This morning and into the day, as many of you have pointed out, Matt Drudge gave a prominent spot on his Drudge Report site to a Chicago Tribune piece, published by the Houston Chronicle, questioning whether the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Leo Donofrio’s presidential eligibility-related case. Tomorrow, the Justices will address whether or not to hear the case in their typical weekly conference.
Also, in a piece in today’s Washington Times, reporter Tom Ramstack stated, in his lead, that “[t]he Supreme Court plans to decide Friday whether to hear a case that could determine whether President-elect Barack Obama ever becomes the nation’s full-fledged president.” Furthermore, from the tinny sounds of a radio in the Record Room at City Hall here in Philadelphia, I even heard a few seconds about the case during a top-of-the-hour news-break.
However, the Chicago Tribune/Houston Chronicle article linked to by the Drudge Report incorrectly states that the Court declined to hear Philip Berg’s case against Obama, first filed here in Philadelphia on August 21, 2008. In fact, Berg’s case is still active, a motion for emergency injunction was filed yesterday, and my sources in Berg’s office and in the Court tell me that it, too, will likely be scheduled for the routine conference within a week to ten days. With any luck, even if the media attention on Donofrio’s case fades, Berg’s will once again garner some attention.
While Berg offered no comment as to the time-line on his own case, he told America’s Right this afternoon that he, too, is anxiously awaiting the outcome of tomorrow’s Supreme Court decision on whether to hear Donofrio’s case, and that his staff has sent notice of the needed correction to the proper people at the Chicago Tribune and beyond.
This is the second time that the eligibility-related actions have made the Drudge Report, the first time being when Berg’s case was dismissed from district court in Philadelphia. I have been surprised, but have grown numb to, the absence of the mainstream press from this matter. For me, these cases go far beyond the matters of Barack Obama’s documentation and childhood — these efforts transcend the political candidate and his past and seem to encapsulate so many different issues prevalent in the political landscape of this nation during and in the wake of this year’s historic presidential election.
Most prevalent among those underlying issues is media bias, with no better demonstration than how the New York Times first inquired into Sen. John McCain’s birth in the Panama Canal Zone on February 28, 2008, yet somehow forgot to present similar questions to any other candidate. In that article, the Times noted that McCain’s birth outside the continental United States once again highlighted “a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a ‘natural-born citizen’ can hold the nation’s highest office.”
Mr. McCain’s situation is different from those of the current governors of California and Michigan, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jennifer M. Granholm, who were born in other countries and were first citizens of those nations, rendering them naturalized Americans ineligible under current interpretations. The conflict that could conceivably ensnare Mr. McCain goes more to the interpretation of “natural born” when weighed against intent and decades of immigration law.
Yet, since McCain provided his documentation, the so-called “musty debate” was apparently over, despite several unanswered questions regarding McCain’s eventual opponents’ birth and childhood. Had these questions continued in perpetuity about McCain, or about any other GOP candidate, the media would be devoting its time and energy, non-stop, to fleshing out the truth.
Another underlying issue-in-chief is how these cases expose the difference in the interpretation of our Constitution among those on the political left and political right in this country. On so many left-leaning Web sites, when the topic of Barack Obama’s eligibility arises, there is inevitably an onslaught of “who cares”-type comments, people who feel that the Constitution–or at least Article II, Section 1–has worn out its welcome in the United States of America. Yet, on the right, and especially among people like myself, the issue at the heart of the cases filed by Philip Berg, Leo Donofrio and Alan Keyes is not so much Barack Obama himself, but the office he hopes to hold and the constitutional requirements to do so. The language of the pleadings and even the veracity of the claims are drowned out, for many, by the glaring failure to even acknowledge the Constitution, nonetheless enforce it.
Tomorrow is a big day for America. The American public deserves to know that their leader is qualified and eligible to be in that ultimate position of leadership. So far, I’ll be the first to admit that Barack Obama, in his non-office and with his non-authority as not-yet-president-elect, has indeed been more pragmatic than I originally thought, likely driven to that pragmatism not by his own intentions or ideology, but rather dragged there by the shackles of extrinsic evidence with regard to the current global climate and domestic struggles. Still, regardless of his approach to the presidency, he should nonetheless be obligated to show that he is eligible to be there in the first place.
This, from The Wall Street Journal’s MarketWatch Web site:
Mr. Obama’s Eligibility to be Aired Monday at the National Press Club
FROM: WSJ MarketWatch QUEENSBURY, N.Y., Dec 04, 2008 — On Monday, December 8, 2008, at 1:30 pm, the We The People Foundation will conduct a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.The licensed attorneys who initiated lawsuits in PA (Philip Berg), NJ (Leo Donofrio) and CA (Orly Taitz), challenging Mr. Obama’s legal eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States, will briefly summarize the facts, legal arguments and status of their cases. They will answer questions from the press.Prior to the start of the conference, at 10 am, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to announce whether it will consider applications from these attorneys who have asked the Court to delay the proceedings of the Electoral College pending a determination of the underlying constitutional question – the meaning of the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II of the Constitution and its application to Mr. Obama.Robert Schulz will briefly discuss Mr. Obama’s response to the publication of his Open Letter in the Chicago Tribune on Monday and Wednesday of this week. For the reasons given in the Open Letter, Schulz asked Mr. Obama to: (1) immediately authorize Hawaiian officials to provide a team of forensic scientists access to his original (“vault”) birth certificate and (2) arrange for the delivery of other documents needed to conclusively establish Obama’s citizenship status. Mr. Schulz will answer questions from the press.“Under our Constitution, no one is eligible to assume the Office of the President unless he or she is a ‘natural born citizen,’” said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the Foundation. “To date, Mr. Obama has refused all requests to release his original birth certificate or other documents that would definitively establish his citizenship status and thus his constitutional eligibility.”The Open Letter to Mr. Obama summarizes the evidence against Mr. Obama and the adverse consequences that would befall the Nation should he assume the Office of the President as a usurper.“Should the state members of the Electoral College cast their votes for Mr. Obama in the face of such overwhelming evidence, and without verification of Mr. Obama’s eligibility, they would be committing treason to the Constitution,” said Schulz.
Check back later today (or possibly very early tomorrow), as I hope to post a new interview with Berg, during which he talks not only about the status of his own case, but also Donofrio’s case, the Supreme Court, Andy Martin, and more.