Monday, January 12, 2009

The Rule of Law, or the Law of the Mob?
By Rick SaundersAmerica's RightA 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.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Here's what's happening:

1. Berg's case is going down to the Court of Appeals.

2. Supreme Court has nevertheless accepted the amicus brief that, regardless of Berg, Supreme Court MUST issue a stay until the matter is resolved (either at the Court of Appeals or through one of the other actions now before the Supreme Court or Obama voluntarily withdraws for the peace of the country) because it would be catastrophic damage to USA if Obama were inaugurated and LATER determined inelligible (that is, because all actions by the Federal Government under an inelligible Obama would be void or voidable).

3. Supreme Court currently has a Stay set for Conference on 1/16/09 and can Stay the 1/20/09 Inauguration of Obama to be replaced by the swearing in of Biden under the 20th Amendment (at least to serve as Acting President until the Obama constitutional elligibility is resolved).

4. Alternatively, the Supreme Court can retroactively Stay (after 1/20/09) -- say on 1/23/09 at its scheduled conference on the Lightfoot case -- the Obama Inauguration until the eligibility issue is resolved

Sam and Bunny Sewell said...

Can you vett the above; provide sources or citations?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sam and Bunny Sewell said...

Above comment removed for low quality and absence if IQ.

Anonymous said...

OK well try again then.

no he cant vet it because its not going to happen and this is the type of garbage that will be leaving on 1.20.09

Study Finds Ideology Fueled Justice Dept. Hirings

Ideological considerations permeated the hiring process at the Justice Department's civil rights division, where a politically appointed official sought to hire "real Americans" and Republicans for career posts and prominent case assignments, according to a long awaited report released this morning by the department's inspector general.

The extensive study of hiring practices between 2001 and 2007 concluded that a former department official improperly weeded out candidates based on their perceived ties to liberal organizations. Two other senior managers failed to oversee the process, authorities said.

The key official, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Bradley Schlozman, favored employees who shared his political views and derided others as "libs" and "pinkos," the report said.

Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and Office of Professional Responsibility chief H. Marshall Jarrett said they would refer their findings to legal disciplinary authorities.

"The Department must be vigilant to ensure that such egregious misconduct does not occur in the future," Fine said in a statement.


The report marks the last in a series of inquiries by internal watchdogs into hiring lapses at the Justice Department during the Bush administration, a scandal that prompted the resignations of more than a dozen senior officials.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the findings "confirmed some of our worst fears about the Bush Administration's corruption of the Justice Department."

"Lying to Congress undermines the very core of our constitutional principles and blunts the American people's right to open and transparent government," Leahy added.

The report's release was delayed by more than six months after inspector general agents referred the case for possible prosecution by authorities in the District. But prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's office declined to pursue the matter last week, according to lawyers involved in the case.

The decision means that Schlozman, who went on to serve as an acting U.S. attorney in Missouri, will not face criminal sanctions for testimony he provided to Congress two years ago. Internal Justice Department investigators determined that Schlozman had made "false statements" to lawmakers about his role in the affair, they said in today's report.

In June 2007, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked Schlozman about his use of political factors in hiring decisions and the basis for bringing a voter registration case against a liberal group days before a local election. For example, Schlozman denied using political or ideological ties as a hiring criteria in response to questions from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), the report said.

He later amended his testimony in September 2007 after his account was challenged by a career official. Schlozman resigned from the department in 2007 and he is no longer subject to discipline there, investigators said.

Anonymous said...

William Jordan, a lawyer for Schlozman, said his client "testified fairly and accurately before the Senate" and provided investigators with a list of people he had hired who expressed liberal political views.

Schlozman met with agents and took a polygraph exam, which he passed, Jordan added.

"The report released today is inaccurate, incomplete, biased and unsupported by the facts," lawyers for Schlozman added in a prepared statement.

Investigators interviewed more than 120 employees and reviewed 200,000 e-mails, according to the report. They also performed a statistical analysis of hiring practices during Schlozman's tenure, finding that "political and ideological affiliations did not appear to have been a factor when attorneys were hired without Schlozman's involvement."

Key actors including Schlozman and four others declined to be questioned by the inspector general and the office of professional responsibility.

Uproar over changing priorities at the civil rights unit emerged more than four years ago, as longtime career officials departed or were reassigned into other spots.

But during the past several months, current Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey moved to calm the waters. He engineered the return of several career lawyers into management roles and reached out to junior lawyers who had improperly been denied jobs on the basis of their political affiliation.


Peter Carr, a Justice Department spokesman, said that Schlozman had "deviated from that strict standard" to apply the Constitution. Carr said the unit has updated its hiring policies and strengthened the role of career lawyers in hiring.

"As a result of these reforms, and the procedures already in place for evaluating the work and conduct of lawyers throughout the Department, we are confident that the institutional problems identified in today's report no longer exist and will not recur," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011301184_2.html?nav=rss_email/components

Sam and Bunny Sewell said...

I wouldn't have been so curt if I knew it was you. Your comments are usually more thoughtful.

It raises to the level of satire to see an article in the Washington Post about decisions being fueled by "ideological consideration".

Besides I didn't get the relevance of your posting this article.

Maybe I am the one with a challenged IQ.

If you could ID yourself when you post I could give you respect in accordance with your history.

Anonymous said...

You know I have been more thoughtful but I admit my glee about seeing Bush go back to Crawford did get the best of me this morning. It happens Im far from perfect and sure Ill Id myself from now on.

Kael

Sam and Bunny Sewell said...

Well, hello! What a surprise! Or should I have suspected it?

Welcome in any case.

Anonymous said...

I signed my name the first time I came so I assumed you knew it was me. I like you blog its very opposite to what I think but interesitng to see the otherside none the less.

Chronwatch has become a bore to read unfortunatley because its beome very one sided the days of great debate are over there.