Berg Supreme Court Rally Distracts From Ominous Threats to Constitutional Freedoms.

The Berg Supreme Court rally that occurred on October 30, 2008, accompanied the presentation of the Attorney’s filing of his Writ of Certiorari with the highest Court in the land.

Phillip J. Berg, a Pennsylvania Attorney and alleged member of the Democratic Party was initiating a series of attempts to get the Supreme Court to admit his appeal to rule the Presidential bid of Barack Obama as a violation of the US Constitution.

Berg and several others have questioned Obama’s claim of natural citizenship.

In one case, filed by an East Brunswick, NJ man, it was charged that a natural citizen must be born to two parents who are citizens of the US. Berg does not make that false argument.

Berg asserts that Obama was actually born in Kenya and sites the failure of Obama to demonstrate a US birth certificate. Obama only demonstrates a report of birth in Hawaii, which Berg asserts is a fraud.

Clause 5 of Article 2 of the Constitution lays out 3 qualifications for the President and Vice Presidential offices.

These basic qualifications are being a natural born citizen, being at least 35 years of age and having inhabited the US for at least 14 years of a person’s life.

Berg argues that Obama is not a natural born citizen, however, there is no court precedent on what being a natural born citizen actually means.

The Constitution only clearly bars non-citizens and those that are naturalized, or change citizenship from another country.

Entrapment Questioning of Kenyan Ambassador to Invent Proof

Simple Path to Foreign Born Natural Citizenship

Any US citizen can declare birth at a US Embassy abroad and, if they can demonstrate sufficient proof that the child in question is theirs, that child is granted citizenship.

That could fit the definition of natural citizenship as, unlike some countries, the US Constitution nor other laws stipulate that natural born refers only to birth within US territory. Presumably it refers to being born into citizenship.

At the Berg Supreme Court rally and in Berg’s case, he argues that Obama was declared Kenyan and traveled a few days after birth to the US.

This would have required a passport, presumably of Kenyan issue. Only then was his birth fraudulently declared in the US.

But if that were the case then Obama’s parents would still have obtained a US birth certificate for the child although fraudulently through perjury.

If they declared his birth on return they would also have gotten a birth certificate.

On the other hand if Obama was born in Kenya and his parents wanted Obama to have American citizenship they could have simply gone to the US Embassy in Nairobi, done the paperwork, proved his mothers citizenship and simultaneously applied for his US passport.

This process would have taken 2 weeks time to one month at the most.

Fanning the Flames of Division

The Berg Supreme Court rally and persistence around this issue fans the flames of xenophobia and racism. Granted, Obama is a candidate who won office on a promise of change but with vast coffers of corporate contributions.

No change is likely to come.

However with genuine threats to the Constitutional regime in the US through the suspension of privacy rights and habeas corpus by George W. Bush the Berger claims appear to be a distraction. Americans should indeed by scandalized with the state of Constitutional Governance but not over Obama’s place of birth.

Berg Supreme Court Rally and Lawsuit Miss the Real Threat

The Berg Supreme Court rally and attempts to question Obama’s Constitutional right to have run for office is not the ominous threat to freedom.

The unconstitutional consolidation of power that came with the reform to the Military Commissions Act, suspending habeas corpus through presidential whim is.

The USA Patriot Act and additional laws that grant executive branch agencies sweeping rights to search and seizure are a threat.

Reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to allow for warrantless wiretapping and communications surveillance of citizens is also a real threat.

The public should rally to oppose the real threats that allow for the consolidation of a surveillance state rather than pursue distractions that in the end only serve to confuse the issues and thus abet the ruling class with its divide and conquer strategy against working people.