A Lesson in Destroying the Constitution

How to Ruin a Founding Document...The Old Fashioned Way!

Josh Everett
The lawsuit brought against Senator Obama by Philly Democrat Philip Berg has been dismissed by U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the law officially does not matter anymore. Judge Surrick dismissed the case citing Berg's "lack of standing" to bring the lawsuit. Surrick goes on to say:

"If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring in the Amended Complaint."

Again, the law officially no longer matters. Our Constitution makes explicit requirements for candidates who seek the Office of the Presidency. If they fail to adequately fulfill these requirements, they can't be the President of the United States. That's really simple to understand. There's no way anyone could get this one wrong, no matter what your political opinion may be. At the center of this lawsuit is the Natural Born Citizen Clause, a requirement that MUSH BE FILLED to be eligible for this office:

Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution contains the clause:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

You can not argue this point. That said, what we see happening puts me at a loss for words. The Honorable Judge Barclay Surrick feels that, regardless of what the Constitution says, average citizens of the United States are not eligible to demand compliance. No one else is terrified by what Judge Surrick is doing here? He is completely destroying the Constitution by dismissing this case. As neither the Democratic Party nor the media have been willing to properly vet Senator Obama, an average citizen was then forced to do their job for them. In doing so, he found glaring problems with Senator Obama's birth certificate which, per the Constitution, make him ineligible for the Presidency. In challenging this, he attempted to force Senator Obama to produce the required documents to be eligible for this job. Why does this need to go to court? If I try and get any job, no matter what it is, they need proof that I am who I say I am. If I can not provide that proof, I don't get the job! If Senator Obama does not provide the required documents, he can not hold this job! What don't people understand about this very simple concept?

So now what? If Senator Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States, then there is no problem! Unfortunately for America, he has refused to turn in the required documents, and so far, that doesn't bother anyone! How is he still on the news? Why haven't the media picked this up? Why isn't he already long gone as he is, possibly, ineligible? This should not be something that is decided by partisan politics. Democrats, come on. This one isn't cool. Demand accountability. Both Judge Surrick and Senator Obama are trampling on the United States Constitution. If Senator Obama destroying this document's integrity before he even enters office doesn't cause a media frenzy, what's going to happen when he's elected?

If all is well and he's just "forgotten" to turn it in then he needs to do so immediately. Stop trying to push through fakes, Senator Obama, and be done with this argument. The solution to this is so simple, yet no one cares.

Published by Josh Everett

I'm working on my BA in International Relations, I love to write, I love to talk politics, and I'm prior enlisted in the Air Force. If anyone would like some support for their content, shoot me an email and...  View profile

6 Comments

Post a Comment
  • John Mario5/19/2011

    The Supreme Court has the right to decline any case presented to it. Since your article was written, Obama has produced proof that he is a natural US citizen. The questions about his birthplace were legitimate. He did answer those questions not long after he became President. Unfortunately, he waited for the most profitable political moment to release proof of his birthplace.

  • Tony Vega12/18/2008

    Every American is personally injured by a person using a fraudulent document to gain the highest office in land....Standing? Josh, you are correct..no one cares..52% of Americans would have voted for Lucifer if he would have had a (D) attached to his tail to or forked tongue. Hopefully there were..or are enough Freedom loving men that had the courage to install proper safeguards to prevent the union from being entirely hijacked by the radicals.

  • Anne Bryant12/8/2008

    Terrific article Josh. I echo your sentiments.

  • John Estes12/7/2008

    Personal injury will start when the 700 billion dollar stimulus package is passed the day Obama takes office. We the people cannot pay these bills as fast as they are now being written.

  • kelly m.12/3/2008

    You have to have standing to file a civil suit, period. It's the law and no one has to answer you if you don't have standing. We should all thank goodness (and our judicial system and Constitution) for this protection or our courts would be clogged with even more frivolous suits than they already have to process. Obama holds a US passport,. As we all know, you have to produce your birth certificate to get a passport. You have to produce one to get a Driver's license. Berg knew this - just as he knew President Bush was not behind the 9/11 bombings - yet he filed suit against each man - because he has a mental illness (preventing him from being admitted to the bar in his chosen state) and because he craves attention. Good riddance to Mr. Berg who had the audacity to file his appeal not with the state appellate court, as required, but with the US Supremes, who will decline to hear it.

  • Sheryl Young12/3/2008

    Yes, why not just produce the stuff quickly, to erase any doubts? I hope, Josh, that Obama proves "our side" wrong and does a great job. We will have to wait and see.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.