DNC Sued. Hillary Supporter: He's Constitutionally Ineligible

Damocles

Damocles

Accedo!
Staff member
http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/obama-sued-in-philadelphia-federal.html

Thursday, August 21, 2008
Obama Sued in Philadelphia Federal Court on Grounds he is Constitutionally Ineligible for the Presidency

by Jeff Schreiber
America's Right.com

A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.

"I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.

More at link....
 
Anyway,

1. You cannot lose your citizenship merely by traveling to another country. If you were born in the US, have resided here for 14 years, and currently hold citizenship, you are eligible.

2. What a doofus - the only way his second argument would hold merit is if the amendment stripping people of citizenship for holding titles from other nations went into effect. It never did, contrary to common belief, and it probably wouldn't apply to dual-citizenship in any case, since that's not a "title" from a "king".
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I have no idea. I'm just putting a story out there that somebody sent me that I thought might interest politic-geeks.
Click to expand...

Damo has no idea, he's just reporting the news, and this is not McCain's biggest not a supporter supporter working the internet.

Put up a thread about McCain not being eligible because he was born in Panama and you will see how fast John McCain's biggest not a supporter supporter gets "an idea" if it's true or not.
 
I found a copy of the complaint on some lunatic fringe website. It's pretty hilarious and makes for good reading on a Friday afternoon when you don't want to do any work. Here is an actual paragraph of the Complaint. Clearly, this is spawned from the mind of a legal genius:

Obama is a representative of the Democratic People. However, the Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President, which is he must be a “natural born” citizen. Unfortunately, Obama is not a “natural born” citizen. Just to name one of the problems, Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and relocated herself and Obama to Indonesia wherein Obama’s mother naturalized in Indonesia and Obama followed her naturalization, as he was a minor and in the custody of his mother. Obama failed to take the oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen (18) years to regain his United States Citizenship status.
Click to expand...

I almost spit iced coffee all over my computer screen when I read it. I'll report back with more gems as soon as I get passed the second page.
 
Nevermind, the next paragraph is equally, if not more hilarious:

The Democratic National Committee is for Plaintiff and “We the People” who believe in the Democratic Vision. The Democratic National Party is supposed to represent the Democratic Americans in seeking honest leadership, Open Government, Real Security,
Energy Independence, Economic Prosperity, Educational Excellence, a Healthcare
System that works for Everyone and Retirement Security. The Democratic Party is
supposed to represent and protect the interests of working Americans and guaranteeing
personal liberties for all. Of which includes securing a Democratic Nominee on the
Presidential Election ballot who represents the Democratic vision and who is qualified
and eligible to run for Office of the President under the qualifications of the United States Constitution.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. The trolls on here are more coherent that this guy.
 
"However, the Obama must meet the Qualifications specified for the United States Office of the President,"

LOL.

Yeah, I can see why you would "have no idea" whether it were true.
 
LOL...

They also left out he is a 9/11 Truther nutball...

Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party.
 
Darla said:
Damo has no idea, he's just reporting the news, and this is not McCain's biggest not a supporter supporter working the internet.

Put up a thread about McCain not being eligible because he was born in Panama and you will see how fast John McCain's biggest not a supporter supporter gets "an idea" if it's true or not.
Click to expand...


OMG STFU! the thread was interesting. Somne guy is doing this. It's news. Now go back under your bridge (tinfoil has removed an insult at the request of a sensitive poster).
 
Last edited:
tinfoil said:
OMG STFU! the thread was interesting. Somne guy is doing this. It's news. Now go back under your bridge (tinfoil has removed an insult at the request of a sensitive poster)..
Click to expand...

Ok, this is unacceptable.

And this is the esculation that was inevitable when it became common place for the word cunt to be used on here as a matter of course. Once that became ok, of course, the first person to call a woman here a cunt, would Escalate.

It stops right here Damo, or you get Tinfoil as your prize.
 
Don't split because of an idiot like tinfoil. When he posts something like that, he's just letting the rest of the board & any newbies know right off what an imbecile he is, and what level of discourse they can expect from him, so there is no confusion about it.
 
Darla said:
Ok, this is unacceptable.

And this is the esculation that was inevitable when it became common place for the word cunt to be used on here as a matter of course. Once that became ok, of course, the first person to call a woman here a cunt, would Escalate.

It stops right here Damo, or you get Tinfoil as your prize.
Click to expand...


Shut up, cunt. If it's true that someone is merely filing the suit, it's news.
 
Darla said:
Ok, this is unacceptable.

And this is the esculation that was inevitable when it became common place for the word cunt to be used on here as a matter of course. Once that became ok, of course, the first person to call a woman here a cunt, would Escalate.

It stops right here Damo, or you get Tinfoil as your prize.
Click to expand...

Darla, it's inappropriate to request a change in the rules at the price of your leaving. If you have a problem with another poster you are free to block them, but the free speech at this board is something that is an inviolable character in it.

And I know how you will respond. "HOW DARE YOU APPROVE OF THIS?!" Which is ridiculous. You don't need to "approve" of something in a free society to not use violence against it.
 
Jesus christ, she can malign every male on the planet, but insult her and she freaks! I'll remove the offensive part of the post, but God damn, what a cry baby.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top