Skip to comments.Supreme Court to talk about Obama 3rd time Berg eligibility case set for conference Jan. 9
Posted on 12/19/2008 12:23:50 PM PST by Red Steel
One of the original legal challenges to President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility for office to reach the U.S. Supreme Court now has been scheduled for a conference, a meeting at which the justices discuss its merits and whether to step into the fray.
Online schedules posted by the court show the case brought by attorney Philip J. Berg is set for a conference Jan. 9.
The case is one among several that already have reached the U.S. Supreme Court and address the issue of Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office under the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens.
Berg has submitted several requests for injunctions, seeking the court's order to stay proceedings in the electoral process until his case is heard, but the request have been rejected.
His original claim, however, remains on track to be heard.
"I know that Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally qualified natural born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States," Berg said in a statement on his ObamaCrimes.com website.
"Obama knows he is not 'natural born' as he knows where he was born and he knows he was adopted in Indonesia; Obama is an attorney, Harvard Law grad who taught Constitutional law; Obama knows his candidacy is the largest 'hoax' attempted on the citizens of the United States in over 200 years; Obama places our Constitution in a 'crisis' situation; and Obama is in a situation where he can be blackmailed by leaders around the world who know Obama is not qualified," Berg's statement continued.
The cases, in various ways, have alleged Obama does not meet the "natural born citizen" clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which reads, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
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.
Could you post a bio of Berg, his political affiliations, accomplishments, etc?
Just in time to wreak havoc for the inauguration!
This cat has nine lives. If Scalia pushes at getting the facts and seeing the original birth certif. this can get mighty interesting.
Hey Red, do you have any idea what the status of the Keyes case is? thanks
I hope this time the Supremes don’t wuss out and have the courage to declare Obama an illegal alien and not qualified to be sworn in as President. Let it be Biden, he’ll be easier to defeat in 2012.
The last I heard, the CA court will take it up in early or mid March.
The SCOTUS Conference is scheduled for the Day After the Electoral College vote is certified by Congress.
Berg, the 9/11 & BC Truther will be denied by the SCOTUS once again.
oh geez...ok...thank you. :)
Good Lord, I thought it said Third Term.
I believe SCOTUS has indicated THEY DON’T CARE by their previous denials on these other cases. They have now said they don’t care about the US Constitution. If Obama were a white Republican I bet they would care!
To be clear, this case below is 08-570 a separate action from the /Application/Injunction 08A505.
“Dec 17 2008 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2009 “
I really wouldn’t be surprised.
BUT SCOTUS has not denied any of the “Writ of Certiorari” in any of the cases. What they have denied is only the stays that were for the two elections.
Congress could certify the EC vote, but a disqualification could still occur afterward, couldn’t it?
I realize that alot of people think this is a bunch of hooey, but as I’m reading this I’m thinking “Why in God’s name is man letting this go the SUPREME COURT instead of just showing his damn birth certificate?” I mean honestly, at some point you have to start to wonder. I have been a “birther” for a while I guess, but just reading this today it hit home. Wasting the court’s time like is ridiculous and it either shows an arrogance that a President doesn’t need to have or something to hide.
I am still unable to think of any reason why Obama would not release a (redacted if the complete version has something private) copy of his full Hawaiian birth certificate, if it exists.
Could that document still be worth hiding at the enormous financial cost that he is paying for lawyers?
Does he really dismiss the damage that skeptics, truthers, and strict constructionists wondering whether he has any legal right to the job will do?
Does her really not see any difference in legitimacy between winning the legal case on a technicality or by running out the clock and making the case go away by releasing proof of his status as a natural born citizen?
I'm more worried about what his actions say regarding his attitude toward the Constitution than I am about his true citizenship. Sadly, we already knew that he hates America as it is, that his wife has never been proud of our country, that he was happy to raise his kids in a church centered on hate, and that he has no appreciation for the good that freedom and capitalism do in the world. This collection of legal challenges has shown that he also has no respect for the Constitution - no surprise to those who have read his views on the 1st and 2nd Amendments.
Thanks for the update. When I see a denial and not bein a lawyer, I think it is all over. I hope SCOTUS will get to the bottom of this once and for all. The citizens of our country deserve at least that much.
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.