Supremes To Review Barack’s Citizenship

Supremes to review Barack’s citizenship
Case challenging his name on ballot set for ‘conference’
wnd
By Bob Unruh
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 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 case, unsuccessful at the state level, had been submitted to Justice David Souter, who rejected it. The case then was resubmitted to Justice Clarence Thomas. The next line on the court’s docket says: “DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2008.”

If four of the nine justices vote to hear the case in full, oral argument may be scheduled.
The action questions whether any of the three candidates is qualified under the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural-born citizen.”
According to America’s Right blogger Jeff Schreiber, there also was a development in a second case presented to the Supreme Court on the same issue.
His report said the Federal Election Commission now has waived its right to respond to a complaint brought by attorney Philip Berg.

.

There are a number of reasons why the respondents here would choose not to respond. First, because the court only grants between 70 and 120 of the 8,000 or so petitions it receives every year, perhaps they just liked their odds of Berg’s petition getting denied. Second, because they have made arguments as to Berg’s lack of standing several times at the district court level and beyond, perhaps they felt as though any arguments had already been made and were available on the record. Or, perhaps the waiver shows that the FEC and other respondents do not take seriously the allegations put forth by Berg, and did not wish to legitimize the claims with a response,” the blogger speculated.

“Another thing which is not completely clear is whether the FEC is filing for itself or on behalf of all respondents,” he added.

“If it were just the FEC filing the waiver, I must say that I’m surprised,” Berg told America’s Right. “I’m surprised because I think they should take the position that the Supreme Court should grant standing to us. I think they have a responsibility not only to Phil Berg, but to all citizens of this country, to put forth a sense of balance which otherwise doesn’t seem to exist.

“However, if this was filed by the FEC on behalf of the DNC and Barack Obama too, it reeks of collusion,” he said, noting that the attorney from the Solicitor General’s office should be representing federal respondents and not the DNC or Obama.

But he noted that “questions surrounding this aspect of Obama’s candidacy are seemingly beginning to see the light of day.”

Wild Thing’s comment……..
What a soap opera this is, and I don’t watch soap opera’s. LOL Maybe this is why, it takes forever to see things happen.
What I don’t understand is what Obama has to hide. If he has nothing to hide why didn’t he produce his real birth certificate when he was asked?
Here is what bothers me about all of this. There is nothing new in the fact that democrats lie, it is their natural state of being. So for Obama to lie about is birth certificate is just another lie.
BUT we are a nation of laws and a fantastic Constitution that has held our Nation to a standard that makes us different then other countries. I respect our Constitution and I DEMAND that our elected officials uphold it as well. No one should be above the law and sure as heck no one should be above our Constitution!!
Our country has given in to political correctness little by little since I was in highschool. Inch by inch one word, one phrase at a time. Maybe it did not hurt at first, but it certainly has in the last 10 plus years. People have been sued because they were not PC, sued because their ads they ran were not PC. Sued because someone was offended by some innocent word or wording that was just fine for over 200 years but not anymore.
So if Obama is not legal to run for President, there should not be any exceptions made. If there is even a gray area about his birth, once again imo there should not be any exceptions made.
If our country has such little regard for our Constitution to let him get away with this if it is true. Then we will fall faster as a nation then anything else. It will mean nothing to have a Constitution and it can also be used against all of us on other things as well that are protecting us as citizens. And this happening to our Constitution will be a lot more then taking it away from us inch by inch, it will be in one massive swoop.
I have no idea if it is true or not about his birth certificate. The questions are valid and from what I have seen I question it as well. There is also something else that adds in here for me. The way Obama spoke in that 2001 video where he spoke at length about the Constitution…..our Constitution. He almost hates it, and that was extremely alarming. Does he hate it so much because he knows what it also says about someone running for President? Or only about the things he spoke about in the interview.
Time will tell.
If they decide to look at all of this and they find out he is not a citizen. They can just tell him he is President over the 7 extra States he counted that time.