAXES TO HELP THE GHETTO RESIDENTS BUY THEIR NEW CADILLAC”.
Thank you, TD!!!!
I dug out my old workbooks (last year) on Federal Discovery. Preemptive discovery is normal so that evidence can be preserved prior to the filing of a tort. Discovery can start the moment the service is complete, prior to any judicial intervention (ie Motion to Dismiss).
The Court has the power to stop the clock or extend the time to file a reply to the Notice to Admit (in this case because of the pending Motion to Dismiss by the respondents).
If the Court does not grant the motion to dismiss, the clock on the time to file will undoubtedly start running again.
Notice to Admit is basically a tool used to shorten the trial by allowing the parties to agree to the underlying facts. They are not generally used to prove the heart of the case as Berg has attempted here. Many aggressive attorneys will use them to attempt to put the opposition on the defensive by filing them right out the door where as normally they come at the end of the discovery process.
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure covers Notices to Admit.
(Disclaimer: I am an Atmospheric Scientist and global warming skeptic, not an Attorney. Rely on the above information at your own risk.)
Obama is in a state of panic right now, all his manipulations through ACORN, the MSN, and 600 million in Saudi oil money, may to be enough to insure victory. His support is limited to radical leftist liberals, black militants, the illiterate, and muslim extremist. Democrats, are jumping ship left and right, (myself included) and voting for independent candidates, or Republicans. I realized several months ago that Obama is a lying POS, and probably a militant muslim practicing the Taqiyya. Being bi-racial gives me a different slant on Obama, and allows me to look at him through open eyes. I don’t perceive him as a messiah, he is a Marxist first and foremost, and he envisions himself as president of the world, not just the USA. His kind of arrogance has not been seen since Adoph Hitler. The fact that he has lied about his entire life is not surprising. He thinks the American people are fools, and are not worthy of licking his boots. What will be surprising is the people he will throw under the bus if, and when he is elected.
Regardless of the outcome, thank God that there are still some of us gun toting, bible thumping Americans left to defend the Constitution of the United States. Obama is difinitely trying to circumvent the Constitution, after all, to Obama it is “just words” wriitten 225 years ago that are no longer relevant.
For once in my life myself, and Rev. Jesse Jackson actually agree on an issue, Obama sucks.
Peace
nice analysis and lots of good info on this … thanks!
All of this still makes me wonder what Obama is hiding.
107 Disappointed
The documents I posted in #91 both give an exhaustive history of the Article II issue.
121 JLC
The Fourteenth Amendment has two prongs to it.
The Citizenship Clause is found in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads, “All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
If he was born in Hawaii, he would qualify for both prongs. If he was born anywhere else and obtained citizenship based on his mother’s citizenship, that would not pass the second part of the Fourteenth Amendment which says and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Also, the article ends with the following regarding the Fourteenth Amendment.
One could also argue that the Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, should only be changed by express amendment and that “the whole concept of an amendment assumes and requires a commitment to the “basic’ aspects of the document being amended; otherwise, what would occur would not be an “amendment’ but a “new’ deal.” If the Natural-Born Citizen Clause is a “basic” aspect of the document, and the Fourteenth Amendment and the Natural-Born Citizen Clause are in irreconcilable conflict, then the Fourteenth Amendment is in some sense unconstitutional.
Even so, it would be hard to argue that the Natural-Born Citizen Clause is such a basic part of the Constitution that it
cannot be changed without materially altering the important premises of the document. The provision was adopted without debate, and far from being a “basic” aspect of the Constitution, the natural-born citizen provision
was a bit of an anomaly when adopted in an otherwise immigration-friendly document.
The third and perhaps the most compelling argument that the Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal the Natural-Born Citizen Clause is the frequency with which proposals to amend that provision have been introduced in Congress. Particularly noteworthy are the proposals to amend the Constitution in order to repeal the clause that were
made soon after enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. The first predated the ratification of the Fourteenth
Amendment by two months, n348 with three more proposals before 1873. Would these proposals have been made if Congress had understood that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed the Natural-Born Citizen Clause? Would they have been as soundly defeated if the consensus of Congress was to expand eligibility for the presidency?
One of the questions in Berg’s request for admissions asks Obama to “Admit your mother’s maiden name is Stanley Ann Dunham a/k/a Ann Dunham”
The news stories all claim that Obama’s grandfather died in 1992 and that Obama’s mother died in 1995 or 1996.
A search of the Social Security Death Index for Stanley Dunham returns two death records.
Decedent Information
Name: DUNHAM, STANLEY A
Address: HI
HONOLULU COUNTY
Decedent Personal Information
SSN: 535-40-XXXX
Age: 52
Date Of Death: 11/07/1995
Date of Birth: 11/1942
Decedent Information
Name: DUNHAM, STANLEY A
Address: HI
HONOLULU COUNTY
Decedent Personal Information
SSN: 514-03-XXXX
Age: 73
Date Of Death: 02/08/1992
Date of Birth: 03/1918
Death Information
These would coincide with both mother and grandfather, why does Berg want Obama to admit to this?
SBD
#126 Leaping Spark:
Least we all forget:
http://vodpod.com/watch/1103610-this-is-a-guy-obama-still-talks-to-%E2%80%99til-this-day?pod=ridgeliner
@ SBD:
In a Request for Admissions, one typically covers all the bases including all generally agreed facts like the identity of his mother, father, etc…
I don’t know if anyone is still keeping up with this thread, but I thought I would add a few more thoughts.
Bellecat asked above “what’s ’standing’?” Down here in my area, we would say that a plaintiff who lacks standing “doesn’t have a dog in that hunt.” That is to say, the plaintiff is not involved in the issue before the court. For example, let’s say that bellecat was selling Bellecat’s Delicious CocaCola and I could prove without a doubt that she was violating Coke’s trademark. I’m not involved with the CocaCola company, and I’m not injured by bellecat’s infringement of the company’s mark. I don’t have a dog in that hunt, and I can’t bring that lawsuit, even though I’m 100% correct in my claims. After I filed my complaint, bellecat’s attorneys would file a motion to dismiss under Rule 12. Bellecat would win that motion because, as soon as her attorneys raised the issue of standing, the burden would shift to me to prove to the court that I did indeed have a dog in the hunt. I couldn’t show that, their motion would be granted, and the case would be dismissed. Bellecat would never need to file an answer or go through discovery, saving her gobs in legal fees and the taxpayers’ money by saving the court’s time.
Here, Berg is trying to argue that he has a dog in the hunt — that he has standing — because he is an individual voter. The burden is on him to make that showing. The fatal problem with his argument is that the federal courts have decided many, many times that individual voters, individual taxpayers (and on and on) don’t have standing to challenge the constitutionality of particular laws or actions. You can read previous opinions – like the one where McCain was sued because the plaintiffs claimed that he was also not a natural born citizen– for more information on the specific legal “tests” that an individual must pass to prove standing. Berg doesn’t meet those tests. The DNC is not saying that there is no way to legally challenge a candidate’s constitutionality; rather, they are saying that an *individual voter* cannot raise that challenge, at least not in federal court.
As for Berg’s attempt to move to that the responses to his request for admissions are admitted, discovery hasn’t even started yet and the DNC still has time to respond to the requests. That’s was doug’s point earlier. Note that discovery, theoretically, could have started by now, but there is no way that’s the case. One of any list of things has happened to stay discovery: the DNC moved to stay, the judge ordered it stayed, it’s stayed automatically as a matter of local rule, or something else I’m not thinking of. At any rate, the clock hasn’t even started tickin’ on DNC’s time to respond. And even if it had, they could always asked the court for leave to go back and answer anyway.
All this to say, Berg’s complaint and his motion to deem admitted and such may sound very big and bombshellish, but it’s really not.
Based on what very little I know about Berg, he seems like a bit of a quack. If you want to fight this issue, take it up a group who would have standing to make a claim (the RNC maybe?) Or take DeppDogg’s good advice and fight this the old fashioned way.
Acording to the NATURAL BORN’ IN THE USA law review article mention above, Berg has no standing.
Our standing jurisprudence contains two strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution’s case or controversy requirement … and prudential standing, which embodies “judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of
federal jurisdiction” … . The Article III limitations are familiar: The plaintiff must show that the conduct of which he complains has caused him to suffer an “injury in fact” that a favorable judgment will redress. Although we have not exhaustively defined the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine, we have explained that prudential standing encompasses “the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that the plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” “Without such limitations – closely related to Art. III concerns but essentially matters of judicial self-governance – the courts would be called upon to decide abstract questions of wide public significance even though other governmental institutions may be more competent to address the questions and even though judicial intervention may be unnecessary to protect individual rights.”
Despite the bar on generalized grievances, the Court has made it clear that a real injury does not move beyond judicial reach simply because it is “widely shared.” n320 In the Court’s words, “to deny standing to persons who are in fact injured simply because many others are also injured, would mean that the most injurious and widespread Government actions could be questioned by nobody.” n321 Nevertheless, in light of the overall tenor of the Court’s standing jurisprudence, it is difficult to believe that a voter claiming an alleged injury shared by tens of millions of Americans could, without more, establish standing to challenge the natural born citizenship credentials of a Presidential candidate.
Applying Levitt, as well as the lessons of nearly seventy subsequent years of standing jurisprudence, it is unlikely that a plaintiff whose claim of injury is simply that of a voter or concerned citizen would have standing to challenge the
natural born citizenship qualifications of an incumbent President or Acting President. An individual in the line of succession, however, should have standing to challenge the natural born citizenship credentials of an Acting President. A cabinet member, for example, might argue that an Acting President held office unlawfully because he or she was not a natural born citizen within the meaning of Article II. The alleged injury of the plaintiff would be direct, fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and capable of redress by means of injunctive relief. Regardless of the standing element, though, the Court could well decline to entertain such a challenge on political question grounds.
MichiganLib said in post 122:
“But no one has ever presented any evidence that Obama held or traveled on an Indonesian passport.
People keep claiming that there was a travel ban on traveling to Pakistan. But there’s no evidence of that either.”
ML, you are correct.
It has been asked many times for any proof or information that there was a “US travel ban” to Pakistan in 1981. Nobody has EVER shown any such thing.
In fact, “The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the United States in peace and stability in South Asia. In 1981, the United States and Pakistan agreed on a $3.2 billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs.” http://www.infoplease.com/country/profiles/pakistan.html
But the more people insist on posting bogus, easily disproven false “information”, the more we can be discredited.
People who post this sort of disinformation do us NO favors. If it is to be posted again, it should show a legitimate source.
The little boy who cried, “Wolf!” and all that.
I am just an average citizen. I have not studied law. However, this case is very discouraging. Why is it the burden of others to make sure our government officials are qualified? This seems ridiculous in my mind. When one applies for any other job they have to have proper credentials in order to obtain that job. I am a teacher, and I have to give an administrator a hard copy of my teaching license in order to step into the classroom. If I were to submit a teaching license on-line it would not be sufficient! Shouldn’t the credentials of a presidential candidate be thoroughly examined first? Why can’t they be asked to provide credentials without having it become a legal matter? This is truly appalling!
Correcting my own comment, #102
I reread the materials and see that Berg did indeed serve Obama and the DNC with requests for 10 legal admissions. Also, Obamas atty called Berg to agree to postpone admissions until ruling on the dismissal. When berg said no, they filed the protective motion.
So, Berg seems to have a significant point here.
The standing issue–if it were cut and dry–would have been ruled on by now. That is simple if he “clearly has no standing” as others assert.
So there you have it. I hope the wheels are coming off the corrupt DNC and Obamacrat wagon.
[...] Obama may not be an American citizen, and thus ineligible for the presidency This post reprinted from the blog Texas Darlin, originally titled “Minefield” here [...]
The judge tossed it out. Doesn’t that make rule 36 moot? You knew it would happen-that judge has his own life to consider…
I love the debate fashion that this blog takes on! You guys are great. I look forward to reading much much more. My political blog is far more left wing but you are very inspirational! http://www.northernvox.com
Jerod
HOW IS THIS MAN GETTING AWAY WITH ILLEGAL CONTRIBUTIONS, NOW HE WILL NOT PROVE THAT HE IS A CITIZEN. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT SHOWING BIRTH CERTIFICATE. I DON’T GET IT.’
SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING
Andy Martin’s latest.
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/10/andy-martin-alleges-that-barack-obama.html
Mitchell~
Of course Martin offers not one single thin, teensy, tiny shred of a hint of any evidence whatever for his assertions. Just pure speculation based on pure speculation.
Oh, well.
While Berg might not have standing, a party actually on the Ballot running for President sure would. Since McCain will not do it for obvious reasons, maybe another candidate might. Ron Paul is on the ballot in Virginia and would have standing.
Eight Lawsuits in Play
http://mitchell-langbert.blogspot.com/2008/10/explosion-in-law-suits-against-obama.html
Anger is not strong enough to express my feelings about this matter. I want to know the truth that is all! I am an American and I deserve better from the organs of my government, the 5th estate, and my fellow citizens who don’t seem to give a damn for this great country and the laws that made it so. I want this matter resolved or widely exposed before the election. I do not want a President Biden, nor under these conditions do I believe that the rest of the country does. McCain-Palen would without a doubt be chosen if people even were aware of the secretiveness that BHO has chosen with respect to the simple production of his birth certificate.
I have a suggestion for all Americans that are concerned. CALL THE TALK SHOWS. Request of the screeners whether they are aware of the Berg lawsuit and the current legal status. Tell them to come to TD Blog or another site that shows the same credibility and information filtering. (As a 63 year old American I have a problem putting immediate credibility into a site I was referred to entitled “texasdarlin” the name belies the quality of the site; I am sorry!) Try to get on to Hannity’s show, Prager, Rush, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Gallagher, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt and just ask why won’t he show the Birth Certificate…and highlight the Certificate of Live Birth is not the same, and forensic analysis indicates tampering. Current status of Berg lawsuit says that procedurally Obama is in default. THAT IS NEWS WORTHY especially if it is printed anywhere in the MSM. Come On Folks, lets stop playing with each other and get out there to force this thing open before the election. Call your local newspapers and ask what they know about it. Call your local TV news station desks and ask what they know about it and the Berg lawsuit. Call your local Republican Party Headquarters and ask them what they know and refer them to the most legitimate MSM printed story then to the most truth seeking and filtering blog. (TD Blog seems to me to be the best, I just have a problem with the link name when referring people). Just generate a groundswell of calls to indicate interest. PLEASE let’s do something about this except talk and talk among ourselves. Save this country!
Philip Berg confirmed he has a recording of a call from Obama’s paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya !
The Pennsylvania Democrat who has sued Sen. Barack Obama demanding he prove his American citizenship – and therefore qualification to run for president – has confirmed he has a recording of a telephone call from the senator’s paternal grandmother confirming his birth in Kenya.
The issue of Obama’s birthplace, which he states is Honolulu in 1961, has been raised enough times that his campaign website has posted an image purporting to be of his “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii.
But Philip J. Berg, a former deputy attorney general
for Pennsylvania, told the Michael Savage talk radio program tonight that the document is forged and that he has a tape recording he will soon release.
“This has been a real sham he’s pulled off for the last 20 months,” Berg told Savage. “I’ll release it [the tape] in a day or two, affidavits from her talking to a certain person. I heard the tape. She was speaking [to someone] here in the United States.”
http://tinyurl.com/5eptlf
It’s getting to the point that I don’t care where Obama was born, or who the Obama daddy be. His abuse of the constitution, and disregard for our judicial system should open peoples eyes to this radical POS. I really believe that he could behead someone on national TV, and his rabid followers would still vote for him. His history to date proves that he was, and still is a Marxist. Obama is endorsed by Hamas, Ayres, Farrakhan, Shabazz, Qadafi, Castro, Chavez, Kim Jong. the nut from Iran, Khalid Al- Mansour, and Father Plhager. One thing these men have in common is the fact that they hate America. If you are voting for Obama, what does that say about you?
As I have stated before I’m one of the few Americans left that will defend our constitution with my life. Apparently, America is now filled with people who are looking forward to Socialism, and the free ride they think Obama will give them. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and everthing brave Americans have fought for are meaningless to them.
Join Obama and his black militants, radical leftist liberals, and the rabid iliterates if you choose.
I choose America, and freedom.
Keep your powder dry.
My fellow Americans,
There are times to talk and times to for action. This is a time for action, in word and deed. Divine providence has placed us at a crossroad that we cannot change. Either we manifest of our vote and hold our government accountable for their actions to maintain our individual rights as free people or we surely perish. Along with our passing, the principles of liberty and justice will die with us. If we choose to go silently into the night, allowing a fraud of great consequence to occur, as responsible people, that knew about it and did nothing to avert this catastrophe, we are as culpable as the ones that conspired to commit injustice to our way of life.
If we are defrauded of the right to select a President and Vice-President that meet standards and qualification it will be the end of our country. The time to stand stand on the side is past. This is a time for action and a call to all like minded patriots to step up and be held accountable as a free people, willing to pay any price, shoulder any load and do whatever is necessary to defend and protect our way of life.
The task ahead is daunting, the obstacle to protecting our freedom is fierce, opposition to our efforts will use our own freedom against us, and the road to success will be perilous for every American. With a firm resolve, as free people and the goal of protecting our future from tyranny, we will succeed by providence and the honor of honest, righteous citizens, as our ancestors did over 200 years ago.
My fellow Americans we must take charge of the situation or it will take charge of us. Do what you must to right wrongs, mitigate indifference and mobilize the electorate to vote against tyranny, cowardice, injustice and a bleak future for future generations of Americans.
hmmm, one way to get a darkhorse into office I suppose. What a nasty tactic. Biden should be ashamed of himself.
Keep in mind, Obama has to pass examination by the speaker of the house and her committee. He will have no choice then, he will have to provide all documentations she requests. I am sending emails, snail mails, even certified letters to
Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
I’m going to let her know we are aware of and disapprove of the Democratic Party’s underhanded ploy. We can demand to see justice prevail and the Constitution safeguarded. We can let her know we will not forget this after the election (should he prevail). Then, if he does win, send another letter demanding a thorough investigation.
The election is not the end all here. If the democratic party understands this conduct will not be tolerated they might decide to pull him at the last minute and insert another candidate. (Yes, they can disqualify him, themselves. In fact I wouldnt be surprised if they did since that is the only sure way to avoid criminal charges, unless there has been no criminal activity. Presidential immunity will not extend to the DNC.)
If Biden is in anyway in possession of knowledge of a sacrificial ploy he can be impeached the day after obama is disqualified. Which is as it should be.
Make it happen.