For those of you who thought that one of the most heated elections in the history of the United States had finally come to a close on November 4th, you may be interested to hear about this startling new development.
I've gone to a good deal of trouble to verify the authenticity of this story (you might be suprised by the amount of trouble I had in attempting to navigate through the U.S. Supreme Court's website), as most bloggers have simply referenced each-other as sources in this matter. Apparently on October 30th, 2008, Philip J. Berg, lawyer and supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, filed a Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the review of a lower court's dismissal of Berg's lawsuit "against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants" (source). Why? Philip Berg, along with others, feels that the state of Barack Obama's natural-born citizenship may be in question (the significance of which being that if Obama is not a natural-born citizen, then he is not eligible to run for president of the United States). The buzz seems to be that he may have been born in Kenya. While many have questioned the authenticity of the entire story, the United States Supreme Court authenticates it here. Here's what the docket says:
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 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.
Note that it states that the response to the Writ of Certiorari is due December 1st, 2008. This means that President-Elect Barack Obama will need to provide a legitimate birth-certificate to the Court by that date. The docket also states that Berg's request for an injunction to delay the November 4th elections was denied by Justice Souter. What can we expect in the coming weeks? It's hard to say, but one thing's for sure: the Supreme Court wouldn't take too well to resistance on the part of the President-Elect. If he doesn't produce the certificate by December 1st, Obama's name may not appear on the ballot on December 13th (the day the Electoral College votes).
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
2 comments:
Re: "This means that President-Elect Barack Obama will need to provide a legitimate birth-certificate to the Court by that date."
No there is nothing in the docket that refers to a birth certificate. The docket says that Obama has the opportunity to respond to Berg's case, but he does not have to respond.
Sadly, the assertion that Justice Souter asked for Obama's birth certificate comes only from Berg and cannot be believed.
You know of course that the Supreme Court is a court of law and not of facts. It does not rule on facts, only on the laws. In this case, the legal case being brought is whether it is just for the lower level courts to dismiss Berg's law case on the grounds that he lacks standing to sue.
So, they wouldn't ask for the Birth Certificate, because that would be to become a court that ruled on the facts, which is not in keeping with the tradition of the court.
The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the Berg case on whether he has standing to sue, and that case only. Not the facts of whether Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere.
Obama does not even have to respond. The US government through the solicitor general is good enough, and the court may simply not grant Cert. It often does not grant cert unless there is a pressing constitutional issue. In this case, it would have to be the issue of whether Berg has standing or lacks standing which would be pressing.
So, even if they do grant cert, the case would then be on the issue of whether Berg can bring his case, and if the court rules that he can, then they send it back to the lower level courts to decide on the facts.
And there, unless Berg can prove that Obama was born somewhere else than Hawaii, he is likely to lose.
In other words, the Berg side has about one in one hundred chance of winning.
"In other words, the Berg side has about one in one hundred chance of winning."
*smirks* I don't expect Berg to win anyway... by the way, I would like to make the distinction of pointing out that I'm not part of the "Berg side" as well.
Good points, although a little too confrontational for my style. I was combining points from multiple sources (this was my reason for making my sources as accessible as possible, so that you could review them and draw your own conclusions). If you only trust one of them, then of course I would expect you to draw different conclusions than myself.
I appreciate your input.
In Christ,
Matthew
Post a Comment