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

The Judge's Ruling.....................

Mike

Well-known member
In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................

The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:

"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."

In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.

I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.

But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?

This judge is saying that it is not.

Help me understand...............................................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................

The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:

"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."

In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.

I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.

But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?

This judge is saying that it is not.

Help me understand...............................................

Not according to GW- he thru following the Constitution out long ago...Thats the main reason we need a complete regime change to bring back the rule of law- and an administration that knows what the Constitution is....
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................

The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:

"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."

In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.

I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.

But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?

This judge is saying that it is not.

Help me understand...............................................

Not according to GW- he thru following the Constitution out long ago...Thats the main reason we need a complete regime change to bring back the rule of law- and an administration that knows what the Constitution is....

This Federal judge is saying that it's NOT injurious for someone to trample the Constitution................. so in essence he's saying that GW had those rights and would injure NO ONE by doing so.

You can't have it both ways.

You are either for "Constitutionality" or you're not. You can't pick and choose who does the trampling..........................
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................

The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:

"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."

In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.

I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.

But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?

This judge is saying that it is not.

Help me understand...............................................

Not according to GW- he thru following the Constitution out long ago...Thats the main reason we need a complete regime change to bring back the rule of law- and an administration that knows what the Constitution is....

This Federal judge is saying that it's NOT injurious for someone to trample the Constitution................. so in essence he's saying that GW had those rights and would injure NO ONE by doing so.

You can't have it both ways.

You are either for "Constitutionality" or you're not. You can't pick and choose who does the trampling..........................

Just like we as a citizen can't sue Bush because he failed to allow Cheny/Rove/Gonzlaes/etal to appear on a Congressional Subpeona- a Constitutional issue that only Congress can challenge and file suit on---- the judge is saying we can't file on this Constituitonal issue either- only Congress (electoral college) can...They are the final decision maker as to competency to serve- and they are the only ones that have standing in front of the court on the issue...
 

Mike

Well-known member
I get it.

It's OK for someone else to skirt Constitutional issues because Bush did it first. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Congress is the "final decision maker" yet they have to be the ones who take it to court??? i.e....... "standing" in court ????

Typical Liberal Psycho-Babble:
Oldtimer wrote: only Congress (electoral college) can...They are the final decision maker as to competency to serve- and they are the only ones that have standing in front of the court on the issue...

And furthermore, it's not about competency, it's about qualifications. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................

The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:

"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."

In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.

I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.

But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?

This judge is saying that it is not.

Help me understand...............................................

Not according to GW- he thru following the Constitution out long ago...Thats the main reason we need a complete regime change to bring back the rule of law- and an administration that knows what the Constitution is....

Looking at Obama's actions, what leads you to believe that he has any respect for the Constitution?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Mike said:
In the case of Berg vs. Obama in Federal Court challenging Obama's "natural born" status, therefore requesting his removal from ballots........................

The Judge (Surrick) ruling summed it up:

"Plaintiff does not, and we believe cannot, establish injury in fact. Therefore, he does not have standing to pursue this matter and we do not have jurisdiction to hear it."

In other words........if there is no personal injury........there is no crime.

I have no idea whether Berg's allegations are true or false, and neither can anyone here truthfully say any different without a measure of doubt.

But is an "Unconstitutional Act" an injury to anyone?

This judge is saying that it is not.

Help me understand...............................................

Not according to GW- he thru following the Constitution out long ago...Thats the main reason we need a complete regime change to bring back the rule of law- and an administration that knows what the Constitution is....

Looking at Obama's actions, what leads you to believe that he has any respect for the Constitution?

At least he knows what it is....Not only is an attorney but also has taught classes involving the law and Constitutional Laws...Bush never heard of it- and McCain has been too busy for 25 years stuffing his pockets from his Lobbyiests to remember it....
Bob Barr is actually the best candidate to bring back traditional following of the Constitution....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Obama knows the Constitution? Really. Let's take a look at what the Second Amendment says and what Obama's take is;

Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Obama had this to say on the Supreme Court's ruling that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional (Obama said that it WAS constitutional), "And it also recognized that even though we have an individual right to bear arms, that that right can be limited by sensible, reasonable gun laws,"

I'm reading "Shall not be infringed" and Obama says "Can be limited" - and you're telling me that Obama knows the Constitution? You've gotta be kidding me.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Obama knows the Constitution? Really. Let's take a look at what the Second Amendment says and what Obama's take is;

Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Obama had this to say on the Supreme Court's ruling that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional (Obama said that it WAS constitutional), "And it also recognized that even though we have an individual right to bear arms, that that right can be limited by sensible, reasonable gun laws,"

I'm reading "Shall not be infringed" and Obama says "Can be limited" - and you're telling me that Obama knows the Constitution? You've gotta be kidding me.

And he's completely correct as far as I'm concerned- unless you want court diagnosed psychotics just released from the mental institutions, exfelons, 5 year old kids, etc. etc. being able to purchase and possess firearms...Or any highschooler with the cash to be able to go out and buy a "Ma Deuce".... :shock:
And thats exactly what the Supreme Courts ruling said--"that right can be limited by sensible, reasonable gun laws"...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Do you think that Obama's vote on banning ammunition that is used in just about all big game hunting is "sensable and reasonable" and consistent with the Second Amendment?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Obama also said the D.C. "Gun Ban" was CONSTITUTIONAL.

The 32-year-old ban was invalidated by the court's decision, which found Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense.

But Obama's campaign has offered conflicting messages on the controversial D.C. law.

After his campaign said in a statement to The Chicago Tribune last year that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional," an Obama spokesman told ABC News this week that that statement was an "inartful attempt" to characterize the candidate's position.

The big difference is what is "reasonable" and what is not.

If he thinks that banning firearms in your home for self-protection is "reasonable", I want no part of that "reasoning". :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Do you think that Obama's vote on banning ammunition that is used in just about all big game hunting is "sensable and reasonable" and consistent with the Second Amendment?

I've never seen the law as written or know the reason behind it....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Do you think that Obama's vote on banning ammunition that is used in just about all big game hunting is "sensable and reasonable" and consistent with the Second Amendment?

I've never seen the law as written or know the reason behind it....

It's been posted here a couple of times. Under what circumstance would you consider banning all ammunition bigger than, say a .223, sensable and reasonable?
 
Top