Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Berg to File Emergency Injunction Today, Awaits Answer from Barack Obama and DNC
AmericasRight.com ^ | Tuesday, December 2, 2008 | Jeff Schreiber

Posted on 12/02/2008 5:39:08 AM PST by Calpernia

One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer, Berg is filing a motion in the Court in an attempt to further prevent Obama from taking office in January as the 44th president of the United States.

From what I could gather, the emergency motion for immediate injunction contains two main parts -- in filing the motion, Berg is looking for the Court (1) to prohibit the certification of electors by the governors of each individual state in order to stay the Electoral College from casting votes for Obama on December 15, and (2) to stay the official counting of any votes for Obama by Vice President Dick Cheney, the House of Representatives and United States Senate on January 6, 2009, pending any decision on his appeal.

"As I've said over and over and over again, we're headed toward a constitutional crisis, and it is absolutely imperative that we find out now, before he is sworn in, whether Obama is qualified under the United States Constitution to be president," Berg said.

"It is my firm belief, my one thousand percent firm belief," he said, "that he does not meet the natural born qualifications, that he should not be voted for by the electors, and that he should not be sworn in this January unless he shows his credentials ... which he of course cannot, simply because he does not have them."

The motion comes one day after Obama and the DNC were directed to respond to Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the parties, however, are allowed two more days for mail service). On Wed., Nov. 19, the Federal Election Commission formally waived its right to respond to Berg's petition and, while such waiver is not necessary, neither is any such response to a petition. Like the FEC, Obama and the DNC could essentially bank on the low odds that any one matter will be heard by the Court (only somewhere between 70 and 120 of the approximately 8,000 petitions are granted each year), or rely on arguments already made that Berg lacks standing to sue at all.

Read More


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: berg; birthcertificate; certifigate; obama; obamatransitionfile; obamatruthfile; philberg; scotus; stbc; thekenyan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: Calpernia
One day after the deadline set by Supreme Court Justice David Souter for Barack Obama and the DNC to respond to attorney Philip Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari has passed without an answer,

Obama answers to NO ONE.

21 posted on 12/02/2008 7:34:39 AM PST by aj7360
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

b4l8r


22 posted on 12/02/2008 7:37:22 AM PST by boxerblues
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Thanks, Calpernia

Save the Constitution Ping.


23 posted on 12/02/2008 8:22:03 AM PST by Iowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

Not going anywhere? The court reviews on Friday December 5th Bergs suit and votes if the full court should hear the case. Only requires 4 yea votes.


24 posted on 12/02/2008 8:24:39 AM PST by stockpirate (Welcome to the United Socialist States of America- USSA. Prepare for the Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: traditional1

And did you read the article? It must have been post marked by yesterday, and two days for the mail. So not really late until COB Wednesday.


25 posted on 12/02/2008 8:27:23 AM PST by stockpirate (Welcome to the United Socialist States of America- USSA. Prepare for the Final Solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

You REALLY think that the Obamanation has a snowball’s chance in hell of being ruled illegal?


26 posted on 12/02/2008 8:58:06 AM PST by traditional1 ("The American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

I believe that Obama is using every means to erode the Constitution for his own personal benefit. One reason he may have chosen Hilary is so that he could emphasize the point that exceptions must be made and that the Constitution must be adjusted to fit the times and situations we face.


27 posted on 12/02/2008 9:11:47 AM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jess Kitting

Nope. We elect electors. They get to choose the President. So far, nobody has filed suit to force an elector to vote for the candidate they pledged to vote for, or to vote as directed by the state.

We presume they will vote for the candidate, although there has been an occasional elector which voted for a different candidate as a protest.

In fact, one could argue that for the November 4th election, the only thing that really needed to be certified was that the electors were legally allowed to be electors, since we voted for the electors.

It’s the electors that have to choose a legally qualified President. That’s when I would expect a legal challenge to be found credible, if there would ever be such a time.

There is zero chance Berg will get a court to stop the appointing of electors, or stop the electors from meeting. Neither the votes for the electors, nor the gathering of the electors, is invalid or unconstitutional.

The only argument Berg has is that Obama can’t be chosen — so until the Electors choose him I don’t think there is standing to sue.

And yes, if the electors decided Obama was not constitutionally qualified, they could really pick anybody else they wanted to be President. I don’t think they would be bound to pick Biden, they could make Biden somebody else’s VP.

There is nothing in the constitution specifying WHO the electors need to vote for, other than the rule that each elector must chose either a President or a VP from a state other than themselves (meaning that if a party runs two people from the same state, at least one of them can’t get the electors from that state. SOme people misunderstand this to mean you can’t have a Pres and VP from the same state, but for almost any election, you could still win even if you had to split the electors from one state).


28 posted on 12/02/2008 10:37:55 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

If he is ignoring the Supreme Court now, wait till he gets to the White House!


29 posted on 12/02/2008 10:40:32 AM PST by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jess Kitting
I hope you are right. I was under the impression that the Electors could choose whomever they wanted, hence Hillary.

No, you were right the first time--the Electors can choose whomever they want. That's what they're for.
30 posted on 12/02/2008 10:44:51 AM PST by Mariebl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Good news! Go Berg, go!

http://www.rallycongress.com/constitutional-qualification/1244


31 posted on 12/02/2008 11:01:49 AM PST by real_patriotic_american
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jess Kitting
If Obama is found to be ineligible, won't that mean that "his" Electors are also ineligible to cast their votes in the Electoral College?

That would be most appropriate, since the entire DNC and mainstream media participated in, and propagated this fraud. I sure hope the SCOTUS agrees.

32 posted on 12/02/2008 11:10:13 AM PST by meadsjn (Socialists promote neighbors selling out their neighbors; Free Traitors promote just the opposite.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Faith

I thought the same thing about Hillary. Well if it’s ok here, well it’s ok over here too!


33 posted on 12/02/2008 1:09:04 PM PST by Free America52 (I just want it to be the way it always has been.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: All

Obama's VERY LAST AD selling BushClinton before the SCOTUS bomb and Celebration of Obamanation of Desolation

altMake no mistake: "OBAMA announces his Cabinet For National Security" was Obama's VERY LAST AD selling BushClinton (1) before the SCOTUS bomb explodes.

Now that "Obama" finished the first part of his job, i.e. acceptance of BushClinton and celebration of the "Obamanation of Desolation" (2), "Obama" can step down as president-elect (3) and begin playing the second part of his role. (4)

Notes

http://satanic-celebrations.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-very-last-ad-selling-bushclinton.html

34 posted on 12/02/2008 2:06:18 PM PST by VlPu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If that is the case and Obama is dismissed for ineligibility, say hello to President Hillary.

I cannot imagine a that a majority of Democratic Electors would choose anyone else, if Obama is out. She was their second choice after all, and they can still have Biden as VP if they want him.

Hillary is an opportunist, and she will seize any chance that she gets to achieve her goal of the Presidency.

Either way, Hillary will be the big winner here. If Obama is inaugurated, she is four heartbeats away from the Presidency. If Obama is declared ineligible due to fraud, Hillary steps in and "saves" the country.

That is why my first question is relevant. If the Obama's Electors maintain their voting rights in the Electoral College, they being Democrats, will choose Hillary, once Obama is declared ineligible.

However, if the election were declared null and void, then "Obama's" Electors would not be allowed to vote in the Electoral College.

35 posted on 12/02/2008 6:27:12 PM PST by Jess Kitting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mariebl
-the Electors can choose whomever they want.

No. They can't. Check "Faithless Elector" laws.

36 posted on 12/03/2008 6:25:04 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson