Obama must respond to Writ of Certiorari by December 1

[SpeedRacer 1]

This whole thing is sounding a lot like the 9/11 conspiracy theories that cropped up before.

I guarantee that there will always be these people ranting in the background, no matter how much evidence is brought up.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[rushmc 23]

Quote

This whole thing is sounding a lot like the 9/11 conspiracy theories that cropped up before.

I guarantee that there will always be these people ranting in the background, no matter how much evidence is brought up.

The title of this thread may be a little misleading. I had to go see what this writ was. I may be wrong but it looks to me like the court that dismissed this case is to send the info to the SC for review only. Not Obama. Anybody know if this is correct?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Quote

WTF should happen, under the constitution, should he be declared not a US citizen?

More importantly, WTF should happen when they find out he's really a Muslim??
WTF should happen when they find out he's a terrorist?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

WTF should happen, under the constitution, should he be declared not a US citizen?

More importantly, WTF should happen when they find out he's really a Muslim??
WTF should happen when they find out he's a terrorist?

You miss the point of my post completely but, I suppose you have to.

I for one do NOT want anything to come of this. I asked the question out of the fact I have no idea what the process might be.

That help

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

No. Renunciation of US citizenship must be done voluntarily. The age of majority is also known as "the age of consent" because minors are legally presumed to lack the capacity to voluntarily act on their own behalf. Just as minors are legally incompetent to enter into contracts, they are legally incompetent to voluntarily renounce their US citizenship.

Google the phrase:

"Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children"

Also see the US State Department's official website:

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_777.html

Quote

Because of the way in which Section 349(a)(5) is written and interpreted, Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail,[or] through an agent or parent ...

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The title of this thread may be a little misleading. I had to go see what this writ was. I may be wrong but it looks to me like the court that dismissed this case is to send the info to the SC for review only. Not Obama. Anybody know if this is correct?

Don't know for sure ... but my reading is a lot closer to yours.

Per SC docket (linked):

Quote

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and perhaps my reading is incorrect (?) but that seems to indicate that Justice Souter's Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg's application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The title of this thread may be a little misleading. I had to go see what this writ was. I may be wrong but it looks to me like the court that dismissed this case is to send the info to the SC for review only. Not Obama. Anybody know if this is correct?

Don't know for sure ... but my reading is a lot closer to yours.

Per SC docket (linked):

Quote

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oct 30 2008 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 1, 2008)
Oct 31 2008 Application (08A391) for an injunction pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, submitted to Justice Souter.
Nov 3 2008 Supplemental brief of applicant Philip J. Berg filed.
Nov 3 2008 Application (08A391) denied by Justice Souter.
Nov 18 2008 Waiver of right of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. to respond filed.

Now, I’m not a lawyer and perhaps my reading is incorrect (?) but that seems to indicate that Justice Souter's Clerk has informed Mr. Berg that Mr. Berg's application for an injunction to stay the November 4th election has been denied.

VR/Marg

You may be right!

I was more curious as to what would/could happen if something like this happened.

I think it would be ugly.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Cari 0]

A writ of certiorari is issued when approved by 4 of 9 justices.

[Pulse 0]

Quote

WTF should happen when they find out he's really a Muslim??

Aside from the fact that he would've been lying about this. Is this to say that a Muslim could never be president?

"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled."

[BIGUN 1,326]

Damn you, nerdgirl and rushmc! - you made me search wider and deeper.

Sharing:

Quote

Are you sure you reported that correctly:

Usually if a case is denied a hearing at the Supreme Court it is the plaintiff (and not the defendant of the original case which is being reviewed) who is given the option to respond. That is to give the plaintiff an 2nd chance to convince the judge that his case is worth the Supreme Court’s time.

Since the case was denied there was no “Writ of Certiorari” - that means the supreme court will not be reviewing Berg’s case and Obama is not required to answer.The action failed.

Berg, by contrast may wish to reply to Justice Souter and provide reasons why he should reconsider presenting this case to SCOTUS. Even if he does, it will be denied because the lower court dismissed Berg’s case on technically (but not morally) correct grounds.

Just to be clear here: Berg is asking for judicial review of his original Berg vs Obama case which was dismissed. He cannot bring into play any of his subsequent cases (e.g. the state actions or the electoral college action) - since they are different cases and therefore cannot be appealed with this case which the court sees as unrelated.

Unfortunately for Berg, unless he can present credible evidence that shows the original judge acted incorrectly then it’s going to be tough. If I were in his shoes I’d want to pull out and get some better evidence before bringing it to another court.

The worst thing is that if he fails at SCOTUS, it is game over for us. That is why it is foolish to try to take a case to the supreme court without adequate preparation.

I know this is sad news - but the way I see it Berg’s case was obviously flawed to begin with. The dismissal was only to be expected because he neither demonstrated standing nor did he present sufficient evidence. Berg is a good guy but he’s so obviously out of his depth.

Source:
Jimmy Goddard.. Comments section on http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/justice-souter-denies-injunction-philip-j-berg-request-stay-of-predidential-election-writ-of-certiorari-obama-dnc-must-respond-by-december-1-2008/

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[chuck.reilly 0]

Aw now you went and burst their happy little right wing bubble, they were so hoping that they could either get a third term for W or have a do over on the election and steal it for Caribou Barbie.

Amazing how quiet they've been since you presented them with actual facts.

-----------------------------------
"There are two kinds of skydivers in this world, the kind that skydive to enrich their lives and the kind that skydive to define their lives. Don't be the latter."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Aw now you went and burst their happy little right wing bubble, they were so hoping that they could either get a third term for W or have a do over on the election and steal it for Caribou Barbie.

Amazing how quiet they've been since you presented them with actual facts.

You had better look at my first post and those that followed

Oh you all are soooooooooo funny

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[chuck.reilly 0]

My bad, I meant to congratulate nerdgirl and everyone else that has debunked this neocon pipe dream, however I messed up and clicked on the wrong reply to link.

Oh well feces occurs!

I'll go back into lurker mode, sit back and enjoy watching right wing heads explode as they realize how insignificant their hate filled fear mongering has become.

Peace out!

-----------------------------------
"There are two kinds of skydivers in this world, the kind that skydive to enrich their lives and the kind that skydive to define their lives. Don't be the latter."

[rushmc 23]

Quote

My bad, I meant to congratulate nerdgirl and everyone else that has debunked this neocon pipe dream, however I messed up and clicked on the wrong reply to link.

Oh well feces occurs!

I'll go back into lurker mode, sit back and enjoy watching right wing heads explode as they realize how insignificant their hate filled fear mongering has become.

Peace out!

NP

You know, my original thought when I saw the post was OMG, if this is even close to happening I dont know if I want to even see it. Then I thought, what the hell would happen (from a process and constitutional perspective) if this moved forward.

But first I had to google what the damn writ was all about to begin with.

Me? I am glad it is not happening. The mess and screaming and claims of black helos and the like would have went on for 50 years (exageration of course)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

IF he gave up his US citizenship as is alleged (and I have NO idea if it is true or not), then at that point he could only become a naturalized citizen, could he not? Have there ever been cases of renounced citizenship being re-awarded, and if so, in what capacity?

You know.. the straws that you guys are grasping at are so fucking ludicrous as to be utterly ridiculous...

Can any of you actually give ANY freaking credence to ANYTHING any of you did at 4 YEARS OF AGE...

CHRIST ALMIGHTY.....get the fuck over it already....this is only making the fringe right look like what they are.

it is a democrat not a republican heading this lawsuite. so stop yelling at the right for a liberal issue

[Amazon 7]

Quote

it is a democrat not a republican heading this lawsuite. so stop yelling at the right for a liberal issue

Why does it seem then that the only ones who give a shit are fringe right fucknuggets like Lush Rimjob...Micheal Savage..... and their fellow travellers

[riddler 0]

Quote

Aside from the fact that he would've been lying about this. Is this to say that a Muslim could never be president?

Don't know about that. I'd say that the right has done such a masterful job of painting all Muslims as terrorists, that it would be at least 100 years before a Muslim might stand a chance. Even my mom thought that Obama was a Muslim, and therefore a terrorist

I know one thing. An atheist, will never, ever be President of the U.S.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I know one thing. An atheist, will never, ever be President of the U.S.

If you were to project out maybe 15 - 20 years, that would be one thing. But "never, ever"? You're being short-sighted.
(Hint: the longer you're alive, the more "nevers" and "always" you'll personally watch disappear.)

[riddler 0]

Quote

If you were to project out maybe 15 - 20 years, that would be one thing. But "never, ever"? You're being short-sighted.

More like 150-200 years. I'm beginning with the assumption that the US will not be around forever. Maybe you feel it will. Personally, I think that the US will cease to exist as a country before an atheist is elected POTUS.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[JerryBaumchen 1,373]

Hi riddler,

Quote

I know one thing. An atheist, will never, ever be President of the U.S.

When I read some of the writings of Thom. Jefferson I am not so sure he was not an athiest.

BTW, I do consider him the most intelligent Pres. we have ever had.

Just my opinion though,

JerryBaumchen

[adobelover 0]

Well that's "rich"...for the last eight years, George W. Bush and his cronies tried to ignore it...then walked on it, spit on it, wadded it up and then put the Constitution in the shredder!

_________________________________________


Old age ain't no place for sissies!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

that would be unconstitutional.

Well that's "rich"...for the last eight years, George W. Bush and his cronies tried to ignore it...then walked on it, spit on it, wadded it up and then put the Constitution in the shredder!

So now you want to continue doing the same thing with your boy in charge? I thought he wanted "change" for the better? Or do you want to criticize it when Repubs do it, and then turn around and do the same thing yourself when it is to your own benefit? Which is it? Why do you love mud bricks?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Which is it?

You must not have gotten the memo - when the Dems do it, it's because it's 'for the good of the country'

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,008]

>So now you want to continue doing the same thing with your boy in charge?

Racist statements don't become you, John.

[DanG 1]

Quote

So now you want to continue doing the same thing with your boy in charge? I thought he wanted "change" for the better? Or do you want to criticize it when Repubs do it, and then turn around and do the same thing yourself when it is to your own benefit? Which is it? Why do you love mud bricks?

Can you please point to the post where anyone suggested Obama be made President if he were found constitutionally unfit? I must have missed it. Or maybe you're just making that up because it fits your worldview of those stinky liberals.

- Dan G