Duo take Obama birth challenge to Court
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/26/1689515.aspx
Posted: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
From NBC=92s Pete Williams
When the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court meet on Dec. 5th, in their
regular private conference to decide which cases to hear, two lawsuits
that have captivated a segment of the blogosphere will be up for
discussion.
Both urge the court to consider claims that President-elect Obama is
not qualified to be president, because he is not a natural-born
American citizen.
Persistent concerns about the qualifications of both major party
candidates rank among the oddest aspects of 2008's historic campaign.
Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that "No person
except a natural born citizen" is eligible to be president. John
McCain's status was questioned because he was born in the Panama Canal
Zone and various theories have been advanced to cast doubt on Obama's.
Lawsuits over the inclusion of their names on state general-election
ballots popped up around the country and were quickly dispensed with
by local courts. But two challengers have pursued their cases to the
Supreme Court.
Pennsylvania lawyer Philip Berg claims that the cir***stances of
Obama's birth are vague and that he may have been born in Kenya.
Obama's mother, Berg asserts, later flew to Hawaii to register the
birth.
Leo Donofrio, a New Jersey lawyer, contends that election officials in
his state failed to ensure that only legally qualified candidates were
placed on the ballot. Obama may have been born in the United States,
Donofrio argues, but "natural born" status depends on both parents
being American citizens. Obama's father was Kenyan.
The justices are unlikely to take up these cases for a host of
reasons, not the least of which is the invitation to overturn the
results of an election in which more than 66 million Americans voted
for Obama. An equally high hurdle is the issue of whether Berg or
Donofrio have the legal right to sue claiming a violation of the
Constitution.
In dismissing Berg's complaint, a federal judge in Pennsylvania found
that he failed to meet the basic test required for sustaining a
lawsuit, because he couldn't show how the inclusion of Obama's name on
the ballot would cause him -- apart from others -- some particular
harm. Berg's stake, the judge said, "is no greater and his status no
more differentiated than that of millions of other voters."
Other courts presented with similar challenges have reached the same
conclusion, ruling that there is no general legal right to sue over
the Constitution's eligibility requirements. Federal courts typically
reject claims of legal standing based simply on a litigant's status as
a voter or taxpayer.
The Obama campaign had hoped to end the controversy last spring by
releasing his actual Hawaii birth certificate. But that prompted
further questions about its authenticity, which were compounded when
state authorities in Hawaii said they could not vouch for it, because
they were constrained by the privacy laws.
Then, on Oct. 31st, the director of Hawaii's Department of Health
issued a statement, proclaiming that he had personally seen and
verified that the state has "Sen. Obama's original birth certificate
on record," which shows that he was born there.
|
