Post-Election, Berg v. Obama Continues

Today, attorney Philip Berg disseminated a press release reminding all that, despite the results of Tuesday’s election, his lawsuit against now President-elect Barack Obama is alive and well. As it stands now, the United States Supreme Court is awaiting a response which may or may not come from Obama, the DNC and Federal Election Commission by December 1, 2008.

“I look forward,” Berg said in the release,”to receiving Defendant Obama’s response to the Writ and am hopeful that 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.”

As far as I know, the respondents–Obama, DNC and FEC–are not required to respond, and may decline to do so out of confidence that the Court will simply deny Berg’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court receives approximately 8,000 such petitions each year, and only hears between 70 and 120 or so.

Berg, of course, is hopeful that the court will do the right thing, saying that our constitution hangs in the balance, and requiring the president-elect to submit his information would “avert a constitutional crisis.”

Some, like myself, are conflicted. On one hand, Obama received 63 million votes on Tuesday but, on the other hand, if Berg is correct he shouldn’t have been there in the first place. On one hand, the time for Berg’s line of thinking to be pursued should have been before November 4th so as to avoid mass voter disenfranchisement but, on the other hand, since when have the courts been concerned about voter disenfranchisement? On one hand, the United States Constitution says that Barack Hussein Obama is now president-elect of the United States of America and should be treated as such but, on the other hand, the same document also says that, should Berg be correct, he cannot serve in the position he’s slated to attain in January because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.

To me, as much as I am ready to fight President Obama where he needs to be fought as a conservative, as much as I am willing to let this nation reap what it has sown and learn from it, I still cannot help but go back to the thought that, as a lawyer buddy of mine put it, “the Constitution’s criteria for presidential eligibility are not ‘suggestions’ but instead are mandatory requirements.” As much as I know that accepting Barack Obama as my president [elect] is essentially a sign of being a decent American, I do not think it is unfair at all to ask for proof that my president is also an American. In fact, I think it is downright unfair otherwise.

I am conflicted here. I am conflicted because I firmly believe that, should we survive the next four years, Obama’s election could actually be a blessing in disguise for America. I am conflicted because I think people in 2012 will not be better off than they were here in 2008, and will know that the democrats in the executive and legislative branches will be solely to blame. I am conflicted because I have no doubt that, properly managed and willing to accept the lessons of 2006 and 2008 that conservatives win elections and moderates do not, the Republican Party will emerge stronger than ever and will lead this country into unparalleled prosperity, as the lesson learned from four years of a socialist president will be a lasting one. Perhaps, in that respect, accepting the result of the election and allowing the democrats and Obama to try and miserably fail, we will actually secure long-term benefit for the country.

Still, to me, the question presented by Berg is warranted and absolutely essential. Barack Obama should present, for independent examination, the “vault” copy of his birth certificate if for no other reason than to put this matter to rest. His failure to provide it does make me believe that he doesn’t have it, or that it doesn’t say what it should. The best way to receive closure, perhaps, is the most unlikely one — that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari in this matter. Unfortunately, as the Court doesn’t like to get involved in political questions such as this, as the Court would be hesitant under any circumstances to countermand the will of 63 million Americans (give or take a few hundred thousand for ACORN), I don’t think it will happen. What we have now, unfortunately, is a widely-accepted “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and, with regard to the presidency, that’s unacceptable.

Despite my internal conflict, I will continue to provide updates and insight on Philip Berg’s lawsuit against Barack Obama, as I believe that the underlying questions are as fundamental as can be. I have tried to be fair to both sides in reporting on this matter, and it wouldn’t be fair to anybody if I were to change that policy.

While I am prepared to accept the man as president, while I am prepared to praise him when [if] he does right and protest him when he does wrong, I am extremely disturbed that he was freely elected despite not being completely forthcoming when it came to his background. Regardless of the result from the United States Supreme Court, perhaps the giant lesson learned from all of this is that America needs a highly transparent mechanism by which the constitutional qualifications for each candidate are checked — perhaps, knowing the controversy which surrounded his election, Obama will be the first to create such a mechanism and will voluntarily submit himself to be the first one checked out.

But I won’t hold my breath.



  1. Koyaan says:

    jeff schrieber wrote:

    Actually, chief, you’ll see that I capitalize Democratic Party and keep “democrats” lowercase, while I capitalize Republican Party and keep “republicans” lowercase. Last time I checked, that’s how it’s supposed to be in the Associated Press style manual.

    From my 1984 copy of The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual:

    Capitalize both the name of the party and the word party if it is customarily used as the part of the organization’s proper name: the Democratic Party, the Republican Party.

    Capitalize Communist, Conservative, Democrat, Liberal, Republican, Socialist, etc., when they refer to the activities of a specific party or to individuals who are members of it. Lowercase these words when they refer to political philosophy (see examples below).

    Lowercase the name of a philosophy in noun and adjective forms unless it is the derivative of a proper name: communism, communist; fascism, fascist. But: Marxism, Marxist; Nazism, Nazi.

    EXAMPLES: John Adams was a Federalist, but a man who subscribed to his philosophy today would be described as a federalist. The liberal Republican senator and his Conservative Party colleagues said they believe that democracy and communism are incompatable. The Communist said he is basically a socialist who has reservatoins about Marxism.

    I didn’t post this to be critical. Just for your own edification, since I had the Stylebook on the shelf here.

    Even if I’m wrong on the AP style, I’m fair to both sides.

    Well, unlike a number of other places I could name, you’ve allowed me to post my comments here, even when they were critical of yours.

    Seems pretty fair to me.

    And something for which you have my respect and gratitude.


  2. Anonymous says:

    Signed (with my full name, address under letters) the Petition to Congress
    “Stop the Obama Constitutional Crisis” 83,346 Letters (delivered to your Congressmen and Senators) and Emails Sent So Far:

    Please use this way and also

  3. Jeff Schreiber says:


    Thanks. It’s been ten years since I took Journalism 101 and, while I have not one but THREE copies of the Stylebook and Libel manual at home and one more at work (I keep losing them, then finding them), I’ve been meaning to look up that stuff but just was too darned lazy to do so.

    Sweet. Thank you.


  4. Anonymous says:

    Other sites have stated that the judge ordered Barack to provide him a copy of the vault sealed original birth certificate, and that is the response we are waiting for, due December 1st.

    Do you know if this is correct?

    Glenn Flowers

  5. Koyaan says:

    Glenn Flowers wrote:

    Other sites have stated that the judge ordered Barack to provide him a copy of the vault sealed original birth certificate, and that is the response we are waiting for, due December 1st.

    That’s absolute nonsense.

    Aren’t you getting just a little bit tired of people feeding you bullshit?


  6. Koyaan says:

    jeff schrieber wrote:

    Sweet. Thank you.

    You’re welcome.

    It came to me by way of my late father having taken Journalism 101 when he took advantage of the GI Bill and went to college after his retirement.

    I found it to be an excellent reference so I’ve always kept it handy.


  7. Tired of being called racist says:

    I’m not a lawyer, however, from what I understand is the Justice Souter has ruled for a response to Mr. Berg’s filling.

    Which means, as far as I can tell, that Obama must file a response to the filling by Mr. Berg.

    For example, Obama could say, ‘There’s nothing wrong with Judge Surrick’s ruling of the Mr. Berg’s lawsuit filed in Philadelphia.’
    With some attachments of previous rulings dealing with the same type of subject.

    That is all that is required. At which time, Mr. Berg will respond with arguments that the case being dismissed on the ground that Mr. Berg has no standings is preposterous. If a US Citizen doesn’t have standing to request the qualification of a person attempting to ascend to the Presidency of US, then, who would have standing? The Constitution spells out specifically what the qualifications are. Therefore, the onus is on Mr. Obama because he is the seeking the office.’

    At which time, Justice Souter may elect to do many a different things. Jeff can explain this better.

    However, the Dec. 1 deadline is for Obama to respond to Mr. Berg’s filing, only. Not to produce any documentation.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which is meant when adopted, it means now.”

    South Carolina v. United States, 26US Supreme Court 110, 111 (1905).

  9. Anonymous says:

    Koyaan said:

    “That’s absolute nonsense.

    Aren’t you getting just a little bit tired of people feeding you bullshit?


    Who asked you? I asked Jeff because he usually has the most correct info. I know nothing about you. That’s why I didn’t address my question to you.

    Glenn Flowers

  10. Anonymous says:

    I believe the whole issue is moot. President Elect Obama is already receiving highly classified briefings; he and the transition team allegedly had investigations for clearances started in August.

    I do wish the case would proceed and force the release of authentic proof of citizenship! After the investigation I had to go through for a clearance it makes me angry to think of the lack of investigation these people probably went through.

  11. Dr. James Valor says:

    Thank you Jeff for your time, effort, diligence…and guts for that matter. In my humble opinion you are a far greater being than any of these Brokaws, Jennings, Matthews or any other high profile media people who have, without a doubt, sold their integrity for some unknown price. I recogize, honor and appreciate you. Do not stop telling this story. Eventually, the people of this country will hear it, and our true metal will show for the entire world to look upon. Do not stop telling this story.

  12. Koyaan says:


    Andy Martin body slams Phil Berg!

    The strange behavior of Philadelphia lawyer Philip J. Berg


  13. Anonymous says:

    It is most disturbing that the DOJ is even considering not responding. . .you do understand what that means, I hope. Since no sane attorney (or defendant) would risk, even at 5% odds, not responding, one can only assume there are unauthorized ex parte communications going on between the USSC and DOJ…Mr Berg must be a part of any such communications….if not they are prohibited….the case is not heard behind closed doors with only one party. Berg should file a FOIA request for all communications with the USSC. See below website:

    Warren Throckmorton called the Office of the Solicitor General to ask if a response was planned by December 1. Evan Peterson emailed the following statement. So Mr. Berg’s odds don’t look good and it is unclear if the Solicitor General will get involved.


    Under the Supreme Court rules, the government has until Dec. 1 to respond to the petition for certiorari. No decision has been made as to whether or when the government will file a response.

    Evan Peterson
    U.S. Department of Justice
    Office of Public Affairs


  14. galleywench says:

    I am in full agreement. We the People have the right to know whether or not Sen Obama is an American citizen. Posting a birth certificate on a website, is not enough. Ever heard of PHOTOSHOP?

Speak Your Mind