Posted on 12/26/2009 6:59:53 AM PST by westcoastwillieg
Attorney Philip J. Berg defends Obama birth certificate lawsuits
Editor's note: Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania and an activist attorney who brought a lawsuit challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to become president of the United States, has written the following reply to Jamie Freeze's Dec. 22 RenewAmerica article "Facts are stubborn things: Obama is a natural-born citizen."
Jamie Freeze, a law student, has called any of us who question Soetoro/Obama's citizenship status and constitutional eligibility to serve as U.S. President --- a constitutional right of ours, of course --- incompetent idiots. Ms. Freeze, however, may want to continue her education. Part of being a lawyer, a very important part, is being able to comprehend what you read and to cite the correct law to collaborate it, something Ms. Freeze has clearly failed to do.
I will respond below to Ms. Freeze's allegations. My responses are in bold. I also want to make very clear to all readers that none of the eligibility cases have been heard, litigated, or dismissed based on the law pertaining to any of the issues raised. Instead, the eligibility cases have been dismissed on the basis of "STANDING" only.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):
“It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one.”
Toy soldier. I asked a simple question. Where does one get documentation or some proof that the Obama lawyers have spent $1.5 million on defense against proof of citizenship claims. If you cite the figure, where does it come from. Apparently, you don’t have a clue as judged from your nasty response.
Huh? I did read the article. Yes, she wrote one that indicated she was a conservative Republican and she wrote the one we are discussing. I agree with the professor who was critiquing the second. So, no I’m not embarrassed.
Yeah, a lot of us can get into some pretty quick knee jerky responses hereon.
Some like to think of things as simple and clear-cut when they aren’t always that way.
I was all set to rant at her about the Christian Republicans article. Yet, she was sensible and pretty conservative, I think.
I think she missed it by a lot of country miles on the birther thing, however.
I’ve missed a lot of things, too.
That is the heart of the matter...the Court can not invent standing where none exists.
http://www.therightsideoflife.com/2009/08/10/eligibility-update-other-candidates-vetted-birth-announcement-law-tab-to-1-4-million/
Does he address the explicit exclusion of illegitimate children from receiving UK citizenship under the BNA of 1948?
“Thanks Seizethecarp, but Obama Sr. had other wives, never divorced any and never served time in jail.”
To my knowledge, Obama Sr. had only one marriage and one legal wife in Kenya and that was to Kezia. The other two marriages were in the US and appear to me to be serial bigamous marriages under both US and Kenya (UK colonial) law.
See UK Daily Mail:
and:
You underestimate the founding fathers.
We do not yet know “what matters by our constitution” as SCOTUS has not yet ruled on an on-point case other to say that “there is doubt” as to whether persons who do not have two citizen parents and born on US are NBC.
The 1948 BNA explicitly excludes Barry from being a UK subject if he was the illegitimate child of a bigamous marriage.
See 1948 BNA:
“(2) Subject to the provisions of section twenty-three of this Act, any reference in this Act to a child shall be construed as a reference to a legitimate child; and the expressions “father”, “ancestor” and “descended” shall be construed accordingly.”
It is not clear to me whether Sarah Herlihy's involvement was to legally protect Obama from ineligibility due to being a potential dual citizen or foreign birth or both. I don't believe there was any such trial of McCain or out-of-court settlement (link welcome, of course).
Yes, there was a non-binding resolution in the Senate supposedly affirming that McCain was NBC. But the Senate has no power to redefine the language of the Constitution. Only SCOTUS has that power, which is why the resolution was non-binding.
McCain's admitted problem had to do with being born outside the territorial USA and is totally different from Obama’s admitted problem of being the son of a UK subject. McCain does not admit to a dual citizen problem that he might have it he were born on off-base Panamanian soil as some claim. Obama does not admit to a non-US birth problem.
My suspicion is that Obama’s expensively hidden HI vital record opens a path to discovery of a non-US birth along with amendments that claim an HI birth. HI officials are bound to honor the amended conclusion of an HI birth but are legally unable to disclose the amendments or source of the original birth report and the claimed location of the birth.
Why spend so much as 100 dollars hiding behind a lawyer when you can spend 10-20 dollars at a Hawaii records office?
The point is, he is hiding behind an army of lawyers for a reasons relating to his deceptive intentions.
The precise dollar value is insignificant IF you bother to examine why he would hide like this.
PS... You never answered my question about President Reagan.
Whose not who’s.
“Who’s” is a contraction for “who is.”
Yes, I’m aware of the illegitimacy issue under the BNA of 1948. I posted a link to it above.
I have always maintained that Obama is not a natural born citizen because he doesn’t have two U.S. citizen parents. However, I now find it difficult to point to the BNA of 1948 as governing the status of his birth when it also stipulates that he is illegitimate and not automatically a U.K. subject.
I’m researching the issue further. This little fact is troublesome to the whole argument that he is not a natural born citizen.
Eligibility Update: Other Candidates Vetted; Birth Announcement; Law Tab to $1.4 Million
EXCERPT:
“In the last 18 years, highly personal information has been published about presidential candidates, including divorce and alimony details, drunk driving arrest records, college grades, urinalysis results, prostate cancersurgery – even details about George W. Bush’s hemorrhoid troubles.
The media have dredged up medical, military, college and detailed records for Republican and Democratic Party candidates in at least the last five elections. Candidates were subject to intense scrutiny of their health conditions, academic performance and military careers. …
As WND has reported, Obama has not released his long-form birth certificate, college transcripts, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records or his adoption records. …
Nearly every candidate since the 1992 election has released detailed medical records. However, Barack Obama, a relatively young candidate who was said to have been in “excellent health,” refused to release his own. Instead, he simply provided a six-paragraph note from his physician briefly summarizing 21 years of doctor visits and health information.
Whille not comprehensive, the following is a list of publicly available documents and personal information the media published on Republican and Democrat candidates Sen. John McCain, George W. Bush, Sen. John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush...”
HIT LINK BELOW TO READ MORE:
Frankly, I don’t personally know how much TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY Obama has spent to prevent discovery of his birth certificate... but when I sent away for mine, it cost me around $12.00.
STE=Q
Sorry, English is my third (3rd.) language, do you want to join me in conversation with my two other languages???
How about looking at it this way.
Accept your assumption that 1.5 million is too much, representing the extreme upper limit.
But coming from the other side, we can be certain the amount Obama has spent defending against the birthers is greater than zero.
What then can we speculate would be the extreme lower limit?
Say $100,000. Many would scoff and say it’s way too low. Anyway, a rough estimate can be gauged through the means described in these discussions.
Now take the lower limit and the upper limit and establish a reasonable middle value.
The answer here, and we’re being extremely conservative, would be an amount approaching one million dollars and steadily increasing.
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.