Getting closer.....

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Supremes to review Barack's citizenship
Case challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'
Posted: November 20, 2008
1:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Supremes to review Barack's citizenship
Case challenging his name on ballot set for 'conference'
Posted: November 20, 2008
1:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a "conference" at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation's next president.

The Supreme Court's website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama's name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court's docket says: "DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008."


If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.

The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural-born citizen."

Get the book that started it all – Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation," personally autographed for only $4.95 – an amazing $23 discount!

According to America's Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, there also was a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.

His report said the Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.



"There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg's petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg's lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response," the blogger speculated.

"Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents," he added.

"If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I'm surprised," Berg told America's Right. "I'm surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn't seem to exist.

"However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion," he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General's office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

But he noted that "questions surrounding this aspect of Obama's candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day."

Just last week, WND reported on worries over a "constitutional crisis" that could be looming over the issue of Obama's citizenship.

Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and others filed a court petition in California asking the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office.

Alan Keyes
Alan Keyes

The disputes all cite "natural-born citizen" requirement set by the U.S. Constitution.

WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi even traveled to Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama's birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.

The biggest question is why Obama, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, simply hasn't ordered it made available to settle the rumors.

The governor's office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?

Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro, has named two different Hawaii hospitals where Obama could have been born. There have been other allegations that Obama actually was born in Kenya during a time when his father was a British subject.

The California action was filed by Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation on behalf of Keyes, the presidential candidate of the American Independent Party, along with Wiley S. Drake and Markham Robinson, both California electors.

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal," the action challenges.

An Obama spokesman interviewed by WND described such lawsuits as "garbage."

The popular vote Nov. 4 favored Obama over Sen. John McCain by several percentage points. But because of the distribution of the votes, Obama is projected to take the Electoral College vote, when it is held in December, by a 2-to-1 margin.

The California case states, "There is a reasonable and common expectation by the voters that to qualify for the ballot, the individuals running for office must meet minimum qualifications as outlined in the federal and state Constitutions and statutes, and that compliance with those minimum qualifications has been confirmed by the officials overseeing the election process," the complaint said, when in fact the only documentation currently required is a signed statement from the candidate attesting to those qualifications.

"Since [the secretary of state] has, as its core, the mission of certifying and establishing the validity of the election process, this writ seeks a Court Order barring SOS from certifying the California Electors until documentary proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen of the United States of America is received by her," the document said.

"This proof could include items such as his original birth certificate, showing the name of the hospital and the name and the signature of the doctor, all of his passports with immigration stamps, and verification from the governments where the candidate has resided, verifying that he did not, and does not, hold citizenship of these countries, and any other documents that certify an individual’s citizenship and/or qualification for office.

The "certificate of live birth" posted by the Obama campaign cannot be viewed as authoritative, the case alleges.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

The case also raises the circumstances of Obama's time during his youth in Indonesia, where he was listed as having Indonesian citizenship. Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, raising the possibility of Obama's mother having given up his U.S. citizenship.

Any subsequent U.S. citizenship then, the case claims, would be "naturalized," not "natural-born."

WND has reported other challenges that have been raised in Ohio, Connecticut, Washington, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Hawaii.

Interesting, I really don't imagine it being a true issue, but the fact that it's made it this far is worth noting.

I'm with you Ubuntu. But why the dickens wouldn't he turn over his passport?????????

Now it seems to me, as he was elected, and all these issues were known then that "the will of the people" was that one Barack Obama be the next President.

And that those that are bringing these actions don't respect this. They are saying that they don't give a damn about the American electorate.

Just the same as those trying to go to the California Supreme Court to overturn the gay marriage ban.

So? What is more important? The interpretation of the Constitution or the democratic will of the people of America expressed freely in a lawful ballot?

You want Obama, you elected Obama, but hell...me, Mr Berg (and others) say we aren't bothered with that. We want "the law" to disqualify Obama. Just as many used it to disqualify non-whites etc., etc., from once even voting.

So...all you here who believe in democracy and in the "will of the American people" what is right?

I really think that the likes of Mr Berg would have been there in 1776 saying that "the law" said that the "will of the American people" was wrong to kick out us Brits!

If you allow "the law" and "lawyers" to over rule the "will of the people" it is a sad day for America.

We had one civil war in England 1642-1651 and a revolution in 1688 to prove that no matter what "the law" said that the "will of the people" was supreme.

quote:

Re English Civil War 1642-1651 - THE LAW:
Charles I avoided calling a Parliament for the next decade, known as the "Eleven Years' Tyranny" or "Charles's Personal Rule".[citation needed] During this period, Charles's lack of money determined policies. Unable to raise revenue through Parliament — reluctant to convene it — he resorted to other means. Thus, not observing often long-outdated conventions became, in some cases, a finable offence (for example, a failure to attend and to receive knighthood at Charles's coronation), with the fine paid to the Crown. He tried to raise revenue through the ship money tax, by exploiting a naval war-scare in 1635, demanding that the inland English counties pay the tax for the Royal Navy. Established law supported this policy, but authorities had ignored it for centuries, many regarded it as yet another extra-Parliamentary (and therefore illegal) tax. Some prominent men refused to pay ship money arguing that the tax was illegal, but they lost in court and the fines imposed on them for refusing to pay ship money (and for standing against the tax's legality) aroused widespread indignation.

And in Ireland they had it for two centuries!

enfiedldspares

In case you hadn't noticed some people over here take the Constitution seriously. It is a protection for the minority from abuses by the majority.

Berg filed his original suit long before the election, just after Obama was nominated I believe. It just take time to get through the Court System.

OK. So you would be happy for the California Supreme Court to rule that the democratically approved ban on gay marriage, in California, should be struck down and gay marriage allowed?

enfield - you're talking about two separate things here.

we ahve a constitution. the constitution is very specific and is accepted as the supreme law of the land. the sonstitution says that only eligible people can be rpesident.

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=sTYVTzdDbJ8

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=sTYVTzdDbJ8

Funny! Of course, it could go the other way...

quote:

enfield - you're talking about two separate things here.

No, he is talking about one thing: Something that goes against the Constitution, but that has the support of a simple majority of voters. That, of course, assumes that Prop 8 is an attempt to revise the California Constitution through unconstitutional means, and it assumes that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
OK. So you would be happy for the California Supreme Court to rule that the democratically approved ban on gay marriage, in California, should be struck down and gay marriage allowed?

Actually, if Gay Marriage is allowed under the California Constitution I have absolutely no problem with it.

The Tyranny of the Majority is not an idle concept.

And in 1940 the French Constitution said that Marshal Petain was the only true leader of France and that anyone who disputed or resisted that or didn't agree to France's surrender to Germany could, ultimately, be executed for treason. That was their constitution and their law.

Similar to the 18th Amendment..."Prohibition"...the Constitution said it was the law yet clearly a large number of people resisted it. Something surely can be "in the Constitution" but clearly in conflict with the people's will? So who is supreme?

A couple things good people in this country rule by: The Constitution and the Bible. The Constitution sets down a good plan for a good government and the Bible sets down a good plan for living life and setting morals. Trouble is the DEMON RATS want to change all that to suit themselves. I have to laugh at the one fellow yesterday that said in San Francisco that Jesus would probably allow homosexuality, etc., etc., etc.. Fact is he's exactly what the Bible said would come to past in the decay of human morality in the world. Seems the Bible is on track. Far as the people wanted and elected Obama...well kind of like a shark feeding frenzy. The DemonRats and Obama's campaign whipped the low IQ dimwits into a frenzy to vote for him. Plain and simple. Everyone that I have spoken too since the election can't believe he got elected..and that is putting it mildly. You know if you look at the popular vote it wasn't any kind of landslide win. I'm looking at voter fraud in the key states for the electoral votes. The DemonRats had plenty of time to plan this out, along with the perfect timing finacial bailout fiasco, and planned it out well they did indeed.

The Constitution says that a one has to be a natural born citizen to be President. Obama hasn't proven that beyond doubt YET. No matter what the DemonRats wanted that voted him in, he has to abide by the rules.

quote:

That, of course, assumes that Prop 8 is an attempt to revise the California Constitution through unconstitutional means, and it assumes that Barack Obama is not constitutionally qualified to hold the office of President.

everything is assumed for now, sponge - but i still say that they are two separate things.

the california issue doesn't appear to go against the constitution of california as there is no provision for gay marriage in california's constitution nor is there legislation. all there is is a proposition that was voted on stating that marriage is between a man and a woman that supercedes a supreme court decision assuming otherwise.

in regards to presidential eligibility, the constitution is very clear, whcih is why we won't see arnold running for president, for better or worse.

in either case, vetting through the court system will resolve both issues. if enfield has said that achieving political goals through complex, esoteric court cases have a danger of lacking an appearance of legitimacy, i would certainly agree, but for ebtter or for worse that is how it is done in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by enfieldspares:
And in 1940 the French Constitution said that Marshal Petain was the only true leader of France and that anyone who disputed or resisted that or didn't agree to France's surrender to Germany should be executed. That was their constitution and their law.

But that's France.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. You make your choices and you take your chances.

But the US Constitution is very precise in it's wording on eligibility for President. I don't know if Obama is qualified under the Constitution or not. If he isn't than he isn't and it doesn't matter what the majority want.

quote:

the california issue doesn't appear to go against the constitution of california as there is no provision for gay marriage in california's constitution nor is there legislation.

You are ignoring what the California Supreme Court has already said about the California Constitution. That's a pretty stupid thing to do when discussing California constitutional law. The opinion of the California Supreme Court says what the state law is in California. You can't say that a Supreme Court opinion is just a "court interpretation" and then pretend that the law is something other that the Supreme Court has already rejected.

California Constitutional law pre-Prop 8 is at least as clear in its protection of same sex marriage as the U.S. Constitution is in its enumerated qualifications to hold the office of the President.

I don't know much about the American Civil War (but I do know that it wasn't a slavery issue despite the "spin" put on it) so I'll ask who, according to the Constitution, was legally in the right?

The states that wished to seceede or those that went to war to stop them? And what of those then serving members of the army who chose to discard federal blue for confederate grey? Had they not taken an oath to uphold the Constitution?

I don't know the ins and outs of the "legalities" of the US Civil War so a bit of guidance please!

If, God forbid, it came to it that the Supreme Court ruled Obama ineligble for President and in mass people marched on Washington because "the Court had denied them their elected choice as President" and they didn't disperse would you be willing, ulitimately, for the army to fire on them to enforce the Constitution?

the function of a court is to interpret law, not make it.

since the supreme court decision, a law has been passed.

if a challenge goes before the court contesting the constituitonality of the law, then it will ahve to be looked at and a decision made, but until then, the legislation is what matters, not a law that supercedes it.

quote:

But the US Constitution is very precise in it's wording on eligibility for President

Not so much. For example, the Constitution uses "natural born citizen," but it doesn't even imprecisely define what that means.

quote:

If, God forbid, it came to it that the Supreme Court ruled Obama ineligble for President and in mass people marched on Washington because "the Court had denied them their elected choice as President" and they didn't disperse would you be willing, ulitimately, for the army to fire on them to enforce the Constitution?

enfield - this is, in my opinion, where the press dropped the ball in refusing to bring this issue to light. this issue was brought up and the suit was initiated long before the election itself.

if it were suddenly discovered and proven that obama was younger than the constitution required, he would be ineligible; this is no different. the people would either be happy about it or not, but it wouldn't change the fact and they would have to accept it.