Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Obama and the DNC File for Dismissal of Berg vs. Obama
Obama Crimes ^ | Sept. 27, 2008 | n/a

Posted on 09/27/2008 7:08:56 PM PDT by Dajjal

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last
To: okokie

Hope we find out BEFORE the elections (hey a guy can hope:-)


51 posted on 09/27/2008 10:06:15 PM PDT by RedMonqey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NoobRep

He doesn’t. The case will be tossed.

As for ‘why not just ...’. Because you shouldn’t. You should never get involved in a lawsuit if you don’t have to.

They don’t have to. He has no ‘standing’ to sue them.


52 posted on 09/27/2008 10:23:45 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal

“The differences we witness between the Luo, the Kikuyu, the Kamba, or the Maasai are irrelevant,” he warned. “If Kenyans were rich, maybe the arguments would make sense. But OUR people are poor and need help.”—Barack Obama

In Speech in Kenya.

http://www.eastandard.net/obama/InsidePage.php?id=1143993758&cid=530&;


53 posted on 09/27/2008 11:50:54 PM PDT by tuckrdout (~ 'Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who don't.' ~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

I tried to find something also and couldn’t.


54 posted on 09/28/2008 3:49:28 AM PDT by nobama08
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nobama08

You would think a judge would rule that everyone has a stake in this.

So obama is sitting back and letting judges, law clerks, lawyers and the media waste their time when all he has to do is present his original birth certificate.

I wonder if a curious clerk at the city records ever tried to find a birth certificate in obama’s name. If one isn’t found and the number sequence shows none existed, is obama going to blame the Republicans. Silly question.


55 posted on 09/28/2008 8:28:05 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Vote against the dem party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: donnab

“I do have to wonder why he just doesn’t produce the document “

See my #16, they may simply be avoiding setting a legal precedent in which a method or requirement for presidential eligibility is set. Currently there is no “controlling legal authority” or process to determine, at a federal level, whether a candidate fits the constitutional requirement. All of the federal laws deal with finance, not eligibility, and no state law that I could find deals with the issue at the state level (I have not checked all 60 states).


56 posted on 09/28/2008 9:12:39 AM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Traveler59
A question for the FReepers here In any election , the state election commissioner (or similar state official) is required to certify the ballots to ensure that all candidates meet the requirements to even be on the ballots. Now maybe I'm missing something here, but has any state election commissioner verified nObama's credentials? Or am I going in the wrong direction with this line of questioning?

From reading PUMA blogs, I know that there are angry PUMAs in every state putting pressure on the 57 50 election commissions and attorneys general to verify BHO's birth certificate before allowing him onto their ballots. There are probably some individual Republicans doing this too.

But I have not heard either of any state GOP joining the effort, nor of any state commission going public with demands on BHO to prove his eligibility.

57 posted on 09/28/2008 4:16:28 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: diefree
Have you seen this?

No, not that one. Thanks!

But I do regularly visit Texas Darlin's blog (the one Kickapps links to):

http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/author/texasdarlin/

58 posted on 09/28/2008 4:20:57 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Canedawg; Polarik
It’s a fairly standard response, and it is not unusal for a defendant to file a motion to dismiss on the last day that a responsive pleading is due.
Looking at it dispassionately, it is simple, by-the-book litigation technique, and nothing unusual.

I agree. Plus, I believe that, even if the Dem lawyers said to BHO "Hey, let's just show the judge the birth certificate and then sue Berg for libel" that BHO would stonewall his own lawyers, and tell them to think of something else.

59 posted on 09/28/2008 4:30:30 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
The call for Hillary to get involved would be nice, but it's not going to happen.

Alan Keyes says he is still running for president. Maybe he would join Berg's lawsuit. :)

http://www.americasrevival.com/

60 posted on 09/28/2008 4:33:41 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal

Perhaps this is our first sip of the Newest Deal; I really fail to see how a Federal court doesn’t have juristiction over Federal election law in the first test. In the second, standing, I think any citizen would have standing if there are laws being bent or broken regarding Obama’s candidacy because it hurts everyone.

At any rate, it’s more than likely just legal BS trying to get an easy pass. I wouldn’t expect Obama’s attorneys to roll over and play dead.


61 posted on 09/28/2008 4:45:50 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dajeeps

“I really fail to see how a Federal court doesn’t have juristiction over Federal election law in the first test.”

There is no Federal election for president- that could be why.


62 posted on 09/28/2008 8:12:29 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
Looking at it dispassionately, it is simple, by-the-book litigation technique, and nothing unusual.

Yes, and we predicted that it would happen when the suit was filed.

63 posted on 09/29/2008 5:55:59 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
I agree. Plus, I believe that, even if the Dem lawyers said to BHO "Hey, let's just show the judge the birth certificate and then sue Berg for libel" that BHO would stonewall his own lawyers, and tell them to think of something else.

If it contained all of the information that the forgery had, and also looked like it, too, then he would have shown it already to a neutral third party, and use that to squelch everything else.

What I don't understand is why this matter has never been brought up on the House or Senate floor

64 posted on 09/29/2008 6:00:18 AM PDT by Polarik ("The Greater Evil")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Polarik
What I don't understand is why this matter has never been brought up on the House or Senate floor.

No one wants to be the first to bring it up for fear of the R word.

Philip Berg may have his faults, but he's got guts.

65 posted on 09/29/2008 3:02:51 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal

Re: “Alan Keyes says he is still running for president. Maybe he would join Berg’s lawsuit.”

Well, Alan (or his party) tried that - against McCain - in California. The judge tossed that case too. See http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2008cv03836/206145/39/0.pdf.

In short, the Robinson judge said: “Turning to the viability of the case at large, plaintiff has no standing to challenge Senator McCain’s qualifications. Plaintiff is a mere candidate hoping to become a California elector pledged to an obscure third-party candidate whose presidential prospects are theoretical at best. Plaintiff has, therefore, no greater stake in the matter than a taxpayer or voter.”

The judge then went on to explain the “proper” method for challenging the qualifications of a Presidential Candidate, pursuant to Constitution, Article 2, 3 U.S.C. 15, and Amendment 20 (See Opinion at 3-4).

The court concludes:
“It is clear that mechanisms exist under the Twelfth Amendment and 3 U.S.C. 15 for any challenge to any candidate to be ventilated when electoral votes are counted, and that the Twentieth Amendment provides guidance regarding how to proceed if a president elect shall have failed to qualify. Issues regarding qualifications for president are quintessentially suited to the foregoing process. Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election and, once the election is over, can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress. The members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are well qualified to adjudicate any objections to ballots for allegedly unqualified candidates. Therefore, this order holds that the challenge presented by plaintiff is committed under the Constitution to the electors and the legislative branch, at least in the first instance. Judicial review — if any — should occur only after the electoral and Congressional processes have run their course.”

So — should be an interesting December.


66 posted on 09/30/2008 6:14:31 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan
That's actually rather depressing. So this judge says that the only procedure is that we vote in November, let the Electoral College vote in December, and then find out whether someone meets the constitutional requirements?????
67 posted on 09/30/2008 2:37:32 PM PDT by Dajjal (Visit Ann Coulter's getdrunkandvote4mccain.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Dajjal
You said -----That's actually rather depressing. So this judge says that the only procedure is that we vote in November, let the Electoral College vote in December, and then find out whether someone meets the constitutional requirements?????-----

Consider it empowering, not depressing. What this judge says is that each and every voter has the power to determine a candidate’s qualifications/eligibility: “Arguments concerning qualifications or lack thereof can be laid before the voting public before the election.”

In short, the Judge has taken the position that we voters don’t need a single judge to decide such an important issue. Rather, it is in our hands – the voters’ hands to evaluate the available evidence and make our own determination.

SECOND, according to the Robinson court, the Constitution places a “check and balance” on the voters’ decision: “Once the election is over, (lack of qualifications/eligibility) can be raised as objections as the electoral votes are counted in Congress.” The judge describes the process for raising and resolving objections in the Senate and the House. (Makes one realize how important the “downticket” elections are too, no?)

THIRD – then, and only then, according to the Robinson court, should judicial review occur.

I don’t see this as depressing at all. After all, isn’t it a core “conservative value” that a single judge (or set of judges) should not legislate from the bench or interfere with matters properly assigned to the electoral/political process?

Think about this for a minute. The current situation may make us want a judge to make this decision. But – what if the shoe were on the other foot: What if some liberal Texas judge actually ruled that McCain was not eligible for the presidency and, thus, could not be on the Texas ballot. What if that judge’s opinion was upheld by the appellate court and did not get to the Supreme Court for reversal before the election?

While it may be "convenient" in the current situation, I think such a precedent could be very very damaging to the political process established by the Constitution. To let judges determine eligibility for public elective office, in the first instance, would, I fear, create a “a clear and present danger” that the judiciary could totally take over the elective process. I’m leery of “slippery slope” arguments, but I think that in the long run, this would be a very dangerous thing.

It seems to me that the Robinson court’s ruling is consistent with this principle. Voters are granted the power, and the responsibility, in the first instance to determine who is most qualified. Here, voters who believe that Obama is not qualified or eligible to be president will not (and should not) vote for him. It’s really that simple. And that powerful.
68 posted on 09/30/2008 3:41:41 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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