Skip to comments.Berg v Obama Appeal scheduled for Oct 26/2009
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 ...
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.
“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.”
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?
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. . .
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.
Yes. Your outlandish hypothetical does not change our established jurisprudence.
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.
Yes you do. That is the way our Founders set it up. Moral of the story - make sure you stop Castro from being sworn in or be prepared to deal with it under the available alternatives.
“Chief Justice Warren determined that the only critical one in this case was whether there was a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment to the House to determine in its sole discretion the qualifications of members.563 In[p.695]order to determine whether there was a textual commitment, the Court reviewed the Constitution, the Convention proceedings, and English and United States legislative practice to ascertain what power had been conferred on the House to judge the qualifications of its members; finding that the Constitution vested the House with power only to look at the qualifications of age, residency, and citizenship, the Court thus decided that in passing on Powells conduct and character the House had exceeded the powers committed to it and thus judicial review was not barred by this factor of the political question doctrine.564”
Powell v. McCormack
4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over petitioners’ action. Pp. 395 U. S. 512-516.
(a) The case is one “arising under” the Constitution within the meaning of Art. III, since petitioners’ claims “will be sustained if the Constitution . . . [is] given one construction and will be defeated if it [is] given another.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678. Pp. 395 U. S. 513-514.
(b) The district courts are given a broad grant of jurisdiction by 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a), over “all civil actions wherein the matter in controversy . . . arises under the Constitution . . . ,” and, while that grant is not entirely coextensive with Art. III, there is no indication that § 1331(a) was intended to foreclose federal courts from entertaining suits involving the seating of Congressmen. Pp. 395 U. S. 514-516.
5. This litigation is justiciable because the claim presented and the relief sought can be judicially resolved. Pp. 395 U. S. 516-518.
(a) Petitioners’ claim does not lack justiciability on the ground that the House’s duty cannot be judicially determined, since, if petitioners are correct, the House had a duty to seat Powell once it determined that he met the standing qualifications set forth in the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 517.
(b) The relief sought is susceptible of judicial resolution, since, regardless of the appropriateness of a coercive remedy against House personnel (an issue not here decided), declaratory relief is independently available. Pp. 395 U. S. 517-518.
6. The case does not involve a “political question,” which, under the separation of powers doctrine, would not be justiciable. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-549.
(a) The Court’s examination of relevant historical materials shows at most that Congress’ power under Art. I, § 5, to judge the “Qualifications of its Members” is a “textually demonstrable constitutional commitment . . . to [that] co-ordinate political department of government” (Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 369 U. S. 217) to judge only standing qualifications which are expressly set forth in the Constitution; hence, the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution’s membership requirements. Pp. 395 U. S. 518-548.
(b) The case does not present a political question in the sense, also urged by respondents, that it would entail a “potentially embarrassing confrontation between coordinate branches” of the Government, since our system of government requires federal courts on occasion to interpret the Constitution differently from other branches. Pp. 395 U. S. 548-549.
7. In judging the qualifications of its members under Art. I, § 5, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications expressly prescribed by the Constitution. P. 395 U. S. 550.
I give you an example where the text of the Constitution was breached, and no-one challenged on grounds of Standing, and you say it is not enough. It is exactly on point, and Keyes and the rest, in fact every Citizen, has standing in this particular case, because the text of the Constitution itself is being dis-regarded.
A case is not “on point” if the Court does not address the issue at point. The case you provided did NOT address standing. To be “on point,” the case would have had to say either (a) there is no standing requirement when a person challenges an action as unconstitutional; or (b) even though there is a standing requirement generally, it does not apply in this case because ....
Again - if the case doesn’t address the issue, it simply cannot be “on point” to that issue. The case you cited didn’t even address the standing issue, much less find that there was standing.
The point is CitizenStanding is given without question when the matter involves contravention of the text of the Constitution. That is why the Standing of the parties was never challenged in this case.
The Courts cannot refuse Citizen Standing to hear a case which involves going against the text of the Constitution.
The other cases you have cited involve allegations of going against a “principle” that the Constitution “may” govern. Going against the actual tex is an open and shut, no brainer for standing, for any US Citizen.
If for example, Obama was 21 he could be challenged by any Citizen, because he has to be 35 according to the text of the Constitution.
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.