• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Berg v Obama

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Two of the plaintiffs in court cases against Sen. Barack Obama, the president-elect, are working to move their cases forward before his presidential inauguration.

Philip J. Berg, the attorney who filed suit against Mr. Obama challenging him to produce his original birth certificate to prove he meets the constitutional requirements to serve as U.S. president. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court late in October, in an effort to force Mr. Obama to produce the document.

Accordingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that Mr. Obama, the DNC and all co-defendants are to respond to the writ, on or before Dec. 1.
(fff, you notice that this didn't get thrown out?)

The judge in Mr. Berg's original case ruled that Mr. Berg does not have standing to enforce the constitutional requirements on a presidential candidate. Mr. Berg appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

"I look forward to receiving defendant Obama's response to the writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States."

Mr. Obama put an electronic photo of a birth certification on his "Fight the Smears" Web site, a document that his critics have found unconvincing. The raised seal and authoritative signature needed to validate the document cannot be seen on the scan. The Obama campaign was unwilling to release the original document to the court when Mr. Berg filed suit in August, choosing instead to argue against Mr. Berg's standing.
(Why would they spend money on lawyers to fight releasing the original document (to an unbiased group), when they've already released it once (to a friendly group)?

Mr. Berg asserts that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, as his mother, Ann Dunham, was denied entry to the plane home due to her advanced pregnancy. Since she was only 18 at the time of Mr. Obama's birth, she would not have passed citizenship on to Mr. Obama. In 1961, citizenship could only be passed on to a child where one parent was an alien should the citizen parent have resided in the U.S. for 10 years, five of those over the age of 14. (That shoots Bullhauler's "civics class" arguement all to heck)

The State of Hawaii has refused to release copies of Mr. Obama's birth certificate, because Department of Health officials say the privacy statutes of the state prevent them from doing so to anyone who does not have a "direct and tangible interest" in the record as prescribed in the state statute.

In Honolulu, Andy Martin, a longtime critic of Mr. Obama, filed a lawsuit in October, in an attempt to get the Hawaiian Department of Health to release Mr. Obama's birth certificate records. Mr. Martin announced last week that he plans to get members of the Electoral College to pressure Mr. Obama into presenting his birth certificate.

"We are going to start organizing a 'Goal Line Stand' in the Electoral College to force Barack Obama to produce his original 1961 birth certificate for review by the American people," Mr. Martin said. "Republicans, conservatives and independents have a new rallying point. Don't let Obama pass through the Electoral College until he has produced his original birth certificate and ended the mystery shrouding his origins."

No one, aside from Department of Health officials, has seen the original document. Mr. Martin has a court hearing on Nov. 18 in the Circuit Court for Honolulu, Hawaii to continue his case.
(fff and Alice, you say he has released it, this says he hasn't. I think you stand corrected)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
(Why would they spend money on lawyers to fight releasing the original document (to an unbiased group), when they've already released it once (to a friendly group)?

Tell me who is an unbiased person or group :???: Did you find where Mr. Spock is living :???:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
(Why would they spend money on lawyers to fight releasing the original document (to an unbiased group), when they've already released it once (to a friendly group)?

Tell me who is an unbiased person or group :???: Did you find where Mr. Spock is living :???:

If Obama wanted to put this to rest, I'm sure he could come up with a panel agreeable to all parties. However, instead of doing that, he fights in court argueing standing. Why doesn't he just provide certified copies of his birth cert.? It would cost him, what, $20 apiece, compared to the thousands he's spending on lawyers. He claims he's already released the information and it's on the internet, so privacy is no concern - so what is the problem?

I ask you yet again, are these the actions of an innocent man?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Tell me who is an unbiased person or group

Souter should be unbiased.................... and so should the rest of SCOTUS.

Judges put on their pants the same as everyone else- one leg at a time...And believe it or not judges vote- and have preferences.....

It appears to me the issue has been settled...It was put in front of the American people - and on Nov 4th-- by a majority mandate of the people of the country they ruled it was a nonissue ...

And any judge or court that overthrew that would be a fool..
 

jigs

Well-known member
it is very much an issue. if he fraudulently took the office of President, that is, in my opinion, treason. and i will gladly donate the rope and tree to punish said crime.


what is on that certificate that he wants hidden so bad??? the guy is hiding something....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Tell me who is an unbiased person or group

Souter should be unbiased.................... and so should the rest of SCOTUS.

Judges put on their pants the same as everyone else- one leg at a time...And believe it or not judges vote- and have preferences.....

It appears to me the issue has been settled...It was put in front of the American people - and on Nov 4th-- by a majority mandate of the people of the country they ruled it was a nonissue ...

And any judge or court that overthrew that would be a fool..

Anybody who ignores the Constitution for whatever reason should be moved out of this country. I thought you were a Constitutionalist? Are you a Selective Constitutionalist?

I'll ask you for what I believe is the fourth time; Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man? You've got what amounts to witness tampering, deception and stonewalling. That's what people with nothing to hide do?
 

Larrry

Well-known member
It appears to me the issue has been settled...It was put in front of the American people - and on Nov 4th-- by a majority mandate of the people of the country they ruled it was a nonissue ...

That is the silliest thing I've heard. They voted their preference for Prez, nothing more. Besides they can't change the rules that way anyway.
 

Mike

Well-known member
It appears to me the issue has been settled...It was put in front of the American people - and on Nov 4th-- by a majority mandate of the people of the country they ruled it was a nonissue ...

It was not put before the people. Sean Hannity was the only mainstream media player who ever mentioned it, and then only a few times.

I can also guarantee that the few that even knew about Obama obfuscating and clouding the issue didn't vote for him.

The ones who believed the Factcheck, Daily Kos, and Fight the Smears explanations were only lemmings and followed the rest off the cliff.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
Souter should be unbiased.................... and so should the rest of SCOTUS.

Judges put on their pants the same as everyone else- one leg at a time...And believe it or not judges vote- and have preferences.....

It appears to me the issue has been settled...It was put in front of the American people - and on Nov 4th-- by a majority mandate of the people of the country they ruled it was a nonissue ...

And any judge or court that overthrew that would be a fool..

Anybody who ignores the Constitution for whatever reason should be moved out of this country. I thought you were a Constitutionalist? Are you a Selective Constitutionalist?

I'll ask you for what I believe is the fourth time; Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man? You've got what amounts to witness tampering, deception and stonewalling. That's what people with nothing to hide do?

Bush should have been impeached for his violations of the law and the Constitution- but I had to agree with Nancy Pelosi on that one when she refused to let it come to a vote of the House (which would have passed it- the probable cause exists) because of her belief it would further divide and very badly divided country...She decided to leave it to the voters (which was a very smart move as the hatred for Bush's actions got her a Dem Congress and President)...

Since the Republicans had little policy to run on this election and made this birth issue (along with Obamas religion, acquaintances, etc. etc) so public - it appears to me that it has been fully vetted by the voters of this country- and that a majority of the population of the country have indicated they believe his birth certificate was valid- and that he meets the requirements to be President..

And just like Pelosis decision- any further actions would just tend to further tear apart the country- especially now with the Bush induced crisis we are in....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
So now your arguement is that we follow the Constitution only if it doesn't upset some people?


Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
So now your arguement is that we follow the Constitution only if it doesn't upset some people?


Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man?

Sure-- the first thing anyone does when sued is get an attorney-- and any good attorney will tell you that if you can handle it without it going to a decision having to be made by a judge or jury you are better off- as you can never predict what either will do....
 

jigs

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
So now your arguement is that we follow the Constitution only if it doesn't upset some people?


Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man?

see how he side steps your question time and time again????

I bet it is a bitch to get the potatoes at his table.


Sh : will you pass the taters?
OT : here are some green beans
SH : the taters?
OT : these beans
SH : l you PLEASE pass th taters?
OT : there is no reason to not try the meatloaf....it has been found the best Factcheck, Daily Kos, and Fight the Smears
SH : but I just want to know why won't you pass the taters?

OT : Nov. 4 the voting public stated that the taters are not relevant, so try this free govt. cheese.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Jigs- I did answer...

Sure-- the first thing anyone does when sued is get an attorney-- and any good attorney will tell you that if you can handle it without it going to a decision having to be made by a judge or jury you are better off- as you can never predict what either will do....
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Beyond this hullabaloo, isn't it about time we amended the Constitution to correct this anachronism?

Shouldn't these people be allowed to run for President if they want to?

Fmr. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz - born in Germany
Fmr. Sec. Madeleine Albright - born Czechoslovakia
Fmr. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz - born in Germany
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao - born in Taipei
Sen. Mel Martinez - born in La Grande, Cuba.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - born in Austria.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm - born in Canada

That restriction was placed in the Constitution when we were a young, vulnerable country that was still rightfully concerned with potential meddling from Europe.

As soon as this monumental Berg v. Obama case :roll: gets cleared up, I think we should open the discussion about amending Article II.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
So now your arguement is that we follow the Constitution only if it doesn't upset some people?


Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man?

Sure-- the first thing anyone does when sued is get an attorney-- and any good attorney will tell you that if you can handle it without it going to a decision having to be made by a judge or jury you are better off- as you can never predict what either will do....


Why do you need an attorney when all that is being asked is that you prove that you meet the qualifications for the office? I'm sure there has been a time in your life when you needed to provide a certified copy of your birth cert., did you get an attorney?

Why did he tell the eye-witness to shut up?

He claims that he already provided a cert. If so, what is the problem with letting somebody else look at it? Why hire an attorney to fight something that you've already done?

Why does he claim that he provided a copy of the Birth Certificate when he clearly did not?

WHY DOESN'T HE JUST PROVIDE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND BE DONE WITH IT?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Beyond this hullabaloo, isn't it about time we amended the Constitution to correct this anachronism?

Shouldn't these people be allowed to run for President if they want to?

Fmr. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz - born in Germany
Fmr. Sec. Madeleine Albright - born Czechoslovakia
Fmr. Sen. Rudy Boschwitz - born in Germany
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao - born in Taipei
Sen. Mel Martinez - born in La Grande, Cuba.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - born in Austria.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm - born in Canada

That restriction was placed in the Constitution when we were a young, vulnerable country that was still rightfully concerned with potential meddling from Europe.

As soon as this monumental Berg v. Obama case :roll: gets cleared up, I think we should open the discussion about amending Article II.

I see no reason to change it. I'm still concerned about meddling from Europe. I'm also concerned about meddling from Africa and Asia. Our fore-fathers knew what they were doing.
 

don

Well-known member
sandhusker are you menopausal? you seem to be in some sort of hormone induced rage the last while! lol.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
So now your arguement is that we follow the Constitution only if it doesn't upset some people?


Are Obama's actions the actions of an innocent man?

Sure-- the first thing anyone does when sued is get an attorney-- and any good attorney will tell you that if you can handle it without it going to a decision having to be made by a judge or jury you are better off- as you can never predict what either will do....


Why do you need an attorney when all that is being asked is that you prove that you meet the qualifications for the office? I'm sure there has been a time in your life when you needed to provide a certified copy of your birth cert., did you get an attorney?

Why did he tell the eye-witness to shut up?

He claims that he already provided a cert. If so, what is the problem with letting somebody else look at it? Why hire an attorney to fight something that you've already done?

Why does he claim that he provided a copy of the Birth Certificate when he clearly did not?

WHY DOESN'T HE JUST PROVIDE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ACTUAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND BE DONE WITH IT?


As the days pass....it seems to be only little ol' Mr. small town banker ,YOU , way way way out in the plains of ' Braska that seems fretful about this.
 
Top