And conservatives let it go down without a fight?
Well then I guess it's a good thing there are still some of us libertarians left to defend it. 
Posted on 10/07/2008 2:02:58 PM PDT by moopie1
Why Is Obama Paying Lawyers Instead of Producing Birth Certificate?
Last week a Judge Ordered Senator to produce his birth certificate, Yesterday the Senator's lawyers have filed for a delay of the order. Now I know most people think that the "birth certificate" issue is as legitimate as the tooth fairy. But My question to them is, if it is so illegitimate, why is the Senator paying lawyers instead of just giving the birth certificate document to the Judge?
Berg is “Outraged” that Obama & DNC Hide Again Behind Legal Issues as their attorney files a Motion for Protective Order to “not” Answer Admissions & Production of Documents while Betraying Public in not Producing Documents proving Obama is “qualified” to be a candidate for President.
For Immediate Release: - 10/06/08
(Contact info and pdf of press release below)
Country is Headed to a Constitutional Crisis
(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/06/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that Obama and Democratic National Committee [DNC] filed a Joint Motion for Protective Order to Stay Discovery Pending a Decision on the Motion to Dismiss (which was) filed on 09/24/08.
While legal, Berg stated he is “outraged as this is another attempt to hide the truth from the public; it is obvious that documents do not exist to prove that Obama is qualified to be President.” The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.
Their joint motion indicates a concerted effort to avoid the truth by attempting to delay the judicial process, although legal, by not resolving the issue presented: that is, whether Barack Obama meets the qualifications to be President.
It is obvious that Obama was born in Kenya and does not meet the “qualifications” to be President of the United States pursuant to our United States Constitution. Obama cannot produce a certified copy of his “Vault” [original long version] Birth Certificate from Hawaii because it does not exist.
Furthermore, and actually more important is Obama’s Certificate of Citizenship that he received when he returned from Indonesia, as if it exists it would indicate that Obama was “naturalized” and also not able to be President.
The DNC has promised “we the people” an Open and Honest Government and has promised to uphold our United States Constitution. The DNC has failed their promise. DNC Chairperson Howard Dean should resign as he has not and is not fulfilling his responsibility of seeing that a “qualified” candidate is on the ballot as the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.
Berg stated that a response in opposition will be filed in the next day or so to the Defendants Motion for a Protective Order.
Our website obamacrimes.com now has 21.7 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations. Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.
The only thing you can rely on are the documents actually filed with the court, all of which you can find at obamacrimes.com
LOL -- speaking from personal experience, I'm not even sure about that.... I'm peripherally involved with a lawsuit in which one side has committed actual perjury with their filings; not once, but many times.
Thanks for the link: I'll check it out.
I don't see anything about a law requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to a federal agency as violating any part of the constitution you quoted. In as much as the consitution states the requirements to be president. Then surely Congress must have implicit authority to enforce those requirements.
And conservatives let it go down without a fight?
Well then I guess it's a good thing there are still some of us libertarians left to defend it.
No.
3USC1 says nothing as to how a state may appoint its electors. Nor for that matter for whom those electors may cast their votes.
I don't see anything about a law requiring presidential candidates to provide proof of eligibility to a federal agency as violating any part of the constitution you quoted.
Because "candidate" is entirely a state matter as per Article II.
If you want to run for President, you don't go to the federal government and fill out some form to become a candidate. You go to each state and apply to be on each state's ballot. This is the process by which states appoint their electors, which as I have said, is left entirely up to the states under Article II.
In as much as the consitution states the requirements to be president.
The Constitution only states the requirements to actually hold that office. No one can hold the office until such time as they receive the requisite number of electoral votes. But as I said, the appointment of those electors is left entirely up to the states.
So Congress doesn't come into the picture until after those electors have been appointed by the states and they cast their votes in December.
Then surely Congress must have implicit authority to enforce those requirements.
They can only enforce those requirements by challenging the votes of any electors who may cast their votes for a candidate who doesn't meet those requirements.
Everything prior to that is a state issue.
Jumping in late, but this is my understanding as well. Until such time as the electors vote in Congress, I think the only public official that can do anything to challenge Obama's eligibility would be a Secretary of State. At this point, it seem we can assume none are going to challenge Obama because I'd think the time to get on states ballots has passed. Voting has begun in many states.
Yes, it is. Do your homework. I've already provided the link so it's a simple matter.
Yes. And it would only be for that particular state.
At this point, it seem we can assume none are going to challenge Obama because I'd think the time to get on states ballots has passed. Voting has begun in many states.
That's probably a pretty safe assumption.
But as I've said, voters can choose not to vote for Obama, the electors may consider issues of qualifications when they cast their votes before Congress, and Congress may challenge votes cast by Obama electors in December.
Basically what Berg is asking for here is tantamount to having the court declare a piece of legislation unconstitutional before it's been passed by Congress or even signed by the President.
Is that something anyone who has any respect for the Constitution and our founding principles (such as separation of powers) wants to have happen?
Well I simply disagree with you. I don’t see where requiring candidates to prove their eligibility up front violates the spirit of Article II.
Such a law, would not be inpinging on the state’s method appointing or electing representatives in the electoral college by merely requiring candidates to be elligible.
And it would not be restricting who can be a candidate that’s not already dictated by the constitution when it specifies who can hold office.
Being proactive in this matter would not violate the constitution and could avoid a lot of expense.
But regardless, even if we waited until the electoral college meets, it is congress’s responsibility to certify the election and part of that certification process should be to make sure that the candidates are eligible.
I’m saying Congress should codify that into law and fix responsibility, because right now it appears nobody is accepting it. I dissagree with you, in that I don’t think it matters constitutionally whether congress verifies it before state elections or when the electoral college meets, or afterwards.
But as a side note, it’s a shame we have 50 states and not one of them appears to be checking the constitutionally required eligibility.
Okay, a judge ordered him to turn over his birth certificate. He won’t do it. I think there’s something *seriously* wrong with the Democrat candidate for President.
The Blacked out Certificate number is interesting, mostly because if you are running for public office you should most definitely list that, its the only proof possible to offer that directly links the document shown to a registry with the state. They should at least take that black bar off.
So of the three things that would tell me for sure that this is a real document, 2 are missing. That's just in direct visual comparison.
I don’t know why he doesn’t just produce a GOOD forgery and be done with it. You know he has the connections to produce one.
LOL.. Marrying Michelle doesn’t make him qualified to run for President.
Can his Certicate of Citizenship be requested through the Freedom of Information Act?
Isn't that more or less the basis for the motion to dismiss? The court has no standing? I thought from the beginning it should go before a state court to challenge the SOS placement of Obama on the state ballot.
Obama’s middle name, you say?
Which one?
(His BC will show he has the same 2 middle names as his half-brother George)
I tried every link - “Page not found” appeared.
What it violates, not just in spirit but the letter as well, is the Tenth Amendment.
And I can't believe I'm having to explain the Tenth Amendment to someone on a conservative website of all places.
The Tenth Amendment says that Congress cannot act unless a; the Constitution empowers them to act, or b; as in the case of Article II, a power is expressly given to the states. That's what the "...or prohibited by it to the states..." part means in the Tenth Amendment.
Such a law, would not be inpinging on the state’s method appointing or electing representatives in the electoral college by merely requiring candidates to be elligible.
Article II doesn't just grant states the power over the method of appointing electors, but the power to appoint their electors, period.
Therefore Congress has no power to tell any state who may or may not be on their state ballots.
But regardless, even if we waited until the electoral college meets, it is congress’s responsibility to certify the election and part of that certification process should be to make sure that the candidates are eligible.
Again, November 4th isn't "the election." November 4th is 50 state elections (plus the District of Columbia), which are the states exercising their exclusive power to appoint their electors. And that includes who may appear on their state ballots.
"The election" doesn't occur until the 538 electors, who by that time have already been appointed, cast their votes. It is only at that point that Congress has any constitutional authority to involve itself.
But as a side note, it’s a shame we have 50 states and not one of them appears to be checking the constitutionally required eligibility.
That may be. But it doesn't change the fact that Congress has no constitutional authority to tell the states who may or may not appear on their ballots in November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.