Posted on 10/10/2008 6:53:14 PM PDT by pissant
In a lawsuit styled Berg v. Obama, lawyers for Barack Hussein Obama have filed a Motion for Protective Order, seeking to block discovery until his motion to dismiss is ruled on by the court. The Motion for Protective Order filed by Obama and the Democratic National Committee, asks the court to issue a protective order stopping "all discovery in this action pending the Court's decision on defendant's motion to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
In his lawsuit, the Plaintiff, Philip J. Berg, a Philadelphia attorney, alleged that Defendant Barack Hussein Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old, to regain his U.S. citizenship status. The lawsuit raises not only the Indonesian citizenship issue but also questions whether Obama was a citizen of Kenya.
The motion to block production of documents is just the latest in a series of filings in the case, but has become a focal point of the suit. According to a web site maintained by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff requested that three documents be produced by Obama:
1. a certified copy of Obama’s “vault” (original long version) Birth Certificate;
2. a certified copy of Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship; and
3. a certified copy of the Oath of Allegiance taken by Obama at the age of majority.
Mr. Berg asserts that if Barack Hussein Obama will produce the above documents and prove his eligibility for the Office of the Presidency, that he (Mr. Berg) will dismiss his lawsuit voluntarily. To date, Obama has refused to produce these documents to Mr. Berg.
It's a question of when the federal courts can enforce the US Constitution.
Our government was structured around the concept of a separation of powers. Basically meaning that the legislative branch has its bailiwick, the executive branch has its bailiwick, and the judicial branch has its bailiwick. And it was intended that no branch would be able to undermine or usurp the powers of another.
Out of this separation of powers came the political question doctrine. Basically it says that, for example, the courts can't just step in and declare a piece of legislation unconstitutional before it's even been enacted by Congress or signed into law by the President.
That would undermine the powers of the legislative and executive branches.
So the courts would have to wait until Congress passed the legislation and the President signed it into law.
In this instance, it would be premature for the courts to involve themselves since the other mechanisms for dealing with a situation as this have yet to be played out.
For example, states may state the qualifications as to who may appear on their state ballots. However that is entirely a state question as Article II grants sole power to the states when it comes to appointing electors.
Next there are the electors, who by the Constitution are the only ones responsible for casting votes for President and Vice President. Electors may take Article II qualifications into consideration when casting their votes on December 15th.
And then there is Congress, who by statute may challenge any of the electoral votes.
So in other words, the political question doctrine says that the courts can't enforce the Constitution until such time as these other mechanisms have played out.
For a more detailed insight into this, I recommend reading the motion to dismiss filed by the RNC and John McCain in Robinson v. Bowen.
Read page 6 starting at paragraph 15 and up to page 8 at paragraph 22.
What do we get a do over if it proves he is Kenyan?
As Berg says, we get a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISES.
Naaaah. The Constitution already anticipates such an eventuality. See the Twentieth Amendment.
I think I made is obvious that I HAVEN’T done my research! I just found out about the announcement.
I use to work for a newpaper. Hospitals use to give the list to the paper about once a week, or every two weeks. Parents would fill out the form at the hospital. At the top of the column it would say, “such and such hospital announces births”. Does his say that?
Even if he was born in Hawaii, I want assurances that he was not adopted in Indonesia, and never again became a citizen. I believe that is the cover up.
...have filed a Motion for Protective Order, seeking to block discovery until his motion to dismiss is ruled on by the courtThat's intelligent. Let's delay this until after the election, when the court will do what, exactly? Dismiss the whole thing with the understanding that Obama isn't eligible to serve as the POTUS? Or, will the court let the case go forward, possibly invalidating Obama's candidacy (or victory, should he win)? Thanks LucyT.
Bear with me if I told you this already, but here’s why I believe that the BHO birth certificate posted on the Internet is fake. I’m currently filling out the paperwork to adopt three orphaned children in the Philippines, and recently I had to order three copies of my birth certificate for that process. I was born just two years before Obama, in the state nearest to his (California), so I would expect his birth certificate to look something like mine. Instead, my birth certificate contains much more information: the name and address of the hospital, the name of the doctor, the ages of my parents, and a bunch of signatures from everyone involved except me. By contrast, the Obama birth certificate is virtually blank. What is the Obama campaign trying to hide? That he wasn’t born, perhaps?
if the case somehow gets dropped the RNC should file lawsuits in all 57 states Obama has visited.
Good news is that the judge has had several opportunities to kick the lawsuit out on these grounds and has not done so.
The best case or controversy argument is that neither candidate is eligible under Article II, Sec. 1 (and thus harm does not depend on who wins). And that argument also supports the standing argument.
As to standing, joinder of election officials; maybe joinder of election officials in other jurisdictions; maybe joinder of the actual electors in Pennsylvania would support Berg's position.
"57 states was a reference to Tur-ray-zah, widow of Senator John Heinz, and therefore to the 2004 presidential run by her current husband, Lurch, er, Senator Kerry. Obviously it wasn't a reference to the 57 states I thought I knew, and to suggest otherwise shows how desparate the McCain campaign has become."
I was wondering what your opinion of this would be:) Given the date requested by Berg- is the judge going to answer one way or another by the 15th?
Thanks. Kinda big though. ;’)
Leni
Maybe Akmanutjob can run for US President in 2012.
I can't tell.
Berg's legal work in this case does not look like the kind of work you would expect from a sophisticated litigator who had some understanding of how to get this argument to a court.
Lots of things he should have done. And the responses from Obama's counsel are all those you would expect. Lack of standing; no case or controversy; and no subject matter jurisdiction.
Gitmo raised the subject matter issue in another post. Federal courts decide arguments between the parties over matters in their jurisdiction. The simple point your finger at Obama argument is at best a political question which, if he wins the election, gets resolved by Congress.
Berg, and those of us who agree with his position, does have a justiciable argument with: Obama electors in Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania electoral authorities; perhaps electoral authorities in other states. He might have been able to overcome the "no case or controversy" argument by joining a claim that McCain is not qualified either on the same grounds--thus Berg is hurt by not having a choice of a candidate who is eligible to serve.
He is now moving to plug some of those holes. The implication is that he has some help from some qualified counsel.
You would have bet the judge would have kicked this out a long time ago--the fact that he has not is some indication that he intends to allow Berg to present his position. But we will see.
“Naaaah. The Constitution already anticipates such an eventuality. See the Twentieth Amendment.”
If he is not a natural born U.S citizen, is it your interpretation that it would be Congress’ call concerning his qualification?
FROM THE 20th Ammendment:
or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and 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.
Well we could always look to the 10th Amendment and say that anything not delineated in the Constitution would be left up to the States. In that case would it be the National Guard that would be the “enforcing authority” to ensure a free and fair election?
Similar to the oath the military takes - to defend and uphold the Constitution?
I’m just throwing this out there — I have no clue if this would be correct or not...
The FBI and the Federal Courts would enforce it as well, wouldn’t they? Similar to the investigation being conducted in Chicago and the FBI raids all over the country regarding ACORN?
That seems to make the most sense, doesn’t it? President Bush may also have a position from his “Bully Pulpit” but I would suggest that Bush does NOT bother stepping up unless he’s backed by a lot of the leaders of Congress, and perhaps even past Presidents like Clinton? I’m envisioning a “Conversation with America about what is going on”. Obama can be invited if he wants. But he’ll have to give everyone equal time, even if all 20 people there are against him...
It is this bad I’m afraid, and we need to pressure Congress to get involved. I would tell John McCain to call Hillary and ask her to call in some favors as well.
Look at these videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBTtn0pns54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8Ep1tkNOUU&feature=related
I started writing my representatives last night, demanding that they assure me that Obama is Constitutionally qualified.
WE DO NOT WANT THE 20th amendment enabling the Democrat Party to bypass the Constitution. That is their plan in delaying the Court action, have an election with Obama winning and then letting a hack party bypass the Constitution.
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.
