The Rule of Law, or the Law of the Mob?

By Rick Saunders
America’s Right

A little less than a month ago, America’s Right posited that a number of potential outcomes were possible regarding Philip Berg’s pending certiorari petition and his “standing” to challenge BH Obama’s eligibility to serve as president of the United States under the Constitution. One such outcome was the possibility that, even if Berg’s certiorari petition were denied, one or more of the Justices might consider filing a dissent, urging the granting of the petition.

While unlikely, as mentioned in the December 18, 2008 article, such a result would not be unprecedented. There are, after all, significant and legitimate and unanswered questions surrounding Barack Obama’s eligibility to serve as president under the Constitution, notwithstanding the mainstream media reports, leftist blog posts, doctored Internet postings of purportedly “genuine” and original birth certificates and, of course, Michelle Obama’s ever-articulate, objective and unbiased assurances to the contrary.

Today, the Court announced the denial of Berg’s petition, and did so without a single dissenter. Not even Justice Antonin Scalia, the champion of originalist thought who just last week referred Berg’s request for an injunction to the full Court for conference next week. Furthermore, the Court’s decision to grant a previously-filed motion by one “Bill Anderson” to file an amicus curiae (or “friend on the Court”) brief–for all the good that will now do–simply underscores the Court’s apparent disdain for Berg’s challenge. And the fact that the denial was deemed to be one “before judgment,” likely referring to Berg’s still-pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, is a distinction without a difference: Berg’s case–this one, at least–is toast before the High Nine.

In denying his petition, the Court has in effect told Berg: “You ninny . . . you can’t even ask that question of a court because you have no standing to do so. And it is irrelevant that we have, on many prior occasions, recognized standing in cases involving far less weighty constitutional issues — oh, like ‘aesthetic injury and angst’ over environmental issues. But of course you, Mr. Berg, are still out of here.”

Mind you, Virginia, the Court adjudicated this matter based upon the standing doctrine and did not resolve the constitutional eligibility question, which will likely persist until it is ultimately answered sometime, somewhere . . . perhaps over the rainbow. Instead, all the Court said in essence was: “Mr. Berg, forget all that other stuff. Let’s not even look at it. You are ineligible anyway under the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility under the Constitution.”

How’s that for a judicial conundrum? Sounds kind of like the various “penumbras” and “emanations” the Court has, on other occasions, discovered in the Constitution in order to get from Point A to Point B. Today, the Court has told Berg that he can’t even get to Point A.

Berg’s petition, to recap, sought to overturn the dismissal of his case challenging Obama’s eligibility–not qualifications, a different concept–under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution. That provision mandates, among other things, that a president must be a “natural born Citizen.” Berg’s complaint was dismissed in the lower court because, purportedly, he lacked “standing” (loosely, a “stake in the outcome” of the claim) to maintain the action. In turn, after that dismissal, all that Berg sought from the Supreme Court was a ruling that he did, in fact, have the “standing” required to ask questions about Obama’s eligibility or make the legal argument that Obama was not, in fact, eligible under the Constitution to serve. Berg posed the elegantly simple question: if neither he nor any other voter has standing to ask the question, then who does?

Rather than answering that question, the Court has told Berg–along with anyone else with the abject temerity to even suggest that proof positive be required from the nation’s president that he or she is, in fact, eligible to serve–to go pound sand. In essence, the Court’s denial of Berg’s petition instructs that we must trust Obama because he is, after all, the new messiah. And a Hah-vahd lawyer to boot. There’s too much at stake to address the constitutional eligibility question, we’re told. Besides, the will of the people would be thwarted.

Worse yet, there would be rioting in the streets! Rioting! Imagine that — rioting over the mere posing to the Supreme Court of the question: “Is this guy really a natural born Citizen?” Never mind that the answer might be “yes,” the confirmation of which Obama could easily facilitate with a directive that all of his birth and citizenship documents be released, but which directive to this point he has as yet adamantly refused to issue. Even the slightest potential that the answer could be “no” sends the mainstream press, the left, the Democratic National Committee and Obama fanatics nationwide into a bad case of the vapors.

Circle the wagons! The truth might seep out! But if Berg is not even allowed to pose the question, then the Supreme Court won’t have to provide an answer, and voilá!, the dreaded rioting in the streets will be averted. And this morning, that is what happened.

So, at the end of the day, what we now have in this nation–or what remains of it–as constituting the “rule of law” and the “supreme law of the land” is not the Constitution, but the law of the mob. It is a sad day, indeed. Sadder yet will be January 20, 2009, when Chief Justice John Roberts administers the Oath of Office to Barack Hussein Obama, an oath which requires Obama to swear or affirm that he will support and defend the very document under which he may be ineligible to lay claim in the first place to the office of the president of the United States.

But remember, Virginia, although the Constitution may be in tatters on that day, at least there won’t be rioting in the streets. There, now, don’t you feel better?

—————
Rick Saunders is a freelance writer who splits his time between endeavors in southern California and the American southwest. He began writing for America’s Right in December 2008.

Share

Comments

  1. sharon says:

    Jeff, great writing, it is always a pleasure to read… I am feeling discouraged, I cannot understand. It makes no sense.

  2. Anonymous says:

    “Linda Starr says that THREE justices voted to grant the writ of certiorari in Phil Berg’s case.

    I guess that it wasn’t just a unanimous “automatic” denial after all.”

    Yeah she did, and provided no evidence of this. I’d like to see this from a reliable source, such as the SCOTUS records – not someone with as little credibility as Linda Starr, Berg’s “volunteer assistant”. Linda Starr also insisted Michelle Obama was disbarred, when in fact Michelle only moved to inactive satus in 1993 when she went to work for a private company. Another lie by Linda Starr with absolutely no evidence of her slanderous comment of course.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Readers,

    There is a long battle ahead of us and there are too many issues for just one Group to address. Many of us who are hopping from group to group and blog to blog are feeling frustrated because there seems to be no direction. If we are to return the power back into the hands of We The People and take back our Country, we NEED Unification. A Coalition is the fastest way to build up the resistance so people start paying attention. There is great strength in numbers!

    Today, too many of us are spread out across the internet and the sites that we visit DO NOT have the technology in place to allow their MEMBERS to work in a collaborative fashion. How can we engage in a peaceful resistance when we are pulled in various directions and just end up spinning our wheels?

    I believe a Coalition is the answer! A Coalition, which is a Group of Groups, will allow existing Groups to retain their own identites, members and “causes” while allowing us to organize, plan and implement strategies across a larger scale. This way, the Actions that we take can be Coordinated and Purposeful. It will also allow us to share resources and exchange ideas across Groups so we can avoid duplicating our efforts.

    Please read more about the United Coalition of We The People USA on http://wethepeopleusa.ning.com/group/unitedcoalitionofwethepeopleusa and read the Welcome letter in the Group Discussion section which details this effort and discusses why a Coalition is neccessary.

    Thank you in advance for your patriotism and participation.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I read somewhere “The present financial crisis is not mismanagement. It served a purpose. The top ten percent control more of the worlds wealth than at any time in human history”.

    Obama serves several purposes. One of which is to give someone the right to brag “I made a illegal alien president to prove I could”. Part of the point is for people to know it was done. This sort of thing is done openly time and again as displays of power.

    All I am seeing is the raw power of a wicked man in action.

  5. Howie Isaacks says:

    How in the hell does Berg (or any other citizen of this country) not have standing? This is something we all have standing on. It’s unbelievable that officials in government consistently piss all over the Constitution every chance they get. I’m not kidding at all when I say it’s time for a revolution again. These people cannot be trusted. Our liberties are at serious risk if the court refuses to even examine the very idea that Obama could be ineligible. What’s next? Someone writes and editorial critical of Obama and gets put in jail? This is unbelievable.

  6. gailbullock says:

    TO GUESSWHAT:
    I went to your link and read the 20-paged lawsuit seeking documents for substantiating or knocking down Obama’s eligibility to serve as POTUS. Then I found the UPDATE on it at

    http://www.therightsideoflife.com/?p=2465.

    This will take the knots out of your stomach, unless your name is Obama or Soetoro!

    The lawsuit was filed by Christopher Earl Strunk, and the entries for him when I Googled his name indicate that he is not afraid to stand up for himself. He’s a Vietnam Vet, bless him!

    And, Rick Saunders, your excellent piece written in its irate tone is dead center! We should all be jumping up and down and screaming to be heard by the SCOTUS. If (what did you call them?) “the High Nine” scurry off like mice being chased by the cat–to hide behind technicalities, rather than doing the job they are being paid to do, i.e., uphold the Constitution, every citizen of the United States of America should be demanding to know if they are not going to do their job, why they even bothered to go to work.

    Someone said that when God closes one door, He opens another. It’s just Hell in the hall! We don’t know where all this is going, but we do know where it’s been: In a relatively short period of time, the word has become widespread about the question of Obama’s eligibility; and for that we can be grateful. The majority of the people, according to the AOL poll, now believe that there is cause for concern about Obama’s eligibility. Today the matter is not something that can be swept under the Oval Office Rug!

    Keep praying, folks! God’s listening to us, and so are the liberals, and so are the High Nine, to be sure!

  7. Anonymous says:

    Who in the military is willing to face brig time for thinking that Obama isn’t actually the Commander-in-Chief come Jan. 20?
    Lets see I spent 10 yrs in the US Army hotel for refussing to carry out an direct order when to my beliefs it was commiting murder so YES SOME IN TH MILITARY WILL STAND UP

  8. JeffM says:

    All this discussion is making me sick to my stomach. How did we ever get to this point? We simply have no standing. We have no say in Constitutional matters. For all we know this stranger could be anyone from anywhere. Every quest for the truth of his past has run into a dead end. From false addresses to forged documents to disregard for the Constitution to a Civilian Army, we have seen the light.

    All hope is gone. I am praying for a legal miracle in the next 3 weeks, but I don’t think it will ever happen. When we as citizens lose our legal rights and standing, we are done for.

    I hope to God we do not have riots or a revolution or a civil war. It will tear this country to pieces. It only takes 9 justices to prevent it from happening. All they have to do is uphold the Constitution by clarifying one simple phrase. And time is running out.

    I never thought I would see this in my lifetime but all the compasses are pointing south at the same time.

    Time to get prepared for the storm that lies ahead. Do what you can to steer clear of whatever ensues.

    Goodnight and God bless.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Berg did more than ask a simple question. He took a crap and sent it to court. A lawsuit full of idiotic internet rumors and lies is not a good way to ask questions. Time would have been better spent suing HI to provide a letter of verification of the birth cert but I would think a Hawaiian would have better standing on that than Berg.

  10. marie says:

    Now I think we are REALLY hosed. Apparently, John O. Brennan, Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence advisor is the head of a firm whose contract employees were the ones cited for breaching state department files early in the campaign. Investigators of the incident now believe the breach specifically targeted Obama’s passport file to “cauterize” embarrassing information. Gee, I wonder what that would be? And GUESS WHO is in charge of the congressional committee in charge of the passport office–you got it–Joe Biden!! And now we no longer have to wonder how Joe got his VP job… corruption run rampant.

    http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/brennan_passport_breach/2009/01/12/170430.html

    And be sure to read the end of this article where they talk about Brennan’s belief that we should “legitimize” terrorist organizations and exercise “strategic patience” with Iran. Sheesh…how could our government have caved to this coup SO easily???

  11. Anonymous says:

    Jeff,
    Do you think this will still be going on in June? Will these folks still be angry? Will they still be talking about riots? Will Berg & Orly still be beating their drums?

    I think the Courts are going to start denying as frivilous.

    But… will the hate ever subside? Or, will the boards still be filled with comments about stocking up on supplies, keep the powder dry, and particularly on Rosetta's board "lock & load".

    Will it ever end?

    signed: Hopeful.

  12. Anonymous says:

    “He was defeated by Obama who was not even eligible to be on the ballot.”

    There’s no proof Obama is ineligible.

    “Documents were falsified to get Obama on the ballot.”

    There’s no proof of falsification.

    “Would Keyes be granted standing, or would SCOTUS send him packing?”

    In Keyes’ lawsuit in California, the state never argued that Keyes lacked standing. Rather, the state is arguing he has failed to state a cause of action because he can’t name which state law, exactly, was broken.

    “How in the hell does Berg (or any other citizen of this country) not have standing?”

    McCain has standing. And the district court’s order dismissing Berg’s case explained why Berg did not.

    “It’s unbelievable that officials in government consistently piss all over the Constitution every chance they get.”

    If the U.S. Constitution does not grant the courts jurisdiction, then upholding the Constitution requires dismissing these suits.

    “What’s next? Someone writes and editorial critical of Obama and gets put in jail?”

    Yet more fearmongering.

    “to hide behind technicalities, rather than doing the job they are being paid to do, i.e., uphold the Constitution”

    Standing is not a technicality — it is required by the Constitution that they are upholding.

    “The majority of the people, according to the AOL poll, now believe that there is cause for concern about Obama’s eligibility.”

    The AOL poll is unscientific; at best it says about 50,000 people (in a country of 300,000,000) have expressed concern. That’s .02% of the population.

  13. Anonymous says:

    This only proves the muslim infiltrator is an illegal sob and that the US government, the enemy of America is aiding in covering it up by buying off every official involved, and saying that voters have no standing, oh does that mean votes dont count either? That you decide who is elected, not the american people?

    We need a total revolt by the people, and overthrow this corrupt system we live in!

  14. kmmaraxus says:

    Uh….I.I.I….uh…look, if there is one thing we can all agree on is that from now on the candidates should all be made to show eligibility to the supreme court from now on. This undoubtedly should be written into to Law. I use the supreme court as an example of a third party because we know each party vetting there own candidates is sloppy at best. And for all the Obots who will respond to that statement “Our candidate has proved he’s eligible and no one has shown any proof he wasn’t eligible..blah blah blah” your naive at best.

    Obama’s circumstances are so out of the ordinary from most “Americans” to plainly say there’s no doubt is just seriously dangerous for the Country. All you see is policy you want and “change [ambiguous]” that your eye’s are shut to obvious legal maneuvering taken by those whom have much to hide. This is also contrary to this glass of transparency he is touting as raising the bar of trust. What he doesn’t say is the glass is frosted so darn thick we can barely make out a silhouette of a so called man.

    As in all campaigns the rhetoric on both sides is filled with promises of what they are going to do without knowing whats actually going on in the “World” behind closed Presidential words. A lot of policy is dictated by that knowledge which leads us back to “Character” which this Obama seriously lacks.

    The pipe line is filled with suits and he will fall and we’ll hear all the Lib’s saying well who could of known. Then you can come back here and tell us “Sorry we were being to partisan to listen to the constitutionalists, we ask for your forgiveness” then we say %%%$#%%#$@#$E$%#@, and then ok…..now you understand, good keep your eye’s open next time for PETE’s sakes; still don’t know who Pete is.

    Happy Hunting !

    Oh did you like my Obama impression at the beginning.

  15. tanker says:

    to anonymous @8:24 pm on 1/12

    Natural born is a status of undivided loyalties that one has at birth, or not at all. That his admitted British/Kenyan citizenship expired has no bearing on his eligibility.

    This is the only point that ever need be made. It requires no proof or statement from Obama, and can be proven by a non-legal scholar, given the appropriate sources. Words have meaning, the intent is clear, and the Constitution is followed, or abandoned. No middle ground.

    Obama preaches sacrifice for the common good. While I disagree vehemently with that philosophy, he should back up his words by stepping down, and coming clean. Tranparency, my a*s.

  16. bob strauss says:

    LET’ DO SOME LOGICAL BACKTRACKING How and why did Obama become a citizen of Kenya, which he freely admits, if he was born in Hawaii? When did Obama become a Kenyan citizen? Was it at birth? Was it the British nationality act of 1948 that made him a Kenyan citizen? Can anyone see a natural born citizen of the US here? If Obama was born as an American citizen in Hawaii,when did he have the opportunity to acquire Kenyan citizenship? Where in Obama’s story does he become a citizen of Kenya? We are told to believe he was born in the USA as an American citizen, if this is true, there is no way he could ever become a Kenyan citizen. If he wasn’t born in Kenya, he had no other opportunity to ever go there to acquire citizenship, except when he was much older. No American citizen is going to relinquish his American citizenship to become a Kenyan citizen and then Years later claim to be an American citizen so he can qualify as a Natural Born US Citizen. The only way for Obama to be Kenyan is if he was born there.

  17. Jan says:

    What I find interesting is that in the case of the POTUS there seems to be an emphasis on the will of the people because that is how they voted. Yet, in California, I am pretty certain that the courts will overturn the people’s will on Prop 8. Go figure, double standards again.

    I personally believe there are those in political positions who are fully aware of the compromise with Obama. However, to raise any attention would be political suicide.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Well, I guess we’ll have to wait and see what kind of effects that INS document has.

    K

  19. Anonymous says:

    “no one has shown any proof he wasn’t eligible”

    But no has proved that he’s ineligible.

    “The pipe line is filled with suits and he will fall and we’ll hear all the Lib’s saying well who could of known. Then you can come back here and tell us “Sorry we were being to partisan to listen to the constitutionalists, we ask for your forgiveness” then we say %%%$#%%#$@#$E$%#@”

    If that’s the dream that keeps you warm at night, enjoy it.

  20. Anonymous says:

    Does anyone else think that all these supreme court justices are too afraid to open this Pandora’s box? Or worse disregarding the constitution for some kind of affirmitive action play. because Obama’s presidency is so historic they’ll just give him a pass??

  21. Anonymous says:

    Seems that Pogo was right: ‘We have met the enemy and he is us’.

    Perhaps a better mantra than the amorphous ‘hope and change’ of the BO campaign might have been; ‘If you can’t blind ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with b***s***’…and it is still going on.

    Great article, welcome aboard.

  22. Anonymous says:

    “Does anyone else think that all these supreme court justices are too afraid to open this Pandora’s box?”

    No. They’re ruling as the Constitution requires.

    “Or worse disregarding the constitution for some kind of affirmitive action play.”

    No. They’re not disregarding the Constitution. To ignore the standing requirements would be disregarding the Constitution.

    “because Obama’s presidency is so historic they’ll just give him a pass??”

    No. They are not giving Obama a pass; they are dismissing frivolous lawsuits.

  23. Koyaan says:

    bob strauss wrote:

    LET’ DO SOME LOGICAL BACKTRACKING

    Sure.

    How and why did Obama become a citizen of Kenya, which he freely admits, if he was born in Hawaii? When did Obama become a Kenyan citizen? Was it at birth?

    He was considered by the Kenyan constitution to be a Kenyan citizen by descent, not by birth.

    Was it the British nationality act of 1948 that made him a Kenyan citizen?

    No.

    Can anyone see a natural born citizen of the US here?

    Yes. He was a US citizen by birth. Not by way of naturalization.

    If Obama was born as an American citizen in Hawaii,when did he have the opportunity to acquire Kenyan citizenship?

    He didn’t have to do anything. Kenya automatically considered him to be a Kenyan citizen by descent, due to his father being a citizen of Kenya.

    Where in Obama’s story does he become a citizen of Kenya?

    December 12th, 1963.

    We are told to believe he was born in the USA as an American citizen, if this is true, there is no way he could ever become a Kenyan citizen.

    Yes, there is. Again, by descent.

    No American citizen is going to relinquish his American citizenship to become a Kenyan citizen and then Years later claim to be an American citizen so he can qualify as a Natural Born US Citizen.

    Of course not.

    The only way for Obama to be Kenyan is if he was born there.

    That’s absolutely, 100% incorrect.

    k

  24. tanarg says:

    Bob Strauss said: Was it the British nationality act of 1948 that made him a Kenyan citizen?

    Tanarge says: Yes, he inherited it from his father at birth.

  25. tanarg says:

    Scroller,

    It’s not his LOCATION of birth that’s the problem. It’s his father’s nationality, which he inherited at birth.

    If the framer’s generation had been “natural born” citizens, that is, had they considered themselves to be “natural born citizens,” would they have needed to add “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”? No, of course not. They did not consider themselves to be “natural born” because of their earlier British status, so if they didn’t “grandfather” themselves into the Constitution to be eligible to hold the office of president by the words “or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” the country could never have had any president of any sort until the next generation of children grew up. That is, the first president would have had to be in a generation in which both parents had been citizens of the United States. That would have been the next generation of children! Oh, what to do? What to do? They *exempted themselves* from being “natural born,” that’s what to do. And they did that.

    Obama’s situation is much like theirs, but there is no exemption for him.

    According to the intent of the framers, “natural born” means NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE at all—mother AND father.

  26. Scroller says:

    tanarg: when you say “its not the location of his birth that’s the problem”, perhaps you might enlighten Berg on this point?

    What you are arguing is something different: your argument has nothing to do with accusing Obama of covering up any facts. You are making a legal argument on the basis of uncontested facts, which do not involve conspiracy, ill-intent on Obama’s part, aspersions on Obama’s character, or need for legal discovery of anything.

    I am no legal expert (are you?), but it occurs to me you might ask yourself why it is this legal argument you name, if it is so self-evidently clear, has not been recognized by any Supreme Court justice, any of Obama’s Republican opponents, any of Obama’s Democratic opponents, any federal court, any court of any kind …

    Is it remotely possible that you may be misunderstanding the constitutional intent here, rather than 100% of the legal authorities of the United States at present?

    Just asking…

  27. Anonymous says:

    “According to the intent of the framers, “natural born” means NO FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE at all—mother AND father.”

    If the fear of foreign allegiance is key, what foreign allegiance does either Obama, his mother, or his father presently have?

  28. tanarg says:

    Scroller,

    Leo Donofrio’s case was based on this argument. It was dismissed, not because the argument was deemed invalid but because he didn’t have standing! The argument itself has never been considered by ANY court. Again, no court has looked at the merits of the case and examined the argument, which is not mine, of course, but that of several others, some of whom are bringing lawsuits.

    The reality, of course, is that all we have are the historical writings and a handful of court cases that suggest what any definition of “natural born” might be. We don’t have a legal definition that has been promulgated by any U.S. court. That is all we are basically asking for: What does “natural born” mean and does Obama meet that qualification?

    As I wrote in a previous post a few days ago, I’m through with considering Berg’s doings to be worthy of my attention. I don’t even want to talk about him as long as he produces incoherent crapola like the e-mail he sent me. I have given him the benefit of the doubt from the beginning, but his ability to express himself in English is so poor (so is Donofrio’s, by the way) that I think he is best ignored. If his cases get anyway, I will really be surprised. He may, in fact, have the evidence he claims to have. He may, in fact, have the smoking gun or more. But at this point, I think anyone who had such convincing evidence would have been told by someone along the line to consult with a lawyer who wasn’t tainted by the 911 truthers craziness and one who can write English correctly.

    This is not over. I can find no argument that says there’s anything wrong with my take on the issue. Most people just say they don’t care whether he is or not a natural born citizen.

    Maybe finding a right to kill unborn children in the Constitution was a harbinger of things to come, things that have arrived on our doorstep. I cannot believe, though, that Clarence Thomas is a traitor.

  29. Anonymous says:
  30. Anonymous says:

    @ Tanarg,

    We also have the plain text of the 14th Amendment. Nino himself has rejected legislative intent in interpreting the constitution, preferring the original meaning. In this case it seems pretty clear. Whoever is born in the U.S. is born a U.S. citizen. End of story.

Speak Your Mind

*