Many bloggers have been aware of the challenge to Barack Obama’s citizenship from Philip Berg, Hillary Clinton supporter and attorney from Philadelphia. I have not followed the situation much because to me, it seems improbable that any merit can be established for the claims. And recently, some blogs are reporting that Obama has until December 1 to produce his “real” birth certificate. What is accurate is that the Supreme Court via Justice David Souter has given President-elect Obama, the DNC and other defendants until December 1 to respond to the court case dismissed by the Third Circuit in late-October.
Here is the Docket entry from the Supreme Court website:
No. 08-570
Title: Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
v.
Barack Obama, et al.Docketed: October 31, 2008
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Case Nos.: (08-4340)
Rule 11~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.——————————————————————————–
~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Philip J. Berg 555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12 (610) 825-3134
Lafayette Hill, PA 09867
Party name: Philip J. BergAttorneys for Respondents:
Gregory G. Garre Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.
I called the number listed on the Supreme Court website: Public Information Office: 202-479-3211, and asked the person who answered if the Obama camp had until December 1 to produce a birth certificate. She said she could not verify the specifics of the case but said Obama has until December 1 to produce a Brief in response to the Third Circuit case No. 08-4340.
UPDATE: Scott at the SCOTUS PIO recommended this document which provides the press with an understanding of stays and writs of certiorari. Most such applications are denied but this one is pending. From the document:
There are several possible scenarios for the disposition of an application:
• A Justice may simply deny without comment or explanation.
• If a Justice acts alone to deny an application, a petitioner may reapply to any other Justice of his or her choice, and theoretically can continue until a majority of the Court has denied the application.
In practice, applications usually are referred to the full Court by the second Justice to avoid such a prolonged procedure.
• A Justice may call for a response from the opposition before reaching a final decision. Such responses are usually due by a date and time certain. The Justice may grant an interim stay pending receipt of a response.
• A Justice may grant. If an application is granted by an individual Justice, or if the full Court acts upon one, its disposition is indicated by a written order or sometimes, an opinion. An order granting an application will indicate how long the order will remain in effect—usually until the Court acts on the petition for writ of certiorari. In fairly standard language, the order will often go on to state that if the petition is denied, the stay will automatically terminate, but if the Court grants full review, the stay will remain in effect until the Court hands down a decision on the merits and the mandate or judgment is issued.
Point three appears to be the category of this case. The Obama camp may or may not respond. If the court grants the writ of certiorari, then one might expect to see more reporting about this case.
UPDATE – 12/2/08 – Lisa Liberi from Philip Berg’s office wrote to say that the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission. Obama, and the DNC have separate counsel but the Court has had no response from them. According to Liberi, SCOTUS was waiting a week in case the responses had been mailed. A conference date with the full Court regarding the certiorari petition will be scheduled after the week passes. She also noted that Berg has a petition in the works to prevent Electors from casting Obama votes in the Electoral College.
UPDATE: 12/8/08 – Berg today filed an application with the SCOTUS for a stay of the Electoral College vote. A quick check of the docket shows it reflects this filing.
UPDATE: 12/10/08 – Late yesterday, Justice Souter denied Berg’s request to stop the Electoral College from voting for Obama.
Related Posts
Berg vs Obama: A brief update
Berg vs Obama: Dept of Justice Waives Right to Respond to Petition
Berg vs Obama: Update and current status
Donofrio vs Wells: NJ Obama citizenship case slated for SCOTUS conference
UPDATE: 1/2/09 – Add the following events and planned SCOTUS conferences to the above docket:
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008 Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008 Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009.
Dec 17 2008 Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008 Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008 Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.
Apparently, Berg will get his two days in court (1/9 & 1/16).
I read it Hugh, and shared my opinion- if what your blogger says is true, he is tacitly admitting that Obama IS eligible to be POTUS. The blogger believes that the later courts – in Wong, etc.= misread Minor and therefore ruled incorrectly.
OK. So he thinks the court ruled incorrectly, and that is fine- but he admits that the court DID rule on the issue, he simply believes that they got it wrong. Lots of people believe that about lots of cases. Roe v. Wade may have been an incorrect ruling, but that doesnt mean legal abortion isnt the law of the land.
Robert:
Do I understand correctly that you are saying that Leo Donofrio is tacitly admitting that Obama is eligible to the President of the United States?
Is this what you are meaning?
Robert:
Donofrio says that Minor v Happersett, which construes the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution, is currently the precedent setting case of the United States Supreme Court.
Wong Kim Ark construes the 14th Amendment, and the ruling section of that case only declares Wong to a citizen.
Nope. It declares him a native born citizen, and the only people i have ever heard argue that that is not the same as natural born are birthers. EVEN THE DISSENT in Wong admitted clearly and concisely that they are the same, and that Wong decided “Natural Born Citizen”
Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
Robert:
1. Nope. It declares him a native born citizen, and the only people i have ever heard argue that that is not the same as natural born are birthers. EVEN THE DISSENT in Wong admitted clearly and concisely that they are the same, and that Wong decided “Natural Born Citizen”
Justice Fuller’s dissent in Wong:
Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.
If Justice Fuller is writing the minority Dissenting Opinion, how is it that he is actually confirming and supporting the Majority Opinion?
He is saying that it is UNREASONABLE to conclude that “natural-born citizen APPLIED TO EVERYBODY. He is saying that not all citizens are not natural born citizens, but are native born.
Furthermore, the comma after irrespective of circumstances, indicates the continued thought “that it is unreasonable to conclude that ‘natural-born citizen’ applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States”…
Examples are (1) children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not; (2) or other races, Mongolian, etc.
Your conclusion to connect “children of foreigners…were eligible to the Presidency” fails because Justice Fuller is saying that children of foreigners are in the excluded group.
You are misreading the passage. It makes no sense to say that Justice Fuller supports the Majority Opinion when he is the author of the Minority Opinion.
.
He’s not confirming anything, Hugh- he is stating that he disagrees with the majority. And while he agrees with you that it is unreasonable, he confirms clearly and concisely that the majority is declaring Wong a “natural born ciizen.”
Justice Fuller believes that such children SHOULD be excluded from citizenship. Justice Fuller lost.
You are, in fact, misreading what I said. I did not say that Fuller agreed with the majority- I said that Fuller clearly and concisely stated and recognized that the majority decision in the case declared Wong a natural born citizen. Again, he disagreed with that decision. But he lost.
it’s crystal clear, Hugh.
“I said that Fuller clearly and concisely stated and recognized that the majority decision in the case declared Wong a natural born citizen. Again, he disagreed with that decision. But he lost.”
Tell me, what are the specific words that Justice Fuller uses to clarify, concisely state, and recognize that the majority opinion declared Wong a natural born citizen?
Where is it clear and concisely stated?
Gentlemen -
I am of the opinion that it doesn’t matter about where or when BHO was born. He simply isn’t eligible to be POTUS. He did not have two citizen parents – unless he has lied about his parentage.
And, at this point, Fast and Furious could be his downfall. If you’re POTUS, you had better not lie or be so unaware that you don’t know that your govenment has not talked and coordinated with another govenment. Especially one that shares your county’s border. Or that no one told you. Another fatal flaw. As is “I didn’t have sex…” or ” it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.”
The birth certificate could be a factor, but there are other factors which could be far more significant. Not to mention Solendra and other failures.
And the lame stream medai is going after Herman Cain. A black conservative with real life creds. OMG!!!
Read his opinion, Hugh. Fuller recognized and disagree with the fact that the majority opinion was making people like Wong “whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race,” eligible for the presidency.
I happen to agree with you= and this is why I laugh when people praise that dolt Reagan. But yes, Obama should have known.
Robert:
You say:
Nope. It declares him a native born citizen, and the only people i have ever heard argue that that is not the same as natural born are birthers. EVEN THE DISSENT in Wong admitted clearly and concisely that they are the same, and that Wong decided “Natural Born Citizen”.
Where are the words in which Justice Fuller clearly and concisely stated that native born citizens and natural born citizens are the same, and that Wong decided natural born Citizen? I have read Justice Fuller’s Minority Opinion and I have failed to find them. Where are they?
Read the posted comment, Hugh. He clearly and concisely states that the majority opinion is in effect making wong a “natural born citizen.”
Do you dispute that?
And an update: Our Hero Terry withdrew his appeal of his conviction.
So he admits (again) that his service to his nation was less than honorable, and he loses his pension and other benefits.
I bet his wife has some serious regrets…
Happy New Year all. It looks like PBO has a fight coming up in the great state of Georgia. Check it out. The courts couldn’t just keep denying any examination of qualifications.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77037419/Farrar-Welden-Swensson-Powell-v-Obama-Motion-to-Dismiss-by-Obama-is-Denied-Georgia-Ballot-Access-Challenge-1-3-2011
Good. So when this one goes south, are we going to see the usual claims from the birthers attacking the honor of the judge who hears the case, the same way they attacked the Court Martial officers at Mr. Lakin’s trial?
Best bet: Yes.
GO MITT!!!
“Read the posted comment, Hugh. He clearly and concisely states that the majority opinion is in effect making wong a “natural born citizen.”
Do you dispute that?”
Concerning your comment…
I do not believe in any way that Fuller’s minority opinion agrees with Gray’s majority opinion. There is not any effecting of a natural born Citizen by Gray in Wong. He does not even declare Wong to be a natural born Citizen.
You are certainly twisting words!
Read “The Objectively Gray Propaganda of Masked Rascals dated January 11, 2012 at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Re read what was posted, Hugh- as far as “twisting words,” you had better take a hard look at your own statement: I NEVER said that Fuller’s minority opinion “agreed” with Gray’s majority opinion- that is nonsensical, as majority and minority are DIFFERING opinions. So don’t twist my words.
What I DID say is that Fuller’s minority opinion makes clear that the Gray’s majority opinion makes Wong a Natural Born Citizen, as Fuller clearly states that by the logic of the majority opinion Wong would be eligible to be President of the United States.
And that is true.
If there be such clarity in Wong Kim Ark that Wong is actually a natural born Citizen, why did Justice Gray omit the words “natural born Citizen” from the ruling section of the majority opinion? Where are the words “natural born Citizen” in the ruling section which declares the opinion as precedent? I do not find those particular words.
It seems reasonable that if Justice Gray thought Wong was a natural born Citizen, then he would have inserted the words “natural born” into the opinion. But he simply did not insert those words into the ruling section of the opinion.
There are only two kinds of citizens, “Natural Born” and “Naturalized.” As it was decided in Wong that a child born on these shores needed no act of naturalization, he was Natural Born. As I have shown, even Justice Fuller knew that Wong would be eligible to be POTUS.
By the by, did you read the last link you posted us to, the one about “Gray Propaganda?” Why did the blogger go to such pains to say that Gray should have recused himself from Wong, if the blogger believes that the Wong decision did not make Chester Arthur eligible?
Justice Gray had no knowledge that Chester Arthur’s father had naturalized 14-years after Chester Arthur’s birth. Gray authored the Wong Kim Ark majority opinion on March 28, 1898. Chester Arthur was President from 1881-1885. Therefore, it is impossible that Wong Kim Ark was the precedent opinion that makes Chester Arthur eligible to the Office of President.
You will have to look elsewhere to find Supreme Court authority that Chester Arthur is eligible. Blogger and attorney Leo Donofrio does not think that Chester Arthur is eligible.
There is no SCOTUS opinion that makes Arthur eligible.
Did you read the link that you posted us to Hugh?
The blogger’s point was that Gray had a vested interest in issuing a decision that made Chester eligible, as Chester appointed Gray to the Court.
Blogger is arguing out of both sides of his mouth: on one hand, he claims that the Wong decision does NOT make Obama (one citizen parent) eligible while on the other hand he argues that Gray used the decision to make Arthur (one citizen parent) eligible.
It’s nonsensical.
Yes, I did read the link. Again, Chester Arthur was in office from 1881-1885, and he died in 1886. Justice Gray wrote the Wong Kim Ark on March 28, 1898. It is impossible that Gray’s opinion makes Chester Arthur eligible. You have to resort to other evidence such as the Constitution, and other prior Supreme Court opinions to find support for Arthur.
It is nonsensical for you to assert the Wong is a natural born Citizen when Gray only said that Wong was only a citizen. Somehow you think that all citizens born in county are natural born Citizens and that is not true. It is possible to be born in county with one or more parents who are not citizens. If this is the case, the child is a citizen only and not natural born.
If Gray thought that Wong was natural born, he would have been required to write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of the Wong, but he did not do so. Otherwise, persons can reach any conclusion they want to reach about an opinion from the Supreme Court or any other lower court. But they would be wrong.
You simply cannot insert words into a court opinion and make it be so. Your position simply is not possible.
Leo Donofrio has posted the new article “The Dirty ‘little’ Secret Of The Natural Born Citizen Clause Revealed.” It all has to do with statutory construction.
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/
Gray would have been “required” to use the words “Natural Born???” LOL- “required” by whom?
As i said, there are two kinds of citizens, Natual Born and Naturalized.
As far as calling my opinion “nonsensical,” then you also have to call Justice Fuller’s opinion “nonsensical” as he AGREED with what I am saying…
So who to believe, who to believe… a supreme court justice that actually heard the case, or an internet blogger…? Not that hard to pick the credible person is it, Hugh?
As far as the Arthur eligibility, as you state it IS impossible to suggest that Gray had an outcome on Arthur’s eligibility. So why did the blogger YOU linked us to state that Gray should have recused himself?
And AGAIN, if Gray’s decision did not call Wong a Natural Born Citizen, why would it matter if he recused himself or not?
If Wong was a natural born Citizen, then Justice Gray would have been required to write the words “natural born Citizen” into to ruling section of Wong Kim Ark since the word “citizen” and the words “natural born Citizen” are contained in separate clauses in the Constitution, and each has and must be given legal effect without disregard of the other.
The rule of statutory construction, with regard to the Constitution, was best stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803):
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174. (Emphasis added.)
But Justice Gray did not write the words “natural born Citizen” into the ruling section of Wong. Was it just an oversight? Every word written in the Constitution is written in the document to give a particular and singular effect.
If Wong is actually a natural born Citizen, then Justice Gray has misled the American people, the judicial system, and most probably has committed a fraud upon the Court.
Words have meaning and different words have different meanings..
Did you read the article?
Leo Donofrio quotes Chief Justice John Marshall. You don’t agree with Donofrio obviously. But you do not even agree with Chief Justice John Marshall in his quote or the other quotes that Donofrio uses in the related opinions.
How do I know this? If you agreed with Donofrio you would be agreeing with Chief John Marshall.
But you certainly do not agree. Do not give me crap about only believing Supreme Court Justices
.
Since the rule of statutory construction expresses how the Constitution is to be interpreted, and you do not agree with it (as expressed above), then your interpretation is faulty at best. In fact, it is fraudulent. To ignore this rule is, to quote you, nonsensical.
Robert:
You have every right to have the opinion that you hold. But the opinion that you hold in this matter does not agree with the Constitution.
Robert:
I would agree with you completely concerning Justice Gray declaring Wong a natural born Citizen if Justice Gray had written the words “natural born Citizen” into the majority opinion.
But you are saying that there are two types of citizens: naturalized and natural born.
Certainly, Supreme Court Justices would understand the nomenclature of citizenship. Others in the Appellate and District Courts would understand the terms. Those in the State Court systems would understand also. Court opinions have been broadcast into the public area through newspapers from the founding of the Republic to the 1800’s, 1900’s, down to this present time, extending the outreach into our homes via the radio and TV.
Certainly all the listeners that have ever read a Supreme Court opinion, read newspaper reports or have heard results on radio or TV do not have the necessary legal training to discern the legal nuances in Supreme Court opinions or most probably any other court opinion.
So, it is incumbent upon the Republic’s judges to write clearly, in unambiguous language so that even the most ill-informed can understand their opinions, to prevent any misunderstanding, since the judges are declaring the law of the land, even to future generations.
Since the most of us do not have this specialized knowledge the Republic’s judges have the full burden to correctly state the law and to publish it through the appropriate media.
So I can only conclude that Justice Gray thought Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and not a “natural born Citizen” since he did have the oath-centered obligation to fulfill his duties as a Justice. It is the words of Justice Gray that declared his intention, and he wrote that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen.
If Wong Kim Ark was a natural born Citizen, then it was incumbent upon Justice Gray to write the words “natural born Citizen” in the ruling section of the opinion. Under these circumstances, to only declare Wong a citizen is deceitful.
I understand your opinion Hugh.
I disagree with you, and I have Justice Fuller’s words in the very same case to back me up.
Ouch!
The judge in Georgia really threw some (more) water on the birthers today…
1. Their is no credible evidence of birth records being forged;
AND
2. The US Constitution does NOT require two US Citizen parents to be a “Natural Born Citizen.:
Read all about it!
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/judge-obama-eligible-to-1330300.html
Another one for you, Hugh. A lawsuit was filed claiming Obama, Paul, and Romney are not qualified because the don’t have citizen parents…
Tisdale v. Obama, the federal district court stated that it is “well settled that those born in the United States are natural born citizens” and calls the claim that Obama (and Paul and Romeny) are ineligible “without merit.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80563782/Tisdale-v-Obama-et-al
Case dismissed WITH prejudice.
Sorry guys, but I was not getting notification from Warren about posts here. I hope Warren will fix that.
Regarding whether Obama will be on the Georgia ballot, that is still in dispute since the whole matter is going to a higher court.
And then…
Wow. Just bizarre. Your girl Orly is off the deep end, kids… as everyone realized, now that the judge in Georgia ruled against this nitwit and her empty case, she is now attacking the judge’s honor. See Page 8 of the appeal she has filed, noting that Judge Mahili is in cahoots with Iran!!!
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/zombie-files-in-georgia-court/#more-16257
Yeah. You might not want to put to much money and that appeal, WB.
Where DO you guys find these crackpots???
Another court chimes in, this time in Arizona. Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, per Wong Ark Kim:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/84531299/AZ-2012-03-07-Allen-v-Obama-C20121317-ORDER-Dismissing-Complaint
FINALLY, it appears that a judge might finally be showing some spine as far as Birtherism is concerned… a New York state judge has dimissed a birther lawsuit AND has asked the birther plaintiff to show cause why he should not need to pay the legal costs of the defendants. As the birther named about a dozen co defendants in the case, the tab he will be stuck with is bound to be substantial. From the judge’s order:
“…STRUNK’s instant action is frivolous. … STRUNK [pictured right] alleges baseless claims about defendants which are fanciful, fantastic, delusional and irrational. It is a waste of judicial resources for the Court to spend time on the instant action. Moreover the Court will conduct a hearing to give plaintiff STRUNK a reasonable opportunity to be heard … as to whether or not the Court should award costs and/or impose sanctions upon plaintiff STRUNK for his frivolous conduct. At the hearing, an opportunity will be given to counsel for defendants to present detailed records of costs incurred by their clients in the instant action.”
Actually making these folks pay the bills for their game should end things pretty quickly.