BREAKING -- Berg v Obama - Scheduled for SCOTUS Conference TWICE on Jan 16

US Supreme Court ^ | 12/23/08 | US Supreme Court

[BP2]

No. 08-570
Title:	Philip J. Berg, Petitioner v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:	October 31, 2008
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-4340)
	Rule 11

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008	Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008	Application (08A391) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008	Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008	Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008	Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.
Dec 1 2008	Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Bill Anderson.
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
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.
Dec 23 2008	Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.	---------------

No. 08A505
Title:	Philip J. Berg, Applicant v. Barack Obama, et al.
Docketed:
Lower Ct:	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Case Nos.:

(08-4340)

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 8 2008	Application (08A505) for an injunction pending the disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Dec 9 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Souter.
Dec 15 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Dec 17 2008	Application (08A505) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Dec 18 2008	Application (08A505) refiled and submitted to Justice Scalia.
Dec 23 2008	Application (08A505) referred to the Court.
Dec 23 2008	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2009.

[Drew68]

So here we have it:

US Representative: Age 25, 7 yrs. resident & citizen
US Senator.......: Age 30, 9 yrs. resident & citizen
US PRESIDENT.....: Age 35, 14yrs. resident & NATURAL BORN

OK, you just explained that Arnold Schwarzenegger, for example, can be a Senator but not President. This has already been satisfactorily established and is not debated by anyone.

This has nothing to do with Obama.

[little jeremiah]

And I will never submit without a fight to a so-called president who is all the things I listed above and much, much more. But that seems not to matter to you one whit, for some odd reason.

The flaws and imperfections in Berg (and hey, his isn’t the only case in town - didja notice??) bother you a ZILLION times more than the much worse flaws - crimes, actually - that are part and parcel of 0bama’s very being and nature and entire freaking life history?

That doesn’t make sense to me - Berg is an evil demon, satan incarnate, but - 0bama? All you say is “get used to it, he won fair and square, he’ll be sworn in, and anyone who doubts his legitimacy is the madman and fool, no flies on 0bama!”

[calenel]

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

A logical extreme is a perfectly valid mechanism for establishing a point. That is what this is. All members of set [x] are also members of set [y] does not mean the same thing as Only members of set [x] are members of set [y] or To be a member of set [y] you must be a member of set [x].

"These were natives or natural-born citizens"

Once again we see that the terms are used by the Court interchangeably. Persons who are born to US citizen parents on US soils are natives or natural born citizens. It isn't difficult to parse.

"Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."

As to this class there have been doubts. Hmmm. Yes. Doubts. That's a solid legal basis to support your assertion.

"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

I suppose that means that they agree with you. Or not.

"It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

Not disputed. All children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

Red Steel: I want to point out to you that the terms 'native' and 'natural born' are used interchangeably in this case (Minor v. Happerset).

"This represents the Constitutional definition of both a 'natural-born' and a 'native-born' citizen."

Not the way you mean it. It provides a definition of the two terms to mean the same thing.

" An irrational and legally unsupported view has grown up in the United States that the Constitution grants citizenship to anyone and everyone born on the territory of the United States. This view is unsupported, wrong, not in accord with legitimate precedent, and dangerous."

While I would support an Amendment that eliminated the 14th Amendment loophole, that isn't what we are discussing. And anything short of that Constitutional Amendment will not survive a challenge as the 14th Amendment would invalidate it. The dangerous thing is the creation of new classes of citizen. What happens when we have other new classes of citizen, some that may vote and some that may not, for example? What happens when they decide that you can't vote?

"You will also note that the holding in Minor would bring into question not only the 'natural born' citizenship of a person like Obama, but his very citizenship itself."

What holding? The holding that says they don't have to make a decision on an opinion that 'some' hold?

"The Congress may grant citizenship through its powers of naturalization, and we may safely say that it has done so in the cases of individuals who are born in the United States of ONE citizen parent and one non-citizen parent, or to children of US citizen parents born outside the territory of the United States, but Congress absolutely lacks the power to amend the Constitution by means of enacting statute law."

The Constitution defines only two classes of citizen: born a citizen or naturalized. Rights do not accrue differently to any of the classes of citizen (the three or more that you claim exist, or the two that really exist) with the sole exception of the ability to become President. The FFs did not document a definition of 'natural born' that was distinct from the 'dictionary definition' as it existed at the time, that definition being the same one in use throughout the entire time from 200 years prior to the COTUS to now, over 200 years later. They did not discuss or debate another definition and they most certainly did not have some alternative consensus definition that differed from the 'dictionary definition.' Had there been any debate or discussion then your argument might have merit. There wasn't. It doesn't. Had there existed at any time a definition substantially different from the 'dictionary definition' it would actually appear in the dictionary. It doesn't. There wasn't. Attempting to redefine 'natural born' in order to strip people of rights granted them by the COTUS is exactly like attempting to redefine 'well regulated' in order to strip people of rights granted them in the COTUS. If you want to do that go get an Amendment passed.

"A very dear family member, by son, belongs to that class of citizen. He is a US citizen by birth, and has had no other citizenship than this, ever in his life. Yet, he is NOT a “natural-born” citizen, and can never be, because he was not born in the United States. His US citizenship does not derive from the Constitution, but from statue law."

Your son was a citizen at birth, is therefore eligible upon achieving the other two required qualifications, and would undoubtedly make a better President than the one we appear about to have shoved down our throats simply due to your influence as a principled and patriotic person. However, you are mistaken in your belief that there are more than the two types, 'natural born' and 'naturalized,' of citizens.

[El Gato]

If Wong Kim Ark, or indeed any prior case, is governing precedent or the dicta therein an accurate description of the law, then the Supreme Court needs to hear the case in order to clear the way for Obama's inauguration, for under the law as it stands unchallenged today, Obama cannot be legally sworn in.

I guess I don't follow that. As I read the majority opinion, that is the dicta of the majority opinion, since the Court itself indicated that only citizenship was in question, not natural born citizenship, anyone born in the country is a natural born citizen, along with some born outside the country. The dissent differs, and would have gone with the "born of citizen parents" test alone.

If that be the case, then the place of birth of B. Hussein Obama Soetero is key. Because under the common law, being born outside the country, to an alien father and US Citizen mother, the citizenship, and natural born status, goes to the citizenship of the father.

[trumandogz]

Could you please point to where I said all those things about Obama?

[John Valentine]

From the evidence presented, it would appear that BHO was born in Hawaii and that would without question make him a natural born citizen.

There is no question that it would make him a citizen, but there is no reason to conclude from that fact that it would make him a "natural born" citizen unless you buy into the canard that anyone with US citizenship by birth is "natural born".

The falsity of that notion is in front of me every day in the person of my son, Gerry, who is a US citizen by birth, but who is not "natural-born," by virtue of his birth in Jakarta, Indonesia. His citizenship derives from statute law enacted by Congress, and is NOT derived directly from the Constitution and natural law. That type of citizenship is reserved for children born in the United States to US citizen parents, unquestionably, and possibly to children born in the United States to a US citizen father without regard to the citizenship of the mother.

Neither of these would serve to cover Barack Obama whose father was admittedly a British Subject.

Mind you, I am not denying that Obama is a citizen: Congress made it so.

Not the Constitution.

[mlo]

"If a simple requirement of ordinary citizenship was the POTUS requirement, they would have said CITIZEN consistently."

Nobody is saying any citizen can be president. By requiring a "natural born citizen" they were disallowing naturalized citizens, people who were not born as citizens.

[mlo]

"It helps me a hell of a lot more than it helps you. In addition, reason is on my side."

Wrong on both counts. It doesn't help you at all, and if you want to claim reason on your side you need to present a rational argument.

Where is the *legal* definition of "natural born citizen" as requiring two citizen parents?

[trumandogz]

Yes, if the BC is fake and if he has ever submitted it to a Court or Gov. Agency he could be charged with a crime and impeached.

However, one would have to prove that he has done so.

Look at his passport file and see what documentation he used in his application.

[El Gato]

How could the FFs have meant this alternate definition when there was no discussion or documentation to support it? If they didn't discuss it, that means that it was understood, and for that understanding you must look to English Common law. Under that law, a person born of two citizen parents, or a citizen father, outside the country was considered natural born. But a person born in the country was natural born regardless of the citizenship of the parents, although there exceptions such as the children of foreign diplomats, or of an occupying army. But any statute law changes to this definition only apply to citizenship at birth, not to natural born citizenship as that term is used in the Constitution. Congress cannot define terms in the Constitution, except by passing an amendment.

But "natural born" only matters in eligibility to the office of President and Vice President. For all other purposes, citizen at birth, naturalized citizen and natural born citizen all have the same rights and obligations, and all are eligible for any other office, unless state law or Constitutions provide otherwise for state or local offices,although I'm not aware that any do.

[mlo]

"So, what is this? If I try to explain how this works to someone else, it's condescending?"

It's not the explaining your position part that's condescending, and you know it.

"What's condescending is insisting against all reason and precedent that everyone who disagrees with you is wrong without providing a single shred of explanation or justification - like you have."

I'm not insisting "against all reason and precedent". Reason and precedent are NOT on your side here. And I have provided plenty of explanation.

You, amongst others, are proposing the idea that "natural born citizen" has a more complex special meaning than it appears. It is your burden to back that up.

There is nothing in the constitution, the law, or any court decision that proves your point. Unless you can point to some you don't get to claim "reason and precedent".

[calenel]

"Any grammarians out there who think the word 'parents' actually means 'parent'?"

Can 'parents' not also refer to multiple persons who do not share offspring? Such as 'his father' and 'her father' and 'my mother' and 'your mother' and any collection of persons that have, but do not share, offspring? The 'two parents argument' is fallacious in any case, as women acquired the citizenship of the husband at marriage and referencing the citizenship of the mother would be pointlessly redundant. The mother's citizenship, which would virtually never have differed from the father's, would not be relevant to the discussion when patriarchal heredity of citizenship was the mechanism involved. Women acquired naturalization through their husbands (or, prior to marriage, by their fathers) as well or at the same time anyway. More or less, the only way to get citizenship through the mother, at that time, was if the child were illegitimate and unrecognized by his father. References to the citizenship of women in that time were pretty much incidental.

[calenel]

"It is based on allegiance, and freedom from foreign ties."

Citation?

[MHGinTN]

No one will have to ping you, you’ll be peeing yourself with anticipation to ridicule and insult, and gloat.

[calenel]

"Sorry, I have no forgiveness or trust for those who want to prosecute George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the Terrorist Attacks of 9/11 and the murder of 3000 Americans. "

While I disagree with your position on Obama's citizenship status, this particular statement is quite agreeable. Those so-called '911 truthers' are, IMO, pretty wacky.

[MHGinTN]

Your president elect is a lying perjurer.

[John Valentine]

Agreed regarding the patrilineal issue. I don’t really get the point of the discussion of multiple persons who don’t share offspring. Sure, there’s the Parents-Teachers Association; single parents welcome. But what we are talking about are the “parents” of a single individual.

There really isn’t much of an issue here except for those who want Obama to have inherited his citizenship through his mother, something that I can’t really find any Constitutional basis for since the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified.

[MHGinTN]

Drama queen, no one is questioning citizenship. The issue is natural born citizen. Are all your posts characterized by some straw?

[Drew68]

No one will have to ping you, you’ll be peeing yourself with anticipation to ridicule and insult, and gloat.

Welcome! I was wondering when you'd finally stumble and stagger over to tonight's festivities!