I hesitate to bring this up. I really do. But in our current atmosphere of lawyers scouring the country using the law and technicalities to attack just about everything, I can't help but consider this one man fight in US District Court in Pennsylvania to uphold the US Constitutional requirements on eligibility of a US presidential candidate. I also know that the less people know about a case like this, the more likely the judge in the case will feel safe to quietly rule against it. Given that there is some news related to this story, I will simply provide the links and leave it to readers to judge the merits for themselves.
In the Pennsylvania Eastern Federal District Court there is a case, "Berg v. Obama et al". The case was brought in August of this year challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to run for the office of president, under Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution.
On September 24, at the deadline to respond, Obama's lawyers submitted a motion to dismiss the case. Ignoring the obvious response by providing evidence to refute the allegations made, the basis for the dismissal was standing of the plaintiff to challenge Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen of the United States.
On September 29, Philip J. Berg filed his response to the motion to dismiss. In this motion are the full details of Mr. Berg's argument why Barack Obama is not entitled to run for president of the United States, and in fact, it even lays out a argument. that argues that on known facts and laws, that Obama may not even be a US citizen.
I am not a lawyer, but I am also aware that the rule of law too often takes a backseat to political pressures and party politics. I do find it ironic too, that for a candidate like Obama who has successfully used technicalities to remove opponents from his own elections in the past, that this ultimate challenge would target not only his right to run for president, but actually suggests that as a US Senator, Mr. Obama has been given access to classified information that he may not be entitled to, if in fact, he is not even a US citizen.
While Mr. Berg awaits a ruling on these motions from the court in Pennsylvania, and while the media completely ignores this case out of disbelief, a fear of criticism, or simply the anger for even suggesting such a situation might exist, I will leave it to Americans to read the response from Mr. Berg and consider the arguments for themselves.
The full history of the case can be seen here:
By clicking on 13, you can see the document submitted by Berg, and even download a PDF version to your computer to examine. I think you should be able to click here to get it directly.
Be aware that the order it begins with is the order provided by the plaintiff should the judge in the case concur with his response. It is unsigned and the case is now pending a ruling by the judge in the case. When the court will rule on this is unknown, and frankly, could be long after the election November 4, or any day. Also note that Judge R. Barclay Surrick was appointed in 2000 by William Jefferson Clinton, so the prospects of a lower-court finding against Obama are probably equal to winning a super-lottery somewhere.
Many believe that our Constitution is a living document, and not subject to literal interpretation. One of its most basic and fundamental rules is on who is allowed to lead this nation as president. If that most basic rule is to be ignored, or if the courts refuse to demand evidence that it has been satisfied, then perhaps we are not a constitutional republic as our Founding Fathers defined us to be.Posted by mjc3389 at October 04, 2008 02:51 PM | Email This