Rule of Law or Rule of Man–Supreme Court Cracking The Constitution?

Posted on December 5, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Law, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Video | Tags: , , , , , , |

presidential_seal_us

 

obama_birth_certificate

“As long as I have any choice, I will stay only in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule.”

~Albert Einstein

The most important political development of the second millennium was the firm establishment, first in one or two countries, then in many, of the rule of law. Its acceptance and enforcement in any society is far more vital to the happiness of the majority than is even democracy itself. For democracy, without the rule of law to uphold the wishes of the electorate, is worthless, as the history of the past half-century has shown again and again in Africa, Latin America and Asia. The Soviet Union had, in theory, a wonderfully democratic constitution, But it lacked the rule of law entirely, and as a result Stalin was able to murder 30 million of its citizens and die safely in his bed, unarraigned and unpunished.

“What do we mean by the rule of law? We mean a judicial regime in which everyone is equal before the law, and everyone–and every institution–is subject to it.”

~Paul Johnson, Laying Down the Law, The Wall St. Journal, March 10, 1999,

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=65000285

Article Two of the United States Constitution is fairly clear that Presidents of the United States must meet three minimum qualifications:

 

Qualification, disqualification and common practice

Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

  • be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
  • be at least thirty-five years old;
  • have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Additionally, the Constitution disqualifies some people from the Presidency. Under Article One of the United States Constitution, the Senate has the option, upon conviction, of disqualifying impeached individuals from holding other federal offices, including the Presidency.[4] Under the Twenty-Second Amendment, no one can be elected President more than twice. The Twenty-Second Amendment also specifies that anyone who serves more than two years as President or Acting President, of a term for which someone else was elected President, can only be elected President once. Scholars disagree whether a person no longer eligible to be elected President could be elected Vice President, pursuant to the qualifications set out under the Twelfth Amendment.[5]

Foreign-born Americans at the time the Constitution was adopted were also eligible to become President, provided they met the age and residency requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States

This Friday, December 5, 2008, the Supreme Court is apparently going to review whether Barack Obama meets the natural-born citizen requirement of the United States Constitution.

At first I did not believe anyone would run for President that did not at least meet these minimum requirements.

When I looked into the issue of Senator Barack Obama’s unwillness to submit a certified copy of his birth certificate to a Federal District court and now the Supreme Court, I got mad.

The Democratic Party should have required any candidate for President of the United States to submit a birth certificate for its review before placing his or her name in nomination and made copies available to the press.

If the United States Supreme Court fails to review and enforce the natural-born citizen Constitutional requirement, then I am forced to sadly conclude we are no longer a nation under law.

A dangerous precedent will have been established by ignoring a very clear Constitutional requirement of Presidents of the United States.

All President-elect Obama needs to do is to have the State of Hawaii send directly to the Supreme Court a copy of his birth certificate and the entire issue becomes moot.

If  President-elect Obama refuses to submit his birth certificate to the court, he should be ordered to step aside and Vice-President elect Biden becomes President of the United States on January 20, 2009.

 

“When freedom does not have a purpose, when it does not wish to know anything about the rule of law engraved in the hearts of men and women, when it does not listen to the voice of conscience, it turns against humanity and society.”

~Pope John Paul II

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Suit contesting Barack Obama’s citizenship heads to U.S. Supreme Court Friday

Justices will decide whether to consider the case

“…The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama’s U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama’s election. …”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama-birth-certificatedec04,0,664988.story 

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Supremes to review citizenship arguments
Case challenging candidacy set for ‘conference’ of justices

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

“…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

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=81484

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 Unending Saga of Barack Obama’s FAKE Birth Certificate Controversy

November 26th, 2008· Posted by Velvet Hammer

“…Given the circumstances, if Barack Obama respected this nation, he would prove it by the simplest and easiest of gestures – unless, of course, all this talk about change and hope was just a bunch of bull, and he’s just “another politician.” Here’s the outline: 

 

 

1. Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

A. From Hawaii’s official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: “Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country” (applies to adopted children). …” 

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/2008/11/26/the-unending-saga-of-barack-obamas-fake-birth-certificate-controversy/  

 

The buzz about Barack’s birth certificate

By Michelle Malkin 

“…Jim Geraghty takes a look at longstanding blog buzz over Barack Obama’s birth certificate, which the campaign refused to release to the St. Petersburg Times in April:

We tried to obtain a copy of Obama’s birth certificate, but his campaign would not release it and the state of Hawaii does not make such records public.

Has anyone seen it? Why shouldn’t the record be in the public domain for presidential candidates?

Geraghty walks through various rumors now circulating in the wake of the Obama campaign’s birth certificate blackout, including this one: …”

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/10/the-buzz-about-baracks-birth-certificate/

 

Natural-born Citizen

“US constitutional definition

The special term “Natural-Born Citizen” is used in particular as a requirement for eligibility to serve as President or Vice President of the United States. Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Additionally, the 12th Amendment to the Constitution states that: “[N]o person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides an additional source of constitutional doctrine stating that birth “in the United States” and subjection to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of birth, entitles one to citizenship:

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. . .

However, the full text of the fourteenth amendment does not mention the phrase “natural-born citizen,” nor does it address Presidential qualifications. The phrase “natural born Citizen” is not defined anywhere in the Constitution.

Section 8 of Article I confers on Congress the power “to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization…” This power has been construed to include defining the characteristics of a “natural born citizen”, as well as the conditions of “naturalization”.

The 1790 Congress, many of whose members had been members of the Constitutional Convention, provided in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” In addition George Washington was president of the Constitutional Convention and President of the United States when this bill became law. If Washington disagreed with this definition, he could have vetoed this bill. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born_citizen

U. S. SUPREME COURT AWAITS RESPONSE TO
BERG’S WRIT OF CERTIORARI
FROM OBAMA, DNC and Co-DEFENDANTS

(Contact information and PDF at end)

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 11/07/08) – Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States filed a Writ of Certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on October 30, 2008, requesting review of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge Surrick’s Dismissal of Philip J. Berg’s lawsuit against Barack H. Obama, Jr., the DNC and the other co-Defendants. Accordingly, the U. S. Supreme Court has set dates in which Barack Obama, the DNC and all co-Defendants are to respond to the Writ, which is on or before December 1, 2008.

Mr. Berg remarked today, “I look forward to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful the U. S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of President of the United States.”

Mr. Berg’s case, Berg vs. Obama was dismissed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket # 08-cv-4083 for lack of standing. Mr. Berg filed a Writ of Certiorari for review of the case and an injunction to stay the election pending review. Justice Souter denied the injunction. It is expected that the Court will decide whether or not to review Berg v. Obama after the Defendants file their response, and Mr. Berg has replied to the Defendant’s response.

The Defendants’ response is due by December 1st and Mr. Berg’s reply will be submitted thereafter.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

Obama Citizenship

 

1/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

2/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

3/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

4/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

5/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

6/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

7/7 – Philip Berg News Conference at US Supreme Court – 10/30/08

 

Obama Crimes

U.S. Supreme Court Update Regarding The December 01, 2008 Deadline

  “…We understand everyone is eager to learn what occurred on December 1, 2008, at the U.S. Supreme Court. There is a rumor claiming Mr. Obama was Court Ordered by Justice Souter to turn over his birth certificate by December 1, 2008. This is NOT true.

When a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari is filed the Defendants automatically are given thirty (30) days to respond. They are not required to respond. The end of thirty (30) Days in the Berg v. Obama case was December 1, 2008. Keep in mind, the Defendants could have mailed in a response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and the Court allows approximately a week for mail. If this is the case, the envelopes must be postmarked December 1, 2008.

In the afternoon, December 1, 2008, Lisa, Mr. Berg’s Assistant contacted the U.S. Supreme Court and spoke with the Clerk. The Clerk informed Lisa Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari would be distributed to all nine (9) Justices and a conference should be set within ten (10) days. As I’m sure you are aware, during the conference the Justices will discuss Mr. Berg’s Petition for the Writ of Certiorari and decide whether or not to grant or deny the Petition. It only takes four (4) out of nine (9) Justices to agree to grant Mr. Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The Justices can also make other Orders during the Conference.

Mr. Berg’s Office also learned the Solicitor General is only representing the Federal Election Commission.

Additional documents will be filed within the next couple of days. All Legal briefs will be posted on our website, so please continue checking back for updates. …” 

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Columbo: One More Question Senator Obama–Why will you not show the American People your birth certificate?


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

6 Responses to “Rule of Law or Rule of Man–Supreme Court Cracking The Constitution?”

RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed

[…] Rule of Law or Rule of Man–Supreme Court Cracking The Constitution? Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Obama Qualified???ColumboGot This In An E-mail….Still Smiling, Cuz I Can “Hear” This Happening!!A few belated post-inaugural thoughts […]

[…] Rule of Law or Rule of Man–Supreme Court Cracking The Constitution? […]


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: