• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Judge Says Citizens Cannot "Police" Pres. Req's.

Mike

Well-known member
Judge dismisses Obama birth certificate lawsuit
Rules voters don't have standing to 'police' constitutional requirements for president

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 25, 2008
3:14 pm Eastern


By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily



Philip J. Berg

A lawsuit filed by Democratic attorney Philip Berg alleging that Sen. Barack Obama is ineligible to be president was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday on grounds that Berg lacks standing to bring the lawsuit.

In a 34-page memorandum that accompanied the court order, the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick concludes that ordinary citizens can't sue to ensure that a presidential candidate actually meets the constitutional requirements of the office.

Surrick defers to Congress, saying that the legislature could determine "that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution's eligibility requirements for the Presidency," but that it would take new laws to grant individual citizens that ability.

"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

Berg has maintained that uncertainty about how the U.S. does enforce the requirements of presidency may result in a constitutional crisis should an ineligible candidate win the office.

"This is a question of who has standing to stand up for our Constitution," Berg told Jeff Schreiber of America's Right blog. "If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to ask whether or not the likely next president of the United States – the most powerful man in the entire world – is eligible to be in that office in the first place, then who does?"


As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Berg demanded that Obama provide documentation to the court to verify that the candidate was born in Hawaii, as Obama contends, and not in Kenya, as Berg believes.

Surrick did not rule on the birth certificate controversy, though he did express skepticism over the notion that a foreign-born Obama would have escaped the primaries without being discovered.

"Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted," Surrick states, "and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotly contested presidential primary [sic] in living memory."

Instead, Surrick cites Aritcle III of the U.S. Constitution, limiting federal judicial power to handling cases and controversies in which plaintiffs have clear standing through specific, personal injury.

Berg, the judge ruled, simply didn't have a case for a particular injury and thus, had no standing to sue.

Surrick's ruling cites a case deemed similar, Hollander v. McCain, in which it was alleged during the primary season that since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, John McCain is not a natural-born citizen either. The judge in the Hollander case also ruled a voter cannot sue to prevent an allegedly unconstitutional candidate.

Based in part on Hollander, Surrick concludes, "The alleged harm to voters stemming from a presidential candidate's failure to satisfy the eligibility requirements of the Natural Born Citizen Clause is not concrete or particularized enough to constitute an injury."

Surrick also quotes Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, which held, "The Supreme Court has consistently held that a plaintiff raising only a generally available grievance about government – claiming only harm to his and every citizen's interest in proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large – does not state an Article III case or controversy."

Berg told America's Right that even if he technically can't hold Obama accountable to the Constitution, someone should. He plans to appeal his case to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________

Gosh, the judge said the same thing Mrs. Greg did but still gave no answer as to who has authority............ besides congress. :???:

Does Congress ask each candidate for qualifications to be President? :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
"Until that time," Surrick says, "voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that Plaintiff attempts to bring."

Thats the same issue the Federal Judge up in northeast (Vermont or NH ?, I think) threw the same type lawsuit out challenging McCains citizenry, birthplace, and right to serve...
 

Mike

Well-known member
If a voting citizen of the USA does not have standing, who the hell does? :roll:

There are no rules for Congress to investigate candidates for qualifications.

The Federal Elections Commission says they have NO "oversight".

I'm really lost here...................................

Oh well. it'll go to the 3RD District first thing Monday, and possibly to Scotus by the week's end.

Surely SOMEONE will address the qualification issues???????????????

But as I've said before, in order to keep down rumors & innuendo, Obama should bring his proof and shut down all questions once and for all.

I know I would...........................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
If a voting citizen of the USA does not have standing, who the hell does? :roll:

There are no rules for Congress to investigate candidates for qualifications.

The Federal Elections Commission says they have NO "oversight".

I'm really lost here...................................

Oh well. it'll go to the 3RD District first thing Monday, and possibly to Scotus by the week's end.

Surely SOMEONE will address the qualification issues???????????????

But as I've said before, in order to keep down rumors & innuendo, Obama should bring his proof and shut down all questions once and for all.

I know I would...........................

I think the part of government that has the most right and will/should decide the issue will be the VOTERS on November 4th...
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
If a voting citizen of the USA does not have standing, who the hell does? :roll:

There are no rules for Congress to investigate candidates for qualifications.

The Federal Elections Commission says they have NO "oversight".

I'm really lost here...................................

Oh well. it'll go to the 3RD District first thing Monday, and possibly to Scotus by the week's end.

Surely SOMEONE will address the qualification issues???????????????

But as I've said before, in order to keep down rumors & innuendo, Obama should bring his proof and shut down all questions once and for all.

I know I would...........................

I think the part of government that has the most right and will/should decide the issue will be the VOTERS on November 4th...

Your answer makes no sense whatsoever.

The voters can't address qualification issues but can vote for a candidate who may or may not be qualified? Qualifications are explicit in the Constitution, but with no one to enforce. That should only leave the Courts or Congress.

You can't have each individual voter asking a candidate for qualification proof.

The judge did not say he was qualified or not. He only said that voters CANNOT and DO NOT have standing to challenge qualifications.

Anyway, the Presidential vote won't be held until Jan 6 (I believe) is when the Electoral College votes for the president, maybe those who question Obama's qualifications will be satisfied once and for all by then.

If it waits til after the EC vote, there will be a crisis.

My question is still................

Why does he risk the possible backlash..... and simply show his proof/papers?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
If a voting citizen of the USA does not have standing, who the hell does? :roll:

There are no rules for Congress to investigate candidates for qualifications.

The Federal Elections Commission says they have NO "oversight".

I'm really lost here...................................

Oh well. it'll go to the 3RD District first thing Monday, and possibly to Scotus by the week's end.

Surely SOMEONE will address the qualification issues???????????????

But as I've said before, in order to keep down rumors & innuendo, Obama should bring his proof and shut down all questions once and for all.

I know I would...........................

I think the part of government that has the most right and will/should decide the issue will be the VOTERS on November 4th...

Your answer makes no sense whatsoever.

The voters can't address qualification issues but can vote for a candidate who may or may not be qualified? Qualifications are explicit in the Constitution, but with no one to enforce. That should only leave the Courts or Congress.

You can't have each individual voter asking a candidate for qualification proof.

The judge did not say he was qualified or not. He only said that voters CANNOT and DO NOT have standing to challenge qualifications.

Anyway, the Presidential vote won't be held until Jan 6 (I believe) is when the Electoral College votes for the president, maybe those who question Obama's qualifications will be satisfied once and for all by then.

If it waits til after the EC vote, there will be a crisis.

My question is still................

Why does he risk the possible backlash..... and simply show his proof/papers?

He did- thats the reason when the Karl Rovians raised the question he posted his birth certificate on his website--and everyone can go there and see for themselves--And make their own decision and show the results of that decision on November 4th- like it should be.....
 

Mike

Well-known member
He did- thats the reason when the Karl Rovians raised the question he posted his birth certificate on his website--and everyone can go there and see for themselves--And make their own decision and show the results of that decision on November 4th- like it should be.....

He did what? He only showed a "Certificate of Live Birth" which is not a Vault Certificate" But it doesn't end there. What about his Indonesian Citizenship, what about his Grandmother saying she was in the delivery room with his mother when he was born?

Showing me a picture on a document is proof?

You're not only a fool, but you're a damn fool to think that an image of what might or might not be valid on my computer screen is proof of anything to anyone.

Proof should always be sufficient to satisfy those in doubt....................

A presidential candidate should be held to the highest standard. :roll: :lol: :lol:
 

fff

Well-known member
The judge make basically the same ruling about Obama as a judge did in the earlier McCain case:

San Francisco judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging Republican candidate John McCain's inclusion on the California ballot due to citizenship questions.

Northern District of California Judge William Alsup ruled that McCain's claim of U.S. citizenship is strong enough to keep him on the ballot, the Legal Times reported Thursday.

The suit was the third challenge claiming that McCain's birthplace in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 disqualifies him under the Constitution to be president of the United States.

Alsup said a review of statutes, including one passed in 1937 on Canal Zone citizenship, found that "persons in Senator McCain's circumstances are citizens by virtue of their birth, thereby retroactively rendering Senator McCain a natural born citizen, if he was not one already."

The judge also ruled Tuesday that the plaintiff had no standing to challenge McCain's placement on the ballot.

However, Alsup did say procedures challenging a candidate's qualifications under the 12th and 20th Amendments are available when electoral votes are counted, the publication said.

"Judicial review -- if any -- should occur only after the electoral and congressional processes have run their course," the judge's ruling said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/18/Judge_rules_McCain_a_US_citizen/UPI-81111221735908/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
He did- thats the reason when the Karl Rovians raised the question he posted his birth certificate on his website--and everyone can go there and see for themselves--And make their own decision and show the results of that decision on November 4th- like it should be.....

He did what? He only showed a "Certificate of Live Birth" which is not a Vault Certificate" But it doesn't end there. What about his Indonesian Citizenship, what about his Grandmother saying she was in the delivery room with his mother when he was born?

Showing me a picture on a document is proof?

You're not only a fool, but you're a damn fool to think that an image of what might or might not be valid on my computer screen is proof of anything to anyone.

Proof should always be sufficient to satisfy those in doubt....................

A presidential candidate should be held to the highest standard. :roll: :lol: :lol:

Like I've said before- and others posted on here- not all areas have identical birth registration requirements or paperwork- there is no nationwide standard...And the further you go back in time- the worse it gets..As I posted before- I know of many folks that have had nothing but family papers or the Family Bible recordings of their birth as proof- including several relatives of mine who had to use a Family Bible (written in German) in order to draw their SS benefits when they hit 65....

The precedent has been set....

And I think we are holding him to the highest standard- a decision made by the majority of the people in the United States....You can't get any purer Democracy- or a better panel of "judges"....
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Oh for God's sake, Old Komrade...I have a SIL in Canada who is there thanks to a phony BC!!!

Put me in the Philippines with $500 and I can come up with righteous documents proving anything I want. Good enough to fool ANY government in the world OR a voted out of office High Sheriff in Plentywood, Montana!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Oh for God's sake, Old Komrade...I have a SIL in Canada who is there thanks to a phony BC!!!

Put me in the Philippines with $500 and I can come up with righteous documents proving anything I want. Good enough to fool ANY government in the world OR a voted out of office High Sheriff in Plentywood, Montana!

You're definitely a neocon Repub- can't even get your facts straight in your personal attacks or insults :wink: :lol: :lol: :p
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
It has nothing to do with political parties. If you have ever traveled to a Third World country, you might learn how easy one can acquire high quality forged documents. Surely some DNC poobahs already knew that as well. Too bad you are so closed minded you cannot accept the possibility. I never heard of anybody very legitimater who has various different copies of a BC floating around.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
If the birth certicifate were fake, then McCain and his campaign staff would be all over it like flies on a cow pile.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Oh for God's sake, Old Komrade...I have a SIL in Canada who is there thanks to a phony BC!!!

Put me in the Philippines with $500 and I can come up with righteous documents proving anything I want. Good enough to fool ANY government in the world OR a voted out of office High Sheriff in Plentywood, Montana![/quote

Hey don't lay him on Plentywood. :roll:

He's from Glasgow. :)
 
Top