Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Berg v Obama Appeal scheduled for Oct 26/2009
scribd ^ | Oct 9.2009 | Clerk Marcia M. Waldron

Posted on 10/11/2009 8:20:36 PM PDT by Elderberry

From Scribd: The case will be submitted on the Briefs on Monday October 26 2009 pursuant to 3rd Cir. LAR 34.1(a).

Since there will be no oral argument, your presence will not be required.

(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: article2section1; berg; bergvobama; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; obama; philberg; philipberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
Will they ever say We have Standing?
1 posted on 10/11/2009 8:20:36 PM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

No, but in fact I would bet that the result of this hearing on the briefs will be a dismissal for, among other things, lack of standing.


2 posted on 10/11/2009 8:23:04 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

Phil Berg and Mario Apuzzo are still plugging away. Kudos to both of them.


3 posted on 10/11/2009 8:23:43 PM PDT by Frantzie (Do we want ACORN running America's health care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Is this just one of Phil Berg's cases against Obama ?
Why does he not have standing if this or other cases Berg filed was before the election ? or Obama's swearing in ?
4 posted on 10/11/2009 8:51:16 PM PDT by American Constitutionalist (There is no civility in the way the Communist/Marxist want to destroy the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

I believe this is one of his cases where he jumped straight to the Supreme court and they kicked it back down.

Then the lower court ruled. You guessed it. No standing.
And now the appeal.


5 posted on 10/11/2009 8:55:01 PM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry

That’s good. With Orly’s case about to be dismissed, I was afraid it would get boring.


6 posted on 10/11/2009 9:01:03 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

“No, but in fact I would bet that the result of this hearing on the briefs will be a dismissal for, among other things, lack of standing.”

How is it that an American citizen does not have standing when other cases, such as an environmentalist, have no problem getting their cases before a judge.


7 posted on 10/11/2009 9:02:21 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Release Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and let him and his family get on with their lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mlo

No we can’t have that. All the DOJ positions would be downsized.


8 posted on 10/11/2009 9:03:56 PM PDT by Elderberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

If you read many of the hardest hitting standing cases, it is conservative justices keeping the environuts out of the courthouse based on lack of standing.


9 posted on 10/11/2009 10:07:00 PM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

In some instances the federal statute grants standing to individual citizens (this is particularly true in the case of environmental legislation.)

Generally, a taxpayer does not have standing to challenge a federal expenditure. The exception is in first amendment challenges (e.g., where the expenditure was in the form of aid to education, that was to be spent through churches or religious schools - in those instances general taxpayers have been found to have standing to challenge.)

I do not know how you get standing or jurisdiction on the the Obama natural citizenship question. I think it (the idea of a President elected and inaugurated without being truly qualified) is an example of something so incomprehensible and unrecognizable to the drafters of the Constitution - that they did not address where the power to certify qualifications would rest in the organization of government. It’s an example of a problem which does not have a legal answer.


10 posted on 10/11/2009 10:33:16 PM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
No we can’t have that. All the DOJ positions would be downsized.

LOL

11 posted on 10/12/2009 6:25:09 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
I do not know how you get standing or jurisdiction on the the Obama natural citizenship question. I think it (the idea of a President elected and inaugurated without being truly qualified) is an example of something so incomprehensible and unrecognizable to the drafters of the Constitution - that they did not address where the power to certify qualifications would rest in the organization of government. It’s an example of a problem which does not have a legal answer.

If that is indeed the case, then there is no reason not to grant standing in these cases. The court system is there to supplement those areas where there is a void in the law or where public officials have failed to enforce what is already there..

12 posted on 10/12/2009 6:32:30 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Bump


13 posted on 10/12/2009 6:47:08 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mlo
That’s good. With Orly’s case about to be dismissed, I was afraid it would get boring.

Don't get your hopes up. The opinion is probably going to be issued on October 26 - and the Court has already indicated its view on the matter in its two prior rulings denying Berg's request for stays. In two prior rulings, the 3rd Circuit denied Berg's request, stating (from second order: "As ably expressed by the District Court, it appears that Appellant lacks standing to challenge the election of Barack H. Obama to the Presidency of the United States. Even if Appellant possessed standing to raise the issue of President-Elect Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be President, no justiciable controversy is presented, as Appellant seeks adjudication of a political question. Accordingly, Appellant has not shown a likelihood of success with respect to his appeal." So we already have a pretty good idea of the 3rd Circuit's view of the case.
14 posted on 10/12/2009 7:42:02 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Not really. Look up the “political question” doctrine - it’s an entire realm of problems which the courts cede to the Congress. Courts could make decisions in those areas but they recognize that they would be invading the territory of another branch of government. So, under the notion of separation of powers, they don’t go there. It’s not as though they could grant standing to a plaintiff and then decide a “political question” brought by that plaintiff. In the situation with Obama - again it is a novel (and very strange) situation - but clearly removal of a President once in office is left to the Congress. But their Constitutional imprimatur is to remove on conviction of “high crimes and misdemeanors” while in office only.


15 posted on 10/12/2009 8:41:05 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Courts could make decisions in those areas but they recognize that they would be invading the territory of another branch of government.

Since when did that ever stop them???

16 posted on 10/12/2009 8:45:22 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Since 1803. Marbury v. Madison.


17 posted on 10/12/2009 8:56:41 AM PDT by Wally_Kalbacken
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken
Since 1803. Marbury v. Madison.

Then someone needs to notify them immediately.

18 posted on 10/12/2009 9:00:13 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

The Courts are trying to pretend it’s a Political Question, so they can use lack of standing to get rid, but this is really a Constitutional question, so no standing is required. The Courts have a duty to uphold the Constitution.


19 posted on 10/12/2009 9:37:06 AM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
The Courts are trying to pretend it’s a Political Question, so they can use lack of standing to get rid, but this is really a Constitutional question, so no standing is required. The Courts have a duty to uphold the Constitution.

Well, not quite.

First, under established law, standing is required to raise a Constitutional question.

Second, "standing" is irrelevant to the Political Question Doctrine. In other words, even if a person does have "standing," the court cannot hear the case if it raises a "political question."

So, the standing/constitutional issue, and the political question issue are two different concepts.
20 posted on 10/12/2009 9:56:39 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mlo
That’s good. With Orly’s case about to be dismissed, I was afraid it would get boring.

Have no fear. As soon as Barnett v. Obama gets chucked out, Orly will find another sucker willing to throw away their military career. Her PayPal donations depend on it!

21 posted on 10/12/2009 12:14:48 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

No. The Constitution requires that the Courts uphold it. There is no need to prove standing. That is from the Constitution and cannot be changed by a Court of Law.

By the way, you joined in Aug 2008, and looking at your posts, I would say that your only interest appears to be to put a spike in any anti Obama Birther Lawsuit. Is that a fair assessment?


22 posted on 10/12/2009 1:23:54 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Hi Drew. What do you think defines a Natural Born Citizen for the purposes of choosing a US President?


23 posted on 10/12/2009 1:41:22 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wally_Kalbacken

“It’s an example of a problem which does not have a legal answer.”

And I believe that this is why all the courts are avoiding it by claiming “no standing”. They don’t want to handle this hot potato.


24 posted on 10/12/2009 1:56:55 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Release Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and let him and his family get on with their lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

“If you read many of the hardest hitting standing cases, it is conservative justices keeping the environuts out of the courthouse based on lack of standing.”

What’s the ration? All I ever hear is how the envirormentalists have their day in court. I haven’t heard of cases tossed on them.


25 posted on 10/12/2009 1:59:09 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Release Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and let him and his family get on with their lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
There is no need to prove standing. That is from the Constitution and cannot be changed by a Court of Law.

This might be a good argument to make for CHANGING the existing law - and many think that this case is a perfect demonstration of why the current law of standing should be changed. However, under CURRENT law, the US Supreme Court has held - without exception - that a person must have standing to bring a Constitutional Challenge.

As for eligibility challenges, I have long contended that the state laws regarding proof of eligibility should be changed so that a candidate is required to provide proof of US citizenship, minimum age, and minimum residency. I have also argued that the state laws "requiring" electors to vote a certain way should be challenged as an improper usurpation of the Elector College voters' constitutional right - and obligation - to cast their vote (and maintain their oath). I strongly support making changes to state law on BOTH of these issues.

I have also long contended that, under CURRENT law, no court action brought by a private citizen is going to succeed -- for the reasons that the 40+ cases filed so far in state and federal court have been dismissed.

The STATE cases have been dismissed because, unfortunately, the current state laws do not require the Secretary of State (or election board) to verify eligibility and some states, like California, expressly require the Secretary to place the party's candidate on the ballot (with no room for discretion). This is why existing laws MUST be changed.

The FEDERAL cases have been dismissed due to lack of standing. Might hate the fact that that is current law, but that is the current law. Congress could change that, I believe. But until they do -- or until the Supreme Court overturns its prior cases -- that is the however unfortunate law of the land.

As for my primary interest in joining FreeRepublic and staying, your assessment is not accurate.


26 posted on 10/12/2009 2:08:18 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

“...the US Supreme Court has held - without exception - that a person must have standing to bring a Constitutional Challenge.” Could I have a case reference please?


27 posted on 10/12/2009 2:18:14 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Hi Drew. What do you think defines a Natural Born Citizen for the purposes of choosing a US President?

1.) Born in the United States. Period.

2.) Born outside the United States where at least one natural parent must have been a U.S. citizen when the child was born and the U.S. citizen parent(s) must have resided or been physically present in the United States for the time required by the law in effect when the child was born.

In short, I believe that if Obama was born in Hawaii, he's eligible. If Obama was born in Kenya, his eligibility is questionable. I've seen no compelling evidence whatsoever that Obama was born anywhere else but Hawaii and even if he was I strongly doubt that the courts would find him ineligible by virtue of his mother's citizenship, if they even take up the case at all. I suspect that in the million-to-one chance an eligibility case gets argued before the USSC, the high court would punt it back to congress where the procedures for removing a president are laid out.

28 posted on 10/12/2009 3:07:41 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
“...the US Supreme Court has held - without exception - that a person must have standing to bring a Constitutional Challenge.” Could I have a case reference please?

Here is one .

29 posted on 10/12/2009 3:14:30 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

So if someone is born in the USA to foreign parents they would qualify?


30 posted on 10/12/2009 3:15:57 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
"So if someone is born in the USA to foreign parents they would qualify?"

Yes.

31 posted on 10/12/2009 3:24:20 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
So if someone is born in the USA to foreign parents they would qualify?

Yes. Even anchor-babies.

I believe the law denies NBC to the children of foreign diplomats and enemy combatants. That's it. Everyone else born on U.S. soil is natural born.

Just because the guy I votes for lost doesn't mean I believe it's time to change the rules.

At any rate, it doesn't matter what I believe, or you. It only matters what the courts believe and as of yet, they don't appear very interested in addressing the perceived eligibility issues of the man who 65 million American voters elected president.

32 posted on 10/12/2009 3:37:07 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

“We have 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.” - Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992)


33 posted on 10/12/2009 4:09:30 PM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
Could I have a case reference please?
(regarding my statement that: “...the US Supreme Court has held - without exception - that a person must have standing to bring a Constitutional Challenge.” )


Sure. Here are just a few of the dozens (and dozens) of SCOTUS cases addressing a litigant's standing to bring a constitutional challenge:

Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 127 S.Ct. 2553 (2007) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that organization lacked standing to challenge government faith-based initiatives as unconstitutional);

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that state taxpayers lacked standing to challenge award of state franchise tax credit to manufacturer as unconstitutional);

Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 125 S.Ct. 564 (2004) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that attorney lacked standing to challenge, on behalf of potential future clients, a state statute denying counsel to certain criminal defendants as unconstitutional);

Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 117 S.Ct. 2312 (1997) (recognizing standing requirement and holding that Congress cannot erase requirement by granting someone who would not otherwise have standing; finding that Congress members lacked standing to challenge Line Item Veto Act as unconstitutional);

Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055 (1997(recognizing standing requirement and finding that state employee lacked standing to challenge state law recognizing English as official language; interest shared generally with public at large in proper application of Constitution and laws is insufficient to confer standing upon party to sue, under Article III of Constitution);

Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 106 S.Ct. 1697 (1986) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that doctor had standing to challenge constitutionality of abortion law that posed threat of criminal prosecution to him);

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750-51, 104 S.Ct. 3315 (1984(recognizing standing requirement and finding that parents of black children attending public schools lacked standing to prevent the government form violating the law in granting tax exemptions to private schools who continued to discriminate based on race; claim of injury to their children's diminished ability to receive an education in a racially integrated school, although a judicially cognizable injury, failed because the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the government's conduct that was challenged as unlawful);

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752 (1982) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that organization lacked standing to challenge governmental transfer of property to religious organization as unconstitutional);

County Court of Ulster County, N. Y. v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 99 S.Ct. 2213 (1979) (recognizing standing requirement; stating that a party has standing to challenge constitutionality of a statute only insofar as it has adverse impact on his own rights and, as a general rule, if there is no constitutional defect in application of statute to a litigant, he does not have standing to argue that statute would be unconstitutional if applied to third parties in hypothetical situations);

Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. , 438 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 2620 (1978) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that persons who lived near proposed nuclear power plant had standing to challenge law limiting liability for nuclear accidents as unconstitutional);

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (1975) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that organizations lacked standing to challenge zoning laws as unconstitutional and in violation of statutes);

U. S. v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166, 94 S.Ct. 2940 (1974) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that taxpayer lacked standing to challenge CIA expenditures as unconstitutional);

Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 94 S.Ct. 2925 (1974(recognizing standing requirement and finding that citizens/taxpayers, including reservists and former reservists lacked standing to challenge armed forces reserve membership of members of Congress as unconstitutional);

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. (1942) (recognizing standing requirement and finding that taxpayers had standing to challenge expenditures on grounds that they violated 1st Amendment Establishment Clause)
34 posted on 10/12/2009 4:17:45 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not [418 U.S. 208, 220] sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” 302 U.S., at 634 . 8 “

The case you cite is not applicable, because the action against Obama is not one about the “validity of executive or legislative action”, in that case, the remedy would be political eg the removal of Congress by de-selection. It is that Obama is Constitutionaly ineligible, no act of Congress is involved in creating this ineligibility, but actions by other parties are involved.


35 posted on 10/12/2009 4:26:46 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“It is an established principle that to entitle a private individual to invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of executive or legislative action he must show that he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury as the result of that action and it is not [418 U.S. 208, 220] sufficient that he has merely a general interest common to all members of the public.” 302 U.S., at 634 . 8 “

The case you cite is not applicable, because the action against Obama is not one about the “validity of executive or legislative action”, in that case, the remedy would be political eg the removal of Congress by de-selection. It is that Obama is Constitutionaly ineligible, no act of Congress is involved in creating this ineligibility, but actions by other parties are involved.


36 posted on 10/12/2009 4:30:27 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

Sorry Sibre Fan. None of your cases are on point. They are all about political decisions which can be challenged through the political process, and the standing filter is also applicable to them.

What I am looking for is a case where the Constitution sets out specific rules, and where you can show that a Citizen was not able to challenge a breach of that rule.


37 posted on 10/12/2009 4:40:22 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
I'm sorry, but these cases are not "all about political decisions which can be challenged through the political process" - and, as noted, in a few of them, the Court FOUND standing. However, in finding standing, the Court recognized that a litigant must have standing in order to sue.

So, for example, the Constitution sets out a prohibition against the establishment of religion. The Court has held that a taxpayer has standing to challenge a law granting federal funding to "X" on the grounds that granting federal funding violates the Constitutional prohibition against establishment of religion. (See, e.g., Flast v. Cohen, cited above). In other cases, the Court has held that a taxpayer - or citizen - or reservist does NOT have standing to allege a particular Constitutional violation. (See other cases cited above).

In each of the cases cited above, the litigants argued that
(A) the Constitution established a specific rule; and
(B) that the government, by its actions (e.g., CIA funding), or by legislation it passed, violated the specific rule set forth in the Constitution.

As summarized above, the Court has FOUND standing in some cases - and DENIED standing in others. Either way, the Court recognized that the litigant must have standing to challenge a particular action as violating a specific requirement set forth in the Constitution.
38 posted on 10/12/2009 5:07:04 PM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
How would you go about removing a non-natural born citizen ( or non-citizen) fraudulently occupying the White House?
39 posted on 10/12/2009 5:17:22 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Impeachment & removal, the next election, or term limits. Not every problem is answered by resorting to trial lawyers and activist judges.


40 posted on 10/12/2009 7:24:54 PM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Peasants have no standing in making accusations against King Louis The Foreign.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

41 posted on 10/12/2009 7:47:14 PM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Elderberry
Peasants have no standing in making accusations against King Louis The Foreign.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

42 posted on 10/12/2009 7:47:16 PM PDT by The Comedian (Evil can only succeed if good men don't point at it and laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sibre Fan

The cases you cite include the following:

lacked standing to challenge government faith-based initiatives
award of state franchise tax
state statute denying counsel
lacked standing to challenge Line Item Veto Act
lacked standing to challenge state law recognizing English as official language
lacked standing to prevent the government form violating the law in granting tax exemptions
lacked standing to challenge governmental transfer of property to religious organization
standing to challenge law limiting liability for nuclear accidents
lacked standing to challenge CIA expenditures

None of them are about anything directly mentioned in the Constitution, and that is why the Citizens Rights Standing was denied. Some of them are about Taxpayer Standing, something not relevent here.

I say again that any act which is in conflict with the actual text of the Constituion is actionable, as of right, by any US Citizen.


43 posted on 10/12/2009 9:04:27 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; mlo

“Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”

“In the beginning of his definition, Vattel required that the children be born of “parents” who are citizens. The use of the word “parents” refers to both mother and father. If he required only one parent such as the father, he would have said “of fathers who are citizens” and not “of parents who are citizens.””

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html


44 posted on 10/12/2009 9:33:54 PM PDT by plenipotentiary (Obama was a BRITISH SUBJECT at birth, passed to him via Pops, can't be NBC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

Impeachment & removal, the next election, or term limits. Not every problem is answered by resorting to trial lawyers and activist judges.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would you say this if it were Fidel Castro who had been elected?


45 posted on 10/12/2009 9:43:41 PM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
I say again that any act which is in conflict with the actual text of the Constituion is actionable, as of right, by any US Citizen.

I'm not an attorney but I've often thought if the standing issue, in Constitutional matters, was presented as Obama vs We the People, i.e. the whole damn population of the US - Whoa! - would all 300+million of us "in the courtroom" have standing? . or not. isn't that all were asking? - to have SCOTUS once and for all define what a Natural Born Citizen is? - and if Obama is one? Does the Constitution still matter? If it doesn't and if We the People don't have standing, then maybe it's time to water the tree of Liberty again. . .

46 posted on 10/12/2009 11:33:40 PM PDT by Art in Idaho
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
"“Rep. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))”"

In Binghams's speech (not a legal citation) he was just restating the "under the jurisdiction" qualification that is written into the 14th. That qualification applies to the children of diplomats and invading soldiers, not to the children of non-citizens.

"In the beginning of his definition, Vattel required that the children be born of “parents” who are citizens...."

In fact, Vattel didn't define "natural born citizen" at all. He never used the term.

It also is more proper to say he was describing, not defining, the practices of most countries in Europe. He was a Swiss philosopher writing in French. A few passages down from what the birthers like to quote, he specifically notes that the rules in England are different and only birth on the soil is required.

47 posted on 10/13/2009 6:21:23 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: plenipotentiary
The cases I cite include the following:

lacked standing to challenge government faith-based initiatives... on the grounds that such initiatives violated the Constitutional/First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc.);

lacked standing to challenge an award of state franchise tax...on the grounds that the award violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno);

lacked standing to challenge state statute denying counsel...on the grounds that the statute violated the Constitutional rights to due process and equal protection set forth in the 5th and/or 14th Amendments (Kowalski v. Tesmer); .

lacked standing to challenge Line Item Veto Act...on the ground that the Act violated Article I of the Constitution (Raines v. Byrd);

lacked standing to challenge state law recognizing English as official language... on the ground that the state law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution (Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona);

lacked standing to prevent the government form violating the law in granting tax exemptions... on the grounds that the tax exemption granted to discriminatory schools violated the Constitutional equal protection rights provided by the 14th Amendment(Allen v. Wright);

lacked standing to challenge governmental transfer of property to religious organization... on the grounds that such initiatives violated the Constitutional/First Amendment prohibition against establishment of religion (Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State);

had standing to challenge law limiting liability for nuclear accidents...on the grounds that the law violated the Constitutional Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. )

lacked standing to challenge CIA expenditures on the grounds that the expenditures violated Art. I, § 9, cl. 7, of the Constitution. (U. S. v. Richardson,).


In each of these cases (and the rest originally cited), the litigants based their challenge on requirements stated in the Constitution.

As for "some of them are about Taxpayer Standing, something not relevant here", Dr. Taitz disagrees with you and specifically cited Flast v. Cohen, the seminal taxpayer standing case to support their argument asking the Court to expand that ruling to apply to this situation.

Again, in every case that the Court has considered the issue, it has held that a person must have standing to challenge an "act which is in conflict with the actual text of the Constitution. But if you have a single Supreme Court case to support your contention to the contrary, I'd be very interested in reading it.
48 posted on 10/13/2009 7:13:22 AM PDT by Sibre Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Yes. Your outlandish hypothetical does not change our established jurisprudence.


49 posted on 10/13/2009 10:12:46 AM PDT by kukaniloko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: kukaniloko

Yes. Your outlandish hypothetical does not change our established jurisprudence.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So?...If it Fidel Castro were elected and voted in by the Electoral College, the courts would have no say.

If a Marxist Congress refused to throw out the foreign born usurper Fidel Castro, we would have no recourse ( as common citizens) but to vote Fidel Castro out of office in the next election, or vote in representatives in 2010 would would impeach a man who was not natural born and could not be a president.

Yeah! I get it.


50 posted on 10/13/2009 10:21:17 AM PDT by wintertime (People are not stupid! Good ideas win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson