Posted on 12/02/2008 5:39:08 AM PST by Calpernia
One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer, Berg is filing a motion in the Court in an attempt to further prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the United States.
From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.
"As I've said over and over and over again, we're headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is qualified under the United States Constitution to be president," Berg said.
"It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief," he said, "that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials ... which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them."
The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to respond to Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however, are allowed two more days for mail service). On Wed., Nov. 19, the Federal Election Commission formally waived its right to respond to Berg's petition and, while such waiver is not necessary, neither is any such response to a petition. Like the FEC, Obama and the DNC could essentially bank on the low odds that any one matter will be heard by the Court (only somewhere between 70 and 120 of the approximately 8,000 petitions are granted each year), or rely on arguments already made that Berg lacks standing to sue at all.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2141362/posts
5th Obamagate case reaches the Supreme Court
Berg Update Ping
An interesting example of leadership: do nothing and hope that the potential problem does not grow into an actual problem.
Typical affirmative action hire.
Be prepared for the “there is no controlling legal authority” claim. Jeffrey Toobin was on CNN yesterday and said that Hitlery should just ignore the emolument clause of the Constitution since no one has standing to sue.
No typical. But affirmative action, sure. But not typical.
If Obama is found to ineligible for the office of President of the United States, will the Electors chosen by his people still be allowed to select the next President? Presumably they will choose a Democrat: Biden, or worse, Hillary.
If Obama is found to be ineligible, won't that mean that "his" Electors are also ineligible to cast their votes in the Electoral College?
Very very interesting. Where there’s smoke there’s fire.
We are starting to get some traction, the MSM will have to start picking this up soon. The sad thing is that millions of Americans have no idea these cases are present and moving forward. We had 14 people at Thanksgiving and not a single one of them knew about the lawsuits - one is an Air Force Captain!
Jess, at this point I believe the consensus is that anybody is better than Obama. The list of people who might be authorized to take POTUS depending on which theory you subscribe to are: Biden, Hillary, and Cheney. In another lawsuit Donofrio argues that McCain is also not eligible so that rules out McCain / Palin if that is true. Again the consensus - anybody but the big Zero.
Speaking of the MSM, did you all see this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdk26ezVio
Obama Vs. Constitution (60 Sec. TV Ad)
“Hitlery should just ignore the emolument clause of the Constitution since no one has standing to sue.”
And she’s been bought off with Sec. of State.
This is going to go nowhere, and Souter is accommodating them?
“... since no one has standing to sue...”
Then why have a constitutional requirement at all?
So what’s the judge saying? That we are all on the honor system when it comes to constitutional requirements?
Somehow I don’t think the Framers had that in mind.
Souter from what I hear is the one to call for the “fix”.
About every other DU thread has a poster saying “We should call Souter” for this and that to support their agenda.
Myself if these cases get stonewalled is to question Souter himself, ALL THE WAY.
You can't bet on a horse that wasn't in the race.
I was just thinking the same thing. Wow! My God what is happening?
I think this is the usual method for Obama. No leadership skills means poor leadership, often resulting in disaster. (Note: Rabble rousing is not effective long term leadership on a national level.)
Keep in mind that Souter wrote the opinion in the Kelo case that held that private property could be taken for private purposes, despite the 5th Amendment requirement that eminent domain be used only for public purposes.
Are you saying that Electors will have to choose from only those (eligible) people who were on the ballot? In other words, McCain, Nader, Barr, Keyes, etc.?
I hope you are right. I was under the impression that the Electors could choose whomever they wanted, hence Hillary.
No, what he is saying is that those who actually vote for the president are the ones who have standing to question situations such as this. That would be the electoral college and not us. Consider the following:
Almost everyone in America, thanks to the presidential election mess of 2000, knows that the Constitution provides that the president will be selected by an Electoral College, not by direct popular vote. Only 538 persons, representing the slates of electors chosen by voters in the fifty states and the District of Columbia, actually vote directly for president.... http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/electoralcoll.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.