A petition for a writ of certiorari (cert) is a brief to the Court explaining why the Court should hear the case. In most litigation, the Supreme Court is not required to hear the case, it only takes up those cases that meet certain standards as argued in the petition for a cert writ. Generally the case must present an important constitutional issue (i.e., gun rights, abortion, school prayer, etc.) or there must be a conflict between lower appellate courts (i.e, one court says 2nd amendment does not prevent gun control laws and another says the 2nd amendment prevents gun control laws).
Very few cases that are presented through cert petitions are accepted by Court. If, however, the case is accepted, then the Court will require merit briefs on the issue from all parties and will then hold oral arguments on the issue. All of which will take months, if not longer.
Since Berg's case was thrown out by the lower court on the issue of standing (i.e., Berg did not have standing to bring the case), then all that the Court will be considering, assuming it accepts the case, will be whether the lower court was correct in finding no standing. If the Court believes that the lower court was wrong, it will send the case back to that lower case to proceed.
So, the Supreme Court will not be deciding anything having to do with Obama's birth certificate at this point. All it will be doing is (1) deciding whether to accept the case for hearing and if so, (2) whether the lower court was correct in finding that Berg had no standing.
I should add that the same analysis applies to the Donofrio case. His case was dismissed by Souter and refiled with Thomas. His request for an injunction to delay the election was denied and now his petition for a writ of certiorari is pending.
This may be true for the Berg case. But the Donofrio case is a different beast.
From all the many lawsuits filed with Jumbo Mumbo legal "language", I feel this is the most compelling and logical to push forward:!!!
A more important lawsuit, however, may be the New Jersey case filed by Leo C. Donofrio. See http://www.blogtext.org/naturalborncitizen/ Donofrio is presently seeking emergency stay relief in the US Supreme Court, and what's intriguing about his action is a new legal theory not asserted (as yet) in any of the earlier cases. Donofrio argues that the "birth certificate" and "Indonesia" issues are irrelevant to Obama's eligibility to serve as President. Donofrio points out that Obama spokesmen have admitted (at least on websites) that his father was a Kenyan native at the time of Obama's birth, and was thereby a British subject (Kenya, at the time, was a British colony). Obama spokesmen acknowledge (on websites) that British law governed the status of Obama Sr.'s children, but the spokesmen also assert that Obama held dual Kenya/US citizenship at birth, and his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1981. The Obama assertion is that he was in fact born in Hawaii, and that he has never renounced the US citizenship status that arises as a result of his Hawaiian birth.
Donofrio argues that these facts admitted by Obama spokesmen establish WITHOUT MORE that Obama is not eligible for the presidency. Donofrio looks to the full clause in Article 2. Section 1. of the Constitution, which provides:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Donofrio asserts that the words ". . . or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution . . ." have been overlooked in earlier lawsuits about Obama's eligibility, and that these words provide the key to a proper understanding of the eligibility issue. The Donofrio argument goes to original intent of the framers as expressed through these words-- he points out that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. So the Donofrio "original intent" argument goes like this:
The chosen wording of the framers makes clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves-- persons born subject to British jurisdiction-- and "natural born citizens" who would NOT be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. The framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President, but the grandfather clause ONLY applies to any person who was a "Citizen . . . at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution." Obama (obviously) was not a Citizen at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, so he is not subject to the grandfather clause.
Here's where the Donofrio argument becomes quite interesting. The framers recognized that EVEN THEY were not "natural born citizens." That's why they included a grandfather clause to allow any of them to become President. The framers did not want citizens with divided loyalty to become President in the future-- particularly citizens with loyalty to the hated British Empire. Donofrio argues that the word "born" constitutes proof positive that the framers intended that status as a "citizen" must be present at birth, since if this was not the intent there would have been no need for the grandfather clause. Dual citizenship at time of birth (British/US) was allowed for the framers themselves under the grandfather clause, but for no one else. Hence, argues Donofrio, Obama is not a natural born citizen, and even if he produces an original birth certificate proving he was born in Hawaii it will not change the fact that he was a British citizen at birth.
1. The prohibition in the Consitution of non citizens being qualified for the POTUS was inserted at a time when the loyalty of many citizens was in question. Remember that a lot of Americans stood by the King all through the Revolutionary War.
2. You can bet the farm that some document expert is creating a legitimate BC right now in response to all of this.
3. Even if the issue is legitimate the congress will attempt to amend the Constitution immediately.
????
What about the Donofrio case on Dec 5th, going to conference? How does that play out and why are they doing it?
08A505 just popped up on 08-570 as a new injunction for Souter to deny.