Berg v Obama Appeal scheduled for Oct 26/2009

scribd ^ | Oct 9.2009 | Clerk Marcia M. Waldron

[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.

[Drew68]

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!

[plenipotentiary]

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?

[plenipotentiary]

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

[taxesareforever]

“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.

[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.”

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.

[Sibre Fan]

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.

[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?

[Drew68]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

“...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 .

[plenipotentiary]

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

[mlo]

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

Yes.

[Drew68]

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.

[kukaniloko]

“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)

[Sibre Fan]

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)

[plenipotentiary]

“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.

[plenipotentiary]

“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.

[plenipotentiary]

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.

[Sibre Fan]

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.

[wintertime]

How would you go about removing a non-natural born citizen ( or non-citizen) fraudulently occupying the White House?

[kukaniloko]

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