Berg V. Obama: The Looming Constitutional Crisis (new Details)

Associated Content ^ | published Nov 17, 2008 | By Thomas Latino,

[mgist]

On September 29th of this year a Federal District Court in Pennsylvania ruled that the Democratic Nominee for President Barack Obama had 72 hours to turn over a copy of his long form "vault" birth certificate to long time Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter, Philip Berg. In the DNC's motion to dismiss they argued Mr. Berg had no "standing" upon which to bring his lawsuit and therefore the Federal Court should dismiss it.

[xzins]

I predict Berg will make money on this.

[Safrguns]

What are the new details???
I dont see anything new in the article.

[smokingfrog]

Berg V. Obama: Search for Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate
This article examines the court case of Berg v. Obama, its journey to the Supreme Court and the ramifications of it on Constitutional Law.
View more »

If there is no hospital record of 0bama's birth (say he was born at home by a midwife), then someone would have had to sign an affidavit requesting a birth certificate. Has anyone tried to get a copy of this affidavit (if it exists)? I'm thinking that this would not be covered by the same privacy restrictions as as the original BC.

[tomkat]

I dont see anything new in the article

Nor did I

However, it'd serve as a good synopsis of the Berg angle for those that might've been napping the past couple weeks.

[Misterioso]

Associated Content?? WTF?

[Red Steel]

Mr. Obama simply releasing his Birth Certificate?", "Why would the DNC interject itself into this matter?" and "Why would the Obama team spend upwards of around $800,000 of tax-payer dollars to fight this case in court" and further "If this case was frivolous, why would the US Supreme Court ask for a response from the Obama team on or before December 1st?"

800 grand of tax money?? How obscene. How about paying that on your on dime Obama. Oh, that's right, you're spreading the wealth around...for your benefit.

[bergmeid]

Yeah I don’t get that either. Tax money?? We should all be raising he!! about this.

[FrankR]

While I'm hoping beyond hope that it turns out he's not a citizen, that would be a Constitutional crises. And, you talk about riots...it will be burning of Atlanta (and many other major cities) all over again.

But,the law is the law, and if he wasn't born here, the election is null and void and he should be charged with fraud, big time. Charges and penalties so as to discourage any other non-American from trying the same stunt.

[OneWingedShark]

>Yeah I don’t get that either. Tax money?? We should all be raising he!! about this.

Indeed so.

[CommieCutter]

Associated Content?? WTF?

---

That was my reaction as well. LOL.

[Gondring]

Associated Content?? WTF?

A site where anyone can write anything, and they pay a few dollars for thousands of hits, so people write junk and try to get hits from it.

[tom h]

I have a feeling that the problem would be fixed thusly.

An emergency session of all state legislatures would be held, and each would be asked to ratify a special amendment to the Constitution allowing Barack Hussein Obama to assume the office without having been a natural-born citizen. Or, perhaps the Amendment would be comprehensive, and eliminate the requirement altogether. [Remember, Arnold Schwarzenegger wants this passed, also.] Then, Obama could be sworn in.

The only rub is that the electoral college must be held in mid-December. So, if the legal process is still underway, then who do they vote for?

It could be Hillary. But there would be a revolution of another kind.

If they vote for Obama and Biden, and Obama is not eligible, then Biden is the POTUS. And this can’t be changed for four years.

The electors could vote to abstain. This throws the election into the House of Representatives.

The Dems control enough state legislators so that Obama is guaranteed a win. But first the Amendment must make its way through each state.

This leaves us with the possibility that Nancy Pelosi will be interim President. She will delay the vote for President until 38 states have ratified the Amendment, then allow the vote for Obama.

I have a feeling that even the states inclined to the GOP would vote for the 1-time exclusion to allow Obama to serve as POTUS. The rationale will be that he won the election fair and square, and that the nation deserves him. The fact that he hid the truth will be lost amid the clamor that he is our legitimate leader.

And you know, and I know, that logic and truth do not matter anymore. Only feelings. And the feeling, here in the States and overseas, is that Obama is the one and should not be denied.

[WSGilcrest]

• "Adherence to the rule of law is what guides us in our everyday social and legal interactions, prevents anarchy, and hold us together as a people." (Frens)

• All are equal in the eyes of the law (References re French Language)

• Equality in the law as well as before the law (References re French Language)

• That people should be ruled by the law and obey it (Rossiter)

• The law should be such that people will be able to be guided by it (Rossiter)

• "Constitutionalism and the rule of law are cornerstones of the Constitution and reflect our country’s commitment to an orderly and civil society in which all are bound by the enduring rules, principles, and values of our Constitution as the supreme source of law and authority." (Lalonde)

• "(T)he rule of law refers to the regulation of the relationship between the state and individuals by pre-established and knowable laws.  The state, no less than the individuals it governs, must be subject to and obey the law. The state’s obligation to obey the law is central to the very existence of the rule of law.  Without this obligation, there would be no enforceable limit on the state’s power over individuals...." (Hitzig)

• "The law in our society is supreme. No one - no politician - no government - no judge - no union - no citizen is above the law. We are all subject to the law. We do not get to pick and choose the laws we will observe and obey. Each of us must accept the rule of all laws, even if we have to hold our noses in complying with some of them." (HEABC)

• "The rule of law requires that (judicial) decisions be made by a court which is independent of any influence or pressure by the executive and legislative branches of government" (R v Campbell)

• "(F)irst, that he rule of law provides that the law is supreme over the acts of both government and private persons.  There is, in short, one law for all.  Second, ... the rule of law requires the creation and maintenance of an actual order of positive laws which preserves and embodies the more general principle of normative order". ... A third aspect of the rule of law is ... that "the exercise of all public power must find its ultimate source in a legal rule.  Put another way, the relationship between the state and the individual must be regulated by law." (Re References re Secession of Quebec)

REFERENCES:

• Duhaime, Lloyd, On the Origins of Law
• Frens v. State 831 NYS 2d 347 (2006)
• HEABC v Facilities Subsector Bargaining Association 2004 BCSC 603
• Hitzig v R 231 DLR 4th 104 (ONCA, 2003)
• Lalonde v Ontario 2001 208 DLR 4th 577 (ONCA)
• References re French Language Rights of Accused in Saskatchewan Criminal Proceedings 1987 5 WWR 577 (SKCA)
• Reference re Secession of Quebec 1998 2 SCR 217
• R v Campbell 1995 2 WWR 469 (ABQB)
• Rossiter v PEI 1996 139 DLR 4th 87

[davandbar]

800 grand of tax money?? How obscene...

WOW! The price of ordering your birth certificate in Hawaii is REALLY EXPENSIVE!

[Publius]

It doesn't work like that. Read this essay to understand how Article V of the Constitution functions.

[supercat]

I have a feeling that even the states inclined to the GOP would vote for the 1-time exclusion to allow Obama to serve as POTUS. The rationale will be that he won the election fair and square, and that the nation deserves him. The fact that he hid the truth will be lost amid the clamor that he is our legitimate leader.

I can't think why any sane GOP legislator would go for such an amendment. If Obama is ineligible for the Presidency and the job goes to someone else, sole blame for any crisis would fall solely upon those who nominated an ineligible candidate and attempted to sweep any questions about his ineligibility under the rug. Had concerns about eligibility not surfaced until November 5, Democrats could rightly complain that holding them until after the election was dirty pool. As it is, though, it was the Republicans who were trying to push forward the complaints while the Democrats were stonewalling.

If GOP legislators were to amend the Constitution to grant Obama an exception, not only would it not avoid Civil War II, but the legislators would have made themselves responsible. Nothing can good can come of giving the Presidency to someone who would show so little respect for the Constitution as to willfully ignore its requirements for President.

[DJ MacWoW]

ping

[television is just wrong]

obama should have to pay back the costs of this suit brought against him. he thinks he is some elitist that is not having to show documentation for sh*t.

[cripplecreek]

That’s a lot of other people’s money to blow over something that could be resolved for next to nothing.