U.S. Supreme Court denies Injunction request by Berg

Obamacrimes.com ^ | January 26, 2009 | Philip Berg

[Calpernia]

Advisory from Philip J. Berg, Esquire:

Re: Obama - "not" natural born - "not" qualified to be President

Attached is Press Release detailing:

U.S. Supreme Court denies Injunction request by Berg, case still alive in 3rd Circuit; GLOBE Magazine of 2/2/09 highlights Obama not being "qualified;" and Berg states he has 3 open cases and will continue to prove Obama ineligible.

Berg vs. Obama, Third Circuit Court of Appeals No. 08 – 4340 Berg filed Brief on 1/20/09

Berg vs. Obama, U.S. District Court for the ______________ Case filed under seal on 11/07/08 – cannot be discussed

Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 08-cv-0225 Response to Hollister Complaint due 1/26/09 by Soetoro/Obama and Biden

Call (610) 662-3005 to schedule interviews or Fax to (610) 834-7659 or E-mail to philjberg@gmail.com

[aruanan]

This is the problem...a definition of natural born does not exist in the constitution

That's not a problem. Almost no terms in the Constitution are defined in the Constitution. Nearly everything relies on the meaning of the language when it was written. This is why original intent is such an important principle in understanding the Constitution. People can gas on and on about "What the Constitution means to me" but the Constitution as the foundation of U.S. law depends on what it meant to those who wrote it, liberal legislation from the bench notwithstanding.

[BrerLion]

a definition of natural born does not exist in the constitution.

That is loophole-think. I'd like to see Barry's desperate contortions while trying to slip through that particular public discussion. Opinions would be formed, and that would be a start.

[hoosiermama]

a definition of natural born does not exist in the constitution.

and there is a definition of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration???...BB you are grasping at straws. Aruanan is correct: definition is based on the intent at the time it was written, the common usage which was a MAN born in the country whose parents were also born in this country. It changes with amendments to clarify, not with judicial opinions ie women are not eligible. BTW which government agency recognizes three types of citizenship today?

[abigail2]

He wasn’t on. He got too busy. So Jesse is arranging a new time for him

[hoosiermama]

Thanks

[Frantzie]

I wonder how long that can can languish in CA? If CA denies they Orly can send it back up to SCOTUS?

[bronxboy]

I’m not grasping at straws...what has Declaration of Independence to do with this? There is no definition of natural born in the constitution. Thus, a court can not rule on this issue. You may believe that natural born should be a child born in this country of two American citizen parents, but the constitution does not spell it out. You may believe that the framers intent was exactly this, but they didn’t put it in the constitution. Thus,I don’t believe the courts will define natural born and then retroactively apply it to the 2008 election. They don’t like to get involved in elections and it would be seen as a partisan ruling-a conservative coup... probably destroy conservatism at that. If Obama was proven born not to be born in Hawaii...it would be different. However, the natural born issue will not work in this situation.

[bronxboy]

The answer is natural born is not defined in the constitution. Thus, there is no governing law for the courts to act upon.

[bronxboy]

It’s a loophole alright, but it favors Obama not Berg or any of the others involved in this. It’s not defined. Thus no court will rule on it. If he is born in Hawaii, the lawsuits go nowhere.

[bronxboy]

I don’t believe the court will see (I don’t) or act upon this intent...it’s not clear what the intent might be since they didn’t put it in the constitution.

[FreeManN]

I plan to go straight to the top!

[Frantzie]

Do you have something in the works? If so - God speed to you.

Let us know if we can help some way. PM or something.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I can’t believe it? Under seal? The supreme court put it under seal? CAn they do that?

No they can't. There's no such thing as a case being under seal-- papers in a case may be under seal, but the name of the case and the docket number are always public. I simply don't believe Berg here, sorry.

[FreeManN]

You have been of great assistance, Frantzie.

Just continue to tell it like it is.

[FreeManN]

Calling for A Few Good Men:

http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/we-are-looking-for-active-members-of.html

[Frantzie]

Thanks. I get a little passionate or hostile. This situation as far more dangerous than any American understands.

The TV Arabic news interview shows he was doing a dog and pony show for his masters pushing dhiminitude.

I go nuts when an ignorant clown like Rick Warren is sucking up to this guy. Do pastors or really faux pastors even know what the word dhiminitude means?

I thought the Catholic Church would get it after they were instrumental in stopping the loss of Europe in 1683 AD at the Battle of Vienna.

[El Gato]

The answer is natural born is not defined in the constitution. Thus, there is no governing law for the courts to act upon.

Ah, "No controlling legal authority?"

Other than the Constitution that is. Well, since many terms, most in fact, are not defined, I guess we just have to throw the old rag out..

NOT!

. Again, the terms mean what they meant when the Constitution was written. Generally one can look to the debates in the Convention, but if that is not illuminaing enough, then the Courts turn to the Common Law, as it existed at the time.

There may be legitimate differences of opinion over the definition. But that's why we pay the Justices of the Supreme Court the Big Bucks. Lower Courts can give their interpretation, but the "looser" can appeal to the Supreme Court.

There is no definition of "Arms" or Militia, or "Freedom of the Press" nor of "Speech", nor even of "unreasonable" as applied to searches and seizures. Nor of "excessive" in regards to bail or "cruel and unusual" in regards to punishment of criminals. That hasn't stopped the Courts, especially the Supreme Court from ruling on all those. Some of those rulings have been quite recent after decades of non envolvement in the issue. Even "the people" is not defined, as straightforward as it may seem. But in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ, 494 U.S. 259 (1990) The Court stated:

The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" [494 U.S. 259, 260] refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.

Thus the Court can, and must, define "Natural Born Citizen" in any case alleging that a person is "not eligible to the office of President" because they are not a "Natural Born Citizen". If they choose to rule at all that is.

Of course it's pretty clear that if one is not a citizen at all upon one's birth, one cannot be a natural born citize. The opposite is not logically necessary however. One *could* be a citizen at birth, (A so called statutory citizen) and still not be a "natural born" citizen.

[El Gato]

There is no definition of natural born in the constitution. Thus, a court can not rule on this issue.

Then they can't rule on the right to keep and bear arms, because "arms" is not defined. They can't rule on the regulation of interstate commerce, because niether "regulate" nor "commerce" is defined.

Ruling on these things is what they do.

[bronxboy]

2nd amendment...is in the constitution...so I have no idea what you mean. The right to bear arms is spelled out and the Court issues a decent ruling recently. The ‘right to bear arms’ has meaning...natural born?

[bronxboy]

They won’t do this...plenty of things were in common law at the time...but didn’t make it into the constitution. No court will define natural born...and overturn an election. It won’t happen.