UPDATE
Supreme Court his going to meet amongst themselves to decide whether to take this case. That should happen on December 5th. Four justices have to agree to take the case. It’s not over yet. They will probably require Obama to turn over the certificate to end the question.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Philip J. Berg, owner of the website obamacrimes.com, will appeal his case to enforce the natural born citizen clause of the constitution against Barack Obama. His federal district court case over Obama’s birth certificate was dismissed by Federal Judge R. Barclay Surrick, on motion by Senator Obama, on grounds that Berg does not have standing as a U.S. citizen to enforce the natural born citizen clause of the constitution. Berg has motioned the Supreme Court for an injunction to stay the election until the case is decided.
So who does have standing to enforce the natural born citizen clause of the constitution? Standing is a confusing and difficult principle of jurisprudence. In a nutshell, standing requires that the person bringing a suit before the court to have an actual, or be in imminent danger of a specific and particular injury. There must be causation between the injury and the conduct of the defending party. The court must also be able to correct or redress the injury.
In Berg’s case, the court may have found a difficulty finding a specific injury. Berg’s claims of injury are really more abstract. Part of the principle of standing deals with the potential of case overload. Can you imagine if everyday citizens were allowed to sue George Bush for violating the war powers clause in Article 1 of the constitution, or the numerous other lawsuits that could be brought against him for what people perceive as violations of their constitutional rights.
Another good example of this standing issue is some of the recent 2nd amendment cases. In the DC handgun case, standing wasn’t granted to people who hadn’t been arrested. That’s right, merely having a law banning guns, violating your 2nd amendment rights, doesn’t injure you until you are actually arrested.
Clearly the courts have jurisdiction to hear cases arising from the constitution under article 3, section 2. Then who does have standing to bring a suit to enforce the natural born citizen clause? If Arnold Schwartzenegger runs for president in 2012, can he be stopped? The judge in the district court case said that ultimately it is congress that enforces this issue. To this judge, the natural born citizens clause is a collective right, not an individual right.
It is highly doubtful that congress would jump in against Barack Obama over his standing as a citizen. However, given the involvement of the court in Bush v. Gore, I imagine that if John McCain lost, he would have standing to challenge the election on natural born citizen grounds. I am sure that the courts would hear such a case. Other than that, I don’t see any other way to get it done. If any legal minds wish to opine otherwise, I welcome your thoughts.
Here is a link if you want to view the pleadings and findings filed in this matter.









November 1st, 2008 at 4:26 am
I am not a lawyer or a ‘legal mind’, but surely the interpretation of the constitution has to be based on a measure of common sense.
First, there seems to be too much noise about the notion of ’standing’. There’s nothing fixed in the constitution about it, (if anything at all) and therefore it is a contrivance, and like all contrivances, inherently mutable. Whereas we have the prime issue that is an extreme matter of constitutionality - the danger of an illegitimate President vs. its simple remedy: the production of a birth certificate!
Relative to that essential, I do not see how other minor matters, such as whether or not the natural born citizens clause is an individual or collective right, is of any great significance.
I also (no doubt out of my ignorance) cannot understand the idea that it’s the Congress that is lumbered with the issue in the end. My simple knowledge of ‘civics’ makes me believe that it is ultimately the Supreme Court that protects the Constitution. I will be amazed therefore if, for some unbelievable (to me) reason, The Supreme Court does not rule in favor of Berg. I will be even more astounded if Roberts, without further ado, administers the oath.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:34 am
While NONE of them would risk it, those who HAVE STANDING RIGHT NOW are the following folks, who lost the Democratic Party nomination as a result of the fraudulent candidate, Obama, being given the nomination.
- Hillary Clinton (the best long shot)
- Joe Biden (not gonna happen)
- Dennis Kucinich (never in a million years)
- Chris Dodd (got fish to fry — rather, his own ass)
- John Edwards (can you say National Enquirer…)
- Bill Richardson (Doubtful)
I FOUND JUST THE MAN TO DO IT…
- MIKE GRAVEL!!!
Talk about a “MAVERICK”…
Gravel would definitely have standing based on the fact that a fraud Obama was a reason that Gravel lost the nomination, and Gravel then could demand that HE be given the nomination — by default, bypassing Hillary, Biden, et al — as a REMEDY to the INJURY.
I demand credit for this STRATEGY, because you heard it here first…
JoeKnows…
http://joeknows.wordpress.com
November 1st, 2008 at 7:06 am
I’m not a legal mind either, I did have to take over for my court appointed attorney once because he was drunk in court at 7:30 am , but it sounds alot to me like no one can claim injury until Obama is actually sworn in.
Then the whole right side of this country could file a class action suit ?
November 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am
I am a lawyer, though few lawyers ever get to practice law that touches on the natural-born citizen requirement in the Constitution, or any other constitutional pre-requisite for the office of president.
My thoughts, for what they’re worth are these:
(a) As much as it tickles my fancy to think that Obama might get the boot, I actually do doubt the “conspiracy theory” style mumurings about his citizenship.
(b) If the courts wait till after election day, then I suspect that the likely outcome would be that Biden would be sworn in, and the Republicans won’t actually win anything.
(c) I believe that the judge was wrong. Obama’s citizenship status is a pre-requisite to office, not merely a qualification. The citizenry of the country needs to have some means to redress grievances. The danger is in inviting “vexatious litigation”. As the article rightly pointed-out if every citizen is given standing to sue, then having a million law suits filed tomorrow over this issue is a real possibility.
(d) Perhaps the remedy is to allow the candidate who runs for an office for which he is not qualified should be allowed to run under the threat of being prosecuted for soliciting and conspiracy to commit vote fraud, and for other criminal violations of the voting rights acts… Allowing him to be subject to millions of counts… Therefore even if he gets one day for each count, he would go away forever.
Perhaps individuals could sue the democratic party for fraud. It is possible that a registered democrat would have standing to sue their own party for nominating a candidate that the leadership of the party knew or should have known was not qualified, thereby making their vote useless.
A democratic “elector” might have the standing to sue. As I think of it, this might be the best possibility. If one could find a duely selected democratic elector who prefers Hillary, it is possible that such a person could have standing, because as we know, the popular vote is not what determines the election.
Ultimately, if Obama gets sworn in, and then it is determined that he’s not qualified, it will significantly damage our faith in the election process. Bad news all around.
November 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am
Philip Berg is a registered Democrat, and even was head of county party in Penn. He also sued the Democratic Party. Still, no standing. I am going to link a website that has all pleadings from the case at the bottom of the article.
November 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
The perfect person with “standing” seems to me to be Ralph Nader!
Seems like something he would do!
November 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
Folks just face it: if you don’t like him, don’t vote for him. That’s the only way to stop him. Not these idiotic desperate nonsense.
Look here
And the next thing is: “but they are Democrats. How should we know they don’t conspire with Obama?”
This is really ridiculous.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:03 am
I agree totally McNab. Well stated.
it’s like a strategy of winning a game not by actually being the best and winning on your own but by trying to find any reason to get the other team disqualified so you win by default.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:20 am
If you can’t win on the issues, you make stuff up.
Do you really think that if their was any validity to this, that the Clinton machine wouldn’t have found it and exploited it in the primary?
Here is a link to the neutral web site factcheck.org.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
DONE.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Except this isn’t a game people. This is our country. It’s the constitution. That photocopy of his birth certificate on “factcheck” (hardly neutral) proves absolutley nothing. Why can’t he produce a certified copy for the public? It costs $15 bucks. It at least appears he has something to hide.
Then there is the issue of his Indonesian citizenship, as he was adopted by an Indonesian and went to school there. But none of you have read anything from the case, and wouldn’t know any of that, because you assume nothing is amis.
It’s simple, produce the proof that you qualify, or step aside.
DONE.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Justin,
Here is the Proof, AGAIN:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
Apparently, you didn’t read the factcheck.org site, which IS a neutral source of information.
If Barrack was born somewhere else, like Panama, do you think Hillary would have been all over it? You know she would have? She didn’t because it wasn’t true, and I have shown that to you, now twice.
DONE AGAIN with documentation, which you do not provide.
Cheers,
David
November 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Justin.
Its obvious these guys dont want to go there.
They’re just pretending this a mute issue because its too embarassing to admit that Obama looks ridiculous in not simply just showing the document.
They are being disengenuous in not admitting the baltant fact that it looks incredibly suspicious that Obama wont show the certificate.
Its no different than being asked if you have a license.
If you tell the officer that you have one, but he cant see it you have no right to get all indignant if he’s just a little suspicious.
By the way David.
Factcheck is about as nuetral as Obama himself as it is funded by the Annenberg foundation.
November 1st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Micky,
He presented that document, that was shown in the link, to the media!!!!! TWICE, but you can’t let it go.
Then he posted it on his website:
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate
November 1st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It was not the original.
It was stamped 2007.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Ok.
Things are getting weird because the cert, that was shown a few weeks ago had a 2007 stamp on it.
This one does not.
Lets get something straight Dave.
Even if that was an original, the question that is at the center of all this is why did this and everything else always take answers that had two or three stages to them ?
Thats the point.
Ayers, Wright, Acorn, Khalidi, birth cert, each one of these issues was danced around before we got some resembelence of the truth.
Dont you see the pattern ?
Thats what bugs me about this guy.
I dont doubt that hes an American. I never really did. Thats not my beef. I am making the plain and simple point that all his answers are just too damn fishy half the time.
Second of all, I live in Hawaii and my wife was born here. I’ll tell you right now that Obamas BC does not look anything like hers from 1963.
Obamas does not supply nearly as much info as my wifes. His certificate looks almost completely vacant compared to hers, I’m not exagerating.
Also, the copy displayed at fightthesmears shows in the bottom left hand corner that its a laser reproduction.
They did not have laser printers in 1961.
It also does not have the state embossed seal.
This only goes to re enforce my point.
Why couldnt he just cough up the original right away and that be that ? Where is it ?
If it got lost just say so.
Crust o mighty hes running for president and you’d think he’d just expedite this matter and bury it as soon as it popped up but it took him something like 6 months.
I E mailed a copy of my wifes cert to the R Pundits (McCain) so they could post it as a comparison just so you dont think I’m FOS.
The differnce is astounding, no doubt you will agree if you see it.
Actually, his cert looks more like our marriage license.
Justin, maybe you could get ahold of McCain.
You’ll find Obamas BC quite interesting in comparison to my wifes.
Feel free to post it if you want.
David, I have no doubt “REAL” documentation.
All fighthesmears has is a reproduction thats questionable at best.
Also.
Factcheck is funded by the leftist Annenberg foundation, its NOT nuetral !
It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation which also is a major contributor to ACORN
November 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
It can be stamped in 2007 and be a “certified copy of the original.”
David:
“the press” has not seen the birth certificate. It was factcheck that saw it. Either way, I don’t think the “press” is qualified to testify that it is a valid certificate.
More telling is the AP report that the directors of vital statistics in Hawaii have verified the certificate.
That said, it doesn’t resolve the later issue of Obama becoming a citizen of Indonesia, and never returing to this country through proper channels, which would make him an illegal alien. I don’t buy your argument that because Hillary didn’t use it, it can’t be true.
The main issue for me is the “standing” issue. I am not soaked up by the merits of the case yet, but at least present the evidence so that the American people are satisfied.
This has nothing to do with the many other crazy problems your candidate has. But you are likely as crazy, so I waste my breath.
Good day.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Micky:
The birth certificate that Obama is producing is likely a “certified copy” of the original, meaning that the original is in the archives with Hawain Vital Statistics, and they produce a new copy on the modern paper, and place their seal on the document, thus certifying it is an authentic copy of the original.
But if the information provided is much different, that might be interesting.
November 1st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
The info on my wifes is quite extensive there are no blank areas at all, making Obamas look very scant.
But once again, my biggest beef is why we always have to get answers in bits and pieces from him no matter what the question.
If anyone remembers, trying to get a viewing of his BC was like pulling teeth for a while there.
I find it hard to believe that Obama could get this far as an American politician and not be a qualified American.
The answers and positions are always changing.
Drives me nuts.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I think that Obama’s lawyers could make this and all the copycat lawsuits vanish by producing the document. I think that Obama is a natural-born citizen. However, i think that his attorneys are grabbing their share of all that campaign money.
chsw
November 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
In the 1960’s Hawaii had a box 7C on the Original Birth Certificate that allowed for births outside Hawaii to be registered in Hawaii. The newspapers are now saying that Hawaii has confirmed Obama’s citizenship. That is not what they are saying, what they have done is confirmed that his original birth certificate is different than the short form version Obama has produced. The Governor of Hawaii has given instructions to seal Obama’s original birth certificate until after the election. Interesting that the State sealed this the day after Obama and his legal team visited his sick grandmother. Instead of signing a release and sending a $12.00 check and publishing this hotly contested birth certificate, Obama is fighting this with everything he has. It raises the question why.
The law suits continue. One is now in the SC http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm
November 1st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
title 18 of US Code states that a US citizen cannot renounce his or her US citizenship until the age of 18. There are some exceptions but it’s a formal process that’s well documented. I am not going to do the research again to prove a point on how stupid this all is so if you want to further look in to this you can go to westlaw or something.
November 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
The newspapers are now saying that Hawaii has confirmed Obama’s citizenship. That is not what they are saying, what they have done is confirmed that his original birth certificate is different than the short form version Obama has produced.
–
Yes, as Mr. Adams stated this is how I interpreted it as well. The AP conjectures that their statement is a verification of Hawaii citizenship but that is not the correct conclusion from the reporting as I see it.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
This whole issue of Obama’s citizenship has been made into a huge joke. The Obama team has manipulated the whole process so that no one will know what is right and what is wrong.
The Obama citizenship matter DOES need to go to court, and Obama DOES need to tell the world his actual birth site and his actual citizenship.
I tried to view the current case status on http://www.obamacrimes.com, and the site has been removed or disabled. I don’t think Phillip Berg would do this. I think it is more likely dirty tricks by the Obama team.
At any rate, this matter is of Constitutional importance, and if it is NOT resolved prior to the election, there will likey be one after the election.
Why the hell did Obama get nominated without proper vetting by the DNC anyway? What the hell were these idiots thinking?
I’ve lost any respect I ever had for the DNC.
November 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
This just in:
State declares Barack Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate is genuine
By Associated Press
6:43 PM EDT, October 31, 2008
HONOLULU (AP) _ State officials say there’s no doubt Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Health Department Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino said Friday she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
Fukino says that no state official, including Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, ever instructed that Obama’s certificate be handled differently.
She says state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
And this slightly different account:
Friday, October 31, 2008 - 11:51 AM HAST (That means Hawaii/Aleutian Standard Time)
Obama’s Hawaii birth certificate confirmed
Pacific Business News (Honolulu)
The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed on Friday what Barack Obama has been saying all along: the presidential candidate was born in Honolulu.
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate,� said Chiyome Fukino. “State law prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.�
Citing her statutory authority to oversee and maintain Hawaii’s vital records, Fukino said she has “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Gov. Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii,� Fukino added.
Lingle, a Republican, has been campaigning on the Mainland for Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Obama, a Democratic senator from Illinois, was born Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu. He graduated high school at Punahou School in 1979.
end quotes
Re allegations that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii. All these stem from Philip Berg, who claims to have a tape of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother saying that she was there at his birth in Kenya. BUT Berg has never played the tape to anyone. Wonder why? Perhaps because there isn’t any tape.
November 1st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
smrstrauss,
Thanks for the update.
After all of the bogus information about Obama, and after all the MSM (including the AP) one sided support for Obama, and after Obama’s recent emergency trip to Hawaii, and after all of Obama’s lies and misleading statements, and after Obama’s being raised by the Chicago politicos, I still have huge doubts in the veracity of this report.
I’m sorry, but I need someone from the FBI forensics lab to verify for me the good news about Obama’s COB. Otherwise, it’s just more Obama smoke.
And because of this whole situation, we need to change our POTUS vetting process to be done by the FBI or some non-political legal entity.
We need to believe in our political representatives, especially POTUS, and the current vetting process just doesn’t work.