Posted on 10/29/2009 4:23:19 PM PDT by ExGeeEye
Who has "standing" to complain of a violation of the Constitution of the United States? (I thought it was "all of us", but Judge Carter says I'm wrong.)
To whom must this complaint be made?
If that person or office appears to be the guilty party, who then?
Or, if that person or office declines to act, particularly on the grounds of being Constitutionally unable to act, who then?
Have we really reached the point where all the nice, polite avenues of recourse have been exhausted, when all of them have treated us with contempt or have apologetically declared their impotence?
And, to whoso shall tell me to "go to hell," I am inclined to say "you first".
From uslegal.com:
Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you “lack standing” to bring the suit and dismiss your case.
There are three constitutional requirements to prove standing:
1. Injury: The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury. The injury must not be abstract and must be within the zone of interests meant to be regulated or protected under the statutory or constitutional guarantee in question.
2. Causation: The injury must be reasonably connected to the defendant’s conduct.
3. Redressability: A favorable court decision must be likely to redress the injury.
There are other requirements imposed by judge made law:
1. A party may only assert his or her own rights and cannot raise the claims of a third party who is not before the court.
2. A plaintiff cannot sue as a taxpayer who shares a grievance in common with all other taxpayers.
FWIW, birthers probably have no standing because the alleged “injury” is spread among everyone, and the court can not fix this. Justiciabilty is the concept that courts don’t butt into certain things, particularly here where Congress has the right to correct this, if true.
parsy, who says you should also find Judge Land’s decisions on line for detailed explanation
My sense of who would have standing, in the view of the various courts that have considered the matter, is someone (like McCain, in 2008) who was in reasonably serious contention for the same office. Perhaps Hillary or Edwards too if a challenge had been brought in the Democratic primaries.
Although I suppose you could form an opinion about standing and then read the judge's opinion . . . I think that you'll waste more time that way but it can be done.
Pretty much.
IMHO 2010 will tell the tale for the immediate future say 20 or so years. Most republics decay via dictatorship generally imposed by the military. The question is on which side will the military be on; freedom or communist slavery?
I expect at some point before I pass away to hear news of Generals overseas bringing the troops home without or in spite of civilian government orders. Something like Cesar's march on Rome.
“Standing” was created in the case of Marbury vs Madison when the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS was put in a tough spot and it was a way to throw out the lawsuit without repurcussions.
It was an invention to be a coward by the judicial system. The tradition has continued it seems.
First, there is little or no proof Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii. That is one of the major burdens that birthers have failed to carry. There is certainly not proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”
parsy, who says Judge Carter has ruled and the birthers need to go quietly into that good night, until the 2012 elections at which time they can raise h*ll to their hearts delight if Obama runs
Anyone can allege that a crime was committed, but only an official prosecutor (U.S. Attorney in the federal system, DA in the state system) can actually prosecute it.
The problem is lawyers.
You sure like to post alot in a thread where you constantly claim there is no truth.So we are all crazy here so why dont you just go play somewhere else?
It looks like no judge is going to do anything differently from what Carter did. They got to him, the fix was in, just as it was last year for the election and the MSM propaganda machine, AND the Acorn thugs, AND the illegal donations via credit card in small, odd amounts from overseas, just as the fix was in on Franken’s election, and the list goes on and will go on until THEY ARE STOPPED.
Kick ass in the 2010 elections, and if we can take control of the congress, the next step WIL BE to stage massive protests outside the Capitol until they begin the appropriate proceedings to determine these unresolved issues.
To answer your first question, I have a J.D., I have not yet read Carter’s decision, but I am familiar with the standing doctrine, and I think the way to remedy this constitutional crisis is what I outlined above.
I guess the one bright spot in all of this is:
As far as I know, no judge has examined the available evidence and pronounced yea or nay on the merits.
Judge Land apparently said “you people can’t ask me to do that”, and Judge Carter apparently said “I can’t do what I would have to do if I did, so I won’t.”
So...it remains an open question...one that the President could answer for under $50, if the answer was favorable to him.
I rage against the dying of the light.
If we put our replies together, I bet we could make a poem...
parsy, who wouldn’t welsh on such a deal
Your judge friend thinks (and writes in what you recommend reading) that Obama has produced a Hawaiian birth certificate; and thereby disqualifies anything he has said or might ever say about anything.
These are times which try men's souls.
ML/NJ
I've never had to do it, but I've heard about swearing out a complaint. Is uppose the trick would be in finding that official-- prosecutor or whatever-- who would do anything with it.
Which leads to my latter point: when the legally authorized officials decline to act, whither then?
If my neighbor spends his days defrauding pensioners and his nights raping cats, and the authorities decline to prosecute, do I acquiesce? Put a guard on Grandpa, keep Mittens in a kennel, and hope for the best?
I have to say, the recent announcement of the link between Judge Carter’s new clerk and 0bama’s lawyers is troubling, and gives the indication of some manner of quid pro quo, or perhaps just some old fashioned collusion of some sort.
Upon reading the decision, it is also evident that Judge Carter held that, for the case to proceed in the judicial system, it would have had to be filed before the anointed one completed the oath of office. Per Judge Carter, after the oath of office, it becomes a matter for the Congress (the House), as I read the decision.
While ‘birthers’ may believe that ANY US CITIZEN should have standing to challenge the eligibility, this decision (and others) does a credible job of explaining the notion of standing. It is clear that there is enough wiggle room to allow most anyone to be denied standing in questions such as this.
I think it’s time to start pushing Reps and Senators to raise this challenge, and to push eligibility confirmation, validation and verification at the STATE level, for all elected officials. The ridiculous statement used by the DhimmiRats (and the pubbies, I’d suspect) in Presidential election filings is simply insufficient to the need of the people to be assured of eligible candidates for the highest office(s) in the land.
There is still hope that the truth will come out. But, there is much work to be done.
Best of luck on appeal. And, hopefully, there is a competent attorney to take Orly’s place. She’s tainted the whole process, at this point.
It’s time to take back the country.
Let’s play a hypothetical. Play along with me on this one.
A President and Vice President are killed. In haste, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court swears in the Speaker of the House as President.
After the swearing in, it is learned that the Chief Justice didn’t ask the age of the Speaker of the House, and just assumed that they were old enough per the Constitution. He just assumed and didn’t know that the new President was NOT qualified due to age.
Now the newly sworn in President CLAIMS that they are old enough, but refuses to release their birth certificate to the public.
Just who has legal authority for review after the Speaker of the House has been sworn in as President? According to this ruling, it isn’t the judicial branch. Because no crime has been committed, the President can’t be impeached, so it isn’t the legislative branch (and because the Speaker of the House is from the majority party, that party controls the House as well). The President is chief executive over the executive branch so they wouldn’t out themselves.
So I ask again, who would have legal authority?
I certainly don’t get it.
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.