Eligibility issue to follow Obama into Oval Office
Supreme Court sets ‘natural born’ conference to follow inauguration
Posted: January 08, 2009
12:14 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A legal challenge that alleges Barack Obama isn’t a “natural born” citizen and therefore constitutionally ineligible to be president of the United States will follow the Democrat into the Oval Office, with a U.S. Supreme Court conference on the dispute set after the Jan. 20 inauguration.
The court’s website today announced that a fourth case on the issue will be reviewed by justices Jan. 23.
The court previously heard two cases in conference – private meetings at which justices consider which cases to accept – and denied both Cort Wrotnowski and Leo Donofrio full hearings.
The court now has a conference scheduled Friday on a case raised by attorney Philip Berg, with another conference on a matter related to the same Berg case on Jan. 16. Then today the court website revealed the case Gail Lightfoot et al v. Debra Bowen, California Secretary of State, will be heard in conference Jan. 23.
(Story continues below)
|
GA_googleFillSlot(”WND_NWS_C0200″);
_GA_googleAdEngine.createDOMIframe(’google_ads_div_WND_NWS_C0200′ ,’WND_NWS_C0200′); |
GA_googleFillSlot(”WND_NWS_C0201″);
<a href=”http://media.fastclick.net/w/click.here?sid=46722&m=6&c=1″ target=”_blank”> <img src=”http://media.fastclick.net/w/get.media?sid=46722&m=6&tp=8&d=s&c=1″1393412510 width=300 height=250 border=1></a>
|
The case initially appeared at the Supreme Court Dec. 12 but was rejected. It then was submitted to Chief Justice John Roberts, and today’s notice confirmed it was distributed for the Jan. 23 conference.
Orly Taitz, the California attorney handling the case, said, “The timing of this decision by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, is absolutely remarkable. On January 7, one day before the January 8 vote by Congress and Senate whether to approve or object to the electoral vote of Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, as president of the United States, Chief Justice Roberts is sending a message to them: ‘Hold on, not so fast, there is value in this case, read it.’”
She noted the available procedure during congressional review for a member of Congress to object to the Electoral College results and demand documentation regarding Obama’s citizenship.
“Each and every member of the U.S. Congress and Senate owes it to 320 million American citizens to do his due diligence and demand all necessary records,” she said.
Members of Congress, she said, “can spend a day or two of their time defending this Constitution, reviewing necessary documents, in order to see if Barack Hussein Obama is a natural born citizen…
“This is the message that the chief justice of the Supreme Court is sending to them. … (The) truth will come out, no matter how many millions Obama is spending to hide it,” she said.
The plaintiffs in the case include a vice presidential candidate on the California election ballot, four electors and two others.
She said her case was rejected by the California Supreme Court with a single-word decision, “Denied.” And she said her arguments rest on precedents from both the California Supreme Court, which years ago removed a candidate for president from the ballot because he was only 34, while the Constitution requires candidates to be 35, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s affirmation of that ruling.
“We’ll see what happens,” she told WND. “This is not going to go away.”
Twice before the justices have heard the questions, in cases brought by Wrotnowski and Donofrio, and twice before they’ve decided to ignore them.
The result is that the questions remain unanswered and cloud the impending presidency of a man whose relatives have reported he was born in Kenya and who has decided, for whatever reason, not to release a bona fide copy of his original birth certificate in its complete form.
The lawsuits allege 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 United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
Some allege his birth took place in Kenya and his mother was a minor at the time of his birth – too young to confer American citizenship. They report Obama’s father, Barack Obama Sr., was a Kenyan citizen subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time, and would have handed down British citizenship.
There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in that nation’s schools and his travel to Pakistan in the ’80s when such travel was forbidden to American citizens.
On Friday the justices will consider Philip J. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari.
“This is a historic occasion that will impact the office of the president of the United States as never before. No one has ever brought an action against a president-elect candidate challenging his eligibility to serve based on the ‘natural born’ citizen requirement provided in the United States Constitution, Article II Section 1,” said a statement on Berg’s ObamaCrimes.com website.
Berg suggested if Obama “is allowed to be sworn in as president of the United States, there will be substantial and irrevocable harm to the stability of the United States of America and to its citizens.”
“Because Barack Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen as required by the United States Constitution, then all of his actions as president would be null and void,” Berg said.
Last month, WND reported similar concerns raised in a separate lawsuit filed in California.
“Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void,” argues a case brought on behalf of Ambassador Alan Keyes, also a presidential candidate. “Americans will suffer irreparable harm in that (a) usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal.”
Because of the high stakes, WND earlier launched a letter campaign to contact Electoral College members and urge them to review the controversy.
That followed a campaign that sent more than 60,000 letters by overnight delivery to the U.S. Supreme Court when one case contesting Obama’s eligibility for the Oval Office was pending.
A separate petition, already signed by more than 200,000 also is ongoing asking authorities in the election to seek proof Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the “natural-born American” clause in the Constitution.
WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi went to both Kenya and Hawaii prior to the election to investigate issues surrounding Obama’s birth. But his research and discoveries only raised more questions.
The biggest question was why, if a Hawaii birth certificate exists as his campaign has stated, Obama hasn’t simply ordered it made available to settle the rumors.
The governor’s office in Hawaii said there is a valid certificate but rejected requests for access and left ambiguous its origin: Does the certificate on file with the Department of Health indicate a Hawaii birth or was it generated after the Obama family registered a Kenyan birth in Hawaii?
Obama can’t be POTUS.
Since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress, rendering moot both the Berg and Lightfoot cases, Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.
Checkmate! (WHERE IS THE NEWS MEDIA?)
Comment by Ted — January 9, 2009 @ 7:52 am
The nation owes more than thanks to three unlikely modern day patriots: professional poker player, musician, and retired attorney, Leo Donofrio; life long Democrat and former Pennsylvania assistant attorney general, Phil Berg; and Soviet emigree and attorney, Dr. Orly Taitz (she’s also a dentist).
While Mr. Donofrio painstakingly established the airtight case that BHO could not be an Article II “natural born citizen” (at BHO’s birth, dad was British/Kenyan, not American, citizen) Leo’s Stay of the 12/15/08 electoral college vote was denied by SCOTUS as procedurally unripe.
Nevertheless, since no congressman and senator objected on 1/8/09 to Congress’ count and certification of the electoral vote which would have turned resolution of Obama’s eligibility issue over to Congress — rendering moot the Berg and Taitz (Lightfoot) cases — Berg finally does achieve standing on the issue of actual harm, to be addressed at the Friday 1/9/09 SCOTUS Conference on Writ of Certiorari. Obama’s failure to submit evidence of his constitutional qualification for the 1/9/09 conference will mean he cannot thereafter challenge Berg’s request to enjoin the 1/8/09 Congressional electoral count and certification, albeit retroactive, scheduled for SCOTUS conference Friday 1/16/09. Moreover, Chief Justice Roberts has scheduled a full Court conference on the Lightfoot case Friday 1/23/09 in the event there needs to be a Constitutionally mandated action, the Inauguration itself, to enjoin retroactively.
Now that BHO is in checkmate and cannot be POTUS, he can be a patriot as well. He need not subject the nation to the expense and trauma of requiring SCOTUS to overrule his ‘Presidency’. BHO can and should voluntarily step down with Biden becoming Acting POTUS under the 20th Amendment, and under the agreement all potential claims by the Government for itself and on behalf of others against BHO are released.
Comment by Ted — January 10, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
The question is not IF there will be an interdiction of Obama’s Presidency by the Supreme Court, the questions are WHEN and HOW that interdiction will transpire — that is, if the USA is to continue as the Constitutional Republic that now exists.
Comment by Ted — January 18, 2009 @ 11:05 pm