Looks like the Supreme Court will conference on the Obama citizenship lawsuit:
A case that challenges President-elect Barack Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot citing questions over his citizenship has been scheduled for a “conference” at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Conferences are private meetings of the justices at which they review cases and decide which ones to accept for formal review. This case is set for a conference Dec. 5, just 10 days before the Electoral College is scheduled to meet to make formal the election of Obama as the nation’s next president.
The Supreme Court’s website listed the date for the case brought by Leo C. Donofrio against Nina Wells, the secretary of state in New Jersey, over not only Obama’s name on the 2008 election ballot but those of two others, Sen. John McCain and Roger Calero.
The case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court’s docket says: “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”
If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”
The rest of the article goes on to detail the fact that the FEC has waived its right to respond to the Berg complaint:
“There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg’s lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response,” the blogger speculated.
“Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents,” he added.
“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.
“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the solicitor general’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.
Stop The ACLU is asking those of us who believe there is a valid question to Obama’s place of birth to write to SCOTUS at:
The Honorable Associate Justice
Clarence Thomas
United States Supreme Court
One First St. N. E.
Washington DC 20543Put docket # on Envelope 08-A407
Ask him UPHOLD our Constitution with Full Disclosure as the only Constitutionally viable answer.
Not too hard is it? Full disclosure. But as commenter CTN has stated on this earlier thread, its not only the question of producing the original live birth certificate:
More specifically, the issue at hand is one fold — “loyalty” — as demonstrated by the founding fathers’ absolute, non-negotiable insistence that only a “natural born citizen” could hold the executive office. They placed this requirement in the Constitution to insure that no one with any conflicts of interest would sit as president, and in this case “conflict of interest” means “possible loyalty to another country.”
Obama’s website has already conceded that he is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya, which was under the dominion of the King when he was born, and that he allegedly allowed his Kenyan citizenship to expire when he turned 21. Expiration does not remove the problem, however, because it does not eradicate his “natural,” i.e. “inherent,” loyalty. In other words, assuming Obama was born in Hawaii, he would hold “natural born citizenship” in two different countries, which is tantamount to saying that he has “dual loyalties” to two different dominions.
This means that, in the end, someone will have to define the founding fathers’ intent vis-à-vis the “natural born citizen” requirement. Did they require a pure pedigree? — or would they accept split loyalties in the executive office? The answer to this question strikes me as a no-brainer. My brain notwithstanding, however, the question must be answered at a constitutional level — the Supremes must define “natural born citizenship” and they must apply their definition to the Constitutional requirement. In short, Obama’s in a world of hurt, which explains why this Harvard-trained Constitutional attorney has consistently ducked the issue. Once he produces a birth certificate, he will be compelled to answer all the other questions, and there is no satisfactory answer that won’t demonstrate his dual loyalties.
Consider, for example, that less than one year ago Obama campaigned for his cousin Odinga in Kenya. Most Americans understand that an American senator campaigning in Kenya for a Communist who pledged to institute Sharia Law was problematic. This matter becomes even more complex when you remember that the same American senator is a “natural born citizen” of Kenya — it just looks funny. And now he wants to be president.
I’m telling ya, the next four years will see a increase in popcorn sales.
See author page