US State Department Subpoena Denial in Obama Eligibility Suit

Jeff Schreiber @ 'America's Right' ^ | 9-3-08 | bonnieblue4me

[bonnieblue4me]

Update on latest information from Berg v. Obama regarding eligibility for POTUS.

[Steve Van Doorn]

”exactly is my annoyance”

Your interpretation of the constitution. You are basically saying it is your way or the highway (the alcohol talking)

I can add many different words after 'to...' But using the word 'eligible' before makes that very limited.

[Balata]

And each state's legislature decides what the qualifications are to appear on each state's ballot. Not the Constitution or any federal laws.

As you know ballot-access laws have a very low threshold for both the Republicans and the Democrats. It's the third party where the laws get more difficult. R's and D's are a shoe in as long as they are nominated at the party's state conventions.

[Peerless]

Well, my annoyance is in the focus on the straining at the gnat while swallowing a camel.

Ok, I could understand that if Berg had in fact said what you were claiming he said, i.e. that all Obama had to do was produce his birth certificate. But I haven't seen him say such a thing nor have I seen him actually quoted as having said such a thing. Also, there's nothing in what he's filed with the court that would indicate he would say such a thing.

I've been doing some Googling tonight trying to find something but haven't turned up anything.

I was also annoyed by your request for proof.

Ok. Not sure why you'd find that annoying, but at least you're being honest about it.

Lotsa vectors pointed towards troll, with your new startup date & attitude. But as long as you know what you’re talking about, you’ll most likely be allowed to stick around. I can’t speak for others’ annoyance, but I know it’s there. Freepers are often generally annoyed by a newbie with a showoff attitude and a big mouth.

I don't get the "showoff attitude and a big mouth." Or the hostility toward people simply because they're new posters. It seems a good way to quickly turn new posters into non-posters.

But just keep answering and you’ll withstand any harsh wind coming your way.

But why should there be any harsh wind in the first place?

I've noticed that this place is soliciting contributions. But why would someone be inclined to contribute if they're met with harsh winds just because they're a new poster?

So... answer the question about your motives, newbie.

No motives other than my having become interested in the Berg lawsuit and have been reading it and posting about it.

[Peerless]

Your interpretation of the constitution. You are basically saying it is your way or the highway (the alcohol talking)

I've simply stated how I see it and have offered evidence as to why I see it that way.

Anyone reading what I have written is free to take it or leave it. No highways.

I can add many different words after 'to...' But using the word 'eligible' before makes that very limited.

But the words after "to..." are "...the office of President." Not different words. So I don't see what your point is here.

[Peerless]

As you know ballot-access laws have a very low threshold for both the Republicans and the Democrats. It's the third party where the laws get more difficult. R's and D's are a shoe in as long as they are nominated at the party's state conventions.

Yeah. Here in California, if you're popular and well known enough, the Secretary of State can qualify you for the ballot. But if you're not, you have to collect a LOT of signatures to qualify.

[Non-Sequitur]

I have only seen very bad copies of the evidence that he was born here. That isn't good evidence.

I haven't seen any evidence that he wasn't. That's even worse.

[Non-Sequitur]

He has produced evidence that the presented documentation is a forgery. Don’t believe it? Take that up with Polarik, the expert on this stuff. So why would Obama present forged evidence?

But what evidence has Berg provided showing Obama wasn't born in the U.S.?

[Non-Sequitur]

Good enough to start an armed revolution.

Well good luck on your revolting. Let me know how it turns out.

[Calpernia]

That is a good thought; but then that would keep a B.C. from being used for other ID requirements, ie., school, driver’s licenses, et al.

[mad_as_he$$]

If you did not stay on US airlines you could go from Hawaii to Japan and then pick up British Air and go to India and across to Africa. Can't remember the cost (I did it once in the late 70’s) but it was easier than five hops to the East due to British being strong in those places. I also think you could go to Cuba and then to the Venezuela and hop to the horn of Africa. Pan Am did that in the old Clipper days.

[dalereed]

“Any other questions?”

Why don’t you crawl back under the rock you emerged from?

[mad_as_he$$]

I was born in the ancient city of Atlantis in the Pegasus Galaxy - that's my story and I am sticking to it. My Mother was a US citizen who had an encounter with an Ancient. Unfortunately the trip back here was an ordeal and all our papers were lost. My mother would confirm this but she is dead, so you will just have to take my word for it. My Grandmother hates Ancients so she will not be able to tell you anything about where I was born since she was not there./s

[airborne]

If you can get DailyKOS to verify that, and maybe print up a replica of what your birth certificate might look like, that should be good enough!

After all, it’s nothing major. Just electing the President of the United States of America!

[Kevmo]

But why should there be any harsh wind in the first place?
***We get a lot of annoying trolls here.

I’ve noticed that this place is soliciting contributions. But why would someone be inclined to contribute if they’re met with harsh winds just because they’re a new poster?
***You’re not getting a harsh wind JUST because you’re new. It’s because you’re new and you’re annoying and you disagree over minor points and you are acting a lot like a troll. That’s basically classic troll behavior. But real trolls stop posting answers to questions, and their answers simply don’t make sense. It appears you have this unique perspective based upon legal musings and you seem to be able to defend it on the basis of facts & argumentation. If you are still a troll, you’re at least a knowledgeable one and that’s worth keeping in my book. Do you want to see the difference between conservatives and liberals? Go and register today at Democratic Underground and start disagreeing with them on something like this. See how long you last and how polite they are with you, and make up your own mind about which site tolerates dissent better.

Kevmo: So... answer the question about your motives, newbie.

Peerless: No motives other than my having become interested in the Berg lawsuit and have been reading it and posting about it.
***Well, there’s plenty here to be interested in. Are you a lawyer? You argue like one. Most of us freepers are not lawyers, we’re conservative activists.

[Kevmo]

But what evidence has Berg provided showing Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.?
***I gather you have a reading comprehension problem, because starting with the 2nd sentence, your question is already addressed:

Don’t believe it? Take that up with Polarik, the expert on this stuff. So why would Obama present forged evidence?

[Kevmo]

Like I said, “The man in the president’s chair may be ineligible and has produced forged documentation towards his eligibility. So Obama can avoid all this mayhem and produce that little eeensy teensy bitsy piece of paper. How’s that?”

Let me know how your butt kissing of the new, illegitimate, socialist president of the U.S. and his brownshirts turns out. If they call me and ask if I’ve been associating with any known subversives, I’ll be sure to steer them to you.

[Peerless]

I've said previously that I don't believe that there is any constitutional issue at this point and that the court involving itself at this point would be to usurp the power of Congress, effectively turning the concept of separation of powers on its head.

So I thought I'd flesh this out a bit more by offering something other than just the opinions I've offered on the matter.

Begin------

The political question doctrine is "essentially a function of the separation of powers." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). It serves to "restrain the Judiciary from inappropriate interference in the business of the other branches of Government" (United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. 386, 394 (1990)) by prohibiting the courts from deciding issues that properly rest within the province of the political branches. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803). Moreover, suits asking for injunctive relief "are far more likely to implicate political questions" than suits for damages "because the framing of injunctive relief may require the courts to engage in the type of operational decision-making beyond their competence and constitutionally committed to other branches." Koohi v. United States, 976 F.2d 1328, 1332 (9th Cir. 1992).

The Constitution provides that issues relating to a candidate's eligibility for the Office of President rest, in the first instance, with the voters and with the Electoral College, the constitutionally created body responsible for selecting the President of the United States. See U.S. Const., art. II, sec. 1, cl. 2 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof my direct," electors for President and Vice President); id. amend. XXIII, sec. 1. The Constitution's commitment to the Electoral College of the responsibility to select the President subsumes the authority to decide whether a presidential candidate is qualified for office because of the examination of a candidate's qualifications is an integral component of the electors' decision-making process. If a court were to sit in judgment of a candidate's qualifications before the Nation has voted, and before the Electoral College has cast its votes, such judgment could "inappropriate[ly] interfer[e]" with the Electoral College's constitutional authority to elect the President and to evaluate the qualifications of the candidates seeking that office. Munoz-Flores, 495 U.S. at 394.

The Constitution also provides that, after the Electoral College has voted, further review of a presidential candidate's eligibility for office, to the extent such review is required, rests with Congress. Where no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Constitution commits to the House of Representatives the authority to select the President and, in so doing, to evaluate the candidates' qualifications. See U.S. Const. amend. XII. Similarly, the Twentieth Amendment explicitly grants Congress the responsibility for selecting a President when a candidate elected by the Electoral College does not satisfy the Constitution's eligibility requirements. See id. amend. XX, sec. 3 ("the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified"). Both the House and the Senate have standing committees with jurisdiction to decide questions relating to presidential elections. See S.R. 25.1.n(1)(5) & (9) (the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration has jurisdictoin over "proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to ... Federal elections generally, including the election of the President, Vice President, and Members of the Congress," as well as "Presidential succession"); see also H.R. 10(j)(12).

The Constitution thus provides that, in the first instance, the selection of the President--and the evaluation of a candidate's qualifications--should be made by politically accountable bodies without judicial participation. If a court were to pass upon the eligibility of a candidate to hold the Office of President before the Electoral College and Congress have acted, it may involve itself in political matters for which it is institutionally ill-suited and interfere with the constitutional authority of the Electoral College and Congress to evaluate the qualifications of presidential candidates. The political question doctrine suggests that courts should not preempt the judgments of those governmental bodies that the Constitution designates as the forums for determining a presidential candidate's eligibility to hold office. To permit them to do so could greatly aggrandize the power of the judicial branch and thereby seriously disrupt the Framers' carefully calibrated separation of powers--"the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government." Indeed, one can scarcely imagine a greater aggrandizement of the Judiciary's authority, and a greater intrusion upon the business of the coordinate branches of government, than for the Judiciary to unnecessarily arrogate to itself control over who is eligible to serve in those coordinate branches.

End------

So do you really want the courts to effectively circumvent Congress? It's easy enough to say "yes" if it's someone else's ox that's being gored. But you're also saying "yes" if it comes to pass that it's your ox that's being gored.

[Peerless]

But why should there be any harsh wind in the first place?
***We get a lot of annoying trolls here.

I have quite a lot of experience with trolls.

However I've found that the most effective method of dealing with them is to simply ignore them. Perhaps management here can post some "DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS" signs. ;)

***You’re not getting a harsh wind JUST because you’re new. It’s because you’re new and you’re annoying and you disagree over minor points and you are acting a lot like a troll. That’s basically classic troll behavior. But real trolls stop posting answers to questions, and their answers simply don’t make sense. It appears you have this unique perspective based upon legal musings and you seem to be able to defend it on the basis of facts & argumentation. If you are still a troll, you’re at least a knowledgeable one and that’s worth keeping in my book.

Thank you for the kind words, even though the compliments may be backhanded. ;)

Do you want to see the difference between conservatives and liberals? Go and register today at Democratic Underground and start disagreeing with them on something like this. See how long you last and how polite they are with you, and make up your own mind about which site tolerates dissent better.

I don't doubt what you say about Democratic Underground.

However I have already been banned twice by Free Republic so I'm afraid I see no difference whatsoever between conservatives and liberals when it comes to intolerance of those who simply may disagree.

And since I've now made this known, I'll likely be banned yet a third time. So please don't try and tell me that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals. It just isn't so.

Many people are intolerant of that which they disagree with, regardless of their politics. It's just a sad part of human nature.

Another example of that is Phil Berg himself.

Back on September 19th, he wrote the following over on his obamacrimes.com website:

Please continue to come back for daily updates and also to voice your comments, a right of "free speech" guaranteed by "our" U.S. Constitution.

Berg is saying that voicing your comments on his website is a right of free speech guaranteed by "our" US Constitution.

However they have been systematically banning people there who have done nothing more than voice their comments. The only problem was that Berg didn't agree with the comments.

How's that for someone claiming to have filed his lawsuit in order to uphold the Constitution?

Sorry if I'm being cynical here. But since I first started posting on this whole issue over three months ago, I've been met with nothing but the most visceral intolerance. From HillaryClintonForum, to TexasDarlin, to AtlasShrugs, to NoQuarter, to FreeRepublic, to ObamaCrimes.

However NoQuarter is due some credit. They're the only one on that list that hasn't banned me.

***Well, there’s plenty here to be interested in. Are you a lawyer? You argue like one. Most of us freepers are not lawyers, we’re conservative activists.

No, I'm not a lawyer. I've just had a long time interest in constitutional issues.

[Non-Sequitur]

Let me know how your butt kissing of the new, illegitimate, socialist president of the U.S. and his brownshirts turns out.

I will defer to your expertise in butt kissing, and merely point out that if you have any evidence at all that Obama's candidacy is illegitimate then you're keeping it all to yourself.

[Non-Sequitur]

***I gather you have a reading comprehension problem, because starting with the 2nd sentence, your question is already addressed.

Comprehension problems seem to be on your end. I asked what evidence there was that Obama was born outside the U.S. All you did was point to claims that the birth certificate floating around the internet was forged. That isn't evidence of foreign birth. Evidence of that would be foreign birth certificate, some sort of official recognition of the birth, something like that. So far nobody has provided anything like that. You all could put this whole thing to rest and shut Obama up for good if you could only produce evidence of foreign birth. Why can't you?