1. The Topic of the Month for October is "Make this the Perfect Bugout Location". Please join the discussion in the TOTM forum.

SCOTUS says birth certificate by dec 1st!!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tango3, Nov 10, 2008.

  1. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Time to put up!!![booze][booze]

    Any chance he'll have an embossed legal us birth certificate? And if he does will they rename the street in Kenya??????

    There's your riots...[boozingbuddies]

    <!-- End of StatCounter Code --><!-- all in one seo pack [292,400] --><!-- /all in one seo pack --> <TABLE id=AutoNumber9 style="BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse" borderColor=#111111 cellPadding=0 width="100%" align=top border=0 :v="" margin-top="0"><TBODY><TR> <TD>

    </TD> <TD>

    NYC's Most Dangerous Callers to Talk Radio now take your phone calls
    and discuss issues from THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE!

    </TD> <TD>

    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <!-- item --> <!-- Start of StatCounter Code --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var sc_project=4024070; var sc_invisible=1; var sc_partition=31; var sc_click_stat=1; var sc_security="1a5a5559"; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT><NOSCRIPT></NOSCRIPT><!-- End of StatCounter Code -->SCOTUS Tells Obama To Produce Birth Certificate

    [​IMG]Lawyer Philip Berg’s lawsuit questioning Barack Obama’s “natural born” status has entered a do-or-die phase after the Supreme Court has ordered the president-elect to produce his birth certificate by December 1st.
    Berg, who appealed his case to America’s highest court, was told by Justice David Souter’s Clerk that his petition for an injunction to stay the November 4th election was denied. The Clerk also required the defendants (Obama, the DNC, and FEC) to respond to Certiorari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w.svg" class="image"><img alt="Wiki letter w.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/6/6c/Wiki_letter_w.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w.svg.png by December 1. At that time, Obama must present an authentic birth certificate to the Court, which has been sealed by Hawaii governor Linda Lingle. Berg will get to respond afterwards.
    Failure to do that will surely inspire the skepticism of the Justices in Obama, who are not used to being defied. The Court will have to decide what to do about a president-elect who refuses to prove his natural-born citizenship.
    “I can see a unanimous Court (en banc) decertifying the election if Obama refuses to produce his birth certificate,” says attorney and writer Raymond S. Kraft. “They cannot do otherwise without abandoning all credibility as guardians of the Constitution. Even the most liberal justices, however loathe they may to do this, still consider themselves guardians of the Constitution. The Court is very jealous of its power - even over presidents, even over presidents-elect.”
    Obama’s own campaign website has stated the president-elect was a Kenyan citizen until 1982. Audio of Obama’s Kenyan grandmother saying he was born in Kenya has recently surfaced.
    On December 13, the Electoral College meets to casts its votes. If it has been determined that Mr. Obama is an illegal alien and therefore ineligible to become President of the United States, the Electors will be duty-bound to honor the Constitution.

    <SMALL class=metadata> By NewsGuy November 9th, 2008

    Filed under: Defeat Obama Central Article tags: birth certificate, natural born lawsuit, Obama, SCOTUS </SMALL>
    <!-- end item --><!-- comments --> 2 Responses to “SCOTUS Tells Obama To Produce Birth Certificate”

    1. <CITE>Pete Jefferson</CITE>
      <SMALL class=commentmetadata>November 9th, 2008 - 5:50 pm </SMALL> The Supremes have issued an order because they want that birth certificate as part of their response to the writ of certiorari. If they don’t get it, then cert might well be granted, and *then* it would go to a hearing.
      And they don’t have to decertify the entire election. They might, however, dictate that the Electoral Collegians cannot mark any of their ballots for Barack Obama and must mark their ballots for someone else as President. And this would pretty much “unbind” them from having to vote for the named candidate on the November ballot.
      I’m not saying that John McCain would win by default. I am saying that this would create quite an interesting situation, to be sure.
    2. <CITE>Anonymous</CITE>
      <SMALL class=commentmetadata>November 9th, 2008 - 5:55 pm </SMALL> In light of Obama’s refusal to provide his birth certificate to the court in answer to Berg’s lawsuit; if it turns out that Obama is not a natural born citizen as defined by the constitution, then one can only conclude that his intention all along was to create a constitutional crisis, forcing the Supreme Court to decide between overturning Section I Article II of the constitution, or unseating a popularly elected President - either of which would undermine the very fabric of our constitutional form of government.
      If he’s not a natural born citizen and they overturn Section I Article II, half the country will revolt because the SCOTUS ignored the constitution.
      If he’s not a natural born citizen and they unseat him according to the constitution, half the country will revolt because the man they chose as President will be removed by the courts.
      That is a no-win situation, and reeks of totalitarian divide-and-conquer.
      I pray, quite earnestly, that Barack Hussein Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States of America, and that he has the documentation to prove it.
    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    <!-- end comments -->

    <!-- end content --> <!-- 2nd sidebar -->

    <!-- end yiu-u --> <CENTER>HEARD LIVE
    -- OR --


    Most Recent News

    Websites of Note


    Bill Clinton trial convention Expropriation hacking Biden Fannie Mae Palin Florida Cuba Guardian Angels Joe the Plumber Pennsylvania ANC Communist Charlie Rangel Hillary Clinton Sarah Palin scandal South Africa Jacob Zuma Barack Obama Alan Greenspan Affirmative Action Zuma lawsuit DNC McCain corruption Russia violence Natural born citizen Freddie Mac Election 2008 Mugabe Curtis Sliwa donations Democrat John McCain David Kernell investigation Barack Hussein Obama racist Castro birth certificate FBI Mbeki e-mail Clinton Obama

    <!-- end 2nd sidebar -->

    <!-- menu --> <CENTER>[​IMG]</CENTER>

    • Register
    • Log in
    • <A title="Syndicate this site using RSS 2.0" href="http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/?feed=rss2">Subscribe to News: <ABBR title="Really Simple Syndication">RSS</ABBR>

    <FORM id=searchform action=http://therightperspective.com/wordpress method=get> <INPUT id=s size=15 name=s>
    <INPUT type=submit value=Search>
    <!-- end menu -->

    <!-- Accessible News Ticker wordpress plugin 0.3 by Pixline - http://pixline.net --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> var dn_startpos=0; // start position of the first item var dn_endpos=-600; // end of the 'cart'. more items = higher number var dn_speed=40; // higher number = slower scroller var dn_newsID='accessible-news-ticker'; var dn_classAdd='hasJS'; var dn_stopMessage='Stop scroller'; var dn_paraID='DOMnewsstopper'; </SCRIPT><SCRIPT src="http://therightperspective.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/accessible-news-ticker/includes/domnews.js?ver=7796" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT>
  2. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Glad to see the court pressing him for his birth certificate. Should the document be tested to make sure it wasn't created recently?

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NyC0X1z4J0U&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NyC0X1z4J0U&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
  3. kckndrgn

    kckndrgn Moderator Moderator Founding Member

    This is great news, too bad nothing is coming up in MSM!!

    Now, Just to confirm this as a google search was showing only "blogs" as having this with nothing point back to the SCOTUS website. So I went to the SCOTUS website and I still can't find anything that relates to this.

    Can anybody else confirm this?
  4. SeptemberMage

    SeptemberMage LaMOE Monkey

    Here is the last thing I found filed on the SCOTUS website, no mention of the above said order... seems like a rumor to me so far

    No. 08-570
    </TD><TD align="left"></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign="top">Title:</TD><TD><TABLE border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>Philip J. Berg, Petitioner</TD></TR><TR><TD>v.</TD></TR><TR><TD>Barack Obama, et al.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD>Docketed:</TD><TD>October 31, 2008</TD></TR><TR><TD>Lower Ct:</TD><TD>United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="20%">Case Nos.:</TD><TD align=left>(08-4340)</TD></TR><TR><TD width="20%"></TD><TD>Rule 11</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
    <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>~~~Date~~~ </TD><TD>~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>Oct 30 2008</TD><TD vAlign=top>Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008) </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>Oct 31 2008</TD><TD vAlign=top>Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>Nov 3 2008</TD><TD vAlign=top>Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.</TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top>Nov 3 2008</TD><TD vAlign=top>Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

    <TABLE width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ </TD><TD>~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ </TD><TD>~~Phone~~~</TD></TR><TR><TD>Attorneys for Petitioner:</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Philip J. Berg</TD><TD>555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12</TD><TD>(610) 825-3134</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>Lafayette Hill, PA 09867</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD colSpan=3>Party name: Philip J. Berg</TD></TR><TR><TD>Attorneys for Respondents:</TD><TD></TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD>Gregory G. Garre</TD><TD>Solicitor General</TD><TD>(202) 514-2217</TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>United States Department of Justice</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.</TD><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD></TD><TD>Washington, DC 20530-0001</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
  5. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Well, if work is slow then this should keep you busy. taser1
  6. methomps

    methomps Monkey++

    People here and on the blogs are misinterpreting what SCOTUS is asking of Obama. Assuming the news is true, Obama and the DNC are being asked to argue the issue of standing. The question before the Supreme Court is whether Berg, a citizen, has standing to challenge Obama's eligibility in federal court.

    The question is not whether Obama is eligible to be president. That question is not before SCOTUS. If SCOTUS determines that Berg does not have standing, the case dies right there. If SCOTUS decides that Berg does have standing, then the case goes back to the district court.

    The Supremes are not looking for a birth certificate.
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    So far, even Snopes is silent on any demand for a birth cert. I think it's rubbish myownself, but the rumor sure is widespread.
  8. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Why doesn't the RNC or DNC require candidates running for office to not show proof of citizenship?

    It's my understanding that it is a honor system, what is up with that we are talking about politicians here. (insert sarcasm here)

    Why is it that those that come to power and make decisions on how this country is run not be required to prove eligibility. For Christ sakes: when I apply for job or just switch from one jobsite to another working for the same employer, I have to fill out all the same forms that I did when I got hired and piss in a bottle every friggin time. Something needs to change!!!

    Those that build America must be more of a threat or liability to the public than those that have their finger on the nuclear button!!!!!
  9. Conagher

    Conagher Dark Custom Rider Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    The Constitution is still the Constitution whether the DNC, FEC, or Obama Campaign likes it, and SCOTUS has the power over any president or president-elect to protect the Constitution, which they will do.

    This is from Article Two of the United States Constitution;

    Clause 5: Qualifications for office

    <DL><DD>No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. </DD></DL>Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: "[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

    The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an additional source of constitutional doctrine stating that birth "in the United States" and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, entitles one to citizenship:

    <TABLE class=cquote style="MARGIN: auto; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-COLLAPSE: collapse; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"><TBODY><TR><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 35px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 10px; COLOR: #b2b7f2; PADDING-TOP: 10px; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman',serif; TEXT-ALIGN: left" vAlign=top width=20></TD><TD style="PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 4px; PADDING-TOP: 4px" vAlign=top>"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . ."

    The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

    In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill.

    It is thought the origin of the natural-born citizen clause can be traced to a letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay (who had been born in New York City) to George Washington (who had been born in Virginia), presiding officer of the Constitution Convention.

    John Jay wrote: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

    There was no debate, and this qualification for the office of the Presidency was introduced by the drafting Committee of Eleven, and then adopted without discussion by the Constitutional Convention. (43 of the 55) delegates had been born in the Thirteen Colonies, and the others had been born on British-occupied soil: Ireland, England, Scotland, and the British West Indies.

  10. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    From what I read the issue of standing related to "damage" before the election Berg could not prove damage because none had legally occurred(yet),now o-man is forming transition teams and spending some money, "damage" is occuring...
  11. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Sorry guys guess berg's own site says its just an escaped free range rumor gaining a life of its own...
    Obama Crimes
    Rumors of order from the Supreme Court unfounded

    Monday, 10 November 2008 20:35 administrator Main - News
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Mr. Berg has been receiving phone calls today asking for a copy of "the order from the Supreme Court requiring that Obama produce his citizenship documentation."
    Mr. Berg has not received notification of any such order or anything similar to it, nor is it posted on the Supreme Court website.
    This must be regarded as an unfounded rumor until it appears on the Supreme Court website or Mr. Berg receives notification.
    If and when the Court does issue such an order, we will post it immediately.
  12. Conagher

    Conagher Dark Custom Rider Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    Andy Martin's lawsuit against Obama is still active and the hearing date is Nov 18th.....so hopefully the truth will come out then. He filed his lawsuit in Hawaii and the judge is letting it go forth.
  13. methomps

    methomps Monkey++

    There are multiple problems. First, it is still unclear what concrete damage Berg is suffering and whether that is a judicially-recognized injury. But most importantly is the issue of standing. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, a plaintiff must show a particularized harm. That is, he must show that he himself is suffering an injury that is particular to him. It can't simply be an injury suffered by society at large.

    Thus, a person who thinks a law banning abortion is unconstitutional can't simply sue if he or she is not affected in a particular way. Yes, society suffers from an unconstitutional situation or law, but the judiciary is not a forum for airing general grievances. Thus, a plaintiff would have to show that he or she is particularly affected. For example, a plaintiff who wants to get an abortion but can't would have standing. So, too, would a doctor who is prevented from performing abortions and thus is denied his chance to make a living. But someone who just thinks that the Constitution forbids the banning of abortions would not have standing to sue.

    In Berg's case, I find it difficult to point to a harm that is particular to him. What harm is suffered by him that isn't shared with every person who opposes Obama as president?

    Here are some Supreme Court cases on the issue:

    Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992): A group of wildlife conservation and environmental groups sued over actions happening in Egypt that they felt violated the EPA. The Court found that the alleged harm would be sufficient if the plaintiffs actually planned to go to Egypt, but that since the plaintiffs did not so plan they had no particularized harm and thus no standing. This was a Scalia opinion.

    Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 429 (1952): A parent and a group of taxpayers sued over a state requirement that public schools recite five verses of the Old Testament at the beginning of every school day. The Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing because the parent's child had already graduated and the taxpayers could show no direct and particularized interest.
  14. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    So then, if the Constitution requirement of a natural born citizen should potentially be violated, who would have standing to bring an action forcing proof? The question should have nothing to do with an anti Obama group or person, and I don't think Berg intended that personal harm was done. (A tick, maybe, but so have been many others dating back to the Revolution.) However, any candidate should be able to withstand a challenge such as Berg offered up. To my mind, it should be a simple matter that does not need a stonewalling by the candidate before or after election, and SCOTUS, in the interest of justice and clarity should not have dodged the issue on a technicality. (Yes, I know the court did not rule, a clerk drafted a response for signature.)

    Obama cannot be ignorant of the question, and I would certainly hope he hasn't blown it off as trivial. It may so be, but just as trivial to close off the issue.
  15. methomps

    methomps Monkey++

    Well, John McCain would probably have standing to sue as the harm to him from any ineligibility of Obama is concrete and particular: he would be POTUS but for it. I don't think Obama has ignored it, but rather his response has been challenged by Berg. Obama claims to be a citizen and if Berg wants to fight it out in federal court, he needs standing.

    It isn't really a technicality. It is a question of the constitutional power of the courts. Under our Constitution, the courts are not an unbounded supervisor of the executive and legislature. They are limited to hearing "cases or controversies," which for over 50 years as been understood as requiring that a plaintiff be able to demonstrate a particular and concrete harm.
  16. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Granted, the question has to be asked and vetted before the court hears it under normal circumstances. Regardless, SCOTUS is charged, along with other Federal organizations (including POTUS) to protect and defend the Constitution. Further granted that McCain would have standing (tho' there is an argument that he might not) and chose not to enter a complaint. So then, what prevents the Court (via the Justice Dep't) from initiating an action on it's own beyond accepted procedures in effect for only what, 50 years? Who (or what) else might have standing? The entire citizenry is harmed by way of possible violation of the Constitution, both concrete and particular.

  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    See bambino: what a great country the 44th president is an illegal immigrant just like you!!!
    'Thank you methomps for clearing that up Sounds like you've got some legal background.Where I was floundering in concepts I have no business treading on. Somebody asked me today" well why haven't we heard of this in the msm?And I realized this whole birth certificate story is assming the fringe mythologyof ufo's, lake monsters and the chupacabra...( i.e. only "kooks" believe there's anything to it.)
  18. methomps

    methomps Monkey++

    The Court's charge is very carefully limited by the Constitution. Separation of powers is what prevents the court from taking up constitutional issues on its own impetus. The justice department is in the executive branch.

    The RNC might have standing. And the courts aren't the only avenue for redress. There is the impeachment process.
  19. Conagher

    Conagher Dark Custom Rider Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    There won't be a need for an impeachment if they find out before the inaugeratioon on Jan 20 that Obama is not eligible to be President of the United States.

    What I want to know is if Obama is found out to be not eligible to be President, then according to the Constitution and government law, does Biden then automatically become President-elect and Pelosi becomes VP? Or is there a chance for a new election?

    After all, if Obama is not eligible to be President, then his campaign was built upon fraud and deceit of the American People, which harmed us all.
  20. ColtCarbine

    ColtCarbine Monkey+++ Founding Member

    Something I also wondered about?
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary