Supreme Court Ruling on Obama's Eligibility for Presidency
"Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of
standing is warranted."
Date: 11/19/2008 3:42:58 PM ( 13 y ) ... viewed 2394 times
Harmon of "Legal Reality" wrote on 18 November A.D. 2008:
This is the exact opposite of what I had anticipated.
So, I'm willing to be surprised all the more with this one.
The DNC got very blatant with the disconnect between the Constitution and the "federal government." This disparity between the popular paradigm and the legal reality is just too much for the people to withstand. So, since the Supreme Court intend to address the issue, given the number of lawsuits on this point around the nation, I have to remain open to the possibility that as they did with the Second Amendment in the recent case out of DC, they may also decide to make official the "citizenship" requirement for the "office of president."
I will be surprised if this develops to the point that the current circumstance is changed. Whether the Supreme Court uphold the dismissal or set it aside for evaluation under a new standard, time will tell. At the end of the day, I'll be VERY surprised if the current circumstance is changed.
It may be that what we'll see is what we see in the Roe v. Wade case, where the "solution" is addressed in terms of what the "states" need to do in order to prevent this from recurring.
This is definitely a great one to watch.
Subject: Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:10:25 -0700
Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency
Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed
that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack
Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of
standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes
abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari
is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of
judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the
Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ...
shall be eligible to the office of President..."
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama
II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case
hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost
inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth
Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of
the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet
the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the
President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in
their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to
elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day
occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of
The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an
ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a
potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of
course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic
Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the
Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.
Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of
President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:
· The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to
automatically grant him American citizenship;
· The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and
that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of
allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
· The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he
may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
· The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any
hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now
be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with
other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit
claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
· The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half
brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports
reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was
prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of
pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during
a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after
which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
· The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals,
since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;
Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however,
the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose
their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's
mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she
forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!Print this page
Email this page