Berg v. Obama: SCOTUS Denies Writ of Certiorari “Before Judgment”
According to today’s Orders, Berg v. Obama (Phil Berg, Plaintiff) has been denied a writ of Certiorari:
08-570 BERG, PHILIP J. V. OBAMA, BARACK, ET AL.
The motion of Bill Anderson for leave to file a brief as
amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari
before judgment is denied.
Update: Here’s Philip Berg’s official presser on this action.
Update: Fascinating comment over at InvestigatingObama on the amicus curiae briefing.
Update: The following are two very astute comments from a couple of readers of my blog. I’ll post them here instead of in the commentary section:
From “Biz:”
URGENT From Lisa regarding Today’s SCOTUS rulingwritten by Linda Starr, January 12, 2009
Here is a very brief explanation of what today’s ruling means to us…
What today’s ruling means is that WE’RE STILL ALIVE in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Phil filed a Petition for Writ of Cert BEFORE JUDGEMENT (in the 3rd Circuit) with SCOTUS. They denied the petition for Writ before judgement under Rule 11 because the case before the 3rd Circuit is still pending and there is still a legal remedy available to our case in the lower courts. If this case is denied at the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, THEN Phil can once again go back to SCOTUS for remedy. The SCOTUS may yet grant the motion for emergency injunction against counting the votes for Soetoro/Obama – in effect, preventing the Inauguration on the 20th. As I understand it, then Biden would serve until this is resolved in some fashion. And Roberts COULD REFUSE to swear in Soetoro/Obama if this isn’t resolved.
If it comes to that, then Roberts could state that Barry needs to cough up the documents proving he is eligible, or he won’t be sworn in. We jsut don’t know what might happen next.In the meantime, Bill Anderson’s motion for “permission” to file his case as a friend of the court was granted.
WE ARE NOT DEAD YET!!!
Phil is putting together a press release to be posted today on obamacrimes.com.
I’ll certainly be watching for that follow-up presser.
From “Scott:”
I believe the phrase “before judgment” means that the Supreme Court does not want to grant the writ before the matter is decided by the Third Circuit. Seehttp://www.anusha.com/no-cert.htm. After there is a Third Circuit opinion, and if it is unfavorable, Berg can seek another writ and Bill Anderson may file a brief as amicus curiae (his request was granted). This is the first of the Obama ineligibility cases to receive a comment from the Supreme Court, which could be seen as a positive development.
The more “official word” from Jeff:
Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Obama and the Democratic National Committee, filed on August 21, 2008 and first reported here at America’s Right, questioned Obama’s eligibility to serve under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution–which requires in part that the president be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States–and was previously dismissed by the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick from District Court in Philadelphia. While the Supreme Court’s denial of Berg’s petition for certiorari today was not accompanied by explanation, the mere result shows on its face that at least six Justices agreed with Surrick’s determination that Berg lacked standing to sue. …
Berg’s case was dismissed at the district court level by Judge Surrick primarily for lack of standing, a procedural check required by the Case or Controversy Clause in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution as an effort to foster judicial efficacy and limit access to a court of law to those plaintiffs who can show a sufficient “stake” in a particular controversy. To prove standing and thus be eligible to bring suit, a plaintiff must show (1) a particularized–rather than generalized–injury-in-fact, (2) evidence showing that that the party being sued actually caused the plaintiff’s particularized injury-in-fact, and (3) that adjudication of the matter would actually provide redress. Surrick argued that Berg had not adequately showed a particularized injury-in-fact, noting in his memorandum that “regardless of questions of causation, the grievance remains too generalized to establish the existence of an injury in fact. To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters.” …
Though the order list released by the Supreme Court today provides no reason for its denial of certiorari, such a denial inevitably is an affirmation of the district court judge’s assertion that Berg’s claim, as a mere voter, was far too generalized to satisfy the Case and Controversy Clause of the same Constitution he was attempting to uphold. Whether or not the Justices considered the factual elements of Berg’s allegations, without insight gleaned from a rare dissent to a denial of certiorari, is indeed another question left unanswered.
Either way, Berg says that this isn’t a fight which he’ll give up easily. This issue, he maintains, transcends politics and even transcends individual political candidates. Yes, Barack Obama is the focal point, but it’s a matter of upholding the Constitution, he says, of taking into account the intentions of America’s founders, men who at the time were still licking their wounds from bitter warfare and were understandably intensely concerned with the need for the highest office in the country to be held by someone fiercely and unequivocally loyal to the fledgling nation. It is for this reason–along, of course, with the “brazen” perpetration of what he repeatedly calls an “enormous hoax”–that Berg says he is so disappointed with the today’s news from the Supreme Court; it is for this reason, Berg says, that he wants “to continue standing firm for 320 million Americans.”
That continued fight, Berg says, involves an active case currently under seal, as well as a case filed last month on behalf of a retired Air Force colonel, both questioning Obama’s eligbility to serve as president of the United States and both centering on the documentation sought in the original action. According to Berg, the plaintiff in the latter case–Col. Gregory S. Hollister, a 20-year veteran with his own litigious history– filed suit out of concern that, should he be returned from his reserve status to active duty in this tumultuous global climate, his own Oath of Enlistment could conflict with his duty to follow lawful orders.
“If he’s reactivated, Col. Hollister comes under a duty to obey lawful orders,” Berg said. “The thing is, he’s confused because he won’t know if the orders that make their way down the chain of command have come from a Commander-in-Chief who is constitutionally eligible to serve in that position and give orders in the first place.”
The two other lawsuits, the case filed under seal citing Obama’s violations of the False Claims Act as well as the interpleader action filed on behalf of Hollister, are part of what Berg calls a “commitment to finding the truth about Obama for the sake of our Constitution and country,” an effort which started with the “hope that the Democratic Party would have done the right thing at its convention in August” and reached its peak today with news from our nation’s highest court of law.
“Today was a big setback,” Berg said, “but sooner or later, I’m confident that we can find the proper legal avenue to expose the truth about this unbelievable hoax, this circle of lies which has been thrust upon the American people. Barack Obama has lied to all of us, and he needs to be held responsible for doing so. More importantly, we all need to know that our Constitution still controls, that the president of the United States is constitutionally qualified to be there.”
Mr. Berg has another shot at Conference this Friday, where the Court will consider whether or not to (1) stay the Electoral College vote or (2) stay the certification of that vote.
More updates as time permits me to do so.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
I think you hit the nail on the head. Can you imagine the “social unrest” that would prevail if the New Messiah was told he couldn’t play? Maximum whinage, man.
There might well be more like minded folks than anyone might guess.
Interesting perspective, but not clearly not founded in British Common law. British law transfers Citizenship via the Father. Obviously, this is why Barrack Obama claimed duel citizenship on his very website, because by law he was undoubtably a British Subject at birth (see 1948 British act). US citizenship can be based maternally or paternally, but the parents must qualify to do so.
Importantly, people seem to be confusing ‘citizenship’ with ‘jus soil Native Born Citizenship’ and the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as it pertains to the qualifications for POTUS. The special qualifications for POTUS/VPOTUS should prevent other loyalties or entanglements to foriegn governments at birth.
The current SCOTUS threshold for a MUST STAY of BHO’s inauguration is not whether he is ultimately determined constitutionally ineligible to be POTUS, merely whether there now is SERIOUS QUESTION on his constitutional eligibility, since any determination of inelligibility AFTER inauguration would pose unnecessary civil and military difficulties.
gaetano,
I agree with you.
My thinking is they are doing and will do the right thing at the right time. The DNC and Congress are really at fault in this matter. This should never have gotten to were it has. Congress as a whole and my own Congress people have let me and us down.
If they choose not to and allow the football to be passed and our laws made fun of then we are in a sorry state of affairs.
I would not have a clue as to what we could or can do if the SCOTUS does not act.
Tex-
DadBode said
Ҥ 1401.
1. Only one parent has to be a natural-born citizen of the United States of America in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen.”
Can you please point me to the link in the Constitution for that exact quote?
As I see, if what you state is true. That would mean our forefathers didn’t have a clue as to what they meant to say when they said “Natural Born Citizen.”
To debate the point and take your view. Our forefathers were trying to tell us when they said in the United States Constitution, Article. II. Section. 1. clause 5.
“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.”
What they were trying to say by your words was if the Mother is born in the United States and on US soil it would not matter if the Father was a British subject.
Is that what you wish me to think they were trying to say?
You have proof that is what our Constitution says Natural Born means?
I think they meant both parents citizens “plural” and child born on US soil. I also think the term is easy to understand and needs no supporting clause. If you have one that makes my thinking wrong I would love to have a look at it. Please site were in the Constitution it says what you say it says as there is no higher form of law than our Constitution.
I think the SCOTUS will deal with the matter and see it as I do. I can’t say when that will take place but I feel and hope that they do. Even if they take your meaning I hope they will see fit to deal with it. I think the matter worthy because Mr. Obama, Congress and the Media have made it so.
Tex-
Can’t be the President by fraud.
Court would need to fix that.
Tex-
I would not lay this at the feet of the SCOTUS but at the feet of the DNC, Congress and Mr. Obama.
Tex-
The Electoral College vote was certified by a Joint Session of Congress with Vice President Dick Cheney presiding in his role as President of the Senate on January 8, 2009. Once the vote of the Electoral College has been certified, Barack Obama IS the President. His swearing in ceremony on January 20th is a formality that documents the actual start of his term in office.
After January 20th, the ONLY legal process that can remove Obama from office is impeachment.
I cannot under stand that with all this information about Obamma ,why is it that he is getting all the knowledge about our government affairs befor he is even inaugurated.What if Obamma is a terrorist? I personally believe that He has been put in this position to overthrow our government.
Lee,
That would obviously be your perspective. I’m not so sure that the law is as clear as you’re making it out to be.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
There is no dueling for a child’s origin. A child inherits citizenship from the country of the mother’s natural born birth. If the father is a UK subject, it doesn’t matter. Except the child may possibly be able to obtain both a UK passport and a US passport. But that changes nothing. The child inherits citizenship from the country of the mother’s natural born birth.
I am on board. I think the word is COWARDS!!!
DadBode,
Another piece of the puzzle, though, is the UK’s right of nationality over the President-Elect’s father’s kids — including BHOII — at birth.
I actually would completely agree with the above if it weren’t for this apparent wrinkle; the above, as stated, doesn’t appear to take into account what happens if nationalities are dueling for the person’s origin. Further, the UK-Kenyan law, at the time, stipulated that the children of a father (who was a British subject) would automatically be considered a British subject as well, regardless of their geographical birthplace.
To me, that’s the main issue.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
I find this information continue to be sorely lacking:
As given in § 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
Conditions are clearly given.
1. Only one parent has to be a natural-born citizen of the United States of
America in order for a child to be a natural-born citizen.
2. Obama’s mother was born in Kansas to natural-born citizen parents (one
would have sufficed but there were two).
3. If one parent is a natural-born citizen, the child is also a natural-born
citizen, no matter where the child is born, even the planet Jupiter!
I have never seen any definitive proof that Obama’s mother was NOT a natural born citizen. None. Ever.
Until that is proven, he is a citizen.
Case closed.
GREAT THREAD, everyone! Thanks…
Brian H,
Another great question that will obviously be dealt with “when we cross that bridge.”
Personally, I don’t think Obama’s having selected Biden as VP will have anything to do with Biden’s eligibility as POTUS. For all I know, Biden is a natural born citizen and otherwise meets the requirements of the office of presidency, and so would be a perfectly legitimate choice for POTUS, should such a scenario arise.
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil
American Natural Born,
This has been the latest rumor I’ve seen regarding the President-Elect’s documentation. Frankly, until something surfaces that can be objectively verified, I have nothing to report at this time. Further, I don’t think that anything can conclusively be said regarding this theory until it can be verified.
I have learned in my short time of being a blogger that if I can’t substantiate something, I’m not going to post; I have a number of intellectually honest proponents and opponents who continuously hold me accountable as such
Thanks for the comment,
-Phil