BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

US Supreme Court ^ | 12/23/08 | US Supreme Court

[BP2]

No. 08-570
Title:	Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:	October 31, 2008
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-4340)
	Rule 11

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008	Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008	Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008	Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008	Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008	Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008	Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.	---------------

No. 08A505
Title:	Philip J. Berg, Applicant v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case Nos.:

(08-4340)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008	Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

[MHGinTN]

Yes. Glad you put the link up though ... we have thousands of readers who do not usually post on threads.

[calenel]

"it would appear that BHO was born in Hawaii"

That is the specific point where I disagree with you - there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary, along with the credible analysis of the COLB done by Polarik. We are talking about the single most important job in the entire world, for which, perhaps, 2% of the people on the planet are qualified. As far as I'm concerned, as the actions of the POTUS affect everyone on the planet, at least potentially, thus giving 'standing' to the most ignorant and isolated Whopper Virgin on Earth. Anyone who wants to should have the opportunity to be credibly informed as to the unquestioned eligibility of the person assuming that office. It is bad enough that we have Obama where he is. We are entitled to know the truth so that we can take future action toward any appropriate remedy, even if he demonstrates irrefutable evidence of eligibility.

[calenel]

What is your position on children of military born overseas?

[calenel]

It simply means that you can be a Senator or Representative after having been naturalized (and we have had some and currently do have some), but you have to be born a citizen to be President. That’s it. That’s all. Crystal clear.

[trumandogz]

Again, no one has provided a legal difenition of natural born citizen per legislation or case law.

[MHGinTN]

Regarding the child of a Mexican mother born in the U.S., here's another reference:

Additionally, Charles Pinckney in 1800 said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure … attachment to the country.”
What better way to insure attachment to the country then to require the President to have inherited his American citizenship through his American father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return in later life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.

[calenel]

"Okay, so if he was born in Hawaii, he would be a natural born citizen?"

Yes.

[MHGinTN]

And ...

Therefore, we can say with confidence that a natural-born citizen of the United States means those persons born whose father the United States already has an established jurisdiction over, i.e., born to father’s who are themselves citizens of the United States. A person who had been born under a double allegiance cannot be said to be a natural-born citizen of the United States because such status is not recognized (only in fiction of law). A child born to an American mother and alien father could be said to be a citizen of the United States by some affirmative act of law but never entitled to be a natural-born citizen because through laws of nature the child inherits the condition of their father.

[little jeremiah]

I know you’re real smart and everything, but I never said YOU said all those things about Obama.

*I* said them, and I can say them again if you want me to.

[trumandogz]

Can you show me where the previous 42 men that have been President have submitted conclusive proof that they were in fact natural born citizens?

Is there a place in the National Archives that holds the original 42 birth certificates?

[Drew68]

here's another reference:

Senator Pinckney's opinions do not establish Constitutionality any more than Senator Feinstein's opinions do. Plenty of elected officials wish that the Constitution says something else besides what it clearly says. All this wishing doesn't make it true.

Now post some case law.

[little jeremiah]

My position as to whether they are natural born citizens, eligible to become president? (I assume that’s what you meant.)

Being an ordinary person with no higher education, and certainly on the low end of the totem pole on legal beagle stuff, I only read what others post and try to form an understanding.

There seems to be a bit of gray area - to me (and again, I really do not know the absolute legal truth here, if there is such a thing), it appears that if both parents are US citizens, and the child is born on a US military base, the child most likely may be a natural born citizen. Otherwise, looks like a citizen, and if one parent is a foreign national, might have dual citizenship. But that probaly is also determined by the laws of the country in which he is born. If born off base, then maybe a dual ciziten as well, and would look to me as though not natural born.

But, again, I don’t know - it’s just based on what I try to glean reading these threads.

It seems clear that if 0bama was not born in the US as he claims (and there has been no proof that he was born in the US, so his real place of birth remains unknown), then it looks clear that he is not a natural born citizen, and thus unqualified to be president.

It also looks (again, what do I know - just have my natural born mother wit to guide me) that there are indeed three kinds of citizens - naturalized, natural born, and citizens who are “regular” citizens - meaning, they didn’t become citizens by becoming naturalized, but there were other factors such as being born in a foreign country, or with dual citizenship at birth because of one parent being a foreigner.

I will keep reading and learning.

[little jeremiah]

Kevmo - these questions deserve being on the list. Such red herrings!

truman - Red Herring. And you know why. But, for the record:

1. Birth certificates as we know them are a relatively modern invention, so obviously many previous presidents did not have them.

2. Even for presidents who did have birth certificates, why would anyone have asked to see them, if there was no doubt, question or mystery about their birth location and thus eligibility?

I can’t believe you’re dragging this idiocy around; it’s like someone with toilet paper stuck to his shoe being dragged around. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

And why does Berg’s idiocy make the rest of his life useless, when you give 0bama a pass on every bit of skullduggery, lies, racist “church” and all the rest? That’s perfectly okay?

And Berg is one case out of many. Why do you harp on him solely?

[sonic109]

Why are you all wasting words?This will all amount to ZERO anyway.

[calenel]

"If they didn't discuss it, that means that it was understood"

I would agree with that.

"and for that understanding you must look to English Common law."

Perhaps, but I have yet to see a clear citation of common law that differs from the dictionary definition. Oxford even cites Blackstone when it provides the definition.

"Under that law, a person born of two citizen parents, or a citizen father, outside the country was considered natural born. But a person born in the country was natural born regardless of the citizenship of the parents, although there exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats, or of an occupying army."

With you so far.

"But any statute law changes to this definition only apply to citizenship at birth, not to natural born citizenship as that term is used in the Constitution. Congress cannot define terms in the Constitution, except by passing an amendment."

I don't think you can retroactively redefine a word by statute, so if that is the correct interpretation of your comment, I agree. The Legislature cannot redefine 'natural born' ala Resolution 511, but a Constitutional Amendment could alter the wording (but not really the definition of the original terms) of the requirements to be President. So Resolution 511, aside from being nonbinding, is also irrelevant.

"But 'natural born' only matters in eligibility to the office of President and Vice President. For all other purposes, citizen at birth, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen all have the same rights and obligations, and all are eligible for any other office, unless state law or Constitutions provide otherwise for state or local offices,although I'm not aware that any do. "

I agree. It seems that we agree on this matter. So, since every single person seems to have a slightly different view on this, the question is where do we not agree?

[Drew68]

It also looks (again, what do I know - just have my natural born mother wit to guide me) that there are indeed three kinds of citizens - naturalized, natural born, and citizens who are “regular” citizens

And this is where Donofrio's argument disintegrates into pure fantasy because nowhere, and I mean nowhere, is there any case law that recognizes this "three-tiered" (Natural Born, Naturalized, Regular) definition of U.S. citizen.

This concept exists nowhere in the Constitution and is wholly a product of Donofrio's imagination.

On several threads a simple request has been asked. Show us case law.

You seem like a smart guy. Have you ever asked yourself why these cases keep getting tossed? Have you ever asked yourself why no prominent Republicans have challenged this? Why no conservative pundits mention this (except to belittle the Kool-Aid drinkers)? Why Hillary didn't use it? Keyes when he ran for Senate? Nobody? Are we to believe that somehow Obama's eligibility slipped unchallenged past all these career politicians (or everyone from the President on down is part of a grand conspiracy)?

Just think about it. Obama isn't smarter than everybody else. None of his opponents would have given him a free pass on eligibility. There is no grand conspiracy.

[calenel]

"Have you checked out this site?"

Yes. Permit me to draw your attention to the particular comment:

"Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. "

What does that mean? Further, the site used to say that there were no laws addressing the subject of citizenship prior to 1866 (quotations available in some earlier posts on several threads), but that has been modified. I think the author is a Freeper due to the timing of changes made in the article(s) coinciding with discussion here on FR, but that isn't certain. The author's original assertions were demonstrated to be incorrect, and that hasn't really changed. They still rely on the same unsupported and circular arguments. Same goes for the 'jurisdiction' piece by this same P.A. Madison. While I generally evaluate the merits of claims made based on what I know rather than the letters attached to a person's name, the information on that site is both incorrect and anonymous, a fatal combination. Or, at least, the several times I have checked the site for changes and credentials, there were plenty of the former and none of the latter. I give the author credit for adaptability, but not for accuracy.