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.